The Fall: The interchange among the man, the woman, and the serpent provides dramatic movement, and captures how motivation to disobey God rises from an inversion of the order of responsibility that God had established.
3:1–5 Act 2 of the drama begins with the introduction of a new actor, the serpent, one of the wild animals the LORD God had made (2:19). The serpent is described as more crafty (’arum) than the other animals. ’Arum makes a wordplay on “naked” (’arummim), which occurs in 2:25, and thus establishes a tie between the two acts.
“Crafty” can describe a positive trait (“prudent, clever, discerning”) or a negative trait (“cunning, wily”). When craftiness is used for ill, it leads to masterful manipulation of others (Exod. 21:14; Josh. 9:4; Job 5:12; 15:5; Ps. 83:3). But when it is used for good, this trait enables a person to escape evil and to perform remarkable deeds (Prov. 1:4; 12:23; 13:16; 14:8, 15; 22:3). As the most astute creature, the serpent held the highest position among the animals. Given its description as “more crafty,” it is not surprising that this creature, which represents the animals and the forces of nature, could speak.
The serpent initiated conversation with the woman. Her lack of surprise and the depth of the discussion suggest that this was not their first conversation. The serpent would have learned about God’s commands from the humans, and the only means the serpent had of influencing their behavior was reason. While the serpent could explore possibilities with humans, it had no means of coercing them to take a certain course. Consequently, whatever decision the humans would make was grounded in their wills, and they bore full culpability for that decision.
At the outset the serpent expressed its astonished disbelief that God would not let the humans eat fruit from the trees in the garden. Its skeptical approach drew the woman into discussion and opened her to considering that God might have acted out of self-serving motives. With this twisted assertion the inquisitor cast a shadow over God’s benevolence.
The woman wisely sought to correct the serpent by stating God’s two commands. She said that God had permitted them to eat from any tree. But in stating the prohibition she made three small alterations. She first added the restriction that a person must not touch the tree in the middle of the garden, an addition that made God’s command appear more stringent than it was. Next, in restating the permission and the penalty she left out the emphatic tone God had used, thereby softening God’s generosity (“you are free to eat” versus “we may eat”) and the consequence of violating the command (“you will surely die” versus “you will die”). Finally, in identifying this tree as the one in the middle of the garden, the woman perhaps elevated the importance of this tree above that of the tree of life (2:9). These small but important shifts indicate that the woman had been pondering about how to keep God’s command.
The serpent responded cunningly. Using an unusual word order, it cast doubt on whether death was the consequence of eating this fruit. We could translate its opening assertion as either “it is not certain that you will die” or you will not surely die (NIV). It is unclear whether the serpent was responding to God’s prohibition or to the woman’s reformulation of it. In the latter case the serpent would have been denying that touching the tree led to death. Then, if the woman ate of it, the serpent could claim that it had not really misled the woman about eating the fruit. By speaking so ambiguously, the serpent kept the woman off guard as it led her to doubt that eating this fruit would bring death.
The serpent then asserted that God had given this restriction in order to prevent humans from becoming like divine beings, knowing good and evil. With three potent arguments, the serpent sought to lead the woman and the man to believe that observing the prohibition was foolish. First, God did not intend to put to death anyone who ate of this tree, for like a jealous monarch, God was protecting himself by keeping from them knowledge that would raise their status to that of gods, or heavenly beings. Second, this fruit held the potential for finding self-fulfillment, leading to bold self-assurance in one’s own person. Third, eating it would bring them divine, esoteric knowledge. The serpent belittled God as unreasonable in limiting human pleasure and advancement with this prohibition. Rather than making a direct suggestion to disobey God’s command, the shrewd serpent indirectly enticed the woman to eat the forbidden fruit. After this exchange the serpent is not heard from again.
What did God not want humans to know? Of the many answers proposed, we will consider three. The first proposal is that the knowledge withheld was about cohabitation. Two details support this position: in the OT “know” may be used euphemistically for sexual intercourse, and eating the fruit made the couple acutely aware of their nakedness. Three facts, however, discount this view: God had instituted marriage for humans to bear offspring; “good” in the OT is never used with sexual overtones; and nakedness usually symbolizes vulnerability, poverty, or shame, not sexual activity (Ezek. 16:7, 22, 39 are exceptions; J. Magonet, “The Themes of Genesis 2–3,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden [ed. P. Morris and D. Sawyer; JSOTSup 136; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992], p. 43).
A second proposal is that if “good and evil” is an example of coupling opposite terms to express a totality, it means “total knowledge.” In that light God sought to withhold broad, comprehensive knowledge from humans, but Scripture does not support this view. On the contrary, the sages exhorted youths to get knowledge (Prov. 1:8; 4:7; 5:1–2).
The third proposal is that since “good and evil” often have a moral connotation, the issue at stake was moral knowledge. “Know” may be interpreted as “to have mastery over.” Thus humans were seeking to gain for themselves the prerogative of determining what was good and what was evil.
As humans have learned, gaining the freedom to determine what is good and evil has proven to be a heavy burden, because they must decide continually how they will use everything they have for good and not for evil. This burden is even heavier because the line of demarcation between good and evil is never sharp. This state of affairs explains why so many issues produce strong conflicts in society. When one group advocates a specific position out of concern for the greater good, it arouses resentment in another group at the potential hardship that position will cause the second group. Limited insight clouded by selfish interest leads humans to call good evil and evil good (Isa. 5:20). Whenever society defines an evil as good, a segment of that society suffers oppression.
3:6 On hearing the serpent’s argument, the woman pondered the arguments for and against eating the fruit of this tree. Three strong drives compelled her to eat: physical cravings, aesthetic attraction, and the pride of life or need for self-boasting (1 John 2:16). She perceived that the tree’s fruit was good for food, stirring within her the desire to taste something new and exotic. And she noticed that the tree was pleasing to the eye. The pleasure of having something beautiful tugged at her. She discerned that the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom that would give her mastery over her own destiny, that is, the human desire to boast in one’s achievements or position. These desires impelled her to take some of that fruit and eat it. She also gave some to her husband . . . and he ate it.
The terse description of this definitive act bypasses many questions that interest readers. What was the discussion between the couple? Did the man seek to dissuade the woman? Did the man encourage her to eat? In the garden the man and the woman were in such agreement that one did what the other did, as the wording “he was with her” conveys. In eating, the woman acted in harmony with the man, rather than as an individual set apart from him. This is visible in her use of plural forms in speaking with the serpent, showing that she was speaking for both of them. The serpent likewise used plural forms in addressing the woman. This last fact indicates that the man probably was in hearing range of the conversation between the serpent and the woman. Thus no scene recounts the woman’s seeking to influence the man to eat; they were in total accord.
3:7 The immediate consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge are vividly disclosed. Their act of self-assertion shattered the harmony humans had enjoyed with God, each other, the animals, and the environment.
Instantly becoming aware of their nakedness, the man and woman gathered fig leaves and made for themselves makeshift coverings. Ironically, the knowledge they acquired did not even give them the skill to make adequate clothing for themselves. Instead of being filled with the pride of achievement and becoming like gods, they were overwhelmed by a deep sense of inadequacy and disturbing self-consciousness.
3:8–13 When the couple heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid . . . among the trees. Their guilt made them ashamed and fearful of being in God’s presence, and the clothing they had made failed to provide them sufficient confidence to meet God. There is further irony here; in striving to become like God they no longer desired to be in God’s presence.
Failing to meet the couple in the usual way, the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” With this simple, open question God was eliciting some explanation for their unusual behavior. Full of guilt, the man answered that being afraid because he was naked, he had hidden. In seeking to excuse his hiding from God he unwittingly disclosed that he had disobeyed God. Picking up on the man’s new awareness, God asked him who had told him he was naked. God went on to ask if he had eaten from the restricted tree. Before admitting this, the man blamed the woman for having given him some fruit. In an effort to exonerate himself, the man put his relationship with his wife at risk. He even dared to blame God obliquely by identifying the woman as the one whom God had put with him in the garden. In striving to become like God the man now mistrusted those closest to him, his counterpart and his Maker.
Without answering the man, God turned to question the woman about what had happened. She likewise passed blame, claiming that the serpent had deceived her. This exchange vividly displays the human traits of making excuses and blaming others instead of acknowledging one’s own failure.
3:14–15 God cursed the serpent and the ground. He did not curse the humans but inflicted pain in their efforts to sustain life, bearing children and producing food. In pronouncing judgment God addressed the parties in inverted order: the serpent, the woman, and the man.
God refused to dignify the serpent by allowing it to account for its involvement in this act of disobedience. Nevertheless, by having encouraged the woman to question God’s motivation, the serpent was culpable. God therefore addressed the serpent, telling it that it was cursed and would crawl on its belly . . . and eat dust. “Eat dust” is a metaphor for the humiliation of the most exalted animal.
From then on there would be enmity between the serpent and the woman, between the offspring of both. “Offspring” (seed) is singular, connoting all offspring. Serpentine creatures would strike at the heel of humans, inflicting harm, but the offspring of women would defend themselves by striking a blow, often a fatal one, on the head of these creatures. Thus God gave humans the hope of mastering frightful serpents. Metaphorically, this statement meant that humans could rise above natural disasters and forces of evil to fulfill God’s commands.
A few late Jewish writers and the church fathers found in this verse a fuller meaning that would one day be realized in the Messiah, when a representative of all humans would strike the serpent, the representative of the forces that oppose God, with a fatal blow. That victory would put an end to the enmity between the serpent and humankind. As Scripture unfolds God’s design, it becomes clear that the one to achieve such a major victory is the Messiah (Rom. 16:20), but it would take centuries before any audience would see that meaning in this text.
3:16 To the woman God said that he would greatly increase her pains (’itsabon) in childbearing. In giving birth a woman brings forth new life, thereby finding her highest destiny as man’s complement as well as triumphantly challenging death. Furthermore, God informed the woman that from now on stress would exist between her and her husband. The woman would have “a desire” for her husband, and he in turn would rule over her. The use of “rule” intimates that the covenant of marriage (2:23–24) was altered from a reciprocal relationship to one in which a man exercises authority over a woman. In exercising that authority a husband too often inflicts pain on a woman. The woman’s “desire,” however, makes it hard for her to separate from a man even when she suffers domination or abuse. Alternatively, this “desire” may be interpreted to mean that the woman has a drive to master, even dominate, her husband (S. Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 [1974/75], pp. 376–83). Conflict arises between husband and wife as each party strives to dominate the other.
3:17–19 God next pronounced punishments against the man for acting as one with the woman in eating the fruit. The man’s responsibilities were to obey God and to encourage the woman in obeying God. In the excuses the man put before God there was no hint that he sought to dissuade her from eating this fruit. Thus he failed on two accounts: agreeing with the woman over disobeying God and eating from the tree of knowledge. God declared that the ground, the source of life-giving food, was cursed because of his act. In contrast to land that is blessed, meaning that it has water and is fertile (Lev. 26:4), land under a curse lacks water, is infertile, and is subject to a variety of plagues (Lev. 26:20). Thorns and thistles would grow so thickly that they would rob the soil of moisture and nutrients and choke out the food-bearing plants. Consequently, in working the ground to produce food for life, the man would experience pain (’itsabon) from his labor. This term for pain is the same as that for bearing children; similarly in English “labor “ is used for work and for bearing children. Thus God did not hold one more blameworthy than the other. The man would now work so hard at producing food that he would sweat freely. Affirmatively, God said that he would eat the plants of the field. God’s grace is continually evident, even in judgment.
God placed pain for males and females at the center of the human effort to sustain life. This pain counters the arrogance that motivates humans to build a society apart from God. It also continually reminds humans of their limitations, mortality, and alienation from and dependence on God.
Using an aphorism, God spoke about the inevitable death all humans must face as a consequence of this act of disobedience: dust you are and to dust you will return. The certainty of death for all humans is a penalty and not merely a natural process, for God had given humans unlimited access to the tree of life. Is there any connection between this aphorism and the penalty attached to the prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge? This question arises out of the glaring discrepancy between the penalty and its execution: the penalty for eating from the tree of knowledge implied that if any human ate of its fruit God would straightway set a time for putting to death the guilty, but the first couple lived for hundreds of years after their act of disobedience.
God acted differently from human expectations by displaying mercy in administering this judgment. Nevertheless, God enforced the penalty through a series of steps that eventuate in the inevitable death of every person who lives on earth. First, he pronounced penalties against the man and the woman that altered the character of their earthly life. The pain they experience in the course of sustaining life is the foretaste of death. That foretaste includes feelings of fear, alienation, and mistrust, all of which the first couple experienced after eating the fruit.
Second, God enforced the penalty by expelling Adam and Eve from the garden (vv. 22–24). Wenham likens their expulsion from the garden to the “cut off penalty” attached to several cultic laws (Genesis 1–15, p. 74; e.g., Lev. 20:17–18). That penalty deprived a person of access to the tabernacle, God’s presence, and community support. In antiquity, whoever was cut off from the support and protection of the community faced a bleak future and mortal danger. Expulsion from the garden was therefore a type of death penalty, underscored here by the loss of access to the tree of life (3:22).
Third, the couple lost access to the abundant supply of food in the garden and had to work the stubborn soil for a seasonal harvest of food that too often was hardly sufficient for the needs of their family. Having to toil in order to live in a harsher environment, the first couple keenly felt the sting of these penalties in daily living. That is, outside the garden the couple continually experienced a foretaste of death.
God’s manner of executing this penalty illustrates his character. God acted in mercy, allowing the humans to continue to live. God was true to his word in initiating punishments that led to the eventual execution of the penalty as well as providing a foretaste of death. Thus God carried out the penalty in a sequence of steps: the curses and the punishments, expulsion from the garden, and death itself.
3:20 Adam named (qara’ shem) the woman Eve, that is, “life,” for she was to become the mother of all the living. By giving her this name Adam asserted that despite the curses pronounced against them the woman would fulfill the destiny of motherhood for which God had designed her and that he had obligations, such as loving her and protecting her, so that she would become the mother of all living. Since the woman receives a name here, this commentary translates ’adam (“man”) by the proper name Adam when referring to the first man. From this point on the first couple functioned as two individuals rather than as representatives of all humans.
3:21 God graciously gave the couple garments of skin to replace the flimsy coverings they had made from fig leaves. These new garments clothed them, providing warmth and protection. God was preparing them for the harsher environment outside the garden as well as providing them sufficient covering to be in the divine presence. With this gift God, acting as their sustainer, expressed his intention to continue to support and fellowship with humans.
3:22–24 The final scene contrasts sharply with the opening scene, in which God placed Adam in the garden. Here God banished the first couple from the garden of Eden to prevent their eating from the tree of life and being able to live forever (2:5–17). Using the plural “us” here for the divine beings, God observed that humans had become like divine beings, knowing good and evil. Outside the garden Adam and Eve settled down to work the ground. On the east side of the garden, that is, at the entrance, God placed . . . cherubim and a flaming sword in order to keep anyone from having access to the tree of life.
Additional Notes
3:1 The serpent’s reasoning ability and its hostility toward God outdistance its description as a mere creature of the garden. Nevertheless, this narrative does not address the origin of evil. There is no allusion to any cosmic force being responsible for the disobedience of the humans and no hint of cosmic dualism. As Kidner says, “The chapter speaks not of evil invading, as though it had its own existence, but of creatures rebelling” (Genesis, p. 67). Whatever hostility exists against God comes from the creatures God has made, and they bear the full responsibility for disobeying God.
There have been many proposals to identify the serpent further, usually as Satan. The idea of Satan as God’s cosmic foe, however, did not develop until much later, sometime in the postexilic era (e.g., 1 Chron. 21:1; Zech. 3:1–2). Furthermore, it is not surprising that in time this serpent became a symbol of Satan, for the behavior of this serpent parallels that of Satan. In any case, the narrator did not connect the serpent and Satan.
3:5 Whereas NIV reads “like God,” it is better to read “like divine beings,” for the following Hb. verb is pl. and in 3:22 God used the pl. “us” when he said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”
3:15 Even though in the MT (Masoretic Text, the received Hb. text of the OT) the two verbs “crush” and “strike” are spelled the same, scholars debate whether or not they come from the same root. Most take both occurrences of the verb from shup (“crush, bruise”). The use of the same verb conveys that each opponent will strike the other with similar enmity; the differences will be in the part of the body struck, namely, the head of serpent(s) and the heel of human(s). Some scholars, however, take the second occurrence of the term from another root, sha’ap (“crush, trample on”), so NIV. Unfortunately the use of two different words to translate shup obscures the intent of the author in using the same spelling both times.
Only by joining this word of deliverance to the promise of salvation through David’s line does it have messianic significance (Rom. 16:20; 1 Tim. 2:15; Heb. 2:14; Rev. 12). When this text was composed, such a defined way of fulfilling this hope was beyond the purview of the author.
3:19 In understanding the penalty of 2:17 some translators render the Hb. literally (“in the day that,” NRSV), thus exacerbating the surface discrepancy between the penalty and its execution. It is better to translate the phrase “when,” as does the NIV. Another explanation for easing this tension, namely, that “you will die” means “you will become mortal,” falls before the fact that the penalty is stated in a definitive legal formulation.
3:20 Does the one who names another have authority over the one named? There have been opposing answers to this question, both supported with good arguments. Many scholars answer in the affirmative (D. Clines, What Did Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament [JSOTSup 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992], pp. 37–39), and others have argued the opposite (P. Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” JAAR 41 [1973], p. 38). The social structure primarily defines the authority that one party has over another, and that structure often invests the one in authority with the right of naming subordinates. It is also possible that one may be given the privilege of naming for other reasons, as when Jacob’s wives name their respective children (29:31–30:24). Their authority over the children was secondary to Jacob’s and lasted only while the children were growing up.
When God instructed the man to name the animals, man’s authority over those animals rested in God’s placing him in that role, not in his naming them. Did the man have some authority over the woman in giving her a name? The answer is a modified yes, for in marriage a man forms a close alliance with a woman and takes on certain responsibilities for her welfare. In turn, she owes him loyalty. His authority, though, is limited by his accepting her as a person just like himself.
Excursus: Reflections on the Disobedience of Adam and Eve
With brief, well-defined scenes the narrator has told a story with profound insight into the human dilemma. This account informs humans why death is inevitable. It also teaches us why humans have no one to blame for the hardships of life and for death save themselves. It explains why humans are at odds with the animal world, are estranged from God, and find tensions even in the closest family relationships. Nevertheless, this account leaves us with some major questions.
First, is the account in Genesis 2–3 history? Did this event take place? The account lacks crucial information necessary for it to qualify as a record of a historical event; there is insufficient information about the people involved, the location, or the date. The absence of such essential data tells us that the narrator had a greater purpose. Through symbols, wordplays, and structural design, the narrator addressed the human predicament. The man and the woman (Adam and Eve) represent every man and every woman. These two humans were not individuals acting privately. Their desires, their actions, their responses, and consequently their punishments characterize the experience of all humanity. In the words of J. Walsh, “On a deeper level, every hearer identifies with this ‘man and this woman’ not finally but personally. The sin depicted is not simply the first sin; it is all human sin; it is my sin. And I who hear the tale am forced to acknowledge that my sin too has cosmic dimensions; my sin too is an attack on creation and an establishment of moral chaos” (“Genesis 2:4b–3:24: A Synchronic Approach,” JBL 96 [1977], p. 177). Symbolic language, therefore, allows this account to function as a mirror in which all readers see their own reflections.
The movement of action in Genesis assumes that something took place in the garden with dramatic and long-lasting implications for all of humanity. The following events, especially Cain’s murder of Abel and the increase of violence in society to such an intolerable level that God had to inundate the earth, become explicable and necessary as an outgrowth of the sin of the first humans. For the Apostle Paul the first humans’ disobedience is a key element in his theology of redemption (Rom. 5:12–14). Jesus, the second Adam, overcame their failure to provide salvation for all. To classify the dual purposes of this text Wenham uses the terms “protohistorical” and “paradigmatic” (Genesis 1–15, p. 91). Protohistorical defines the first act of disobedience as a real event that took place before recorded history, and paradigmatic means that the presentation depicts a typical human pattern.
Another important issue concerns the nature of the relationship God intended for a man and a woman in marriage. Did God place the woman in a subordinate role to the man? The drama shows elements of similarity and dissimilarity in the roles of the genders. Those that are similar enable a man and a woman to become companions, while those that are distinct enable each gender to make a different, vital contribution to their life together.
The text supports both genders having equal standing: the woman was made to correspond to the man; the woman and the man acted in accord in eating the forbidden fruit; and God used the same terms for pain or labor in the respective penalties pronounced on the woman and the man for their disobedience. Some data, however, illustrate the qualities and abilities distinctive to each gender. The man has the task of producing food to support his family. God put the man in the garden to till and keep it (2:15), referred to working the soil (3:17–19), and sent the man from the garden with the task of tilling the ground (3:23). The woman complements the man by bearing children. The nature of her punishment (3:16) and the name Eve, “the mother of all living” (3:20), confirm this role. Her role is crucial, for it guarantees the continuance of the human family on earth (3:16). These differences, rather than elevating one gender over the other, enable each gender to make a true contribution to the other. In living together a man and a woman discover their true humanness. This is the ideal picture.
In disobeying God the first couple jeopardized the ability of a male and a female to establish an ideal union. There are many evidences of the changes from the ideal after they ate the forbidden fruit. Even before God pronounced their punishments, changes in the couple’s relationship were evident. They devised makeshift coverings to hide their nakedness from each other. That they no longer completely trusted each other surfaces in their answers to God’s inquiries. Each cast blame on the other. This tension is also prominent in God’s punishment of the woman (3:16); the wording her “desire” and his “rule” describes the conflict that would arise from each seeking to dominate the other.
For the Christian these punishments affecting the relationship of a woman and a man must be read in light of Christ’s work, for Christ came to overcome these curses. Marriage for the believer is to be characterized by love modeled after Christ’s self-sacrificing love (Eph. 5:25, 28–30). Such love, acting as an antidote against the drive for one gender to dominate the other, casts out all abuse. Having been redeemed by Christ, both marriage partners can love and honor each other responsibly. Together they build a sound family unit that moves toward the ideal of Genesis 2:21–24. God’s goal is for a husband and a wife to have an upbuilding relationship in which they truly become one flesh.
The discord between male and female that took place in Eden has continued into today’s gender struggles. Speaking broadly, the gender with political power (male) has sought to impose social structures that promote its dominance, and the so-called inferior or weaker gender has suffered social oppression as a result. This alienation between the genders and the resulting suffering has its roots in human sin. Such discord does not belong to God’s ideal design. But Jesus’ death reversed the sin of the first couple. He paid the ultimate penalty so that now in Christ no person has higher standing or power by reason of being either male or female (Gal. 3:28). While this truth has begun to be released in society as a powerful ideal, it has a long way to go before it is fully realized.
