[I have visited this passage again and again for it continues to fascinate me. This is another reflection focusing on what the serpent and the woman (i.e. the man, too) have done with the command of God in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17).]
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 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."
3:1 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'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 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.'" 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."
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. 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. (Genesis 2:16-17, 3:1-7)
In Genesis 2:16-17, God’s original command for Adam has three parts:
Part I: V.16b The permission to eat from any tree – a wide scope of choices
Part II: V.17a The prohibition to eat from one and only one tree – a narrow scope of prohibition
Part III: V.17b The consequence of disobedience – certainty of death
In the interaction between the serpent and the woman in 3:1-5, all these three parts are denied. Although Adam has not been quoted in this conversation, he was always there with the woman according to Genesis 3:6. Adam was with the woman though he did not say anything. The Chinese translation CUV "又給她丈夫,她丈夫也吃了" left a few words out from the Hebrew text. A better Chinese translation is "又給那跟她在一起的丈夫,她丈夫也吃了." The craftiness of the serpent is manifested in how these parts are being denied. Its strategy is well-planned and executed.
A. The Serpent’s Bait -- In 3:1, the serpent raised a question that directly contradicts and denies what God has explicitly allowed. The response of the woman (she is not named Eve until after the Fall in 3:20) showed that she has followed the suggestion implied in the serpent’s question. The serpent questions the existence of even a tiny bit of God’s goodness and reasonableness. It has not directly contradicted God’s intention but it’s leading her in that direction. It was trying to hook her. This questions God’s abundant provision in Part I.
B. The Woman’s Bite -- She did not totally agree with the serpent and yet she has not tried to contradict it either. When the woman has failed to name the tree, the prohibition has lost its anchor (3:3). While God has specifically named a tree, the woman makes it just like any other tree that is “in the midst of the garden.” When the woman said, “…neither shall you touch it,” (3:3) she has added to God’s original prohibition (“you shall not eat,” 2:17) thus amplifying the prohibition and reducing God’s allowed freedom. It makes the woman sounds like the Pharisees who have added to the prohibitions of God in order to protect it, or so they thought. In the end, although God’s description of the consequence is definite (“you shall surely die,” 2:17), the woman framed it like a concession (“lest you die,” 2:17). The certainty of the consequence is reduced. This enlarges the scope of prohibition in Part II and undermines the certainty of death in Part III.
C. The Serpent Set the Hook with Justification -- The serpent now, seeing the woman was hooked, continued. In this last step, serpent moved onto an explicit and complete denial of God. It flatly denied what God has explicitly stated. It said, “You will not surely die,” (3:4) though God said, “…you shall surely died.” (2:17) This might be its original intent anyway. It is only now that it made it clear. In 3:5, the serpent tried to justify (“for”) its denial of God’s announced consequence of disobedience. It said, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
The serpent’s justification is that they (apparent the serpent spoke to both Adam and the woman) will be like gods. It implied that they are currently blind (i.e. they are created to be blind) but their eyes will be opened by disobedience. They will also gain knowledge. On these two points, the first assertion is strange. They could obviously see the beauty of the fruit without eating the fruit (3:6-7). The narrative (God’s words) has also contradicted the serpent’s assertion. After they ate the fruit, the fact that would gain knowledge is also denied for they would know only one addition thing: the fact that they were naked. In fact, they did not need to eat the fruit in order to know good and evil. Comparing what God has commanded and what the serpent have said, they could immediately know what is good and what is evil. It denies the certainty of death in Part III.
We can see that in the conversation between the serpent and the woman, God’s command, including what is generously graciously allowed, what is narrowly prohibited, and even what entails from disobedience, is entirely subverted. Therefore, we can define sin in view of God’s command (Westminster Shorter Catechism #14, etc.). Sin is a subversion of what God has said either in minimizing His grace, in enlarging His prohibition, or in denying the consequences.
We need to be careful how to understand and handle the command of God. The term "satanic" can be defined according to how the Command of God is being handled. It is satanic when words are being taken from or added to what God has explicitly spoken and there are serious consequences associated with mishandling the Word of God.
Next logical reflections: Was Jesus’ temptation related to this? How does the Law of God develop from the OT to the NT?