Introduction: For weeks now we have been looking at God’s
account of His Creation. We have discussed the logic of
evolution vs. creation. We have also discussed how evolution
affects our view of God. This week we study how a belief in
the Creation week is essential to a proper view of sin and
the destiny of man.

A note from last week: I suggested the lesson’s explanation
of the “two creation” problem and Genesis 2:5 was complex
and doubtful. One of my readers kindly passed my comments
on to the author of that section of the lesson. You will
find his response at the end of this lesson.

  1. UP OR DOWN?

    1. How do you feel today? Better than last week?
      Better than a year ago? Better than ten or twenty
      years ago? (We won’t go further because we do not
      want to strain your memory.)

    2. Does your body get better with age?

    3. Evolution tells us that we are getting better with
      time. It tells us that man is now much better
      than he started. Let’s see what the Bible says.
      Read Genesis 3:16-19.

      1. These verses are God’s statement about how man
        will live now that he has sinned.

        1. Is life going to be better?

      2. What do childbirth and raising food have in
        common? (They allow mankind to survive.)

      3. Do you think it is a coincidence that God
        chose punishments that went directly to man’s
        ability to survive?

        1. If this is not a coincidence, what do you
          think God’s point was in this?

        1. Do you think it had anything to do with
          the nature of the sinful act – eating
          forbidden fruit?

        2. Do you think it had anything to do with
          the nature of the motivation to sin – not
          trusting or believing God?

        3. Does the punishment teach us to trust God
          more or trust our own works more?

          1. Does the punishment remind us that
            we are dependent upon God for

          2. What does it say about our ability
            to do better apart from God?

      1. Verse 17 tells us that God cursed the ground.
        What significance do you see in God cursing
        the ground as opposed to trees or water or
        anything else? (Our lesson (Sunday) has a very
        interesting comment that the earth plays a
        special role in the Creation and it is “hard
        to overestimate its importance.”)

        1. What important role do you recall that
          the earth (or ground or land) played in
          the Creation? ( Genesis 1:11 – the land
          produced vegetation; Genesis 1:24 – the
          land produced animals; Genesis 2:7 – the
          land produced man. God used the earth as
          the source for much of His creation. Now
          the “source” was cursed.)

      2. Genesis 1:28 tells us that man was to “subdue”
        the earth and rule over the animals. Did
        disobedience to God make that task easier or

        1. If you say harder, how had that task
          changed? (The land and animals were now
          in rebellion against man’s rule. Genesis
          9:2 provides an inference that from the
          time of the Fall until the time of the
          Flood, the animals were a real danger to
          man. It appears that it is only after
          the Flood that animals fear man. (Of
          course, that might be explained by the
          fact that man only started eating animals
          at that point ( Genesis 9:3) – a fact that
          would naturally dampen the animals’
          enthusiasm for man!)

          1. Was God teaching man a lesson
            through the rebellion of the land
            and animals?

      1. Look again at Genesis 3:19. Is it still man’s
        final destiny to subdue the earth after sin?
        (It looks like the earth “subdues” man because
        he returns to dust.)

        1. Would we have returned to dust if Adam
          and Eve had not sinned? (No. See Genesis

        2. Why do you think God decided to have us
          return to dust? (This shows very clearly
          that sin reversed Creation. Instead of
          getting better, man now has a painful
          path of survival (food production and
          childbearing) that will eventually end in
          him returning to his roots, the ground.)

    1. Read Genesis 3:22-24. What other negative things
      happened to man as a result of his sin? (He lost
      his home in Eden and he was deprived of the source
      of vitality, of eternal life. He also lost God’s
      trust because God guarded the garden!)

    2. All things considered, is man on an upward or
      downward track after sin?

    3. If you believed in evolution instead of this
      account of the Creation and the Fall, in what way
      would your view of sin be different?


    1. Read Genesis 3:14-15. Who is at odds? Men and

      1. Is this a real snake? (While it is probable
        that Satan used a real animal for his
        deception, there can be little doubt that this
        “snake” was really Satan. Revelation 12:9
        refers to the “ancient serpent called the
        devil or Satan, who leads the whole world

      2. What does it mean, as a practical matter, to
        have enmity with Satan?

        1. What is Satan’s attitude towards man now?
          (He is hostile. Revelation 12:12&17
          reveal that Satan is furious with us and
          has declared war on us.)

      3. How does the fact that Satan has declared war
        on you affect your spiritual life?

        1. How does it affect your day to day


    1. If man and nature have been on a downward path
      ever since man sinned, is there any hope for them
      to get better?

      1. On what is this hope based? (Read Romans 8:11,
        16-21. Only God’s intervention, the life and
        death of Jesus on our behalf, freed us and the
        entire creation from the evil of sin. We do
        not naturally become better. We only get
        better because we were rescued from our own

    2. Read Isaiah 65:17. Will we get a “second chance?”
      Will the new creation be at least as good as the

      1. Will it be different? If so, how? (It will be
        better because Satan, sin and suffering will
        be gone forever. See Revelation 20:10&14;
        Revelation 21:27. They will be gone. Isaiah
        65:17 precludes the righteous seeing the Devil
        or the wicked writhe in the pain of hell
        forever. The text says that the former things
        will not be remembered or come to mind!)

    3. Friend, God gives us the only way to reverse the
      evil that resulted from the entry of sin into the
      world. Will you accept His way out?


This is the response of the author of part of last week’s
lesson to my criticism of the lesson’s explanation for the
“two creation” problem.

From: Randall Younker <>

Hi! You have the right person. In brief, modifers in Hebrew are extremely important–more so than in English. While esev is a common Hebrew word for plant, the combination, esev hassadeh is not. The full expression with modifier, “plant of the field” is rare and unique–as I point out in the lesson and more specifically in the companion book, esev hassadeh occurs only in Gen 2:5 and 3:18. Those familiar with Hebrew recognize that such a specific occurrence of Hebrew words in combination in close proximity is done deliberately by the Hebrew writer to draw attention to the words and indicates a specific plant. The type of plant is inferred from the context of Genesis 3:18. This has been recognized by Hebrew linguists in various commentaries and by specialists dealing with botanical expressions in Hebrew. One of the best and first scholars to recognize and discuss this at length is U. Cassuto, a Jewish scholar. English speaking folks who are not familiar with how Hebrew works often read translations of Hebrew and treat the words as if they were originally written in English. This can lead to a blurring of the original intent and meaning in Hebrew. The Hebrew language is “designed” to say a lot more in a lot fewer words. This can be seen even by a novice who compares the length of an English sentence with its Hebrew equivalents. My point for mentioning this is that the concise nature of Hebrew wherein thoughts are expressed in fewer words means that words in Hebrew have more meaning and modifers are more important for nuancing meaning than they might be in English–thus the combination esev hasadde “plant of the field” is not as casual or incidental in its meaning in Hebrew as it might appear in English. It is quite specific and intentional. There is no doubt that the botanical expressions in Genesis 2 and 3 are quite different from those in chapter 1 and were intended to be understood differently by the Hebrew writer and his audience. It is not esev by itself that is important–it is what esev is modified with–the use of esev in combination with hasaddeh occurs only in Chapters 2 and 3-not 1 and this is quite important in Hebrew. The play on words and word combinations in these chapters “jump” out at the reader familiar with Hebrew and how it is used. Hope this rather technical explanation helps.


Randy Younker, Director

Institute of Archaeology

Andrews University