Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
God gave the first humans authority over the Garden and the Planet Earth (Gen. 1:28). They should have had the faith to throw the Serpent out of the Garden, but instead, the Serpent throws them out.
Satan is a masterful debater. Watch how he argues with Eve—even with just a few short words. He uses half-truths, subtle questioning, and attacks on the character of God. Once he implants his idea into the couple’s mind, they are captivated with it and later captive to it. This interaction shows the power of truth, and how we need to take our thoughts captive (2 Cor. 10:5).
(3:1) “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, ‘Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?’”
This is no ordinary Serpent. For one, the word “Serpent” has the definite article (“the serpent”).[1] Second, he can talk! Third, he’s a theologian who knows about God’s words (Gen. 2:17; 3:4). Fourth, he will be crushed by one of Eve’s descendants. The text doesn’t say that his seed will be crushed by her seed. Rather, one of Eve’s descendants will crush the Serpent himself. This implies that he will live for a long time. Fifth, God addresses him as a personal being, describing “all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:15). Sixth, the word “serpent” (nāchash) is similar to the word for “divination” or “omens” (Num. 23:22; 24:1).[2] The verbal form “divined” (nāḥaš) is also similar (Gen. 30:27, 44:5, 44:15, Lev. 19:26, Deut. 18:10). This could be a literary connection with occult practice. In the ancient Near East, snakes “were symbolic of life, wisdom, and chaos.”[3] Seventh, extrabiblical sources held that this figure was Satan himself: “Through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it” (Wisdom of Solomon 2:24).
In the NT, we see that the “Serpent” is none other than Satan himself. John writes, “The great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world” (Rev. 12:9; cf. 20:2). Jesus said, “[The devil] was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn. 8:44; cf. Mt. 23:33). This reference to the “beginning” seems to point to Genesis 3. Other NT references assume that this narrative was historical as well (Rom. 16:20, 2 Cor. 11:3-4, 1 Tim. 2:14).
But how should we understand this reference to the Serpent’s form? Two views are prominent:
- OPTION #1. Satan possessed this Serpent. If Satan can possess human beings, then he surely could possess an animal. In fact, according to the gospels, demons possessed a herd of pigs (Mt. 8:31-32; Mk. 5:12-13; Lk. 8:33). So, this concept has biblical precedent. A spiritual being like Satan could talk through a serpent just as easily as God could talk through a donkey (Num. 22:21-33), a burning bush (Ex. 3:4), or a human being (1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Cor. 5:20). Kidner,[4] Collins,[5] Ross,[6] and Lennox[7] hold this view. To be clear, Moses didn’t believe that serpents can speak, any more than he believed donkeys can speak. Elsewhere, Moses writes, “The LORD opened the mouth of the donkey” (Num. 22:28). This view holds that a supernatural agency needed to make the serpent talk. In this case, Satan possessed this creature.
- OPTION #2. This language of “the Serpent” is a metaphorical title for Satan himself. First, metaphorical language surrounds the Serpent. Snakes eat mice—not dust (Gen. 3:14). This is most likely language used for being defeated by God because the psalmist writes that the enemies of the king will “lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9). Moreover, this Serpent has “seed” (zeraʿ) or descendants that are hostile to Eve’s descendants (Gen. 3:15). Surely, Satan’s “seed” are metaphorical. Second, God had already created “creeping things” that crawled on their bellies, and he called them “good” (Gen. 1:24-25). Yet this Serpent is punished by being sent to crawl on the ground (Gen. 3:14). Third, if a literal serpent started talking to Eve, we might imagine her running for her life, screaming, “What on Earth?! I just saw a talking snake!” Would Satan have taken the form of a snake, or would he appear as a beautiful being? (2 Cor. 11:14; Ezek. 28:13-15) Thus Walter Kaiser writes, “The designation ‘the serpent’ is probably a title, not the particular shape he assumed or the instrument he borrowed to manifest himself to the original pair.”[8] In this view, while the events of Genesis 3 are historical, it is possible that there is some symbolism in the text that describes this Serpent.
What do we learn about Satan?
He is a created being. Just as God “made” (ʿasah) the world and humans in the previous chapters, God also “made” (ʿasah) the Serpent (Gen. 3:1).
He is an intelligent being. He is “more crafty” than any other beast of the field. “Crafty” (ʿārûm) can be understood as a positive virtue of the wise (Prov. 12:16; 13:16) or as a negative quality (Job 5:12; 15:5; Ex. 21:14; Josh. 9:4). Satan was given an incredible mind. But since he fell, his mind twisted into a perverted and sadistic intellect.
He is an enemy of God. Angels like Satan witnessed the glory of creation (Job 38:4-7), and now, Satan was watching God give dominion of this glorious creation over to these measly human beings (Gen. 1:28)! It must have been too much for him to bear. To deceive the first humans into abandoning God, Satan needed to properly accuse God’s character, rather than making a powerful display of authority.
He hates humanity. Since Satan cannot attack God, he sets his sights on those God loves. The term “crafty” (ʿārûm) is wordplay with the word “naked” (ʿārôm) in Genesis 2:25.[9]
He attacks God’s character and God’s word. Remarkably, he never tells these humans to eat the fruit! Instead, he undercuts their foundation by attacking God’s character. Like the film Inception (2010), Satan places ideas in their minds that germinate and take root, eventually destroying them.
Satan subtly refers to God as “God” (ʾĕlōhîm, i.e. the Creator), rather than as the “LORD” (Yahweh, i.e. the Covenant-Maker). Wenham writes, “God is just the remote creator, not Yahweh, Israel’s covenant partner.”[10]
“Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” This is not so much a question as it is an “expression of shock and surprise.”[11] It is a skeptical and cynical attitude toward God’s incredible provision and the freedom he gave to humanity. In reality, God said the complete opposite: “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely” (Gen. 2:16). Satan makes God’s nearly universal freedom to be a universal negation. Indeed, he omits the word “freely” from his citation of God’s words. Moreover, this “incredulous tone… smuggles in the assumption that God’s word is subject to our judgment.”[12]
(3:2-3) “The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”
Eve immediately begins to lose the battle. To begin, she doesn’t mention “every” tree that they were to “freely” eat. Second, she refers to “God” (ʾĕlōhîm), rather than the “LORD” (Yahweh). Thus, she is mimicking Satan’s words, rather than returning to God’s word. Third, she adds restrictions that God never added (“You shall not… touch it, or you will die”). This is the first recording of faulty religious thinking, which seems to make the “prohibition more stringent.”[13] Consequently, she is already revealing (1) a low view of God’s provision, (2) a low view of God, and (3) a hyper-restrictive view of God’s will.
(3:4) “The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die!’”
Satan never tells the woman to eat the fruit. Instead, he carefully persuades her that God is not good, and his word is not trustworthy.
The first doctrinal heresy in the Bible is a denial of God’s judgment (“You surely will not die!”). Today, God’s judgment is still denied by many skeptics and so-called Christian teachers.
(3:5) “‘For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’”
The Serpent claims to know the motives of God. That is, he claims to know the omniscient mind of God: “Implicit here is the suggestion that the serpent knows God better than the woman does, for he can penetrate his mind and claim to know what God knows.”[14]
The Serpent claims that God is holding back on humanity’s full potential. Hamilton writes, “The serpent intends to place before her the possibility of being more than she is and more than God intended her to be.”[15]
Does the knowledge of good and evil refer to the discovery of sexual shame? Some commentators[16] hold that the eating of the forbidden fruit refers to sex. After all, the first humans realize that they were naked (Gen. 3:7), and the word “knowledge” or “know” (yādaʿ) is also used for sexual intimacy. This view is wrong. The unavoidable problem with this perspective is that it would apply to God! Later, God says, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:22). Furthermore, the language of “leaving and cleaving” precedes the Fall (Gen. 2:24). Sex isn’t depicted as sinful in the Genesis account (or the rest of the Bible for that matter).
The knowledge of good and evil refers to the desire for “moral autonomy.”[17] The original sin—in fact, the root of all sin—was the desire to be “like God.” We’d rather be at the center of the universe, than accept a good world where God rules. Hamilton writes, “What is forbidden to man is the power to decide for himself what is in his best interests and what is not. This is a decision God has not delegated to the earthling… Man has indeed become a god whenever he makes his own self the center, the springboard, and the only frame of reference for moral guidelines. When man attempts to act autonomously he is indeed attempting to be godlike. It is quite apparent why man may have access to all the trees in the garden except this one.”[18]
Sadly, the first humans didn’t remember that God had already made the two of them “like” himself. He made humans in his image and “likeness” (Gen. 1:26).
(3:6) “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”
“The woman saw that the tree was good for food.” The word “good” (ṭôb) is a double entendre that can refer to “beautiful” or “moral.”[19] The beautiful fruit turned Eve away from what was truly good. Up until this point, God was the one who saw what was “good” (ṭôb, Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 25, 31). Here the woman is usurping God’s role, determining “the good” for herself.
People often call “sin” an “accident,” a “mistake,” or a “confusion.” Not true! An “accident” is when I bump my elbow into a glass of milk, spilling it on the floor. A “mistake” is when I think that 6 times 7 equals 45. Sin is nothing like this! There weren’t a multitude of laws that would confuse them—only one. Grabbing, eating, and chewing the fruit was a deliberate, volitional choice—not a mere accident or mistake.
In reality, every other tree that God had created was “pleasing to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:9). Why was this tree so unique? It wasn’t the fruit, but Eve’s distrust of God.
Once the distorted beliefs were created, the behavior followed almost immediately. The battle was lost based on their beliefs about God and his word. Sailhamer notes, “How quickly the transgression comes once the decision has been made!”[20] The deceit led to desire which led to death.
“She gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” Adam was standing there the entire time! In Hebrew, Satan addresses the couple with the plural “you,” which also implies that Adam was standing there. What was he doing? What was he thinking? Nothing! A malevolent and powerful being was attacking his wife, and Adam did nothing! The passivity of Adam has passed down to all of his sons throughout history, doing nothing in the presence of sin and evil.
(3:7) “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.”
God had “made” an entire world and universe for humanity (1:7, 1:11, 1:26, 1:31; 2:18). Here, the humans “made” something for themselves: loincloths.
“Naked” (ʿêrōm) is different than the word “naked” (ʿārôm) in Genesis 2:25. This term is used of God’s punishment (Deut. 28:48).[21] These first humans were able to cover the consequences of their sin to some extent, but they couldn’t cover the sin itself.
(3:8) “They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.”
Instead of walking with God like Enoch (Gen. 5:24), Noah (Gen. 6:9), and Abraham (Gen. 17:1; 24:40), the first humans are hiding from God in the trees. They tried their best to hide their nakedness from each other, and now, they try to hide from God himself.
Satan and Eve were discussing “God” (Elohim) in their conversation, but Moses reintroduces Him as the “Lord God” (Yahweh Elohim). God still wants to make a covenant with his people. The sound is most likely God calling out to them—not his footsteps (Gen. 3:9).[22] They were scared of God’s voice as he called to them. What used to be a pleasant sound has become terrifying.
This is similar to how the Israelites were afraid of the sound of God at Mount Sinai (Deut. 5:25; 18:16; Ex. 20:18-21). There, the people pled with Moses, “Do not have God speak to us or we will die!” (Ex. 20:19 NIV) People continue to flee in fear from the sound of God’s call today. They still wonder if they should trust him or run and hide from him.
(3:9) “Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’”
“Where are you?” God begins by asking where, rather than why. He wants to draw this couple out of the brush, so he begins with an innocuous question.
One of my professors alleged that God is not pictured as omniscient because he needs to ask this question. He said, “God can’t be all-knowing because he doesn’t know where Adam and Eve went.” Of course, this is simply nonsense. In the very next chapter, God asked Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” (Gen. 4:9) However, when Abel lied to him, God already knew the answer to his own question (v.10). Furthermore, a little common sense would go a long way: Have critics of the Bible never related to a child who is in trouble? Have they never asked a classroom a question to get them thinking? Have they never seen a good counselor asking a question to a counselee to get them to think for themselves? Surely God asked this question to give these frightened humans an opportunity to come forward and confess.
(3:10) “He said, ‘I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.’”
What sort of answer is this? It seems more like an accusation than an explanation. To paraphrase, Adam is saying, “If you weren’t so scary and intimidating, I wouldn’t have hidden from you!”
We are naturally still afraid to come into God’s presence after we sin. We are like so many cockroaches who scatter under the appliances when the lights come on (Jn. 3:19-20). It is our sinful reflex to run from God. We can either approach God out of fear or out of faith (1 Jn. 4:18-19).
Adam says, “I hid myself,” rather than “we hid ourselves.” We are already seeing that there is relational separation between the first couple.
(3:11) “And He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’”
“Who told you that you were naked?” Surely, being naked is something that you already know, and you don’t need someone to tell you this! God knows the answer to this question before he asks it, and he follows this with a second question to see if the first humans will see the source of their sin: themselves. Hamilton writes, “Tather than charge the man with transgression, God allows the man himself to acknowledge his crime. Thus this question urges confession rather than condemnation.”[23]
Because of his order of questioning, we can assume that God views Adam as the most responsible, Eve as the second most responsible, and Satan as the third most responsible. Paul surely places the guilt primarily with Adam—not Eve (Rom. 5:12ff).
Why does God question the first humans, but not the Serpent? Waltke[24] notes that he has no need to question Satan because Satan has already rejected God’s redemption.
(3:12) “The man said, ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.’”
God gave the woman to Adam as a precious gift of love (Gen. 2:22). It was not good for Adam to be alone (Gen. 2:18), so God gave him Eve. And when Adam first met Eve, he burst into poetry (Gen. 2:23). Now, all of those memories have been twisted and distorted by sin.
In Hebrew, the “she” is emphatic.[25] To paraphrase, Adam is saying, “I only took what she gave me!”[26] He is emphatically blaming his wife, spitting the words venomously at God. Adam is using God’s good provision against God in his argument, blaming God for the catastrophe in which he finds himself. He needed to learn the lesson that each person is responsible for their actions (Jas. 1:13).
Adam confesses his sin (“…and I ate”), but this is only after blame shifting and making numerous qualifications. God doesn’t take this as an authentic confession because it is prefaced by such vitriol. Similarly, people today will admit their faults, but often only after finger pointing at everyone else in the process. This is why Jesus tells us to “first” get the log out of our own eye (Mt. 7:3-5). Adam—like many people today—has this order reversed.
(3:13) “Then the Lord God said to the woman, ‘What is this you have done?’ And the woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’”
Like Adam, Eve needs to blame someone other than herself—in this case, the Serpent. Also, like Adam, she admits that she ate the fruit, but only after blame shifting and finger pointing. But no one can get away with the excuse “the devil made me do it.” Satan doesn’t force us, but only persuades us.
(3:14) “The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go and dust you will eat all the days of your life.’”
Further wordplay occurs: the Serpent goes from being “crafty” (ʿārûm) to being “cursed” (ʾārûr). Furthermore, the Serpent is doomed to eat dust. Boice comments, “Satan ate dust then. He will always eat it. For even in Isaiah’s great description of earth’s golden age it is said, ‘The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent’s food’ (Isa. 65:25).”[27]
Is this a mythological explanation for how serpents lost their legs? No, this is not mythological (or etiological) literature, but rather, it is metaphorical language for the Serpent’s judgment. For one, snakes do not literally eat dust, but mice, lizards, etc. Second, this language is “rhetorically high (set as poetry in English Bibles).”[28] Third, other passages in the OT use this language to refer to judgment and humiliation.[29]
“[The evil nations] will lick the dust like a serpent, like reptiles of the earth. They will come trembling out of their fortresses; to the LORD our God they will come in dread and they will be afraid before You” (Mic. 7:17; cf. Isa. 65:25).
“Why do You hide Your face and forget our affliction and our oppression? 25 For our soul has sunk down into the dust; our body cleaves to the earth” (Ps. 44:24-25).
“Let the nomads of the desert bow before [the king of Israel], and his enemies lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9).
“The unassailable fortifications of your walls He will bring down, lay low and cast to the ground, even to the dust” (Isa. 25:12).
Fourth, this describes an ongoing battle in the future, making it prophetic. Matthews writes, “This is no etiology designed to explain why man abhors snakes since the verse indicates there is a future history for the serpent and the woman.”[30]
Therefore, the language of “dust you will eat” refers to judgment, humiliation, and terror. Likewise, the language of “on your belly you shall go” refers “not to the mode of travel but to cringing”[31] and perhaps bowing in submission. Kidner rejects the view that this is “merely aetiology” for “how the serpent lost its legs.”[32] Instead, this shows how this is symbolic of defeat. This is similar, he argues, to the “significance,” not the “existence,” of the rainbow in Genesis 9:3. The curse of the Serpent utilizes symbolic language.[33]
Moreover, this is a crucial crossroads in the text. Can we really believe that the lesson is merely how snakes lost their legs? To call this interpretation juvenile would be an insult to young people everywhere! Rather, we agree with Sailhamer who writes, “It is, however, unlikely that at such a pivotal point in the narrative the author would intend no more than a mere reference to snakes and their offspring and the fear of them among humanity.”[34]
Young Earth Perspective: YECs see this passage as describing a physiological change in snakes. Sarfati writes, “We see here the first signs that Adam’s sin would have cosmic impact. The animals were also cursed, but the serpent ‘above all’ with symbols of utter degradation. The serpent would slither on its belly, i.e. creep, which later was one mark of an unclean animal (Leviticus 11:42). So one result of sin was that God somehow changed the snake’s body—and its DNA along with it—so that snakes from that day forth would always slither.”[35] Again, we see that the YEC hermeneutic easily results in hyperliteralism. Why would God curse a physical race of snakes for something that Satan did? Rather than seeing this as judgment for Satan, they see this as a cursing for all snakes everywhere.
Young Earth Perspective: While noting that snakes eat animals and not dust, Sarfati writes, “Snakes literally do eat dust as well. In the roof of a snake’s mouth, there is an organ called the vomeronasal organ (VNO) or Jacobson’s organ. Like the sense of smell, it is a system designed to detect many different kinds of chemicals. But the VNO specializes in non-volatile chemicals, so requires direct physical contact. The snake achieves this with its forked and constantly flicking tongue. This picks up dust on the points of the fork, then carries the samples to the matching pair of sensory organs inside the mouth. As with many features of animals in this fallen world, this could have been an adaptation of an existing design, or latent design features that God activated at the Fall.”[36] This is quite interesting, but the text states that snakes will “eat” dust—not merely collect it for their sensory organs.
(3:15) “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”
Some hold that the term “seed” (zeraʿ) refers to male “semen.” This is clearly not true. The word clearly has a broader semantic range, because women can have “seed” (Gen. 16:10; 24:60; 1 Sam. 1:11). Moreover, the “seed” of the Serpent must refer to non-literal descendants—not literal offspring.
Does this passage predict the coming of Jesus?
Yes! Indeed, we think so for a number of reasons:
First, the grammar points to a singular person. “His heel” is masculine singular in Hebrew. There were only two people living in the Garden at this time, and Adam never crushed the Serpent’s head. Moreover, the text uses the future tense: “He will crush your head” (NIV). Therefore, a future male person is being predicted.
Second, it occurs immediately after the moral Fall. Fruchtenbaum correctly observes, “It is no surprise that the very first messianic prophecy should occur within the context of the Fall. If sin had not entered the world, there would never have been a need for a redeeming Messiah.”[37]
Third, Eve’s “seed” doesn’t crush the Serpent’s “seed.” Rather, her seed crushes the Serpent himself.
Finally, Paul applies this passage to the Body of Christ (Rom. 16:20; cf. Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:13; Lk. 10:16; 1 Pet. 4:11; Acts 9:4). The Church is in the process of conquering the effects of the Serpent, and finally, Jesus himself will throw the Serpent into hell (Rev. 20:10).
(3:16) “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’”
God designed a marvelous gift for the man and the woman: A permanent love relationship that would result in bringing about children (Gen. 1:28; 2:18, 21-25). Now, all of that was scarred and marred by the Fall. Originally, the first humans were created to rule the world with benevolent leadership. How far they have fallen now! Instead of ruling the world as loving leaders, they turn on each other in an “attempt to rule each other.”[38]
Does God sanction men ruling over their wives? No. This passage is descriptive—not prescriptive. It is a picture of the Curse apart from God—not a picture of God’s ideal picture of marriage. The Hebrew word “desire”(tĕšûqâ) comes up later with the same grammatical construction in Genesis 4:7 (“sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”). Here, it is clear that the two parties are fighting to dominate and rule over one another. Kidner writes, “‘To love and to cherish’ becomes ‘To desire and to dominate’.”[39]
This is obviously not God’s ideal, and neither are painful child births and painful labor. We should mitigate against such sinful, controlling behavior, just as we would by giving an epidural to a birthing woman or a weedkiller in our lawn.
If we want God’s ideal, we see this before the Fall in that both were made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27) and both were mutually corresponding and complementing each other (Gen. 2:18-20). Eve was supposed to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28) and also to correspond with her husband (Gen. 2:18). Now, sadly, the pain of childbirth will increase, and her husband will rule over her. Men are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). Apart from God, however, men often abuse and dominate their wives.
Sadly, God’s description of this battle between husbands and wives is still disintegrating marriages today. Spousal abuse expert Chris Moles states that 85% of abuse victims are female, and the other 15% are often related to abused women reacting to their abuser. For further reading, see our earlier article “Christianity and Women.”
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children.” Matthew writes, “Painful childbirth signals hope but also serves as a perpetual reminder of sin and the woman’s part in it.”[40]
(3:17) “Then to Adam He said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”
Even though Eve played a role in Adam’s fall, God didn’t blame Eve for Adam’s free choice. Rather, God held Adam responsible for his own actions. All of the blame shifting and finger pointing was for nothing. While other people might influence us to sin or even give us the opportunity to sin, we are still held responsible for our choices.
Before the Fall, humans had free reign to “eat freely” from God’s luxurious creation (Gen. 2:16). Now, however, the creation has turned against them, and they will “eat of it” for their entire lives (v.17).
“Cursed is the ground because of you.” Matthews writes, “Ironically, the ground that was under the man’s care in the garden as his source of joy and life (2:15) becomes the source of pain for the man’s wearisome existence.”[41]
(3:18-19) “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’”
Before the Fall, God created Adam from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7). Now, the dust of death will take all of that away.
Young Earth Perspective: YECs hold that that Adam’s sin not only brought human death into the world, but also animal and ecological death. They cite Romans 8:18-25 as a parallel passage that supports this. We see serious difficulties with this interpretation.
For one, the curse only applies to the “ground” (ʾadamah), not the entire earth. The “ground” is the specific place where humans work (Gen. 3:23). Collins writes, “Nowhere does it imply that somehow human sin has distorted the workings of the natural elements: rather, agriculture is the arena in which God brings his chastisement upon human beings.”[42]
Second, the terms used in this passage in Genesis (3:16-19 LXX) do not correspond to those in Romans 8. While Paul writes that “the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth” (Rom. 8:21), this surely isn’t a reference to the natural childbirth of Genesis 3:16, and this “groaning” is surely metaphorical language.
Third, the “slavery” and “corruption” of Romans 8:21 refers to the moral decay as a result of human corruption. This is the same language used in the LXX in Genesis 6:11-13, also referring to moral decay. The corruption is not in ecology, but in humanity. Humans are the ones who exploit the Earth. This is why the creation “waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:19), because they will be the ones who stop exploiting the Earth. Collins comments, “Paul here sees the resurrection of the sons of God as a blessing not only for themselves but also for the whole creation.”[43] If the rulers are restored, then the creation will benefit.
(3:20) “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”
This verse brings hope. Though humans are doomed to die, Eve is the “mother of all the living” (ḥay). Even though Eve hasn’t given birth, this is a “prophetic perfect”[44] that tells us the future of her impact on the human race: “Adam’s naming is an act of faith on his part. Though threatened by death Adam does not believe that he and his wife are to be the first and last beings of the human race. Motherhood will emerge.”[45]
Theistic Evolution Perspective: The view has great difficulty with this passage. Derek Kidner, a theistic evolutionist, admits, “If Genesis 3:20, naming Eve ‘mother of all living’, is intended as an anthropological definition, with the sense ‘ancestress of all humans’, the question is settled.”[46] How then does Kidner answer this difficulty? He continues, “The meaning of her name, ‘life’, and the attention drawn to it by the term ‘living’, suggest that the concern of the verse is to reiterate in this context of death the promise of salvation through ‘her seed’ (3:15).”[47] In other words, we need to take this as referring to Eve bringing spiritual life through the birth of the Messiah. We find this interpretation to be untenable. Eve’s name (Khawwa) most likely means “Life-giver.”[48]
(3:21) “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.”
Earlier, God had ceased his work from all that he had “made” (ʿāśâ). Here, however, he “made” (ʿāśâ) coverings for the first humans. This might mean that God is finished with his work of creation, but not his work of redemption.
While the first humans tried to cover their shame with pathetic loincloths, God gave them entire tunics. God must have killed an animal to give them these clothes. This could be the first example of needing a substitutionary sacrifice to cover our shame and nakedness,[49] just as the priests needed tunics to cover their nakedness (Ex. 28:42, 48). Others see this interpretation as “unduly subtle,”[50] but what is subtle about it? It fits with the context of the prediction of the Messiah (Gen. 3:15), as well as the recording of the first animal sacrifice. In our estimation, it leaps from the page.
(3:22) “Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.”
The first humans had become like God, but they were no longer with God. What if Hitler could’ve lived for 800 years or 8,000 years? How much havoc and horror could he have caused? How awful would it be if humans could live in a sinful state forever?
(3:24) “So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.”
The Tabernacle could capture this desire to return to the Garden. The “cherubim” later reoccur in later allusions to the Tabernacle and Temple, which would symbolize the way back to the Garden (Ex. 25:18-22; 26:31; 1 Kin. 6:23-29).[51] The humans were driven out to the “east” of the Garden, and people entered the Tabernacle on the eastern side.[52]
The language of “guarding” (šāmar) the “tree of life” harkens back to Genesis 2:15, where Adam was installed to “keep” (šāmar) the Garden. These first humans forfeited this in a great act of tragedy. The Proverbs later describe the tree of life (Prov. 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4).
Questions for Reflection
What can we learn about how Satan operates from this chapter?
In what ways does sin spread its terrible effects in this chapter? (e.g. theologically, relationally, physically, etc.)
What can we learn about God’s grace from this chapter?
Read the questions that God asks. Why does God use questions to confront these first humans?
What can we learn about human nature from this chapter?” (See also “Total Depravity”).
God never refutes the accusations of the first humans or the Serpent. He sees no need to defend his own character. He asks the questions—not us. We answer to him—not the other way around. What is the significance of this?
[1] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.170.
[2] R. Alden, 1347 נחשׁ. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 572.
[3] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 72.
[4] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.72.
[5] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.63.
[6] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.110.
[7] John C. Lennox, Seven Days that Divide the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), p.83.
[8] Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub., 1995), 38.
[9] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 49.
[10] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 73.
[11] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 188.
[12] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.72.
[13] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 236.
[14] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 189.
[15] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 190.
[16] R. Gordis, “The Significance of the Paradise Myth,” AJSL 52 (1936) 86-94. I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (1955). B. Reicke, “The Knowledge Hidden in the Tree of Paradise,” JSS 1 (1956) 193-201. J. A. Bailey, “Initiation and the Primal Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2-3,” JBL 89 (1970) 144-147.
[17] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 165.
[18] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 166.
[19] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 238.
[20] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 52.
[21] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 49.
[22] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 53.
[23] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 194.
[24] See footnote. Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.92.
[25] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.174.
[26] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 241.
[27] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.117.
[28] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.163.
[29] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 93.
[30] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 245.
[31] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.163.
[32] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.75.
[33] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.64.
[34] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 56.
[35] Emphasis mine. Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc., 10179.
[36] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc., 10191.
[37] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Christology: A Study of Old Testament Prophecy concerning the First Coming of the Messiah (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1998), 14.
[38] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 202.
[39] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.76.
[40] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 250.
[41] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 252.
[42] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.164.
[43] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.184.
[44] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 205.
[45] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 207.
[46] See footnote. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.32.
[47] See footnote. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.32.
[48] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.125.
[49] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 58.
Francis Schaeffer, Complete Works of Francis A Schaeffer: a Christian Worldview (Volume Two: A Christian View of the Bible as Truth. Westchester, III: Crossway, 1994), 75.
[50] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.77.
[51] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 86.
[52] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 86.