Basic HTML Version
210
rights as over against God, man allowed the new center, which he found in himself, to operate
against his Maker. This explains his desire to be like God and his doubt of the good intention of
God in giving the command. Naturally different elements can be distinguished in his first sin. In
the intellect it revealed itself as unbelief and pride, in the will, as the desire to be like God, and
in the affections, as an unholy satisfaction in eating of the forbidden fruit.
D. THE FIRST SIN OR THE FALL AS OCCASIONED BY TEMPTATION.
1. THE PROCEDURE OF THE TEMPTER.
The fall of man was occasioned by the temptation of the
serpent, who sowed in man’s mind the seeds of distrust and unbelief. Though it was
undoubtedly the intention of the tempter to cause Adam, the head of the covenant, to fall, yet
he addressed himself to Eve, probably because (a) she was not the head of the covenant and
therefore would not have the same sense of responsibility; (b) she had not received the
command of God directly but only indirectly, and would consequently be more susceptible to
argumentation and doubt; and (c) she would undoubtedly prove to be the most effective agent
in reaching the heart of Adam. The course followed by the tempter is quite clear. In the first
place he sows the seeds of doubt by calling the good intention of God in question and
suggesting that His command was really an infringement of man’s liberty and rights. When he
notices from the response of Eve that the seed has taken root, he adds the seeds of unbelief
and pride, denying that transgression will result in death, and clearly intimating that the
command was prompted by the selfish purpose of keeping man in subjection. He asserts that
by eating from the tree man would become like God. The high expectations thus engendered
induced Eve to look intently at the tree, and the longer she looked, the better the fruit seemed
to her. Finally, desire got the upper hand, and she ate and also gave unto her husband, and he
ate.
2. INTERPRETATION OF THE TEMPTATION.
Frequent attempts have been made and are still
being made to explain away the historical character of the fall. Some regard the whole narrative
in Gen. 3 as an allegory, representing man’s self-depravation and gradual change in a figurative
way. Barth and Brunner regard the narrative of man’s original state and of the fall as a myth.
Creation and the fall both belong, not to history, but to super-history (Urgeschichte), and
therefore both are equally incomprehensible. The story in Genesis merely teaches us that,
though man is now unable to do any good and is subject to the law of death, this is not
necessarily so. It is possible for a man to be free from sin and death by a life in communion with
God. Such is the life portrayed for us in the story of paradise, and it prefigures the life that will
be granted to us in Him of whom Adam was but a type, namely, Christ. But it is not the kind of
life that man now lives or ever has lived from the beginning of history. Paradise is not a certain
locality to which we can point, but is there where God is Lord, and man and all other creatures