Verse 1
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
The serpent, [ hanaachaash (Hebrew #5175) is the generic name of a serpent; `aaruwm (Hebrew #6175), subtle.] This word is used sometimes in a good sense (Proverbs 12:23; Proverbs 13:16; Proverbs 14:8; Proverbs 14:15; Proverbs 14:18), and as synonymous with wisdom, prudence, and particularly shrewdness in adopting the means of self-preservation-an attribute which is declared to be characteristic of the reptile brood (Matthew 10:16); and taking the word here in this view, the Septuagint has rendered it by phronimootatos, the wisest of any beast of the field. But it is obvious from the whole tenor of this context that the term is employed in a bad sense, implying craft, cunning, guile (cf. Job 5:12; Job 15:5); and, accordingly, others have more appropriately translated it by panourgos (Greek #3835), skilled in all manner of deceit and mischief, any beast of the field. Although it is improper, in a scientific point of view, to class a serpent with brutes, in this simple and artless history objects are popularly described, and the comparison between it and the beasts of the field was apparently suggested by the last scene which the historian had described (Genesis 2:19-20). Now, with regard to the superior subtilty ascribed to serpents, it is impossible to say whether all the stories related in illustration of this characteristic property are worthy of credit.
Assuredly, serpents are not naturally the most sagacious of the inferior creation; because there are several others in the animal kingdom which far surpass them in point of instinctive sagacity; but with respect to craft, artifice, and similar qualities of the baser sort, they have in all ages been pre-eminently distinguished. The common view taken of this first verse is that a material serpent is referred to; but what was the particular kind of serpent has given rise to a variety of conjectures. Bochart thinks it was the Dragon serpent-Dr. Patrick, a saraph, the supposed winged serpent, which, from its bright luminous appearance and springing motions, he conceived, strangely enough, to bear some resemblance to the seraphim (cf. Isaiah 6:2). Dr. Adam Clarke held the opinion that the animal was an orang-outang-an opinion, however, which has found no supporters.
Whatever the species of serpent was (and since no hint is given it would be idle to prosecute an enquiry where certainty is unattainable), it is presented in this narrative as the prominent agent in a wicked scheme of seduction. Josephus considered it the only agent. He represents all living creatures as having had one language at first, and describes the serpent as living in familiar conversation with Adam and Eve, until, becoming envious of their happiness, he resolved to work their destruction. But the views of the Jewish historian are inadmissible; and since the continued management of such a plot as the temptation of our first parents, with a knowledge and skillful use of the insidious arts necessary to carry it into successful completion, seems far beyond the natural capabilities of an irrational animal, there is no way of explaining the mystery except by the light shed on the transaction by later passages of Scripture, where we are informed of the latent influence of an artful and malevolent spirit who had formed the diabolical purpose of accomplishing the ruin of the happy human pair in the garden of Eden. This point, however, will be considered afterward.
And he said unto the woman. His subtlety was displayed in selecting the woman as the object of his attack; and that choice was founded on his knowledge of her frailty. She was naturally the weaker vessel. She had only existed for a short time being-possessed but a limited stock of knowledge and a narrow range of experience; she had perhaps never had an opportunity of learning from Adam, who had been supernaturally informed about the animals in the garden before her formation, whether the inferior creatures possessed the natural gifts of speech and reason; so that on that account she neither displayed nor felt any surprise or alarm when the serpent addressed her.
The conversation which is here related is manifestly fragmentary-the sequel of something which had been said or done before. The first tempter, like all who have practiced the insidious arts of seduction since, was too knowing and wary to open his battery all at once. He began by talking, it is probable, about the beauty, fertility, and various productions of the garden, until he gradually directed the course of conversation to the trees and their pleasant fruit, and then, in the most adroit and crafty manner, without creating any suspicion of his base design, he fixed her attention upon that subject. "Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Gesenius' rendering is more strictly according to the original: 'Is it even so that God has said, Ye shall eat of no tree in the garden?' Is it a fact that He will not allow you to take your will of all the produce of this delightful place? Depend upon it that this is not correct, nor like Him; there must be some mistake in your apprehension of His meaning. It cannot be that a Being so good, so kind, so delighted in promoting the happiness of all His creatures, could have restricted you, any more than He has hindered me, from partaking of this as well as all the fruit trees which the garden contains.
Thus, he insinuated, in the gentlest manner, a doubt that she might have taken up a wrong impression of the Creator's command. He endeavoured to show her the unreasonableness of such a view, if it were as she alleged; and to accomplish that end, he perverted the tenor of the divine injunction-speaking artfully and falsely of it as a prohibition, not of one tree, but of all, and taunting the woman with too nice and scrupulous feelings in standing at a distance from the excepted tree, as if afraid to approach it, while he, with the most perfect freedom, and impunity also, sported among its luxuriant branches, and enjoyed its delicious fruit. The insinuation tended, though in a very unsuspected way, to throw a doubt upon the import of the divine command-to diminish her sense of the reasonableness and obligation of the law, and thus to sap, by the most insidious means, the foundation of her faith and principles.
Verse 2
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. Eve answered well. She displayed wisdom in extolling the extent of the liberty which God had granted to her and her partner, ingenuous honesty in adhering to the divine command as she had received it, and in rehearsing it as of unquestionable certainty; and although, in introducing the phrase, "neither shall ye touch it," (Genesis 3:3) she was adding words not found in the authentic form of the divine command, and apparently mistaking the real ground on which the interdict had been given, she evidently spoke under a sincere and strong impression of the strict and inviolable character of the prohibition.
However, the closing words, "lest ye die," seem to imply that she ascribed the prohibition to the dangerous nature of the tree, and in the expression of that opinion showed the weakness of her faith.
Verse 3
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
No JFB commentary on this verse.
Verse 4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Ye shall not surely die. Sensible of the advantage he had gained in arresting her attention, the tempter lost no time in continuing his assault; and, having found that she was firm in her belief as to the certainty of the prohibition, he shifted his ground, and pressed her with an idea of the stern severity of the threatening-a threatening so cruel, so tremendous, so utterly disproportionate to the eating of a little fruit, that he boldly professed his inability to believe it: "Ye shall not surely die." This was an appeal to Eve's self-love. The argument, put in the way the tempter expressed it, was strong; because her understanding could not certainly perceive any just or reasonable proportion between the sin and its punishment; and it was armed with additional strength when followed by the strong asseveration, "God doth know." It was, however, a direct, infamous lie-a lie told in opposition to his own dire experience; but he concealed his own wretched degradation, so that he might have the malignant satisfaction of seeing the human pair involved in the same perdition. Nay, he not only assured his eager listener of perfect impunity, but even held out the assurance of great and invaluable benefits from partaking of that fruit.
Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods - [Hebrew, kee-'Elohiym (Hebrew #430), 'like God']. His words meant more than met the ear. There was a sense in which the words of the tempter were true; but it was a sense very different from that in which the simple unsuspecting mind of the woman received them.
She, justly setting a high value upon knowledge, probably thought of nothing but acquiring the enviable privilege which was enjoyed by angelic creatures of knowing what was good and what was evil:-He meant that they would have dire and practical experience of the difference between good and evil, between happiness and misery. But he studiously concealed this truth from Eve, who, fired with a generous desire for knowledge, thought only of rising to the rank and privileges of her celestial visitants. The whole conversation of the serpent indicates a vile scheme of seduction, designed to make the human pair discontented with the wisdom and goodness of the divine arrangements as to their condition, and to fill them with an ambitious desire to make themselves higher than what God seemed to wish that they should be. Nay, it was full of the most audacious falsehoods, expressing open and undisguised infidelity in the divine word, and, by the novelty as well as reckless hardihood of his assertions, claiming credit superior to that of God; and, alas, he succeeded in seeing that claim acknowledged.
Verse 5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
No JFB commentary on this verse.
Verse 6
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
When the woman saw, ... Her imagination and feelings were completely won. The history of every temptation and of every sin is the same; the outward object of attraction, the inward commotion of the mind, the increase and triumph of passionate desire, ending in the degradation, misery, and ruin of the soul. In the brief account of this temptation there is the world or creature in all the forms in which it is possible that it can become an ensnaring object to mankind. Under the first head, "good for food," there is the gratification of the bodily sensual appetites; under the second, "pleasant to the eyes, there is the indulgence of the tastes and affections of the animal spirit; and under the third, "a tree to be desired to make one wise," there is the gratification of the nobler faculties of the intellect or rational soul (cf. 1 John 2:16). In that passage of the New Testament there is no direct allusion to the original temptation in Eden; yet no one who reads the words can help thinking that the mental eye of the apostle was directed toward it when he wrote this exhortation. If, indeed, this were not the case, then it is an undesigned coincidence, and proves, in no unequivocal manner, that the same Divine Spirit guided the pen of the historian (Genesis) and the apostle (John).
She gave unto her husband, and he did eat. Much is evidently left to the reader's imagination in this brief statement. We are left to picture the tumult of conflicting emotions that filled and distracted the breast of Adam when he heard the woeful intelligence; surprise at the recital of his wife's strange conversation with the serpent, astonishment at her fatal act, and the powerful motives that led him coolly and dispassionately to take the fruit-branch from her hand. Milton represents it as dictated by the generous resolution of self-martyrdom with his beautiful partner, whom his penetrating mind now saw had become the victim of momentary rashness. But while we allow him the poetical license to which he is entitled, we, following the plain and truthful intimations of Scripture, must admit the strong operation of a different cause-that of Adam's loving the creature more than the Creator.
"Adam was not deceived" (1 Timothy 2:14), but he ate without seeing the serpent; and after the scene of deception was past, he yielded to the arguments and solicitations of his wife, whose insinuating influence prevailed over his better judgment. Love in his soul had lost its pure and elevating character; its excess overbalanced the principle of supreme devotedness to God, and led him to adopt the fatal resolve of sharing the penalty of his wife's rash act, rather than hear the painful prospect of spending his life without her. In considering the scene of temptation here described, several circumstances call for notice:
(1) The record is characterized by a peculiarity in the way of mentioning the Creator, which is the more remarkable, as it stands in striking contrast to the designation given to the Divine Being throughout the preceding as well as subsequent context. Moses, in his character of historian, uses the term "Lord God" uniformly throughout his narrative of the transactions detailed from Genesis 2:4 to the end of this third chapter; and it appears (Genesis 4:1) that Eve was also acquainted with the name "Lord" [ Yahweh (Hebrew #3068)]. But in the reported conversation which the tempter carried on with the woman, a different name occurs; and since the minutest details of that fatal conversation would in all probability be preserved by frequent repetition, we are warranted to conclude that the opening verses contain the pure unaltered form of the primitive tradition. On this hypothesis, which appears well founded, the designation given to the Creator, as it stands in the record, was precisely that which was used on the occasion. It expresses (see the note at Genesis 1:1) the general abstract idea of Deity; and a little reflection will show that the use of that name was more accordant with the character idea of Deity; and a little reflection will show that the use of that name was more accordant with the character of the wicked seducer than any other known title of the Creator.
(2) As to the temptation itself, the eating of a little fruit was not an act essentially sinful; but it became so when that act was done in the face of a stern, positive prohibition; and a just view of its real character can be obtained only when we consider the circumstances in which it was committed. Adam and his wife were not, as has been said, the victims of inevitable fate. They were free agents, capable of being influenced by motives, but still at perfect liberty to follow whatever course they pleased; and as, notwithstanding their avowed knowledge both of the divine will respecting the interdicted tree, and of the awful penalty annexed to its violation, they, deluded by artful sophistry, allowed themselves to receive a different notion of its properties from what God had given them, they betrayed a willingness to be deceived, a proneness to transgress. It was not by any stern necessity, but by a determinate choice of their own will, a voluntary surrender of their hearts to temptation, that they committed the first sin; and that sin, considering their special advantages, was marked by many aggravations.
It was a willful and presumptuous offence-that is, a transgression of a known duty, a departure from the declared will of God-an offence the more criminal that they possessed sufficient power to enable them to remain steadfast in duty, and that it was committed in Paradise-a place consecrated by the presence of God. It implied not only disobedience to the Lawgiver, but a contempt of His solemn declarations as unworthy of credit-horrid ingratitude and discontent amid the most profuse liberality-a dark suspicion, which virtually charged the Creator with designedly debarring them from attaining the inherent perfectibility of their nature-pride, in presuming to apply their own notions of fitness or expediency to judge of the equity and wisdom of the divine arrangements-infidelity and Atheism, in resolving to throw off the submission of creatures, and aiming at the independent government of their own actions. It contained, in fact, the germ of which all other sins have been merely the unfolding. The view which has just been exhibited of the sin of man should be borne in mind, since it is necessary for vindicating the divine goodness from the charge of exposing them to irresistible temptations, as well as for placing in a just light the guilt and folly of Adam and his wife in yielding to temptation. It began in infidelity, and amounted to nothing less than an apostasy from God, to join with a being evidently at variance with Him, whose insinuating language raised in their minds a mistrust of the divine goodness, and taught them to disregard the divine threatenings.
(3) The temptation was from without. It did not originate with man himself, from the ascendancy of any bad passion, or the motions of inborn concupiscence; because there being in the pure bosoms of the first pair no principle of evil to work upon and stimulate, the solicitation to sin must necessarily have been extraneous, as in the analogous case of Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:3). The senses are the natural and most direct channels of communication between the mind and the external world; but since these were as yet unperverted, and could not be engaged as instruments of evil, the temptation was addressed to the intellect. The appeal was made to its desire for greater knowledge, to be obtained, however, not in a natural and legitimate way, but foolishly and absurdly, through means of a tree which they were assured would not only yield far nobler and more excellent enjoyments than those which the Creator had bestowed on them, but raise them to a level with God Himself. Thus, the tempter gave decisive proof, as he has done in every subsequent instance, of his subtilty in working upon that power and propensity of the human mind which was most favourable to his designs.
(4) The tempter was a real living personal agent. Some writers, indeed, have maintained that this narrative, being cast in the form of Eastern allegory the tempter must be considered a mere personification of moral evil. But every unprejudiced reader must be convinced that the language of the sacred historian intimates something far beyond an internal struggle with temptation, and trace the sin of our first parents directly to the guile and malice of a tempter, not within but without them. The objective personality of the tempter is taught throughout the whole Bible. In the fuller revelations of the later Scriptures it is distinctly intimated that the author of the plot upon our first parents was an evil spirit, who is called "the wicked one," "the enemy," and the tempter of mankind (Matthew 13:19; Matthew 13:39; 1 Thessalonians 3:5) and who, in reference to this primitive transaction in Eden, is styled "a liar" and "a murderer" (John 8:44; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). Whatever was the cause of his hostility to man: whether, as some think, he had been viceroy of the pre-Adamite world, and having been degraded and expelled from it, in consequence of rebellion at the period when "the earth was without form and void," was superseded by the new race of mankind; or whether it proceeded from an innate love of disorder, cruelty, and sin, he had cherished, and by his consummate subtilty succeeded, in the secret purpose of establishing himself as the ruler and "god of this world."
That he was the originator and prime agent in the scheme of temptation, Scripture leaves no room to doubt. But Moses makes mention of a serpent as the prominent actor in that affair; and there are two ways of explaining this difficulty. The one is, that a literal serpent, one of the common reptile tribe, was made use of as the tool or instrument of the unseen spirit; and that, since it was a stranger in paradise, Eve, whose observation and experience were very limited, was struck with its luminous appearance, its peculiar form, and the elastic rapidity of its movements, so far that, her attention being concentrated upon it, paved the way for the scene that ensued.
The serpent is described as addressing the woman; and in answer to the objection, that serpents have not received from nature organs adapted by any training, like parrots, to the formation of articulate sounds, it is said that Balaam's donkey was miraculously empowered to speak, and that the possibility of doing so is as great in the case of the serpent. But the serpent is represented as doing many more wonderful things than even speaking; because, from the tenor of the narrative, it not only possessed an intelligent knowledge of the state and arrangements of the garden, but indicated a capacity of reasoning-of founding subtle arguments on the benignity of the divine character-of removing the objections and scruples of simple innocence by bold assertions, and holding out an alluring prospect of the dignity and the benefits of knowledge; and the explanation commonly given of these difficulties is (for the assertion of Josephus, that all living creatures had at first one common language, is rejected as wholly untenable) that even though the serpent did not utter a word in the ears, all this train of argument might have been represented to the eyes of the woman, by the reptile, which had been playing its varying gambols at her feet, suddenly springing up to coil itself in spiral folds among the branches of the forbidden tree, and luxuriating with ostentatious zest on its fruit.
One may easily imagine, it is alleged, how this spectacle would arrest the attention and engage the interest of a simple, unsuspecting beholder, who saw it all done with perfect impunity, and the highest satisfaction to the creature. That no mention is made of any other than the reptile, is accounted for by the circumstance, either that Moses was relating only the history of the visible world, or that it was not expedient, considering the idolatrous propensities of the Israelites, to notice the existence of a wicked spirit, in case they should be induced to render a blind, superstitious homage to his malignant power. Many, however, have called in question the soundness of this traditional explanation, and support their objections by the following reasons:
(1) There is mention made in the Mosaic narrative of only one serpent, and to interpret it by saying that a material serpent was instigated by the evil spirit is an unwarrantable addition to the statement of the inspired history.
(2) No serpent has ever been known in any age to speak: and to suppose that the serpent in Eden was capable of uttering articulate sounds, it could only be through miraculous agency, which no one can believe that God would delegate to Satan.
(3) Serpents do not subsist on fruit. They are carnivorous animals; and there is no evidence that wild, rapacious creatures had a place in Eden.
(4) The grammatical structure of the first verse clearly shows that it was not an ordinary reptile, one of the serpentine race: for the Hebrew words are [ w
Verse 7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
The eyes of them both were opened. LeClerc considers the meaning of this statement to be that, from internal pain, they felt the fruit was unwholesome or poisonous, that they had committed a fatal mistake, and would, to their bitter disappointment, reap none of the great benefits they had been led to anticipate. The words have a far deeper significance, since they intimate that amid the raptures of enjoyment, reflection was drowned, and Adam and his wife were lulled into dreamy oblivion of all but the present moment; but when that delirium had subsided, the time for reflection came, and then a train of new and painful feelings and emotions, to which they had hitherto been entire strangers, rushed like a torrent into their minds-a sense of their helplessness, grief, shame, remorse, and all the concomitants of guilt, distracted and agonized their bosoms.
And they knew that they were naked. The following clause shows that this is to be taken in a literal sense. But nakedness frequently signifies in Scripture sin or folly, shame or misery (cf. Exodus 32:15; Ezekiel 16:36; 2 Chronicles 28:19); and it includes that meaning here also.
And they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. These English words, "sewed" and "aprons," referring to the artificial accommodations of civilized life, convey ideas altogether unsuitable, as Adam and his partner had no implements, nor did the fig leaves present the appearance of manufactured aprons. [The Hebrew verb taapar (Hebrew #8609), rendered to sew, signifies simply to connect, to plait (cf. Job 16:15, where the same word is used in the original ch
Verse 8
And they heard the voice 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 amongst the trees of the garden. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking. "The voice of God" is frequently used in Scripture to denote a storm-a war of the elements (Psalms 18:13; Psalms 29:5), and some think that, in addition to the moral tempest of conflicting thoughts that was raging in the breasts of the fallen, they were exposed to a new and sudden convulsion of the elements-some peals of rolling thunder-in which their guilty imaginations recognized the tokens of divine wrath. But such a use of the phrase occurs only in poetry; and to take it in this sense here would lead into those grave errors as to the effects of man's first disobedience in deranging the whole system of the natural world with which the poetry of Milton has so deeply infected the popular theology of this country. The Hebrew participle "walking" agrees in construction with "voice;" and the interpretation commonly given to it is, that the human pair heard "the voice" or Word of God walking in the garden. But the verb [ haalak (Hebrew #3212)], to walk, when associated with [ qowl (Hebrew #6963)] voice, frequently bears the meaning of to sound, to resound (cf. Exodus 19:19, where the verb is so rendered), so that the clause before us may be, according to Scriptural usage, rendered, and they heard the voice of the Lord God sounding in the garden.' At the same time, we prefer the translation adopted in our own version of this passage, which is, moreover, sanctioned by the approval of the best and most influential commentators, both ancient and modern. 'This,' says Faber ('Eight Prophetical Dissertations') 'is the sense in which the passage is explained by the Targumists, because they agree to render it, "They heard the Word of the Lord God walking" (see Isaiah 30:27). The prophet, also, in the precise phraseology of Moses, calls this Being "the voice of the Lord," in Isaiah 30:30-31. Hence, "the voice of the Lord" must be considered as the proper designation of the Being who appeared to our first parents (cf. John 1:18).
In the cool of the day - literally, the breeze of the day. Onkelos renders it "in the rest (silence) of the day" -
i.e. the evening, when in hot countries the cool breeze springs up. It seems to have been the usual time for paying such visits to his new-formed creatures. The Divine Being appeared, as formerly, uttering the well-known tones of kindness, walking in some visible form, not running hastily, as one impelled by the influence of angry feelings. How beautifully expressive are these words of the familiar and condescending manner in which He had hitherto been in a relationship with the first pair!
Hid themselves amongst the trees of the garden. The Hebrew word tree may be either singular or plural. It is taken in the latter number (Genesis 3:2), and we think rightly here also. But some prefer to view it in the singular, and render b
Verse 9
And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
The Lord God called unto Adam, where art thou? The enquiry was not made from ignorance of his hiding-place, because "all things are naked and open to the eyes of God." But it is characteristic of the simple, condescending style of communication which the Creator established with the first pair, and the summons into His presence was preparatory to a formal process of enquiry into the reasons of their unaccustomed disappearance.
Verses 10-13
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
It is probable, as Kennicott suggests, that God had called more than once, or that the sound of the voice, since it was borne on the breeze, became louder in His advance through the garden. It was upon hearing the first accents of the well-known voice that they fled in precipitate confusion, and hid themselves; so that it was not until summoned anew that they were dragged from the covert in which they endeavoured to conceal themselves and their guilt.
I was afraid for I was naked. The sense of nakedness could not produce fear, because it was only the effect of sin. But Adam tried to evade any reference to the cause, by attracting attention to the effect. There is here an appearance of prevarication-the weak subterfuge of guilt. But concealment of the transgression was impossible; because as the knowledge of his nakedness could only have been acquired by Adam himself, his discovery of that fact afforded a strong presumption of his transgression, and accordingly he was immediately interrogated whether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit.
The language is equivocating, because he had formerly been in the divine presence in the same state, without any conscious feeling of agitation or dread. But it was only a prelude to other statements which were still more reprehensible. When interrogated as to whether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit, he tries studiously to palliate his own conduct and diminish his own criminality, while he is forced to make a tardy and partial admission of his guilt. There is a confession, indeed, reluctantly extorted; but the sin itself which he had committed, and of which, if he had had the spirit of a genuine penitent, he would have made mention at first, as well as acknowledged in all its aggravations, is not hinted until the last; and then, whilst his manner betrays such evident unwillingness to confess his guilt, the circumstance alleged as having been the occasion of his fall still further detracts from the value of his confession. His words evince a cold, selfish consideration of his own individual safety. Provided he could escape with impunity, he was content to leave his wife to reap the fruit of her misdeeds-nay, to be made the scape-goat in bearing the whole guilt and penalties of the transgression. It might be-it was undeniably true, that she had offered the fruit to him, and urged him to partake of it along with her; but that was no excuse. He had been placed in no circumstances of strong temptation; his curiosity had not been stimulated, his passions had not been roused, his understanding was unclouded. He knew, and in spite of all the insinuating arts of the woman to seduce him to eat of the forbidden fruit, he should have acted on the knowledge that it was his duty to obey God rather than listen to his wife. The reference to female influence, then, was an attempt of Adam to palliate his own guilt, as weak and unmanly as it was ungenerous.
But this was not all; because, with daring impiety, he tries to throw the blame of his fall even upon God Himself! His language was virtually this: 'So long as I continued alone, I was steadfast and immovable in my integrity and allegiance. But Thou didst alter my condition; and from the moment I was allied to the wife whom thou didst provide for me, I found elements of temptation and moral danger in domestic and social intercourse from which I was wholly free in my state of solitude.' Without noticing the reply of Adam, which was too foolish and groundless to deserve a response, the Divine Judge turned to the woman to hear what she should advance in her own behalf.
Verse 13. The serpent beguiled me - literally, deceived, imposed on me. No attempt was made at denial; because although she had not been caught in the act of plucking the forbidden branch, the evidences of guilt were already too plain and cumulative to afford her the slightest hope of establishing the plea of innocence. She therefore tacitly admitted the charge, but followed the example of her husband, in endeavouring to screen herself from the heavy penalties of her transgression, by throwing the blame of the whole transaction upon the serpent.
Thus, these poor creatures, so recently united in the closest bonds of mutual affection, are now severed in their distress, and stand aloof as accusers in their weak and desperate attempts at evading the personal consequences of their guilt. If Eve was the first involved in guilt, Adam was the greater sinner of the two, inasmuch as, without the pretext of temptation, or being carried away by the force of excited feelings, but in the most cool, deliberate manner, he partook of the forbidden fruit, and had the impious audacity to charge God with having laid a snare to entangle him through the baneful influence of the woman that had been given to him. In this, as in other respects, he was the type of all mankind, who in every age, and in all circumstances, have discovered an extreme proneness to say, 'when they are tempted, that they are tempted of God,' as if their abusing God's gifts would excuse the violation of His laws (James 1:13-14).
Verse 14-15
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Unto the serpent. The guilt of the several accomplices in the first act of disobedience having been clearly established, and no just plea being put forward in arrest of punishment, the Righteous Judge proceeded to pass sentence on each of the criminals in succession;-and beginning with the serpent, who being the prime instigator of the rebellion, was to receive no dispensation of mercy, to enjoy no prospect of mitigation, He pronounces upon him the doom of deep and hopeless degradation.
The Lord God said, Cursed art thou above all cattle, [Hebrew, hab
Verse 16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. This is by the figure Hendyades, because "thy sorrow" or pain "in conception." Woman's mission is that of bearing children, and the infirmities or sufferings incident to the female frame are greatly increased both in number and degree to those who are in the course of acquiring a maternal character. It is difficult, on physiological principles, to account for the various ailments of women during pregnancy, as well as the agonies attendant on parturition. It has been remarked that other creatures are commonly in a higher state of health and vigour during the period of gestation than at other times, and that they bring forth their offspring with comparative ease, while a woman forms a solitary exception; the most vigorous of the sex being frequently subject to much suffering, and even death, in the act of giving birth to their children.
And thy desire shall be to thy husband. Some connect this with the preceding clause, rendering it thus: 'Although in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, yet thy desire or longing shall be to thy husband.' Others translate, Unto thy husband shall be thy obedience;' meaning that the desires of the woman shall be subjected to the authority and will of her husband. And he shall rule over thee. The husband, as the head is naturally invested with superior right and authority, because "the woman was created for the man, as a helpmate, and consequently dependent on him (1 Corinthians 11:9). But these have been greatly increased since the fall, and the propriety or equity of this penalty to which woman was subjected consisted in this, that as it was while acting independently and apart from Adam she attempted to shake off her allegiance to God, she was, besides being bound by the primary law of obedience to God, brought also under the additional law of submission to the yoke of her husband. In every age of the world's history woman has been found in a state of subjection; in all pagan countries she has been the slave of man, as throughout the East at the present day she is his property-his possession by purchase.
Man exercises a lordship over the weaker sex, and although in Christian nations, where the sexes are more generally restored to their just and proper relations, a wife is raised to a position of greater dignity or honourable equality in rank and privilege, yet even there women are often doomed to bear much from the will, temper, or caprice of imperious husbands. And while the spirit of Christianity is wholly averse to lordly authority, the Gospel rule still is, so long as sin remains in the hearts of believers, "Let the wife see that she reverence her husband," "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord."
Verse 17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Unto Adam he said. The term Adam is used here as a proper name for the first time. Gesenius is of the opinion that, having almost always the prefix of the article, it is to be considered as an appellative, and equivalent to 'the human race;' yet there are exceptions (cf. Job 28:28; Job 31:33); and while, as we formerly observed, the whole tenor of the narrative in Genesis 2:1-25 points to an individual man, we find him in this verse addressed personally by his proper name of "Adam".
Cursed is the ground for thy sake. In the rich and smiling garden of Eden the vigorous and prolific soil yielded a spontaneous produce, and the industry of man was confined to the easy and pleasant work of checking or regulating the luxuriant growth of vegetation. This state, because anything we are told to the contrary, would have been perpetuated but for the disobedience of rebellious man, who, with the solemn warning of the penal consequences still ringing in his ears, transgressed, and with the loss of his innocence forfeited the happy place of his primeval abode. The awful curse of an offended God fell not, however, upon Adam himself, as it did upon the serpent, but upon the ground 'for his sake;' so that, as has been quaintly but justly remarked, he was cursed only "at second hand" (as there were blessings in reserve for him); and he found the immediate accomplishment of the curse in the changed character of the soil on which he had to work; because it was thenceforward niggard of its fruits, unless wooed into productiveness by the toil and culture of the fallen race.
Verse 18
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee - [ qowts (Hebrew #6975), a thorn (Ezekiel 28:24), but used here and Isaiah 32:13 collectively, and commonly in connection with dardar, rendered thistles (cf. Hosea 10:8), triboloi of the Septuagint, the calthropy of botanists, a kind of thistle armed with long spines]. This latter word is supposed to be derived from a root which signifies 'round,' in reference to its spherical form, or its being surrounded by a downy circlet, which makes it capable of easy and rapid revolution along the surface of the ground. The seed is furnished with means of quick and extensive dissemination, because it has a wing to waft it from place to place, and a hook by which it can fasten on any object that is in the way of its transit. Botanists have reckoned that a single seed of the common thistle will produce in the first crop 2,400, and 576,000,000 in the second crop, and so on in the same extraordinary ratio of increase. Thorns and thistles, which thus possess the natural property of reproducing themselves in so great profusion, are mentioned as prominent parts of the curse pronounced upon the earth for the sin of the first man; and experience shows that weeds of all kinds, particularly thorny or spinous plants, such as those mentioned here, which are the effects as well as the evidence of deteriorated physical conditions, would increase with such dangerous rapidity as to overrun the ground, if they were not eradicated or checked by the industry of man.
Verse 19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. "Bread" is here put for all that contributes to human sustenance; and since all classes of mankind are dependent on the soil for the necessaries as well as luxuries of life, the words of this clause intimate the source from which they were to derive their food, as well as the condition of hard, persevering, laborious exertion in which that food was to be obtained. The whole tenor of the context implies a great deterioration in man's condition. "The sweat of the face" was to be substituted for a light and pleasant pastime; "the herb of the field" for the delicious fruit trees of Eden; or, at all events, the grain and vegetables fit for the nourishment of man were no longer spontaneously produced, but were to be reared by careful and patient culture; while weeds and thorns, that would prevent the growth of esculent plants, would spread everywhere, unless the industry of man were constantly on the alert. Such was the sentence of labour pronounced upon man on account of his sin; and it was expressly added, at the moment of passing it, that it was not to be a temporary punishment, a corrective discipline, from which, on his evincing a spirit of true repentance, he should eventually be relieved; but one of which there should be no suspension, no mitigation, no end, so long as he continued an inhabitant of this world. Painful, harassing labour was henceforth to be the unalterable law and condition of his fallen nature, and never should he cease to be subject to this law, or to groan under the burden of this heavy yoke, 'until he returned to the ground.'
Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return. Physiologists tell us that all organized beings are subject to eventual dissolution; and consequently man, whose bodily frame comes under that description, would have been no exception to this physical law, but for the sustaining power of God conveyed to him, probably through the virtue imparted to the tree of life, by the leaves or fruit of which he was preserved from the inroads of decay. But this means of perpetuated life and vigour being immediately after the fall withdrawn, man became mortal; although he did not die the moment that he ate the forbidden fruit, his body underwent a change, or, rather, was left to the exhausting operation of natural causes. This sentence of death which was pronounced upon Adam included Eve also, and, through him, as the progenitor and representative of mankind, it fell in effect upon all his posterity (Romans 5:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:21). For his eating the forbidden fruit 'brought death into the world, and all our woe.' Death, indeed, is known to have taken place all along, in the pre-Adamite world, among the various orders of the inferior creatures; but man, in his primeval state, was exempted from its operation; and though his body, with its exquisitely formed nervous system, was capable of receiving pain from injuries, as well as, being made of dust, was liable, through the processes of nature, to resolve into dust again, it would have been preserved, had he remained innocent, in perpetual youth, health, and vigour, by the special grace and favour of God. But on his disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit, this supernatural privilege was forfeited: the first man, deprived not of an original and inherent property of his nature, but of a distinguishing token of the Creator's favour, which would have secured him the continued enjoyment of life, was, by a righteous doom, left to those laws of mortality to which all other creatures on earth are naturally subject; and his children, born under these altered circumstances, inherit, according to the established course of Providence, the mortal condition as well as the fallen nature of their parents.
Such were the sentences pronounced on the three parties connected with the temptation in Eden. While the Tempter, whose conduct was instigated by deliberate malice and wickedness, was doomed to an irremediable curse, the human criminals, who had been the victims of his seductive arts, were mercifully treated. The one having sinned in ignorance, and the other through weakness, were cheered with the hope of recovery from their lamentable fall; and while they were severely punished, the penalties inflicted on them tended, in their altered circumstances, to be virtually blessings to mankind.
Thus, the various acute and often protracted sufferings of woman during the time of child-bearing tend to draw out the affections of the female breast more strongly toward her offspring; while her subjection to her husband, though a memorial of the first transgression, yet, when softened and regulated by Christianity, renders her conduct as a wife a daily expression of delighting and delightful duty.
The toilsome labour to which man has been subjected is a needful discipline, which, though not good in itself, is yet good for his present condition, and what he could not do without. It is the means of developing the faculties of the mind, and of exercising the virtues and graces of the heart; of keeping man in constant wholesome employment, and so of leading him to fulfill the great end of his being by active diligence in the service of God. Again, the thorns and briers which desolate the ground are not only marks of divine wisdom and goodness, but admirably calculated to promote the general good. Nay, the whole tribe of weeds which infest the ground, and are prejudicial to the growth of roots, and vegetables, and grain, though they are to be regarded as part of the curse which the ground inherits for the sin of man, and are in reality a punishment, have been converted by the wise and merciful Creator into the means of producing important benefits to man. By the plentiful existence of these, and the imperative necessity of destroying them, industry is stimulated, ingenuity exercised, patience increased, the productive powers of the soil are augmented by the processes of labour, and thus the general good of society promoted.
Lastly, the goodness and mercy of God are displayed even in that part of the sentence which doomed man to 'return to the dust.' After he had fallen into a state of sin and misery, and been condemned to a life of toil and sorrow, what a dreadful aggravation of his punishment would it have been if his life had been protracted to an indefinite duration! But his life is short, and though it is probable, as the early records of the Bible seem to indicate, that the abridgment was gradual, yet, in mercy to man, his days, if they were to be full of labour and sorrow, were to be comparatively few. Death puts an end to all his labour. But since the promise of a Saviour was graciously given before that doom was pronounced, a cheering light was shed on the dark future of man, while the certainty of his dissolution, together with the uncertain period of its arrival, tends to keep alive in his mind the hope of another and better world, where sorrow and care, labour and pain, are unknown. In regard to these sentences pronounced on the human pair, infidels and Rationalists deny that they are punishments at all, and maintain that they are not real evils, but are the direct effects of those appointments of nature which God has established in the material world. But the obvious tenor of this passage, confirmed and illustrated by the inspired comments upon it which the later Scriptures contain, does represent the pain and labour, the sorrow and death, to which mankind are subjected as the penal consequences of sin; and since there is a difficulty in reconciling this Biblical account with what is the established course of the natural world, the true explanation seems to be, that God, foreseeing the fall of man, resolved from the beginning to adapt the state of the world for being the abode of a fallen yet redeemable race of creatures. While man, if he had continued in unbroken innocence and integrity, would have retained the happiness of primeval Eden, the earth would have worn one universal aspect of smiling beauty, and brought forth her fruits with rich and inexhaustible fertility, as did the virgin soil of the primeval garden-the Creator, anticipating that he would abuse his moral freedom by the commission of sin, transferred him from his paradisiacal state to the earth at large, which had been prepared, under deteriorated conditions, to be the temporary residence of such imperfect beings: and thus, while the present economy of the world is carried on according to the established laws of nature, the mixed character of natural and moral evil it exhibits is an arrangement to which it has been subjected as the penal consequence of man's transgression.
Verse 20
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
And Adam called his wife's name Eve - [Hebrew, Chawaah (Hebrew #2332); the Septuagint, Zooee (Greek #2222), life]. Adam had named her formerly (Genesis 2:23) in reference to her sex; now he distinguishes her by another name no less appropriate, however, to her circumstances, while it was a standing memorial, a prophetic intimation, of her important destiny to the whole of her fallen descendants. Formerly he had shown wisdom in naming the beasts; here he showed more than wisdom-namely, faith, and a perception of his better state. At first, as Lightfoot remarks, his wife must have appeared to be the mother of death, having done that which brought it among their posterity. But he, sensible of a better hope to come in by her, calls her "Eve" - i:e. life, since the word signifies "the mother of all living," preeminently of Christ, and all who live by Him (John 1:4). Thus, a whole history was comprised within the folds of a single word, and the name of Eve would, in the early ages of the world, preserve among the people of God the blessed hope of a Redeemer.
Verse 21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Coats of skins. The Hebrew [ kaat
Verse 22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Behold, the man is become as one of us. This was not spoken in irony, as is commonly supposed-an expression of feeling that might have suited the mind of Satan, not the character of God; but it was said in deep compassion. The words should be rendered, 'Behold what has (by sin) become of the man who was as one of us!' formed at first in our image, a holy and happy being: How sad his condition now!
To know good and evil - (see the note at Genesis 3:5.) This knowledge, if absolute, is a divine attribute; but man, who was created with the knowledge of good only, acquired by his transgression the experimental knowledge of evil also, and thenceforth brought himself, by that attempt at self-exaltation, into a state of sin and misery.
And now, lest he ... take ... of the tree of life. This tree being a sacramental sign or pledge of that immortal life with which obedience should be rewarded, man lost, on his fall, all claim to this tree; and therefore, that he might not delude himself with the idea that eating of it would restore the inner life of the soul, the Lord sent him forth from the garden. Although incapable, through want of faith, of deriving any spiritual virtue from the eating of its fruit, he might, if permitted to remain, have attempted, by continuing the need of it, to profane the ordinance of God, and was therefore righteously debarred from the sight, when he had forfeited the thing signified. Some think that there was a further reason for the expulsion; because if "the tree of life" possessed the special property of healing wounds, bruises, and preserving in perpetual health and rigour the natural life of man, his continuance in the immediate vicinity of this sovereign remedy against pain, disease, and death must, in his fallen condition, have been not only an unhappy privilege for him, but inconsistent with the economy which God was about to commence in the world. An earthly immortality would, in the condition of the fallen pair, have been a curse instead of a blessing. With a corrupted nature, affections misplaced, passions broken loose, and ready to instigate to the commission of atrocious crimes, of which the first family ere long furnished an example-with the labours and cares, the sorrows and miseries that had become their doom-an endless continuance in this world would have been an intolerable existence. Hence, longer residence in the vicinity of the tree of life was now impossible; because sin and death entered the world together; and it was, therefore, an act of mercy, no less than of justice, on the part of God, to remove the man from all access to a tree, the sight of which must have occasioned only a constant renewal of disappointment and bitter memories.
Verse 23
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth. The particular form of the Hebrew verb implies ejectment and dismissal, under the influence of moral displeasure, and is equivalent to the word used in the first clause of Genesis 3:24.
To till the ground from whence he was taken - literally, to labour in servile work on the ground. "Whence he was taken;" i:e., denoting either the original substance of his body, which was formed from the ground, or the place from which he had been removed on his introduction into the garden.
Verse 24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
And he placed at the east of the garden of Eden [ wayashkeen (Hebrew #7931)] - literally, he caused to dwell; stationed. (The root of the expression Shechinah is to be found in this verb.) [ hak