Tag Archives: the serpent

Genesis 3:14-15 – God’s Judgment – The Serpent

Genesis 3:14–15 (ESV) — 14 The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”


Having successfully tempted Adam and Eve with a sneer…

  • And thereby leading them to question God’s goodness and eating the fruit…
  • God, grounded in His holiness and justice, judges the Serpent.


Serpent Curse:

The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.


The curse invoked against the Serpent by God is twofold:

  • on your belly you shall go
  • dust you shall eat all the days of your life
  • We will see what these mean momentarily.


Concerning curses in the OT generally:

  • “Only God can actually impose [them], and thus it supposes, even if spoken by a man [as they are elsewhere in the OT]” that only God can carry them out – Mathews.


What is striking, however, is that apparently God’s curse of the Serpent leaves no room for its redemption.

  • “[God] only has words of condemnation for the serpent, whereas the man and woman receive God’s continued concern and provision in the midst of their punishment” – Mathews.


Throughout the OT, God’s judgment often seeks to bring about restoration.

  • The language of God is often something like, “return to me and I will return to you”.
  • And yet, it appears God has no concern for the restoration of the Serpent.
  • Is this because of the Serpent’s will or God’s sovereign ordaining?


Application of Curse:

Now, how one understands the application of God’s curse to the Serpent depends on how one views the Serpent.

  • In other words, the meaning of “on your belly” and “dust you shall eat” depends on what the Serpent was.
  • As we saw a few weeks ago – the NT identifies the Serpent as Satan.
  • But, we saw that there are a number of ideas as to how Satan relates to the Serpent.


We saw at least three views…

  • (1) As a literal talking snake.
  • (2) As a serpent like creature “used” by Satan.
  • (3) As “A divine being who conversed with Eve and deceived her” – Heiser.


BTW – Ezekiel’s King of Tyre passage (King of Tyre = Satan) is cited as textual support for (3).

  • Ezekiel 28:13–14 (ESV) — 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. 14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.


How Curse Plays Out:

1) So for those that hold to number (1) (and possibly (2)), the curse plays out as follows:

“The serpent was uniquely cursed by being made to slither on its belly. It probably had legs before this curse. Now snakes represent all that is odious, disgusting, and low. They are branded with infamy and avoided with fear” – John MacArthur.


This view might create an unnecessary conflict between God’s world and God’s word.

  • This is simply because snakes make huge, positive contributions to an ecosystem’s health.
  • In fact, this contribution actually saves image-bearers lives.


For example:

  • Snakes reduce pest populations – mice and rats – pests spread disease and are hosts for ticks that spread disease.
  • And snake venom is used in drugs that benefit humans.


Interpretation Considerations:

For those of us who have a high view of Scripture – we need to remember something…

  • The literal meaning of a text may not be the same as taking the text literally.
  • The figurative meaning can be the literal meaning and intent of the author.
  • So to best understand our text – both 14 and 15 – we might need to consider laying aside the idea of a talking snake with legs.


In other words, Moses’ intent may not be to explain why:

  • Snakes are hated.
  • Why they crawl on the ground.


Moses’ intent might be to reveal certain things about the Serpent in the context of Redemptive History as he unfolds it in the Pentateuch.

  • Under view (3), for example, the Serpent language tells us that the divine created being (identified as Satan in the NT) is in opposition to God – evil.
  • Walton says, “It would have been evident to the Israelite audience that the serpent represented something evil” – Walton.
  • Heiser says the Serpent language “indicates that the serpent [is] God’s cosmic enemy” – Heiser.


In other words, ANE symbolism is at work here.

  • The Serpent reveals that this creature is something that opposes God’s order, purpose and function for creation.


2) This leads us to the second possibility for what the belly and dust language mean.

  • “The writer clearly intends these two facts [belly and dust] to be expressions of humiliation and subjugation” of the rebellious Serpent – Hamilton.
  • As Heiser puts it, “the Serpent…has been made docile (i.e., he is defeated)” – Michael Heiser.
  • The intent is not to tell us that snakes live on dust (which they don’t), “rather it is figurative for abject humiliation, especially of [God’s] enemies” – Gordon Wenham.

“The curse on the serpent can be understood as wishing upon it a status associated with docility (crawling on belly) and death (eating dust).” – John Walton.


OT Support:

This take on the figurative meaning of “dust” as humiliation is supported textually elsewhere in the OT.

  • Psalm 72:9 (ESV) — 9 May desert tribes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust!
  • Isaiah 49:23 (ESV) — 23 Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord; those who wait for me shall not be put to shame.”
  • Micah 7:16–17 (ESV) — 16 The nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might; they shall lay their hands on their mouths; their ears shall be deaf; 17 they shall lick the dust like a serpent, like the crawling things of the earth; they shall come trembling out of their strongholds; they shall turn in dread to the Lord our God, and they shall be in fear of you.


BTW – As these OT texts reveal, this view of the curse also means that through this humiliation and subjugation of the Serpent/Satan  –

  • The Serpent “will know that I am the Lord” (Isaiah 49:23).
    • Or certainly be constantly reminded of such.
    • God is Creator – Serpent is Creature


BTW 2 – What did Jesus presumably wipe off of the disciples feet?

  • Dust.
  • Surely, the symbolism of His act of selfless service extends to the OT meaning of dust.
  • Jesus was wiping away death and humiliation by taking it upon Himself.


There is also a New Testament allusion to this humiliation of the Serpent by Jesus.

  • Luke 10:17–18 (ESV) — 17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” 18 And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.


Michael Heiser sums up this discussion beautifully:

“The serpent is a divine [yet created] enemy of God rather than a member of the animal kingdom. As such, this text contains a prophecy indicating that animosity and spiritual war will ensue between the serpent and humanity” – Heiser.


This leads us to verse 15.



Serpent War:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.


God goes on to articulate a new state of affairs between the Serpent and humanity.

  • God will “put enmity” between the Serpent and Eve.
  • And more than that, also between their offspring.
  • As a result of this “enmity” both sides shall be bruised.
  • And the Serpent will come out on the losing end.



“Enmity” means that the relationship is now one of hostility.

  • The idea is that the Serpent will now be treated as the enemy.
  • As Wenham points out, “Those who had been in league against their creator will from now on be fighting against each other” – Wenham.
  • “The language of the passage indicates a life-and-death struggle between combatants” – Mathews.
  • And, “More than a change in the serpent’s position is involved here—it is now a question of his existence” – Hamilton.


Bruised Offspring:

So what is up with the bruised/strike/crush/attack language?


Victor Hamilton suggests this paraphrase:

  • “He shall lie in wait for your head” and “you shall lie in wait for his heel.”


The significance of the passage lies in the contrast between head and heel.

  • “The impact delivered by the offspring of the woman ‘at the head’ is mortal, while the serpent will deliver a blow only ‘at the heel’” – Mathews.


Or in its Christological implications…

  • “Satan could only ‘bruise’ Christ’s heel (cause Him to suffer), while Christ will bruise Satan’s head (destroy him with a fatal blow)” – John MacArthur.


Offspring Identity:

But who exactly are the combatants?

  • Or to put another way, who are the offspring?


We have already mentioned in class the idea that Christ is the Serpent Crusher.

  • Does the text support this?


The debate centers on the meaning of “offspring”.

  • Is it singular – as in a single person?
  • Or is it plural – as in a line of people?
  • In other words, is Christ immediately in view here?


Answer and Why Significant:

John Sailhamer suggests patience and caution.

  • “In Genesis 1-11 the ‘seed’ is both a select individual and a line from which that individual will come” – John Sailhamer.

“It can thus be a costly mistake to read too much into the text. It can empty the passage of just the kind of meaning one seeks to find already there. Genesis 3:15 is not so much a picture of the messianic redeemer as it is a hint and an affirmation that such a redeemer will come” – John Sailhamer.

  • In other words, the text creates an expectation of someone to come and speaks of those already there.


Why is this important to not jump straight to Jesus?

  • “The verse is depicting a continual, unresolved conflict between humans and the representatives of evil” – John Walton.
  • This historical conflict is part of God’s Redemptive History and the Gospel.
  • To discount it is to skip the Gospel work of God as revealed in the Pentateuch and OT.
  • God didn’t skip this work, why should we?
  • God didn’t go right to Jesus…we need to follow the trail that God gave us.


In fact, throughout the OT there is an expectation that God will provide someone to resolve the conflict.

  • This is exactly how the writers of the LXX see Gen. 3:15.

“The oldest Jewish interpretation found in the third century b.c. Septuagint, the Palestinian targums (Ps.-J., Neof., Frg.), and possibly the Onqelos targum takes the serpent as symbolic of Satan and look for a victory over him in the days of King Messiah” – Wenham.


NT and Offspring as Christ:

Even when we get to the NT, we shouldn’t be too hasty in our path to Christ as the Serpent Crusher.

  • Why?


The NT makes clear that the Church (like Israel – Adam and Eve’s offspring) is actively involved in the conflict.

  • We are not off the hook.
  • We are combatants.
  • Romans 16:20 (ESV) — 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your [the Church’s] feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.


But, alas, ultimately the demise of Satan comes from Jesus Christ.

  • “The NT clearly presents Jesus as the ultimate human descendant of Eve who defeats the great enemy” – Heiser.
  • Revelation 12:9–11 (ESV) — 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. 11 And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.


In fact, Luke’s genealogy partly serves to show Jesus’ connection to Adam.

  • And thereby establishes that He is the offspring.
  • Luke 3:38 (ESV) — 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


So the Serpent Crusher is both, the elect of Israel, the Church AND Jesus Christ.

  • Yet, as we have seen, Israel and the Church ultimately were/are unable to deliver the deathblow.
  • So, as Seth Postell suggests, the OT understands that there is unfinished business – the Serpent must be subdued.


Protoevangelium (First Gospel):

This leaves the door wide open for Jesus.

  • “The ultimate victory envisioned in the campaign is not the result of human achievement; it is grounded solely in the sovereign will of God, which will achieve its purpose only by means of the chosen ‘seed’” – John Sailhamer.
  • 1 Corinthians 15:24–26 (ESV) — 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.



How does Satan strike the heel of the Church?

  • How does the Church strike the head of the Serpent?


And who exactly are the offspring of the Serpent?

“Between the perfection described in Genesis 1:31 (‘behold, it was very good’) and the appearance of evil in Genesis 3, something happened. The good creation was corrupted. The little book of Jude and 2 Peter in the New Testament give us clues as to what happened. Jude 1:6 says, ‘The angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day’” – John Piper.



Genesis 3:1-7 – Part 1 – The Fall and the Serpent

Verse 1:

Genesis 3:1 (ESV) — 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”


Enter the “serpent”.

  • A creature of God’s good creation.
  • A creature created “crafty”.
    • How does a good creation include a “crafty” creature?
  • A creature that could apparently speak.
  • The serpent said, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” – Genesis 3:1.
    • How did the serpent have any idea what God said?
  • Was the crafty serpent present when God said to Adam, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”(Gen. 2:17)?


Verse 2:

Genesis 3:2 (ESV) — 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,


Eve points out that the serpent has it all wrong.

  • She tells the serpent that in fact she can eat the “fruit of the trees in the garden”.
  • Strangely, the text gives no indication that Eve was freaked out by a talking serpent.
  • Is this an indication of her familiarity with the serpent?


Verse 3:

Genesis 3:3 (ESV) — 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”


Eve then repeats what God said.

  • ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’
  • How did she know this?
  • When God gave this command to Adam she was not “alive”.
  • Perhaps she learned this from Adam.


Verses 4-5:

Genesis 3:4–5 (ESV) — 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


With the serpent’s response to Eve, we see that its motives are less than pure.

  • The serpent directly contradicts the words of its Creator.
  • God said “you shall surely die
  • The serpent said, “You will not surely die”.


Then, claiming to know the mind of its Creator, the serpent says…

  • For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
  • With these words the serpent suggests that God has ulterior motives.
  • “God doesn’t want you to eat of this tree because you will be like Him”.
  • “So not only will you not die”, the serpent claims.
  • But you will also “be like God” having access to His wisdom.


Verse 6:

Genesis 3:6 (ESV) — 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.


Having heard the serpent’s argument concerning the fruit, Eve proceeds to use her creaturely discernment, to arrive at three conclusions.

  • (1) The tree’s fruit would be good food.
  • (2) The tree’s fruit was beautiful, perhaps more so than the other fruit of the garden.
  • (3) The tree’s fruit was desirable because it could “make one wise”.


And almost as an afterthought, we are told…

  • Adam “her husband” was “with her”.
  • And he – who was to guard the tabernacle as part of his sacred service – “ate” the fruit with Eve.
  • Apparently he was there for this entire temptation scene.
  • He did nothing.


Verse 7:

Genesis 3:7 (ESV) — 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.


The repercussions of their failing the test and succumbing to temptation are immediate.

  • Their eyes were “opened”.
  • They “knew” that they were naked.
  • Their attempt to address their new status consisted of “fig leaves” and “loincloths”.


What’s Next:

From this general sketch of our text, it is clear that there are many questions to wrestle with.

  • We will start with the serpent.
  • We will deal with other issues in the coming weeks.



The Serpent:

What or who is the serpent?

  • On its face, the text seems to tell us only that…
  • (1) It is a creature – so God created it.
  • (2) It is a creature far different from other creatures due to is “craftiness”.
  • (3) It is a creature that can talk.


Where did the serpent come from?

  • It seems contrary to a good/very good creation to inhabit it with such a creature.
  • Moreover, creation was just brought to perfection with the creation of Eve.
  • And now (we don’t know how much time passed) this startling creature shows up in the Garden.



The Hebrew word translated serpent is “nachash”.

  • There is little disagreement about its literal translation as “serpent” or “snake”.
  • The debate centers around to what extent we are dealing with a literal “serpent” or a symbolic representation of something or someone.


In the ancient Near East, the serpent was used often to symbolize any number of things.

“Throughout the ancient world, [the serpent] was endowed with divine or semidivine qualities; it was venerated as an emblem of health, fertility, immortality, occult wisdom, and chaotic evil; and it was often worshipped” – John Walton.


None of these seem to apply to Genesis’ “serpent”.

  • However, “Within the world of OT animal symbolism a snake is an obvious candidate for an anti-God symbol…” – Wenham.


Traditional View:

The traditional take is that the “serpent” represents Satan.

  • “In accord with the traditional opinion, the snake is more than a literal snake; rather it is Satan’s personal presence in the garden” – Mathews.


Although, nowhere in the OT is “nachash” and Satan co-identified.

  • The connection is made by the NT.
  • Revelation 20:1–2 (ESV) — 1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,



“The New Testament views the serpent as related to Satan and so ought we, but it offers few details about how close an identification should be made or how the two were related” – Walton.


This intersection of HOW the “serpent” and Satan are related is where it gets interesting.

  • We will look at three (two now and one when we contend with “crafty”).


(1) Michael Heiser suggests the following:

  • The root of “nachash” is a word that refers to “shining metals, such as bronze”.
  • And often the word, when used this way, refers to “divine” beings.


An example of this is found in Ezekiel 28:13.

  • Ezekiel 28:13 (ESV) — 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
  • Heiser says the above text describes “an ‘anointed cherub’ figure, who inhabits the garden of Eden”.


Because of this use of the word and its association with Eden, he suggests that…

“The word nachash may refer to a ‘shining one’ in the Garden of Eden—a divine being who conversed with Eve and deceived her. Since Eden was God’s temple and abode, the ‘shining one’ option represents a viable interpretation. It also helps explain why Eve is not surprised when the nachash speaks to her” – Heiser.


(2) John Walton and Kenneth Mathews suggest the following…

  • The “serpent” was a creature used by “satan” to accomplish the temptation of Adam and Eve.
  • Interestingly, they suggest there is a NT parallel to this.


The parallel is found in the Gospels.

  • Mark 8:31–33 (ESV) — 31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”


Kenneth Mathews makes the connection like this:

“We may interpret the role of the serpent in the same vein as Peter’s resistance to Jesus’ death, where the Lord responded to Peter: ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me. You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men’ (Matt 16:23). Jesus does not mean Peter is possessed with Satan as Judas was when ‘Satan entered’ him (Luke 22:3), nor was he threatened with possession (Luke 22:31). But Peter unwittingly was an advocate for Satan’s cause. Similarly, the snake is a creature speaking against the ‘things of God’ and whose cause is that of Satan” – Mathews.

  • Walton (quoting E.J. Young) simply says, “the snake was an instrument used by the devil”.


BTW – One thing that the text makes clear…

  • There is an important implication derived from the fact the serpent was created.
  • “This information immediately removes any possibility that the serpent is to be viewed as some kind of supernatural, divine force. There is no room here for any dualistic ideas about the origins of good and evil” – Victor Hamilton.


BTW 2 – “Although the snake is never identified as Satan in the Old Testament, more than the principle of evil must have been intended by the serpent’s presence since 3:15 describes an ongoing war between the serpent and the seed of the woman” – Kenneth Mathews.




Crafty Serpent:

What is meant calling the serpent “crafty” – Hebrew “arum”?

  • Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God…


“Arum” is traditionally seen as having a negative connotation.

  • Meaning “tricky and cunning, with a focus on evil treachery” – DBL.
  • However, there is some well-founded disagreement with this negative connotation.


In a large majority of its uses in the OT, the word has a positive connotation.

  • It most often means “skillful and wise” (TWOT), “prudent” (Postell) or “pertaining to wisdom and shrewdness in the management of affairs” – DBL.


OT scholar Seth Postell suggests the best definition for Genesis 3 is “prudent”.

  • This would mean, “a person who shows cleverness, sensibility, and sound judgment in decision making” (Logos).
  • He says “a literary analysis of Genesis 3” makes this evident.


Some of the common OT examples of this use.

  • Proverbs 14:18 (ESV) — 18 The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
  • Proverbs 22:3 (ESV) — 3 The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.


This lead us to our third view as mentioned above.


(3) Seth Postell suggests the following:

  • The “serpent” – given his status as “arum” – was a pre-Fall Satan.
  • He was a creature that was shown “God’s special favor” – Postell.
  • In other words, similar to Heiser’s view, the serpent as Satan was a “divine” being (member of heavenly host) that had access to the garden.


How does this relate to our “crafty” discussion?


(1) As part of His good creation, “God did not make a ‘crafty’ creature; he made a wise creature” – Seth Postell.

  • In other words, it is incongruous to suggest that as part of a good creation God created a being that was not good.
  • Had God done so, He would be the author of evil.
  • However, Postell’s take distances God from “the origin of evil” – Postell.


(2) This view accords with the literary symmetry of the Fall story.

  • In verse 1, the “serpent” is described as “more prudent” – positive status.
  • And then after the Fall and the Curse…
  • Verse 14 calls the “serpent” “more cursed” – negative status.
  • “The contrast suggests there is a negative reversal of the serpents’ originally positives state” – Postell.
    • The sentences are virtually identical – suggesting they be contrasted.


There is a fascinating implication of this view if Postell is correct.

  • “A possible solution to the age-old question about the timing of the serpent’s (Satan’s) fall is also provided. When did the serpent fall? It fell in Genesis 3. Thus, Genesis 3 depicts the fall of Adam, Eve, and the serpent” – Seth Postell.


Some my wonder how this squares with Luke 10:18 where Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning fro heaven”?

  • This text deals with the expulsion of Satan from a place of authority as evidenced by the successful mission of the 72 (fairly common view).


BTW – Postell also argues that there is a significant textual parallel made between the “serpent” in the Promised Land and Canaanites in the Promised Land.

  • “It is the ‘original’ evil inhabitant of the [Promised] land”.
  • So just as Joshua and the Israelites had to obey to enter and remain in the Promised Land.
  • So to did Adam and Eve have to be obedient to remain in the Promised Land.
  • For the Israelites, the temptation to reject God’s wisdom came from the Canaanites.
  • For Adam and Eve, the temptation came from the serpent.


And more than that…

  • “Adam’s entrance into the garden to conquer the serpent anticipates Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land to conquer the Canaanites” – Seth Postell.


Speculation Time:

I find it interesting that Postell’s (and Heiser’s) view provides some answers to some troubling questions.

  • How did the serpent know about God’s prohibition?
    • If he was part of the heavenly host, we have our answer.
  • If the fruit was so desirable, why didn’t the serpent eat of it?
    • Maybe it did.
    • Or maybe, as part of the heavenly host, already had the knowledge of good and evil.
  • Why weren’t Adam and Eve freaking out over a talking serpent?
    • Apparently it was previously nothing to be concerned with.


One question we will never have a satisfactory answer for is…

  • Why did Adam and Eve (and perhaps the serpent) choose to fall?



Final Affirmation:

The Fall was a historical event.

  • Even John Walton affirms this.
  • “The face value of the text suggests that the author wants us to believe that this event really happened. Moreover, the reality of the Fall is an essential foundation to Pauline theology, and the New Testament consistently shows it considers the events of Genesis 3 to be true, as historical realities” – Walton.


And importantly…

  • Adam/Eve were to guard the sacred space of the Garden (their sacred service).
  • Given the fact that we are the temple and are “in Christ”, we are also tasked with this sacred service.
  • Do we adequately guard the temple?
  • Or do we embrace the wisdom of the creature over that of the Creator?