Genesis chapter 3. We have seen
in past weeks the temptation to sin in verses 1 to 5, and
then the fall into sin in verses 6 to 7. Last time we met, we
saw the consequences, or we started the consequences of the fall.
That's in verses 14 to 19. We'll pick up at verse 17 tonight.
And then we see finally the hope beyond the fall in verses 20
to 24, inspired of course by verse 15, which is the foundation
for all Christian hope, that first promise of the coming of
the Lord Jesus Christ to save His people from their sins. But
beginning in Genesis chapter 3 at verse 1, Now the serpent
was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God
had made. And he said to the woman, Has God indeed said, You
shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said
to the serpent, We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden,
but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
garden, God has said, You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch
it, lest you die. Then the serpent said to the
woman, You will not surely die, for God knows that in the day
you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
God, knowing good and evil. So when the woman saw that the
tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes,
and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit
and ate. She also gave to her husband
with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them
were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed
fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they
heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the
cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from
the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you?
So he said, I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid
because I was naked, and I hid myself. And he said, Who told
you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree
of which I commanded you that you should not eat? Then the
man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me, whom you
gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate. And
the Lord God said to the woman, What is this you have done? The
woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate. So the Lord God
said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed
more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field.
On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days
of your life. And I will put enmity between
you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall
bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. To the woman
he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception.
In pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be
for your husband and he shall rule over you. Then to Adam he
said, because you have heeded the voice of your wife and have
eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, you
shall not eat of it. Curse it as the ground for your
sake. In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you
shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you
shall eat bread, till you return to the ground. For out of it
you were taken, for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.
And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother
of all living. Also for Adam and his wife the
Lord God made tunics of skin and clothed them. Then the Lord
God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know
good and evil. And now lest he put out his hand
and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever.
Therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to
till the ground from which he was taken. So he drove out the
man, and he placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden,
and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to
the tree of life. Amen. As I said, we saw the temptation
of man in verses 1 to 5. The devil comes in his cunning
and wiliness and he tempts Eve. Of course, Eve is enticed by
the aesthetic appeal of the fruit, the pleasantness to the eyes,
and then the fact that it was good for food and a tree desirable
to make one wise. According to verse 6, she also
gave to her husband with her and he ate. Then their eyes were
opened, they understood that they were in fact naked, and
they tried to flee or run or hide from the Lord God. So the Lord God then comes to
them to reckon with them. And specifically in verses 9
to 13, the Lord calls upon them to account for their actions.
He is not seeking information, he is not desirous of knowledge,
rather he knows specifically he is interrogating with the
purpose of exposing them and causing them to flee to him in
mercy. So he asks where, who, and what,
and we saw where each of the parties involved Adam first and
then Eve try to pass the buck, or they try to shift the blame,
Adam to God and to the woman, and then the woman to the serpent.
And then God comes with reference to the serpent, and he curses
him, according to verse 14. And then in verse 15, he curses
the power behind the serpent. This is the devil. And what we
find here is the first promise of the gospel, the first mention
or reference to the redemptive power of Christ manifested in
his decisive victory over the devil himself. Essentially, what
we have is that the Redeemer would be born of a woman. He
would be a man. He wouldn't be an angelic being,
rather he would be a man born of woman. As well, the Redeemer
would accomplish victory through suffering and death, and we also
see that his victory would be total. He would conquer decisively
the devil, this bruising of his head. And as we tried to show
last time, this does have primary application to the Lord Jesus
Christ. He is the seed of the woman promised
by God the Father to save his people from their sins by dealing
this death blow to the devil. And then God turns his attention
to the woman and to the man in verses 16 to 24. So we see the
consequences for the woman in verse 16. Again, we looked at
this last time. He says or he takes the two things
that the woman was blessed with and he says that those won't
be removed, they will not be completely mitigated, but rather
they will now be attended with hardship and difficulty. There's
continuity between the pre-fall and the post-fall states with
reference to gender and role distinctions and as well with
reference to specific function. within those gender-specific
rules. As well, there's continuity with
reference to labor. Labor is not a result of the
fall. Labor is certainly affected adversely by the fall, but labor
was instituted prior to the fall. So we see continuity between
the pre-fall and the post-fall states, but this continuity also
highlights a discontinuity in the sense that there are attendant
circumstances that make those things that prior to the fall
were not hardships, now hardships in a post-fall world. And so
for the woman, given the mandate in Genesis 1.26 to be fruitful
and multiply, in verse 16 it says, I will greatly multiply
your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall bring forth
children. So when she goes through this pain, she is mindful of
the fact of this fall or this rebellion against God. And then
the other blessing of womanhood is found in Genesis 2.18-25,
marriage. And here at the end of verse
16, it says, your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall
rule over you. As I suggested last time, there's
a myriad of ways to interpret this. I take it as her desire
shall be to usurp the role of her husband. Not all the time,
not constantly, not consistently, but that marriage relationship
pre-fall where husband led and wife submitted and honored is
now distorted by the fall into sin. It's going to be a perpetual
struggle for the woman that she's going to need to be told over
and over again throughout scripture, as we see it in the New Testament
epistles, wives submit yourself to your own husband. Because
of that native corruption now, she doesn't want to do that.
The main basis for that interpretation is found in 4.7, where a similar
literary convention is used. In 4.7 it says, if you do well,
you will not be accepted, or will you not be accepted. And
if you do not do well, sin lies at the door, and its desire is
for you, but you should rule over it. So a woman's desire
is for her husband, not simply, some have interpreted this as
her complete and utter devotion. I think post-fall history evidences
something contrary to that reality. I don't think that's what women
typically struggle with, or Paul would have addressed that, but
rather Paul addresses the issue that women do struggle with.
Wives submit to your own husbands. And then it says, and he shall
rule over you. Again, headship is not an imposition
based on the fall. Headship was always God's purpose
for man from the very beginning. He made Adam first and then he
created Eve as the help me. They were supposed to function
in harmony and in beauty and in bliss, but now sin has come
and there's a disruption. So while he has this headship,
he's going to seek at times to rule over her in an ungodly or
in an unrighteous way. This will be the tension or the
friction that now exists or obtains in Christian marriage or believing
marriage and even non-believing marriage as a result of the fall. And now he turns his attention
to the man. Notice in verses 17 to 19. And
the specific reason that he gives in verse 17 is Adam's submission
to his wife, or Adam's heeding his wife. Then to Adam he said,
because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten
from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat
of it." Now, I don't think this is a condemnation against a man
ever listening to his wife. In other words, if your wife
tells you you're supposed to take the next left to get to
the particular address that you're going to, don't say, well, God
has told me not to listen to you. That's not what's in view
here. God gave Adam a very clear and
a very precise command in terms of a prohibition against eating
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But instead
of obeying God, instead of listening to God, Adam listened to his
wife. He heeded her voice and he ate
of the tree of which God had commanded him not to. So the
word of judgment to the woman is not, as I mentioned, the imposition
of male headship, but rather it's a distortion of it. The
necessity of obedience to God in all circumstances is seen
here in verse 17. This is picked up later in the
book of Deuteronomy, specifically in Deuteronomy 13. The whole
context of Deuteronomy 13 is a seduction to idolatry. In other
words, if a false prophet comes along and he does miraculous
things, but he tries to lead you away from Yahweh, you're
supposed to execute that false prophet. Later on in the chapter,
it says if there's a particular city that is engaged in idolatry
or rebellion against Yahweh, you're supposed to decimate that
particular city. And right in the middle, it speaks
of family relations and obligations with reference to those family
relations if they try to solicit you away to commit apostasy with
reference to God. And the God through Moses says,
if the wife of your own bosom entices you away, you're supposed
to execute her. Now, we won't get into all of
the particulars involved in that mandate for the death penalty
in that particular instance, but the simple point is this.
We are always called to obey God, not wives, not husbands. Now, if they tell us correct
things from God, then by all means we listen to them. But
when it comes to the word of God and the word of a spouse,
and that word of the spouse contradicts the word of God, you always must
obey God. That is precisely what God says
here, specifically with reference to Adam. And if we follow the trajectory
of this particular section, we'll note the complete inversion of
God's created order. God made man, He made the woman
to help man, and He made both of them to rule over the creatures.
We come to Genesis chapter 3, we have a creature, a snake,
speaking to the woman who then gives the fruit to her husband.
So God calls man to lead, the woman to help, and both of them
to exercise dominion over snakes. And in Genesis chapter 3, the
cosmos has been turned into chaos. Because the devil, through the
snake, is now telling the woman how to behave and how to act,
and she then gives the fruit to Adam. So what God had stated
with reference to creation has been turned over on its head
because of rebellion against him. So God comes to deal with
Adam because you have heeded the voice of your wife. Now notice
the specific consequences. Just as Eve was not given some
brand new thing, but rather two things that marked her blessedness
with reference to womanhood, they were going to suffer consequences
as a result of the fall. The same is true with reference
to Adam, the ongoing difficulty of his labor. Notice. Cursed
is the ground for your sake. In toil you shall eat of it all
the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall
bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return
to the ground, for out of it you are taken, for dust you are,
and to dust you shall return. Again, the curse here is not
the imposition of labor. Labor was always in play. Remember that Adam's task was
primarily priestly, but as a priest he was to cultivate the garden
temple, he was supposed to extend it, he was supposed to keep out
intruders like the snake, and instead he has rebelled against
God. So he'll still be called to a
life of labor, but now that life of labor is going to be punctuated
by hardship and toil. In fact, the garden that at one
time was so lush and so beneficent in terms of its productivity
for the man, they will be expelled from that garden. And now in
the outer parts of the land, he's going to have to cultivate
that land and it's not going to be easy work. Robert Alter
said the vista of thorn and thistle is diametrically opposed to the
luscious vegetation of the garden and already intimates the verdict
of banishment that will be carried out in verses 23 and 24. So the
ongoing difficulty of labor and then the certainty of death. This is obviously the case in
verse 19. Now, when Adam took the fruit,
he died. He died spiritually. He's subject then to eternal
death, depending on what happens in terms of God's dealings with
him. and certainly physical death.
It doesn't demand that right then he breathes his last. But
this is obviously an emphasis on the reality of physical death
that is certain to come to Adam. And over and over again, within
the context, we see this emphasis on his origin as coming out of
the ground in 2.7, 3.19, and then again in 3.23. The man of clay attempted to
rise to godlike status, but will instead return to the dust from
whence he came. Now, as we look at verses 16
to 19, well, on the one hand, there is this curse in terms
of what's going to be the woman's lot with reference to childbearing
and marriage, what's going to be the man's lot with reference
to labor, and with reference to the eventuality of physical
termination. it is nevertheless a gracious
section. Because notice what God has done.
He's given a promise of redemption in verse 15. Now in verses 16
to 19, He doesn't obliterate man and woman. He doesn't destroy
them. He doesn't send them off to hell.
He certainly gives them consequences as a result of the rebellion
against Him, but He doesn't end their state. In fact, Meredith
Klein makes this observation. He says, "...a confirmation of
the divine purpose of salvation was in effect given. Therefore,
when the Lord pronounced a temporal common curse rather than an ultimate
judgment against the generality of mankind." So it's more of
a a common thing in terms of a lot of men and women in a post-fall
world as a result of this sin against God. But because of verse
15, there's no obliteration of man and woman in verses 16 to
19. There needs to be a race that
the Redeemer comes to deliver. There needs to be a collective
seed that the individual seed comes to deliver. And so this,
while it is severe in terms of God's chastening upon them with
reference to their sin, there is nevertheless this hint or
this obvious implication that man will continue. He will be
the object of God's favor. He will be the object of the
Redeemer's work. He's going, the Redeemer, is
going to suffer and die in order to decisively deal with the devil
for the redemption of the woman's seed, for the redemption of the
collective seed. And that brings us then to the
hope beyond the fall. Verses 20 to 24 whether we might
appreciate it from a surface reading or not, are filled with
hope for both Adam and Eve. And we see this first in the
naming of Eve. Notice in verse 20, And Adam
called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Now, it would seem to indicate
that Adam heard verse 15. It would seem to indicate that
Adam knew that from this woman he was married to, this seed
eventually would come. Therefore, Adam believes that
very promise of God and gives her a name consistent with that
particular promise. The very naming of Eve here is
an act of faith on the part of Adam. Notice this is the second
time that Adam has named Eve. He named his wife in 223. Her first name pointed to her
origin, out of man. Whereas her second name pointed
to her destiny, the mother of all the living. So Adam now looks
at Eve in light of this promise of Genesis 3.15. He looks at
Eve now in light of her function in terms of God's redemptive
plan. She is the one from whom the
seed will come, the seed that will deal this death blow to
the devil. Again, Klein says, this reflects
Adam's faith as he gave this name to the woman. His reference
probably to her spiritual seed, who should trample underfoot
the prince of death, and so wrest life from the curse. So verse 20 is an expression
of faith in the promise of God of verse 15. The fact that the
Lord said, I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
between your seed and her seed, he shall bruise your head, you
shall bruise his heel. God deals out the consequences
for their particular sin and rebellion. in verses 16 to 19,
but notice those consequences weren't such that Adam says,
that's it, I'm done, it's time to cash in and check out. No,
Adam nevertheless responds in faith to the messianic promise
of God in Genesis 3.15. He accepts his lot, he understands
now that he goes to plow the field, now that he goes to cultivate
the earth, it's gonna be punctuated with sweat and toil and hardship.
He's gonna have to claw his way to get the benefits of the land
not like what he had in terms of the garden yielding its bounty
very sufficiently and proficiently. Eve understands she's going to
have difficulties and turmoil, both with reference to childbirth
and with reference to marriage. But both of them now live by
faith in the promise of God in Genesis 3.15. And then that brings
us, in terms of hope beyond the fall, to the coverings of skin. Notice in verse 21, also for
Adam and his wife, the Lord God made tunics of skin and clothed
them. Now, some would say that, you
know, there's no way we could see animal sacrifice in this
particular passage because the Levitical system wasn't instituted
yet, and they certainly would have had no way of knowing this
whatsoever. Remember, there is one author
of all of Holy Scripture. There is unity with reference
to Scripture. This is germinal or seminal.
This is seed form, and the rest of Scripture will amplify this.
Intriguingly, Abel is known for offering the first fruits of
his animals. Where did he learn that practice
of cutting up animals and offering them to God at the end of days?
That's what the text says with reference to Adam, or with reference
to Cain and Abel. They came in the process of time,
is what the New King James adds, but the margin is better. They
came at the end of days. Not the end of all days, but
the end of the days of the week. Already with Cain and Abel, we
see them sabbathing, and already with Cain and Abel, we see them
sacrificing, offering up those things that they had been given
or entrusted with. And Abel cut up animals and offered
them up to the Lord. I would suggest that he learn
that from God Most High through his tutelage of Adam and Eve.
Now notice in verse 21, for Adam and his wife, the Lord God made
tunics of skin and clothed them. Remember when they came to fashion
some clothing? They were girdles. They would
only cover a small part. God makes tunics. I think that
shows the extensiveness of their sin. The fact that it is all
comprehensive. The fact that it is a head-to-toe
problem. As well, the coverings were not
made out of plant life. That's what Adam and Eve did
as they sewed these fig leaves together to try to cover themselves. God doesn't use plant life. He
uses animal life. And as I've often said, these
weren't bears in suits that he unzipped. He killed these animals
before their eyes, and he fashioned these tunics, and he clothed
them. How all the logistics played out, I'm not certain, but I know
it wasn't a man in a zipper suit that he took off. Rather, he
killed animals, he shed the blood, he takes the skin, and he covers
man and woman with them. The Lord underscores the necessity
of atonement as the basis for fellowship between God and man.
In other words, this is the first instance of Hebrews 9.22. Without
the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Without
the shedding of blood, there is no approach to God. I love
that quote from Michael Morales in his book on Leviticus. He
says that Israel learned that the way to Yahweh was through
a bloody knife and a smoking altar. Well, this was taught
to them in Genesis chapter 3 at verse 21. John Gill makes this
reference concerning the killing of these animals. He says, but
of creatures slain, not merely for this purpose, God brought
a skin over them, nor for food, but for sacrifice, as a type
of the woman seen, whose heel was to be bruised, or who was
to suffer death for the sins of men. and therefore to keep
up and direct the faith of our first parents to the slain Lamb
of God from the foundation of the world and of all believers
in all ages until the Messiah should come and die and become
a sacrifice for sin. The sacrifices of slain beasts
were appointed." Now there's a school of thought that says
we can't take later redemptive revelation and read back into
previous revelation. That's a wrong school of thought.
As I said, the Bible is authored by God. Certainly there are over
40 human authors, but God by the Spirit moved them to write
His very word. There is nothing wrong with taking
later revelation and reading it in or seeing it at least typified
in the passages. We see that Paul himself does
this in Romans 5.14. He tells us that Adam was a type
of him who was to come. Nothing in Genesis 3 tells us
that Adam was a type of him who was to come. But Paul, understanding
covenant theology, understands and recognizes that all too well.
The Bible has been carved up of late and made to say or made
to not say things that the church always saw it saying. Like what Gil says here. This
is common. This is the way to do biblical
interpretation. And we need to get back to this.
We need to read the whole Bible as the whole Bible. We need to
read it as the work of God Most High and we need to read it the
way the church in many centuries past have read it and have handed
it on to us. And then notice that it's the
Lord's initiative here. Also for Adam and his wife, the
Lord God made tunics of skin and clothed them. You see, this
underscores a principle that the Bible always maintains. It
is God who seeks and saves that which was lost. When Adam and
Eve fall, they run from God. They don't run to God. It's God
who comes after them. When Adam and Eve fall, it's
not them who say, well, we need to kill an animal because to
get to Yahweh, we have to shed blood. No, God comes and kills
the animals and spills the blood so that man can now approach
God and man now can have communion with God. Even though he will
be expelled from the garden, there is nevertheless a real
communion that man can have with God in these other sanctuaries
that will ultimately arise in Israel's history. So it's God
who demonstrates, God who manifests that salvation is of the Lord.
For his wife, the Lord God made tunics of skin and clothed them.
In other words, atonement is of God. Man didn't conceive it. Man didn't think it through.
Man didn't say, well, this is the way we ought to approach
God. No, blood atonement is taught to us by God, and blood atonement
is provided us by God. One man said, with the sentence
given, God does, verse 21, for the couple what they cannot do
for themselves, chapter 3, verse 7. They cannot deal with their
shame, but God can. will and does. That's what verse
21 evidences or manifests or indicates to us. So you see why
I say there's hope beyond the fall. When you look at the tragedy
of the fall and you look at the various consequences imposed
upon the man and the woman, never forget Genesis 3.15. Genesis
3.15 is overarching. Genesis 3.15 is programmatic,
not only for this section, but for the entirety of God's Holy
Word. And so Genesis 3.15 provides the catalyst for the hope that
is beyond the fall. And we see already after this
word of curse to the woman and to the man, God nevertheless
is encouraging his people. Adam calls his wife's name Eve
because she was the mother of all the living. In other words,
Adam believed the promise of God. So God takes this skin,
and it's not, you know, you might read it this way, well, because
Adam evidenced faith in God's promise, therefore, God rewards
him with atonement. I don't think that's the way
the text is supposed to be read. I think we're supposed to appreciate
that Adam now stands by faith in this Genesis 3.15 promise.
God now brings atonement via these bloody animals. Now, notice
in verses 22 to 24, the expulsion from the garden. The last time
we met, I mentioned that verse 22 is a notoriously difficult
passage. It is a tough passage because
interpreters differ on how it is to be understood. First of
all, let us observe the us there is the same us of Genesis 1.26. It's a reference to the triune
God. It's not a reference to God and
the angels. It's not a reference to some
heavenly counsel. It is a reference to the one
God who exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So the
Lord God said, behold, the man has become like one of us to
know good and evil. And now lest he put out his hand
and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever.
Notice, he cuts off the sentence midstream and then verse 23 picks
up, therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden.
Now, some suggest that this was an ironic statement on the part
of God. Not ironic in the sense that
he wanted to, you know, pick on the man, but rather he wanted
to expose the man's sin and he wanted to expose the man's sort
of degradation at this point. I would suggest the man already
knew his sin. The man had already been exposed. The man had already
received the consequences meted out for his particular transgression. I don't think that it's an ironic
statement. In terms of this cutting off
a statement halfway through, that's actually, or there's actually
a word to describe that sort of literary convention. Now,
I don't know this word. I never had this word in my vocabulary
until today that I thought I would share it with you. I'm probably
not going to pronounce it now. Apaya, apa, syapesis. Anybody ever heard of that? Apaya,
apa, syapesis. Basically, it's the device of
suddenly breaking off in speech. And that's what's happening in
verse 22. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of
the tree of life and eat and live forever. Notice that's not
completed. He doesn't say, this is what I'm going to do. He actually
does it. So this is a literary device
used by the author to highlight the gravity of the particular
situation. So what God is doing is not commenting
ironically upon Adam and Eve's transgression. He is commenting
truthfully on what has become the case because of Adam and
Eve's transgression. Now, in terms of the knowledge
of good and evil, he says he has become like one of us to
know good and evil. He's not denying that. He's not
suggesting that's not the case. And remember, this is where I
think we really need to be careful with reference to the devil.
See, if the devil is to shoot a temptation our way, that is
completely off the radar. It's not likely to entice us. But if he gets it as close to
the truth as he possibly can, that's when we're very susceptible. In essence, what the devil said
would happen in 3.5 happens. Doesn't the devil say this? God
knows that in the day you eat of it, you will be like God.
This is what God says. But see, the devil's inference
or implication, the devil's suggestion was, this is a good thing. But God says, it's not a good
thing. This is a bad thing. Now, I suggest
we need to not be ignorant of the devices of Satan. Paul tells
us that in 2 Corinthians 2. We are not ignorant of Satan's
devices. Thomas Brooks has a wonderful
treatise called Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices. And
I would really suggest that you read it, because he deals with
the various, I mean, I would say all, because it seems like
all, you know, these old Puritan boys, they could come up with,
you know, how Things you hadn't even thought of. Yeah, that's
right. That is something. But anyways, it's very detailed.
But we see the devil, you know, in this particular passage, very
close to the mark. This is where I suggest we need
to be very cautious and very careful. You know, I've thought
before that with reference to Cam and my responsibility in
terms of the church, I don't know that we have on many, many
occasions warned the people of God in this communion to stay
away from certain teachers. I'm sure that we have, and I'm
sure that we've referenced some along the way in our preaching,
probably to the chagrin of others that say, well, you can't do
that. Well, at times it's necessary to do that. It's not only important
that we tell people what they need to believe, we also need
to instruct you what not to believe. Because there's a lot of bad
damning doctrine out there. But as I've thought through this,
there are certain teachers that aren't even on the radar screen.
I don't really feel it's necessary to warn this congregation about
Benny Hinn. I use him as a reference and
I use him, as Isaac might mention, as low-hanging fruit for sermon
illustrations and whatnot, but my fear for the brethren in this
church is not Benny Hinnism. My fear for the brethren in this
church is a lot closer to home. Guys with subtle errors or subtle
distinctions or subtle sort of reworkings of the Reformed faith,
those pose a more dangerous problem. You're probably not going to
wake up tomorrow and open up Benny Hinn's Good morning, Holy
Spirit. That's actually a book by Benny
Hinn. Good morning, Holy Spirit. So tomorrow morning, please don't
wake up and, you know, read Good Morning, Holy Spirit. But there's
some guys that are closer to our camp that may have some pernicious
errors. They may have some subtleties
that are defective and that may end up down the road in a bad
way. And so that presents, in my estimation,
more of a danger than somebody way out here. And I think that's
what the devil does. He doesn't just come and say,
you know, God's terrible. He's a monster. He's horrible. All he wants is bad for you.
It starts with the subtle hiss of the serpent. Has God really
said, just introduce a little bit of doubt. And then he starts
to work his, you know, his devilish magic upon the woman. He begins
by, you know, assaulting the veracity of God. But again, in
in nice or flowery language. If he'd have came to the garden
and said, Eve, just abandon Yahweh, follow me, and we'll live a life
together in hell with fire and flames. That would have alerted
her. She would have said, no way.
But it was the subtlety. It was the hiding the hook in
the bait and then reeling her in. I would suggest, brethren,
we really need to be cautious of that reality. That's why a
study of the truth is so important. But notice, in terms of this
knowledge, behold, the man has become like one of us to know
good and evil. Now, I've always taken this as
an experiential knowledge of good and evil. But even then,
it kind of troubled me. And it certainly troubled me
today after reading Herman Bovey. It can't be experiential knowledge
of good and evil because God doesn't have an experiential
knowledge of evil. And God says he's become like
one of us. He has this knowledge of good
and evil. So if we define it as experiential,
that Adam now knows by experience evil, we can't predicate that
of God. As well, the knowledge was not
a higher knowledge, some sort of esoteric knowledge, some sort
of extra climb on the rung knowledge, but it was simply a knowledge
that was prohibited to him. Again, leaning on Boving today,
thankful that I pulled out his reformed dogmatics. The knowledge
was a knowledge that sought to operate autonomously. In other
words, it sought to know good and evil apart from God. And this is why God says He has
become like one of us, determining, recognizing, defining, describing
for Himself what is good and evil. In other words, the prohibition
against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil is no longer evil as far as Adam and Eve are concerned.
The prohibition that God has stipulated for them is no longer
binding on their conscience. They've become like one of us.
They now know good and evil. And for their sake and benefit,
God drives them from the garden. Again, this is hope beyond the
fall. It's because of what has occurred
that God does not want them to reach out now and take from the
tree of life. Because if they are confirmed
in this particular state, it is obviously less than optima. Remember that endless life is
not only associated with blessing, it's also associated with cursing. And you wouldn't want to be confirmed
in a fallen state. So God sends them from the garden. He drives them from the garden. The two verbs shift. One is more
gentle, the next is more severe, from verses 23 and 24. He sends
them from the garden. He drives them from the garden.
I want to quote Bavi. He says, in Genesis 3, the issue
is not primarily the content of the knowledge that humans
would appropriate by disobedience, but the manner in which they
would obtain it. The nature of the knowledge of
good and evil in view here is characterized by the fact that
humans would be like God as a result of it. By violating the command
of God and eating of the tree, they would make themselves like
God in the sense that they would position themselves outside and
above the law, and like God, determine and judge for themselves
what good and evil was. So it was an attempt to abandon
God, to think apart from God, and to become the arbiter of
what is now good and evil. It's in this vein that God says
he has become like one of us. He knows good and evil. He has
stepped out from underneath our jurisdiction, and he is now playing
the role of lawgiver, and he is now positioning himself in
this place of superiority. Boffink goes on to say, the knowledge
of good and evil is not the knowledge of the useful and the harmful
of the world and how to control it, but the right and capacity
to distinguish good and evil on one's own. So it was an assertion
of man's autonomy. It was an assertion of man's
rebellion. It was an assertion of man's
taking himself out from under the very rule and reign and power
of God. And so what we find in the narrative
is God deals graciously with them in terms of the promise
of a redeemer. He deals graciously with them
by covering them with tunics of skin. And he deals graciously
with them by keeping him from the tree of life at this particular
juncture. It would have been terrible.
for Adam at this particular point to reach and eat from that tree
of life. Now, some will say, well, does
that mean he could have eaten from the tree of life prior to
that? It certainly seems that way, but it doesn't seem to indicate
that he had. We know the tree of life comes
back in the book of Revelation. and the leaves are for the healing
of the nations. So that tree of life is a blessed
and most beneficent thing, but it must undergo some radical
reformation in terms of the second Adam, even our Lord Jesus Christ. So the Lord God sent him out
of the garden to till the ground from which he was taken. Kyle
and Dalich make this observation. It follows that the man had not
yet eaten of the tree of life. Had he continued in fellowship
with God, he might have eaten of it, for he was created for
eternal life. But after he had fallen through
sin into the power of death, the fruit which produced immortality
could only do him harm. For immortality in a state of
sin is not the eternal life which God designed for man, but endless
misery. So this casting him out from
the tree of life is an act of mercy. Bruce Waltke confirms
or agrees, he says, in their fallenness, humans must not participate
in immortality. In other words, don't. get confirmed
in this state. Rather, confirmation comes through
the righteousness of the second Adam, and we are confirmed in
that particular state, have full access to the tree of life in
the new heavens and in the new earth. So God drives him out,
places Cherubim, notice in verse 24, at the east of the Garden
of Eden. Remember that one particular
message at the beginning of Genesis 2? I tried to argue that The
Garden of Eden was a sanctuary. It was a place where God would
meet with his people. It was the first sanctuary, the
first temple, the first place where God and his people would
commune together. We saw one of the particulars
with reference to that, the later tabernacle and then the temple,
you entered by the east. The cherubim is guarded or rather
stationed here at the east of the Garden of Eden. He has a
flaming sword which turns every way. Now note the particular
verb employed, to guard the way to the tree of life. If you go
back to Genesis 2.15, the Lord God took the man and put him
in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. Same verb, to tend
and guard it. Adam's task as priest was to
cultivate it, It was to expand it. It was to multiply the image
of God and fill that garden sanctuary with image bearers reflecting
the glory of God Most High. But instead of tending and guarding
it, he allowed entrance with reference to the devil. And as
a result, now we have cherubim with a flaming sword guarding
the very garden against the man whose job it was to guard the
temple. So you see, God in judgment deals
with Adam and Eve, but God in grace deals with Adam and Eve. Genesis 3.15 is a powerful tonic
for the rest of Genesis chapter 3. Yes, there's consequences
for the woman. Yes, there's consequences for
the man. But beyond that, the man looks to God's promise in
Genesis 3.15, acting in accordance of faith, names his wife based
on that reality, the Lord covers them, and then the Lord drives
him from the tree of life for his protection, for his well-being,
for his ultimate provision. And then God drives him out of
the Garden of Eden, and he guards it with this cherubim. Now cherubim
will be the guardians of the Ark of the Covenant. Cherubim
are guardians of the divine presence and we see that that consistency
again with Genesis 2 and 3 with later references to the tabernacle
and to the temple. What we're dealing with in Genesis
2 and 3 with reference to the Garden of Eden is God installing
man to rule that particular garden temple and then God cleansing
that temple once it has been defiled by the man. Very similar
to what Jesus does in cleansing the temple. He drives out the
money changers. He flips over the tables. Why?
Because they had prostituted. They had made the house of God
a den of thieves. The same thing Yahweh does here.
Because of Adam and Eve's rebellion, this temple is now defiled. It's
now unholy. It's now polluted. And so God
drives him out. We get to the book of Exodus.
What happens? God now tells Israel to build a tabernacle. This is
a place where we can meet together. We get to the end of the book
of Exodus, God's glory comes to that house of God. But nobody
can enter in. Not even Moses himself, the holiest
man in all Israel, can't enter in because of the glory of God
Almighty. Hence the book of Leviticus,
wherein God now teaches in detail Genesis 3.21. The way of approach
is through blood atonement. So at the end of Exodus, you
have this place where God dwells. Leviticus introduces the means
by which this is the place where God can be met by his sinful
creatures. through the blood of atonement
that all typify the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. There
is great cohesiveness to these books of the Pentateuch. There
is great consistency in these documents. And we ought to appreciate
the theology, and we ought to appreciate what God is doing
here. Finally, with reference to this
expulsion, Kyle and Delitzsch again, the expulsion from paradise,
therefore, was a punishment inflicted for man's good. Again, I think
that seems contrary to our way of thinking when we come to God
and Adam, but it shouldn't be contrary to our way of thinking.
Don't we punish our kids for their good? I mean, do we punish
our kids for our good? Yeah, I think ultimately. If
we don't, we're going to be wrecks. But we punish them for their
good, don't we? What Christian parent takes up
the rod and reproof against his or her little one because they're
mean or because they're vicious or because they hate their kids.
We do it because we love them. Do not withhold correction from
your son. He who hates his son spares the
rod. Whoever loves him disciplines
him promptly. So the expulsion from paradise,
therefore, was a punishment inflicted for man's good, intended, while
exposing him to temporal death, to preserve him from eternal
death. In other words, he's outside
the garden. He's now in the harsh brush of
the uncultivated world. He is subject to returning to
the ground. There is a temporal end in view,
but not an eternal one, because he hasn't reached out and grabbed
from that tree of life as a sinful man. So the very punishment driving
him out is for his ultimate good. So never, ever let anyone tell
you there is no grace in the Old Testament. We see it in Genesis
3.15, but we see it also in Genesis 3.20-24. Well, in conclusion,
I just want to underscore the programmatic nature of Genesis
3.15. Programmatic means God's program,
God's design, God's comprehensive plan. And again, I'll give you
a quote from Bovink. He says, in principle, Genesis
3 contains the entire history of humankind, all the ways of
God for the salvation of the lost and the victory over sin. In substance, the whole gospel,
the entire covenant of grace, is present here. All that follows
is the development of what has been germinally planted here.
Everything subsequent to Genesis chapter 3 expounds, amplifies,
or explains for us Genesis chapter 3. It's the story of God's redemptive
plan through the seed of the woman that would crush the head
of the devil. As well, we ought to appreciate
our taproots are here in Genesis chapter 3. Our problems Can't
blame them on Adam and Eve, but are directly connected to Adam
and Eve. Again, you don't see this on
the, you know, the evening news. A madman goes in, he shoots people
and, you know, it's the gun's fault. It's his upbringing. It's
his, you know, you know, parents, whatever. They never say it's
sin. You know, guns don't just walk into places and shoot people.
People walk into places and shoot people. And if they don't have
guns, they'll use knives. If they don't have knives, they'll
use sticks. If they don't have sticks, they'll use bare hands.
The problem is sin. When you watch the evening news,
or you see it on the internet, if it's local, or it's federal,
or it's national, or it's world, or whatever, there is one simple
answer that nobody ever wants to proffer. The problem is sin. And we can trace it all right
back to here. Our confession speaks to this.
They, Adam and Eve being the root, And by God's appointment,
standing in the room instead of all mankind, the guilt of
the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their
posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being
now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the
servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other misery,
spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them
free. from this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed,
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined
to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." In other words,
we've inherited from Adam original sin. It's from that principle
that all actual transgressions proceed. Man's problem isn't
economics. Man's problem isn't politics.
Now, I'm speaking generically. Man does have economic and political
issues and problems, to be sure. Man's fundamental overarching
problem is hamartiology. It's the doctrine of sin. It's
transgression. It's a lack of conformity unto
the law and the word and the will of God Almighty. As well,
I think it's important, especially in this day and age of absolute,
utter confusion with reference to gender and with roles and
with distinctions, God made man to lead. God made woman to submit. I would argue this not only post-fall,
but pre-fall. He gave Adam the specific task
in terms of cultivating and guarding the garden. He made the woman
to help him. Now, this was to be a symbiotic
relationship. It was to be a harmonious relationship. It was to be a wonderful and
a blessed relationship. The idea of headship and the
idea of submission are not bad. If they were, we'd have to say
that the work of Jesus Christ in the salvation of sinners is
bad because Jesus willingly subordinates himself or submits himself to
the Father in the economy of redemption. It's not bad. It's God's way. He made fish
to swim, He made birds to fly, He made men to lead, and He made
women to help their husbands. That's not bad. No matter how
many pundits tell us it is, no matter how many people feel gypped
with whatever their lot is, Whatever the case may be, it is not a
bad thing. And we cannot add to this gender
confusion by not insisting on what the scripture says. When
Paul argues for male headship in the home and in the church,
he goes to the garden. This was God's purpose and plan
from the beginning. This isn't a post-fall imposition
by way of curse. Woman, you now have to submit
as your curse. That's not the curse aspect with
reference to God's design. The curse aspect is you're not
going to want to do it. You're going to want to fight,
you're going to want to resist, you're going to want to come
out from under the particular purview that God has given you.
And he's going to abuse his authority, and he's going to be, you know,
a wretch at times. But that does not obliterate
this argument that because people mess something up, the something
must be wrong. That's faulty. The something
is right, regardless of who messes it up. If God says men are to
lead and women are to submit, that's good. No matter how many
men have been abusive tyrants or however many women have been
terrible non-submitters, it doesn't remove the fact that God's intention
from the beginning was this way. The fall certainly introduces
distortion. The fall certainly introduces
challenges. The fall certainly necessitates
Paul to have to tell us over and over again as husbands to
love our wives. The fall necessitates Paul telling
wives to submit to their own husbands. Of course, but the
act of leadership and submission is a blessed God-instituted thing. We ought not to rail against
it. And in this day and age, brethren, sexual ethics is where
we're at. This is huge. I don't mean the
actual act of sex, but I mean man, woman, gender, boy, girl. you know, the madness of letting
a child pick what gender they... I mean, that we would have ever
gotten to this day? I mean, none of us would have
thought we'd be here as kids. I never thought I'd have a phone
that I could look at and see my wife. I just didn't think
that would come. But I think I might have envisaged
that a lot sooner than I would have imagined the day where we
let a child learn how to talk so he can then or she or it can
pick its gender. We are in desperate times and
the church needs to hold fast. Not kowtow, not say, well, you
know, it's okay. It's not okay. It's sin. Now in saying that doesn't mean
we're mean, doesn't mean we're unkind, doesn't mean we're unholy
or ungodly. It means we're being truthful
and honest. How is it phobic to tell somebody
the truth? I say this because I want you
to be saved. It's like that blessed statement
1 Corinthians chapter 6, and such were some of you. God has
saved sodomites within the city of Corinth. That's a blessed
thing. Why are we afraid to highlight
sin and the Savior for that sin? And then as well, the subtle
devices of Satan. Again, I would recommend remedies
against, or precious remedies against Satan's devices. I was
just thinking about that title today, precious remedies against
Satan's devices. Only a Puritan would do that.
2 Corinthians 2.11, less Satan should take advantage of us,
for we are not ignorant of his devices. Well, from this passage,
we see the devil certainly works with cunning, The devil works
through deception. Again, part of his art, part
of his ability, part of his cunning is seen in his ability to deceive
in a way that isn't so obvious and it's not so apparent. It's
not this massive heresy. It's this little deviation from
the truth that once you take that little bite, boy, you're
going to end up in a terrible spot. As well, the devil works
through a knowledge of man's susceptibility. I'm not suggesting
the devil is omniscient. I'm not suggesting the devil
is omnipotent. But when he animates the serpent,
the serpent goes right for the jugular, doesn't it? He ain't
playing games. He knows how to cover that hook
with a bait that looks mighty tasty. He entices her. I mean, remember that section
of narrative is so brief. Then the serpent said to the
woman, you will not surely die, for God knows that in the day
you eat of it, your eyes will be open and you will be like
God, knowing good and evil. So when the woman saw that the
tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes,
and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit
and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate."
I mean, he landed it, didn't he? He didn't have any trouble
with that. He just, right in there, laid on the line, and
that was it. this desire for godlikeness,
this desire to move up the ladder, to move up in terms of dignity
and prestige. The devil knows man's weakness,
at least to some degree, and will typically appeal to that.
Remember Jesus in the wilderness. Where's the devil hit him first?
Turn these rocks into bread. I said, well, Jesus is God. He's
not functioning in the desert there according to his deity.
He is functioning there according to his humanity. And his humanity
was hungry. 40 days without food affected
Jesus like 40 days without food would affect us. You see, you
can't say, well, he was God. Yeah, but true humanity. You
cannot neglect that. Remember back in Acts 2, 31,
I emphasized his true humanity. I'm sorry, 22, his true humanity. We don't deny the real or true
humanity of Jesus. Forty days without food, the
Savior was hungry. So what does the devil do? He
comes and says, change those stones into bread. That had to
be a real temptation. It was. He was tempted by the
devil. He was in all points tempted
like we are, yet without sin. You know, some would say, well,
you know, he is the God-man and by virtue of his deity. No, again,
we need to understand him there. He's being tested, he's being
tempted according to his humanity. We don't know what how bad temptation
can actually be. Have you ever gotten to the point
where you've resisted temptation? Let's say there's a hundred units. Have you ever resisted temptation
to 90 units? Usually our temptation threshold
is a lot less units. Right? We buckle around three
through four units. We don't know the strength of
temptation. You know, in this vein, we haven't
even entered that part of the bar graph. Christ went a hundred
units. He resisted. So that temptation
was real. Never let anybody tell you, you
know, the temptation wasn't real because, you know, Jesus is God
after all. There he's functioning. Yes,
he's always the God-man. We can't divide him. We can't
make him two. We can't, you know, suggest a
two-person Christology. He is one blessed person, two
natures, human, divine. There the temptation is experienced
primarily according to his humanity. He knows the threshold of temptation. He has been tempted in all points
like we are, yet without sin. He knows hundred points always
in the temptation that he faces. But brethren, understand the
devil is going to come to you where you are susceptible. You know, if you think, well,
you know, I've got this one wet. You know my theory on that? It's
like playing whack-a-mole. You whack that mole, and you
knock it down, and you think, I got it licked. And you move
on your merry little way, and it's been a year, or two years,
or two minutes, and wow, that temptation is back. I thought
I dealt with it. It's like that game. It just
keeps coming. You're never going to have, you
know, ease and comfort and, you know, no temptations or trials. You know, Bunyan's Pilgrim's
Progress. I mean, the River Jordan. Was
that a, you know, a nice little swim for Christian at the end?
Man, it was like terrifying, terrible for him. That's our
lot on this side of heaven. We've got to fight the devil.
We've got to resist him. And one of the ways is to know
him. Not in the Bob Larson weird kind of know him, but know what
scripture says concerning his methodology so that we with Paul
can say we are not ignorant of his devices. And ultimately the
devil works through character assassination upon God. God's
petty, God's little, God's small, God's threatened, God's insecure. God doesn't want you to be like
Him. Again, it doesn't quite sound
that way, but that's essentially what the devil is saying. For
God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be
open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. He will
brook no competitors, so do what I say. That's the essence of
the devil's attack, at least in Genesis 3. Well, let's close
in a word of prayer. Father, we thank you for Genesis
3. We thank you for what it teaches
us concerning you, concerning us, concerning the devil. We
ask that you'd help us to learn these lessons, to learn them
well. and help us to resist the devil and to rejoice in your
grace to rejoice in this first promise of the gospel that has
opened up throughout the rest of scripture to reveal to us
Jesus Christ the God-man who came to deal that decisive death
blow to the devil himself and thus freeing us giving us life
eternal giving us grace and blessing and redemption and all the benefits
that you have purposed for us. We ask that you would go with
us now and help us to glorify and honor you. And we pray through
Christ our Lord. Amen. I was conscious in my prayer,
I'm going to leave this on for just a moment. I was not suggesting
the ransom to Satan theory. If it sounded that way, that
Jesus saved us from Satan, Jesus saved us from the Father. Jesus
saves us from God. Jesus saves us from our sin. It wasn't an atonement paid to
the devil, it was an atonement paid to the Father. But certainly
the devil is in there as a menace and an enemy to our souls that
Jesus does in fact deal with also. That's the spirit in which
I meant it.
