Genesis 3 commentary

GENESIS 3 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Fall
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the
wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to
the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not
eat from any tree in the garden’?”
BARNES, " - Section III - The Fall
- The Fall
1. ‫נחשׁ‬ nachash “serpent; related: hiss,” Gesenius; “sting,” Mey. ‫ערוּם‬ 'ārûm “subtle,
crafty, using craft for defence.”
7. ‫תפר‬ tāpar “sew, stitch, tack together.” ‫חגורה‬ chăgôrâh “girdle, not necessarily
apron.”
This chapter continues the piece commenced at Gen_2:4. The same combination of
divine names is found here, except in the dialogue between the serpent and the woman,
where God (‫אלהים‬ 'ĕlohı̂ym) alone is used. It is natural for the tempter to use only the
more distant and abstract name of God. It narrates in simple terms the fall of man.
Gen_3:1
The serpent is here called a “beast of the field”; that is, neither a domesticated animal
nor one of the smaller sorts. The Lord God had made it, and therefore it was a creature
called into being on the same day with Adam. It is not the wisdom, but the wiliness of
the serpent which is here noted. This animal is destitute of arms or legs by which to
escape danger. It is therefore thrown back upon instinct, aided by a quick and glaring
eye, and a rapid dart and recoil, to evade the stroke of violence, and watch and seize the
unguarded moment for inflicting the deadly bite. Hence, the wily and insidious character
1

of its instinct, which is noticed to account for the mode of attack here chosen, and the
style of the conversation. The whole is so deeply designed, that the origin and progress
of evil in the breast is as nearly as possible such as it might have been had there been no
prompter. No startling proposal of disobedience is made, no advice, no persuasion to
partake of the fruit is employed. The suggestion or assertion of the false only is plainly
offered; and the bewildered mind is left to draw its own false inferences, and pursue its
own misguided course. The tempter addresses the woman as the more susceptible and
unguarded of the two creatures he would betray. He ventures upon a half-questioning,
half-insinuating remark: “It is so, then, that God hath said, Ye shall not eat of every tree
of the garden.” This seems to be a feeler for some weak point, where the fidelity of the
woman to her Maker might be shaken. It hints at something strange, if not unjust or
unkind, on the part of God. “Why was any tree withheld?” he would insinuate.
CLARKE, "Now the serpent was more subtle - We have here one of the most
difficult as well as the most important narratives in the whole book of God. The last
chapter ended with a short but striking account of the perfection and felicity of the first
human beings, and this opens with an account of their transgression, degradation, and
ruin. That man is in a fallen state, the history of the world, with that of the life and
miseries of every human being, establishes beyond successful contradiction. But how,
and by what agency, was this brought about? Here is a great mystery, and I may appeal
to all persons who have read the various comments that have been written on the Mosaic
account, whether they have ever yet been satisfied on this part of the subject, though
convinced of the fact itself. Who was the serpent? of what kind? In what way did he
seduce the first happy pair? These are questions which remain yet to be answered. The
whole account is either a simple narrative of facts, or it is an allegory. If it be a historical
relation, its literal meaning should be sought out; if it be an allegory, no attempt should
be made to explain it, as it would require a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in
which it should be understood, for fanciful illustrations are endless. Believing it to be a
simple relation of facts capable of a satisfactory explanation, I shall take it up on this
ground; and, by a careful examination of the original text, endeavor to fix the meaning,
and show the propriety and consistency of the Mosaic account of the fall of man. The
chief difficulty in the account is found in the question, Who was the agent employed in
the seduction of our first parents?
The word in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate serpent, is ‫נחש‬
nachash; and, according to Buxtorf and others, has three meanings in Scripture.
1. It signifies to view or observe attentively, to divine or use enchantments, because
in them the augurs viewed attentively the flight of birds, the entrails of beasts, the
course of the clouds, etc.; and under this head it signifies to acquire knowledge by
experience.
2. It signifies brass, brazen, and is translated in our Bible, not only brass, but chains,
fetters, fetters of brass, and in several places steel; see 2Sa_22:35; Job_20:24;
Psa_18:34; and in one place, at least filthiness or fornication, Eze_16:36.
3. It signifies a serpent, but of what kind is not determined. In Job_26:13, it seems to
mean the whale or hippopotamus: By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens, his
hand hath formed the crooked serpent, ‫ברח‬ ‫נחש‬ nachash bariach: as ‫ברח‬ barach
2

signifies to pass on or pass through, and ‫בריח‬ beriach is used for a bar of a gate or
door that passed through rings, etc., the idea of straightness rather than
crookedness should be attached to it here; and it is likely that the hippopotamus or
sea-horse is intended by it.
In Ecc_10:11, the creature called nachash, of whatever sort, is compared to the babbler:
Surely the serpent (‫נחש‬ nachash) will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no
better.
In Isa_27:1, the crocodile or alligator seems particularly meant by the original: In that
day the Lord - shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, etc. And in Isa_65:25, the
same creature is meant as in Gen_3:1, for in the words, And dust shall be the serpent’s
meat, there is an evident allusion to the text of Moses. In Amo_9:3, the crocodile is
evidently intended: Though they be hid in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command
the serpent, (‫הנחש‬ hannachash) and he shall bite them. No person can suppose that any
of the snake or serpent kind can be intended here; and we see from the various
acceptations of the word, and the different senses which it bears in various places in the
sacred writings, that it appears to be a sort of general term confined to no one sense.
Hence it will be necessary to examine the root accurately, to see if its ideal meaning will
enable us to ascertain the animal intended in the text. We have already seen that ‫נחש‬
nachash signifies to view attentively, to acquire knowledge or experience by attentive
observation; so ‫נחשתי‬ nichashti, Gen_30:27 : I have learned by experience; and this
seems to be its most general meaning in the Bible. The original word is by the Septuagint
translated οφις, a serpent, not because this was its fixed determinate meaning in the
sacred writings, but because it was the best that occurred to the translators: and they do
not seem to have given themselves much trouble to understand the meaning of the
original, for they have rendered the word as variously as our translators have done, or
rather our translators have followed them, as they give nearly the same significations
found in the Septuagint: hence we find that οφις is as frequently used by them as
serpent, its supposed literal meaning, is used in our version. And the New Testament
writers, who seldom quote the Old Testament but from the Septuagint translation, and
often do not change even a word in their quotations, copy this version in the use of this
word. From the Septuagint therefore we can expect no light, nor indeed from any other
of the ancient versions, which are all subsequent to the Septuagint, and some of them
actually made from it. In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth
to look everywhere for information. And in such an inquiry the Arabic may be expected
to afford some help, from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very
nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. Chanas
or khanasa signifies he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away; from this root
come akhnas, khanasa, and khanoos, which all signify an ape, or satyrus, or any creature of
the simia or ape genus. It is very remarkable also that from the same root comes khanas,
the Devil, which appellative he bears from that meaning of khanasa, he drew off, seduced,
etc., because he draws men off from righteousness, seduces them from their obedience
to God, etc., etc. See Golius, sub voce. Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should
have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the
word in the text? But let us return and consider what is said of the creature in question.
Now the nachash was more subtle, ‫ערום‬ arum, more wise, cunning, or prudent, than any
3

beast of the field which the Lord God had made. In this account we find,
1. That whatever this nachash was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals for
wisdom and understanding.
2. That he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment - on thy
belly (i.e., on all fours) shalt thou go.
3. That he was endued with the gift of speech, for a conversation is here related
between him and the woman.
4. That he was also endued with the gift of reason, for we find him reasoning and
disputing with Eve.
5. That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt having often
seen him walk erect, talk, and reason, and therefore she testifies no kind of
surprise when he accosts her in the language related in the text; and indeed from
the manner in which this is introduced it appears to be only a part of a
conversation that had passed between them on the occasion: Yea, hath God said,
etc.
Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the woman at this
time and on this subject, it could not have failed to excite her surprise, and to have filled
her with caution, though from the purity and innocence of her nature she might have
been incapable of being affected with fear. Now I apprehend that none of these things
can be spoken of a serpent of any species.
1. None of them ever did or ever can walk erect. The tales we have had of two-footed
and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious naturalist, and are
utterly unworthy of credit. The very name serpent comes from serpo, to creep, and
therefore to such it could be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies,
i.e., to creep on, as they had done from their creation, and must do while their race
endures.
2. They have no organs for speech, or any kind of articulate sound; they can only hiss.
It is true that an ass by miraculous influence may speak; but it is not to be
supposed that there was any miraculous interference here. God did not qualify this
creature with speech for the occasion, and it is not intimated that there was any
other agent that did it; on the contrary, the text intimates that speech and reason
were natural to the nachash: and is it not in reference to this the inspired penman
says, The nachash was more subtle or intelligent than all the beasts of the field that
the Lord God had made? Nor can I find that the serpentine genus are remarkable
for intelligence. It is true the wisdom of the serpent has passed into a proverb, but
I cannot see on what it is founded, except in reference to the passage in question,
where the nachash, which we translate serpent, following the Septuagint, shows so
much intelligence and cunning: and it is very probable that our Lord alludes to this
very place when he exhorts his disciples to be wise - prudent or intelligent, as
serpents, φρονιμοι ὡς οἱ οφεις· and it is worthy of remark that he uses the same
term employed by the Septuagint in the text in question: Οφις ην φρονιμωτατος,
the serpent was more prudent or intelligent than all the beasts, etc.
All these things considered, we are obliged to seek for some other word to designate
the nachash in the text, than the word serpent, which on every view of the subject
appears to me inefficient and inapplicable. We have seen above that khanas, akhnas, and
khanoos, signify a creature of the ape or satyrus kind. We have seen that the meaning of
the root is, he lay hid, seduced, slunk away, etc.; and that khanas means the devil, as the
4

inspirer of evil, and seducer from God and truth. See Golius and Wilmet. It therefore
appears to me that a creature of the ape or ouran outang kind is here intended; and that
Satan made use of this creature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment
of his murderous purposes against the life and soul of man. Under this creature he lay
hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents, and drew off or slunk away from
every eye but the eye of God. Such a creature answers to every part of the description in
the text: it is evident from the structure of its limbs and their muscles that it might have
been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing less than a sovereign controlling
power could induce them to put down hands in every respect formed like those of man,
and walk like those creatures whose claw-armed paws prove them to have been designed
to walk on all fours. Dr. Tyson has observed in his anatomy of an ouran outang, that the
seminal vessels passed between the two coats of the peritoneum to the scrotum, as in
man; hence he argues that this creature was designed to walk erect, as it is otherwise in
all quadrupeds. Philos. Trans., vol. xxi., p. 340. The subtlety, cunning, endlessly varied
pranks and tricks of these creatures, show them, even now, to be more subtle and more
intelligent than any other creature, man alone excepted. Being obliged now to walk on all
fours, and gather their food from the ground, they are literally obliged to eat the dust;
and though exceedingly cunning, and careful in a variety of instances to separate that
part which is wholesome and proper for food from that which is not so, in the article of
cleanliness they are lost to all sense of propriety; and though they have every means in
their power of cleansing the aliments they gather off the ground, and from among the
dust, yet they never in their savage state make use of any, except a slight rub against
their side, or with one of their hands, more to see what the article is than to cleanse it.
Add to this, their utter aversion to walk upright; it requires the utmost discipline to
bring them to it, and scarcely anything irritates them more than to be obliged to do it.
Long observation on some of these animals enables me to state these facts.
Should any person who may read this note object against my conclusions, because
apparently derived from an Arabic word which is not exactly similar to the Hebrew,
though to those who understand both languages the similarity will be striking; yet, as I
do not insist on the identity of the terms, though important consequences have been
derived from less likely etymologies, he is welcome to throw the whole of this out of the
account. He may then take up the Hebrew root only, which signifies to gaze, to view
attentively, pry into, inquire narrowly, etc., and consider the passage that appears to
compare the nachash to the babbler. Ecc_10:11, and he will soon find, if he have any
acquaintance with creatures of this genus, that for earnest, attentive watching, looking,
etc., and for chattering or babbling, they have no fellows in the animal world. Indeed, the
ability and propensity to chatter is all they have left, according to the above hypothesis,
of their original gift of speech, of which I suppose them to have been deprived at the fall
as a part of their punishment.
I have spent the longer time on this subject,
1. Because it is exceedingly obscure;
2. Because no interpretation hitherto given of it has afforded me the smallest
satisfaction;
3. Because I think the above mode of accounting for every part of the whole
transaction is consistent and satisfactory, and in my opinion removes many
embarrassments, and solves the chief difficulties.
I think it can be no solid objection to the above mode of solution that Satan, in
different parts of the New Testament, is called the serpent, the serpent that deceived Eve
5

by his subtlety, the old serpent, etc., for we have already seen that the New Testament
writers have borrowed the word from the Septuagint, and the Septuagint themselves use
it in a vast variety and latitude of meaning; and surely the ouran outang is as likely to be
the animal in question as ‫נחש‬ nachash and οφις ophis are likely to mean at once a snake,
a crocodile, a hippopotamus, fornication, a chain, a pair of fetters, a piece of brass, a
piece of steel, and a conjurer; for we have seen above that all these are acceptations of
the original word. Besides, the New Testament writers seem to lose sight of the animal
or instrument used on the occasion, and speak only of Satan himself as the cause of the
transgression, and the instrument of all evil. If, however, any person should choose to
differ from the opinion stated above, he is at perfect liberty so to do; I make it no article
of faith, nor of Christian communion; I crave the same liberty to judge for myself that I
give to others, to which every man has an indisputable right; and I hope no man will call
me a heretic for departing in this respect from the common opinion, which appears to
me to be so embarrassed as to be altogether unintelligible. See farther on Gen_3:7-14,
etc.
Yea, hath God said - This seems to be the continuation of a discourse of which the
preceding part is not given, and a proof that the creature in question was endued with
the gift of reason and speech, for no surprise is testified on the part of Eve.
GILL, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, which
the Lord God had made,.... Many instances are given of the subtlety of serpents, in
hiding their heads when struck at, rolling themselves up, stopping their ear at the voice
of the charmer, putting off their skin, lying in sand of the same colour with them, and
biting the feet of horses, and other things of the like kind; but by these it does not appear
to be now more subtle than any other creature, whatever it might be at its first creation;
particularly the fox greatly exceeds it: the words therefore may be rendered, "that
serpent"; that particular serpent, of which so much is spoken of afterwards; "or the
serpent was become" (t), or "made more subtle", that is, not naturally, but through Satan
being in it, and using it in a very subtle manner, to answer his purposes, and gain his
point: for though a real serpent, and not the mere form or appearance of one, is here
meant, as is clear from this account, and the curse afterwards pronounced on it; yet not
that only, but as possessed and used by Satan as an instrument of his to accomplish his
designs, as is evident from its having the faculty of speech, and the use of reason,
employed in a very artful and sophistic manner: nor is it rational to suppose that human
nature, in the height of its glory and excellency, should be outwitted and seduced by a
creature so inferior to it; besides, the Scriptures always ascribe the seduction of man to
the devil; who, because he acted his deceitful part in and by the serpent, is called the
serpent, and the old serpent, and the devil and Satan, 2Co_11:3. The Targum of
Jonathan restrains this subtlety to wickedness, paraphrasing the words"but the serpent
was wise to evil.''Some Jewish writers (u) interpret the passage of the nakedness of the
serpent, taking the word in the sense it is used in Gen_2:25 and render it, "more naked
than any beast of the field", the rest having a clothing, as hair, &c. but this none; and so
might be more agreeable to Eve, being in this respect like herself; but it is generally
interpreted of subtlety. The serpent early became the object of religions worship.
Taautus, or the Egyptian Thoth, was the first that attributed deity to the nature of the
dragon, and of serpents; and after him the Egyptians and Phoenicians: the Egyptian god
6

Cneph was a serpent with an hawk's head; and a serpent with the Phoenicians was a
good demon: what led them to have such veneration for this animal, were its plenty of
spirits, its fiery nature, its swiftness, its various forms it throws itself into, and its long
life (w); and so Pherecydes (x) speaks of a deity of the Phoenicians called Ophioneus;
and who also affirms (y), that this was the prince of demons cast down from heaven by
Jupiter; and Herodotus (z) makes mention of sacred serpents about Thebes; and
Aelianus (a) of sacred dragons; and Justin Martyr says (b), the serpent with the
Heathens was a symbol of all that were reckoned gods by them, and they were painted as
such; and wherever serpents were painted, according to Persius (c), it was a plain
indication that it was a sacred place. Serpents were sacred to many of the Heathen
deities, and who were worshipped either in the form of one, or in a real one (d); all
which seem to take their rise from the use the devil made of the serpent in seducing our
first parents.
And he said to the woman; being alone, which he took the advantage of; not the
serpent, but Satan in it; just as the angel spoke in Balaam's ass; for we are not to imagine
with Philo, Josephus, Aben Ezra, and others, that beasts in their original state had the
faculty of speech, and whose language Eve understood: it is very probable that good
angels appeared in paradise to our first parents, in one form or another, and conversed
with them; it may be in an human form, and it may be in the form of a beautiful flying
serpent, which looked very bright and shining, and that sort called Seraph, Num_21:6
hence angels may bear the name of Seraphim, as some have thought; so that it might not
be at all surprising to Eve to hear the serpent speak, it being what she might have been
used to hear, and might take this to be a good angel in such a shape, that was come to
bring a message to her from God, and to converse with her for her good, and who thus
accosted her:
yea, hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? or "of any tree"
(e); so ambiguously does he speak, in order to reproach the divine goodness, and draw
into a disbelief of it. The speech is abrupt; and, as Kimchi observes (f), supposes some
discourse, as to this purpose; surely God hates you, for though you are greater than the
rest of the creatures, he has not provided any superior excellency for you, and especially
since he has said, "ye shall not eat", &c. Or as others, taking occasion from their being
naked, Gen_2:25 he observes, that that was unbecoming them, of which they might be
ashamed; yea, also, that it was unjust to forbid them to eat of the tree of good and evil:
he might, it is suggested, first endeavour to persuade the woman, that it was indecent for
her, and her husband, to be naked; which they not being convinced of, he insinuated that
this was owing to a defect of knowledge, and that there was a tree in the garden, which if
they ate of, would give them that knowledge, and therefore God had forbid it, to keep
them in ignorance: but he seems to put this question, to cause them to doubt of it,
whether there was such a prohibition or not, and as amazing that it should be, and as not
believing it to be true; it being, as he would have it, contrary to the perfections of God, to
his goodness and liberality, and to his profession of a peculiar respect to man: wherefore
the Targum of Onkelos renders it, "of a truth", and that of Jonathan, "is it true?" surely it
cannot be true, that a God of such goodness could ever deny you such a benefit, or
restrain you from such happiness; he can never be your friend that can lay such an
injunction on you.
7

HENRY, "We have here an account of the temptation with which Satan assaulted our
first parents, to draw them into sin, and which proved fatal to them. Here observe,
I. The tempter, and that was the devil, in the shape and likeness of a serpent.
1. It is certain it was the devil that beguiled Eve. The devil and Satan is the old serpent
(Rev_12:9), a malignant spirit, by creation an angel of light and an immediate attendant
upon God's throne, but by sin become an apostate from his first state and a rebel against
God's crown and dignity. Multitudes of the angels fell; but this that attacked our first
parents was surely the prince of the devils, the ring-leader in the rebellion: no sooner
was he a sinner than he was a Satan, no sooner a traitor than a tempter, as one enraged
against God and his glory and envious of man and his happiness. He knew he could not
destroy man but by debauching him. Balaam could not curse Israel, but he could tempt
Israel, Rev_2:14. The game therefore which Satan had to play was to draw our first
parents to sin, and so to separate between them and their God. Thus the devil was, from
the beginning, a murderer, and the great mischief-maker. The whole race of mankind
had here, as it were, but one neck, and at that Satan struck. The adversary and enemy is
that wicked one.
2. It was the devil in the likeness of a serpent. Whether it was only the visible shape
and appearance of a serpent (as some think those were of which we read, Exo_7:12), or
whether it was a real living serpent, actuated and possessed by the devil, is not certain:
by God's permission it might be either. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, (1.)
Because it is a specious creature, has a spotted dappled skin, and then went erect.
Perhaps it was a flying serpent, which seemed to come from on high as a messenger from
the upper world, one of the seraphim; for the fiery serpents were flying, Isa_14:29. Many
a dangerous temptation comes to us in gay fine colours that are but skin-deep, and
seems to come from above; for Satan can seem an angel of light. And, (2.) Because it is a
subtle creature; this is here taken notice of. Many instances are given of the subtlety of
the serpent, both to do mischief and to secure himself in it when it is done. We are
directed to be wise as serpents. But this serpent, as actuated by the devil, was no doubt
more subtle than any other; for the devil, though he has lost the sanctity, retains the
sagacity of an angel, and is wise to do evil. He knew of more advantage by making use of
the serpent than we are aware of. Observe, There is not any thing by which the devil
serves himself and his own interest more than by unsanctified subtlety. What Eve
thought of this serpent speaking to her we are not likely to tell, when I believe she herself
did not know what to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good angel,
and yet, afterwards, she might suspect something amiss. It is remarkable that the
Gentile idolaters did many of them worship the devil in the shape and form of a serpent,
thereby avowing their adherence to that apostate spirit, and wearing his colours.
II. The person tempted was the woman, now alone, and at a distance from her
husband, but near the forbidden tree. It was the devil's subtlety, 1. To assault the weaker
vessel with his temptations. Though perfect in her kind, yet we may suppose her inferior
to Adam in knowledge, and strength, and presence of mind. Some think Eve received the
command, not immediately from God, but at second hand by her husband, and therefore
might the more easily be persuaded to discredit it. 2. It was his policy to enter into
discourse with her when she was alone. Had she kept close to the side out of which she
was lately taken, she would not have been so much exposed. There are many
temptations, to which solitude gives great advantage; but the communion of saints
8

contributes much tot heir strength and safety. 3. He took advantage by finding her near
the forbidden tree, and probably gazing upon the fruit of it, only to satisfy her curiosity.
Those that would not eat the forbidden fruit must not come near the forbidden tree.
Avoid it, pass not by it, Pro_4:15. 4. Satan tempted Eve, that by her he might tempt
Adam; so he tempted Job by his wife, and Christ by Peter. It is his policy to send
temptations by unsuspected hands, and theirs that have most interest in us and
influence upon us.
III. The temptation itself, and the artificial management of it. We are often, in
scripture, told of our danger by the temptations of Satan, his devices (2Co_2:11), his
depths (Rev_2:24), his wiles, Eph_6:11. The greatest instances we have of them are in
his tempting of the two Adams, here, and Mt. 4. In this he prevailed, but in that he was
baffled. What he spoke to them, of whom he had no hold by any corruption in them, he
speaks in us by our own deceitful hearts and their carnal reasonings; this makes his
assaults on us less discernible, but not less dangerous. That which the devil aimed at was
to persuade Eve to cut forbidden fruit; and, to do this, he took the same method that he
does still. He questioned whether it was a sin or no, Gen_3:1. He denied that there was
any danger in it, Gen_3:4. He suggested much advantage by it, Gen_3:5. And these are
his common topics.
JAMISON, "Gen_3:1-5. The temptation.
the serpent — The fall of man was effected by the seductions of a serpent. That it was
a real serpent is evident from the plain and artless style of the history and from the many
allusions made to it in the New Testament. But the material serpent was the instrument
or tool of a higher agent, Satan or the devil, to whom the sacred writers apply from this
incident the reproachful name of “the dragon, that old serpent” [Rev_20:2]. Though
Moses makes no mention of this wicked spirit - giving only the history of the visible
world - yet in the fuller discoveries of the Gospel, it is distinctly intimated that Satan was
the author of the plot (Joh_8:44; 2Co_11:3; 1Jo_3:8; 1Ti_2:14; Rev_20:2).
more subtile — Serpents are proverbial for wisdom (Mat_10:16). But these reptiles
were at first, probably, far superior in beauty as well as in sagacity to what they are in
their present state.
He said — There being in the pure bosoms of the first pair no principle of evil to work
upon, a solicitation to sin could come only from “without,” as in the analogous case of
Jesus Christ (Mat_4:3); and as the tempter could not assume the human form, there
being only Adam and Eve in the world, the agency of an inferior creature had to be
employed. The dragon-serpent [Bochart] seemed the fittest for the vile purpose; and the
devil was allowed by Him who permitted the trial, to bring articulate sounds from its
mouth.
unto the woman — the object of attack, from his knowledge of her frailty, of her
having been but a short time in the world, her limited experience of the animal tribes,
and, above all, her being alone, unfortified by the presence and counsels of her husband.
Though sinless and holy, she was a free agent, liable to be tempted and seduced.
yea, hath God said? — Is it true that He has restricted you in using the fruits of this
delightful place? This is not like one so good and kind. Surely there is some mistake. He
insinuated a doubt as to her sense of the divine will and appeared as an angel of light
(2Co_11:14), offering to lead her to the true interpretation. It was evidently from her
regarding him as specially sent on that errand, that, instead of being startled by the
9

reptile’s speaking, she received him as a heavenly messenger.
CONSTABLE, "Who was the tempter? Among evangelicals there are two major views
regarding the identity of the serpent.
It was a literal snake.
a. Moses called it a beast of the field ( Genesis 3:1).
b. Though snakes do not speak, Satan could have spoken through a snake. He did this
through demoniacs in Jesus" day. Also, a spirit being spoke through Balaam"s donkey
( Numbers 22:21-30).
c. God judged a snake in this case ( Genesis 3:14). [Note: See Jacqueline Tabick, "The
Snake in the Grass: The Problems of Interpreting a Symbol in the Hebrew Bible and
Rabbinic Writings," Religion16 (April1986):155-67 , who traced the symbolic use of the
snake as a servant of God, a symbol of rebellion against God, and a creature independent
of God.]
2. It was Satan himself described here as a snake.
a. God called Satan a serpent elsewhere in Scripture (e.g, Revelation 20:2).
b. Satan can and does speak as recorded elsewhere in Scripture (e.g, Job 1).
c. What he said here is in character for Satan who is the "father of lies" ( John 8:44).
Probably the tempter was Satan who possessed and controlled a literal snake.
Temptation came to Eve disguised, unexpectedly, and from a subordinate, as is still
often true.
The pattern of temptation observable here is one Satan has used often and still uses (cf.
the temptations of Achan, David, and Jesus Christ).
Satan"s first step was to plant a seed of doubt in Eve"s mind concerning God"s ways
( Genesis 3:1-3). The key phrase is "from any" ( Genesis 3:1). Satan focused Eve"s
attention on God"s one prohibition. He suggested that God did not really want what was
best for Adam and Eve but rather was withholding something from them that was
essentially good. He hinted that God"s line of protection was actually a line that He drew
because He was selfish. Satan still tempts women to believe that God"s role for them is
primarily for His benefit rather than for their welfare. [Note: Family Life . . ., p99.]
The Hebrew word translated "crafty" ("arum) does not mean wicked as much as wise.
10

Eve"s sin was not so much an act of great wickedness as it was an act of great folly. She
already had all the good she needed, but she wanted more. She wanted to glorify self, not
God.
Verses 1-5
The temptation of Eve3:1-5
As in chapters1,2 , the word of the Lord is very important in chapter3. Here Adam and
Eve doubted God"s integrity. This pericope also has something to teach about the
acquisition of wisdom. Chapter2anticipated God"s gift of the Promised Land to the
original readers, and chapter3anticipates their exile from it. [Note: Idem, " Genesis ,"
pp48-49.]
CALVIN, "1.Now the serpent was more subtil In this chapter, Moses explains, that man,
after he had been deceived by Satan revolted from his Maker, became entirely changed
and so degenerate, that the image of God, in which he had been formed, was obliterated.
He then declares, that the whole world, which had been created for the sake of man, fell
together with him from its primary original; and that in this ways much of its native
excellence was destroyed. But here many and arduous questions arise. For when Moses
says that the serpent was crafty beyond all other animals, he seems to intimate, that it
had been induced to deceive man, not by the instigation of Satan, but by its own
malignity. I answer, that the innate subtlety of the serpent did not prevent Satan from
making use of the animal for the purpose of effecting the destruction of man. For since
he required an instrument, he chose from among animals that which he saw would be
most suitable for him: finally, he carefully contrived the method by which the snares he
was preparing might the more easily take the mind of Eve by surprise. Hitherto, he had
held no communication with men; he, therefore, clothed himself with the person of an
animal, under which he might open for himself the way of access. Yet it is not agreed
among interpreters in what sense the serpent is said to be ‫ערום‬ (aroom, subtle,) by which
word the Hebrews designate the prudent as well as the crafty. Some, therefore, would take it in a
good, others in a bad sense. I think, however, Moses does not so much point out a fault as
attribute praise to nature because God had endued this beast with such singular skill, as rendered
it acute and quick-sighted beyond all others. But Satan perverted to his own deceitful purposes
the gift which had been divinely imparted to the serpent. Some captiously cavil, that more
acuteness is now found in many other animals. To whom I answer, that there would be nothing
absurd in saying, that the gift which had proved so destructive to the human race has been
withdrawn from the serpent: just, as we shall hereafter see, other punishments were also inflicted
upon it. Yet, in this description, writers on natural history do not materially differ from Moses,
and experience gives the best answer to the objection; for the Lord does not in vain command his
own disciples to be ‘prudent as serpents,’ (Matthew 10:16.) But it appears, perhaps, scarcely
consonant with reason, that the serpent only should be here brought forward, all mention of Satan
being suppressed. I acknowledge, indeed, that from this place alone nothing more can be
collected than that men were deceived by the serpent. But the testimonies of Scripture are
sufficiently numerous, in which it is plainly asserted that the serpent was only the mouth of the
devil; for not the serpent but the devil is declared to be ‘the father of lies,’ the fabricator of
imposture, and the author of death. The question, however, is not yet solved, why Moses has kept
back the name of Satan. I willingly subscribe to the opinion of those who maintain that the Holy
11

Spirit then purposely used obscure figures, because it was fitting that full and clear light should
be reserved for the kingdom of Christ. In the meantime, the prophets prove that they were well
acquainted with the meaning of Moses, when, in different places, they cast the blame of our ruin
upon the devil. We have elsewhere said, that Moses, by a homely and uncultivated style,
accommodates what he delivers to the capacity of the people; and for the best reason; for not
only had he to instruct an untaught race of men, but the existing age of the Church was so
puerile, that it was unable to receive any higher instruction. There is, therefore, nothing absurd in
the supposition, that they, whom, for the time, we know and confess to have been but as infants,
were fed with milk. Or (if another comparison be more acceptable) Moses is by no means to be
blamed, if he, considering the office of schoolmaster as imposed upon him, insists on the
rudiments suitable to children. They who have an aversion to this simplicity, must of necessity
condemn the whole economy of God in governing the Church. This, however, may suffice us,
that the Lord, by the secret illumination of his Spirit, supplied whatever was wanting of clearness
in outward expressions; as appears plainly from the prophets, who saw Satan to be the real
enemy of the human race, the contriver of all evils, furnished with every kind of fraud and
villainy to injure and destroy. Therefore, though the impious make a noise, there is nothing justly
to offend us in this mode of speaking by which Moses describes Satan, the prince of iniquity,
under the person of his servant and instrument, at the time when Christ, the Head of the Church,
and the Sun of Righteousness, had not yet openly shone forth. Add to this, the baseness of human
ingratitude is more clearly hence perceived, that when Adam and Eve knew that all animals were
given, by the hand of God, into subjection to them, they yet suffered themselves to be led away
by one of their own slaves into rebellion against God. As often as they beheld any one of the
animals which were in the world, they ought to have been reminded both of the supreme
authority, and of the singular goodness of God; but, on the contrary, when they saw the serpent
an apostate from his Creator, not only did they neglect to punish it, but, in violation of all lawful
order, they subjected and devoted themselves to it, as participators in the same apostasy. What
can be imagined more dishonorable than this extreme depravity? Thus, I understand the name of
the serpent, not allegorically, as some foolishly do, but in its genuine sense.
Many persons are surprised that Moses simply, and as if abruptly, relates that men have fallen by
the impulse of Satan into eternal destruction, and yet never by a single word explains how the
tempter himself had revolted from God. And hence it has arisen, that fanatical men have dreamed
that Satan was created evil and wicked as he is here described. But the revolt of Satan is proved
by other passages of Scripture; and it is an impious madness to ascribe to God the creation of any
evil and corrupt nature; for when he had completed the world, he himself gave this testimony to
all his works, that they were very good. Wherefore, without controversy, we must conclude, that
the principle of evil with which Satan was endued was not from nature, but from defection;
because he had departed from God, the fountain of justice and of all rectitude. But Moses here
passes over Satan’s fall, because his object is briefly to narrate the corruption of human nature;
to teach us that Adam was not created to those multiplied miseries under which all his posterity
suffer, but that he fell into them by his own fault. In reflecting on the number and nature of those
evils to which they are obnoxious, men will often be unable to restrain themselves from raging
and murmuring against God, whom they rashly censure for the just punishment of their sin.
These are their well-known complaints that God has acted more mercifully to swine and dogs
than to them. Whence is this, but that they do not refer the miserable and ruined state, under
which we languish, to the sin of Adam as they ought? But what is far worse, they fling back upon
God the charge of being the cause of all the inward vices of the mind, (such as its horrible
blindness, contumacy against God, wicked desires, and violent propensities to evil;) as if the
whole perverseness of our disposition had not been adventitious. (154) The design, therefore, of
12

Moses was to show, in a few words, how greatly our present condition differs from our first
original, in order that we may learn, with humble confession of our fault, to bewail our evils. We
ought not then to be surprised, that, while intent on the history he purposed to relate, he does not
discuss every topic which may be desired by any person whatever.
We must now enter on that question by which vain and inconstant minds are greatly agitated;
namely, Why God permitted Adam to be tempted, seeing that the sad result was by no means
hidden from him? That He now relaxes Satan’s reins, to allow him to tempt us to sin, we ascribe
to judgment and to vengeance, in consequence of man’s alienation from himself; but there was
not the same reason for doing so when human nature was yet pure and upright. God, therefore,
(155) permitted Satan to tempt man, who was conformed to His own image, and not yet
implicated in any crime, having, moreover, on this occasion, allowed Satan the use of an animal
(156) which otherwise would never have obeyed him; and what else was this, than to arm an
enemy for the destruction of man? This seems to have been the ground on which the
Manichaeans maintained the existence of two principles. (157) Therefore, they have imagined
that Satan, not being in subjection to God, laid snares for man in opposition to the divine will,
and was superior not to man only, but also to God himself. Thus, for the sake of avoiding what
they dreaded as an absurdity, they have fallen into execrable prodigies of error; such as, that
there are two Gods, and not one sole Creator of the world, and that the first God has been
overcome by his antagonist. All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the
power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by his permission. For, in the
first place, it must be conceded, that God was not in ignorance of the event which was about to
occur; and then, that he could have prevented it, had he seen fit to do so. But in speaking of
permission, I understand that he had appointed whatever he wished to be done. Here, indeed, a
difference arises on the part of many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free
will, that God would not have him fall. They take for granted, what I allow them, that nothing is
less probable than that God should he regarded as the cause of sin, which he has avenged with so
many and such severe penalties. When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the
ordination and will of God, I do not so take it as if sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if he
simply wished that the precept which he had given should be violated. So far as the fall of Adam
was the subversion of equity, and of well-constituted order, so far as it was contumacy against
the Divine Law-giver, and the transgression of righteousness, certainly it was against the will of
God; yet none of these things render it impossible that, for a certain cause, although to us
unknown, he might will the fall of man. It offends the ears of some, when it is said God willed
this fall; but what else, I pray, is the permission of Him, who has the power of preventing, and in
whose hand the whole matter is placed, but his will? I wish that men would rather suffer
themselves to be judged by God, than that, with profane temerity, they should pass judgment
upon him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test. I hold it as a settled
axiom, that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was
created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt; wherefore I
conclude, that, as it became the Creator, he had before determined with himself what should be
man’s future condition. Hence the unskilful rashly infer, that man did not sin by free choice. For
he himself perceives, being convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been
too free in sinning. Whether he sinned by necessity, or by contingency, is another question;
respecting which see the Institution, (158) and the treatise on Predestination.
And he said unto the woman The impious assail this passage with their sneers, because Moses
ascribes eloquence to an animal which only faintly hisses with its forked tongue. And first they
ask, at what time animals began to be mute, if they then had a distinct language, and one common
13

to ourselves and them. The answer is ready; the serpent was not eloquent by nature, but when
Satan, by divine permission, procured it as a fit instrument for his use, he uttered words also by
its tongue, which God himself permitted. Nor do I doubt that Eve perceived it to be
extraordinary, and on that account received with the greater avidity what she admired. Now, if
men decide that whatever is unwonted must be fabulous, God could work no miracle. Here God,
by accomplishing a work above the ordinary course of nature, constrains us to admire his power.
If then, under this very pretext, we ridicule the power of God, because it is not familiar to us, are
we not excessively preposterous? Besides, if it seems incredible that beasts should speak at the
command of God, how has man the power of speech, but because God has formed his tongue?
The Gospel declares, that voices were uttered in the air, without a tongue, to illustrate the glory
of Christ; this is less probable to carnal reason, than that speech should be elicited from the
mouth of brute animals. What then can the petulance of impious men find here deserving of their
invective? In short, whosoever holds that God in heaven is the Ruler of the world, will not deny
his power over the creatures, so that he can teach brute animals to speak when he pleases, just as
he sometimes renders eloquent men speechless. Moreover the craftiness of Satan betrays itself in
this, that he does not directly assail the man, but approaches him, as through a mine, in the
person of his wife. This insidious method of attack is more than sufficiently known to us at the
present day, and I wish we might learn prudently to guard ourselves against it. For he warily
insinuates himself at that point at which he sees us to be the least fortified, that he may not be
perceived till he should have penetrated where he wished. The woman does not flee from
converse with the serpent, because hitherto no dissension had existed; she, therefore, accounted it
simply as a domestic animal.
The question occurs, what had impelled Satan to contrive the destruction of man? Curious
sophists have feigned that he burned with envy, when he foresaw that the Son of God was to be
clothed in human flesh; but the speculation is frivolous. For since the Son of God was made man
in order to restore us, who were already lost, from our miserable over throw, how could that be
foreseen which would never have happened unless man had sinned? If there be room for
conjectures, it is more probable that he was driven by a kind of fury, (as the desperate are wont to
be,) to hurry man away with himself into a participation of eternal ruin. But it becomes us to be
content with this single reasons that since he was the adversary of God, he attempted to subvert
the order established by Him. And, because he could not drag God from his throne, he assailed
man, in whom His image shone. He knew that with the ruin of man the most dreadful confusion
would be produced in the whole world, as indeed it happened, and therefore he endeavored, in
the person of man, to obscure the glory of God. (159) Rejecting, therefore, all vain figments, let
us hold fast this doctrine, which is both simple and solid.
Yea, has God said? This sentence is variously expounded and even distorted, partly because it is
in itself obscure, and partly because of the ambiguous import of the Hebrew particle. The
expression ‫כי‬ ‫אף‬ (aph ki,) sometimes signifies “although” or “indeed,” and sometimes, “how
much more.” (160) David Kimchi takes it in this last sense, and thinks that many words had
passed between them on both sides, before the serpent descended to this point; namely, that
having calumniated God on other accounts, he at length thus concludes, Hence it much more
appears how envious and malignant he is towards you, because he has interdicted you from the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But this exposition is not only forced, it is proved to be
false by the reply of Eve. More correct is the explanation of the Chaldean paraphrast, ‘Is it true
that God has forbidden? etc.’ (161) Again, to some this appears a simple, to others an ironical
interrogation. It would be a simple interrogation, if it injected a doubt in the following manner:
‘Can it be, that God should forbid the eating of any tree whatever?’ but it would be ironical, if
14

used for the purpose of dissipating vain fear; as, ‘It greatly concerns God, indeed, whether you
eat of the tree or not! It is, therefore, ridiculous that you should think it to be forbidden you!’ I
subscribe the more freely to the former opinion, because there is greater probability that Satan, in
order to deceive more covertly, would gradually proceed with cautious prevarications to lead the
woman to a contempt of the divine precept. There are some who suppose that Satan expressly
denies the word which our first parents had heard, to have been the word of God. Others think,
(with whom I rather agree,) that, under the pretext of inquiring into the cause, he would
indirectly weaken their confidence in the word. And certainly the old interpreter has translated
the expression, ‘Why has God said?’ (162) which, although I do not altogether approve, yet I
have no doubt that the serpent urges the woman to seek out the cause, since otherwise he would
not have been able to draw away her mind from God. Very dangerous is the temptation, when it
is suggested to us, that God is not to be obeyed except so far as the reason of his command is
apparent. The true rule of obedience is, that we being content with a bare command, should
persuade ourselves that whatever he enjoins is just and right. But whosoever desires to be wise
beyond measure, him will Satan, seeing he has cast off all reverence for God, immediately
precipitate into open rebellion. As it respects grammatical construction, I think the expression
ought to be translated, ‘Has God even said?’ or, ‘Is it so that God has said?’ (163) Yet the artifice
of Satan is to be noticed, for he wished to inject into the woman a doubt which might induce her
to believe that not to be the word of God, for which a plausible reason did not manifestly appear.
Of every tree of the garden Commentators offer a double interpretation of these words. The
former supposes Satan, for the sake of increasing envy, to insinuate that all the trees had been
forbidden. “Has God indeed enjoined that you should not dare to touch any tree?” The other
interpretation, however, is, “Have you not then the liberty granted you of eating promiscuously
from whatever tree you please?” The former more accords with the disposition of the devil, who
would malignantly amplify the prohibitions and seems to be sanctioned by Eve’s reply. For when
she says, We do eat of all, one only excepted, she seems to repel the calumny concerning a
general prohibition. But because the latter sense of the passage, which suggests the question
concerning the simple and bare prohibition of God, was more apt to deceive, it is more credible
that Satan, with his accustomed guile, should have begun his temptation from this point, ‘Is it
possible for God to be unwilling that you should gather the fruit of any tree whatever?’ The
answer of the woman, that only one tree was forbidden, she means to be a defense of the
command; as if she would deny that it ought to seem harsh or burdensome, since God had only
excepted one single tree out of so great an abundance and variety as he had granted to them.
Thus, in these words there will be a concession, that one tree was indeed forbidden; then, the
refutation of a calumny, because it is not arduous or difficult to abstain from one tree, when
others, without number are supplied, of which the use is permitted. It was impossible for Eve
more prudently or more courageously to repel the assault of Satan, than by objecting against him,
that she and her husband had been so bountifully dealt with by the Lord, that the advantages
granted to them were abundantly sufficient, for she intimates that they would be most ungrateful
if, instead of being content with such affluence they should desire more than was lawful. When
she says, God has forbidden them to eat or to touch, some suppose the second word to be added
for the purpose of charging God with too great severity, because he prohibited them even from
the touch (164) But I rather understand that she hitherto remained in obedience, and expressed
her pious disposition by anxiously observing the precept of God; only, in proclaiming the
punishment, she begins to give ways by inserting the adverb “perhaps,” (165) when God has
certainly pronounced, “Ye shall die the death.” (166) For although with the Hebrews ‫פן‬ (pen)
does not always imply doubt, yet, since it is generally taken in this sense, I willingly embrace the
opinion that the woman was beginning to waver. Certainly, she had not death so immediately
15

before her eyes, should she become disobedient to God, as, she ought to have had. She clearly
proves that her perception of the true danger of death was distant and cold.
BENSON, ". The serpent was more subtle, &c. — Some would render the word ‫נחשׁ‬ , nachash,
here, monkey or baboon, and the word ‫,ערום‬ arum, intelligent: but it may be demonstrated from
divers other passages of the Old Testament, where the same words are used, and from several
parts of the New, where they are referred to, that our translators are perfectly right. The former
word is used concerning the fiery serpents which bit the people in the wilderness, which certainly
were neither monkeys nor baboons, and concerning the serpent of brass, by looking at which the
Israelites were healed. See Hebrew, Numbers 9-21:6 . It is also used Isaiah 65:25, where, in
allusion to Genesis 3:14 of this chapter, it is said, Dust shall be the serpent’s meat; but surely
dust is not the meat of monkeys. The word is also everywhere rendered οφις, ophis, in the
Septuagint and in the New Testament, which means serpent, and nothing else. The latter word,
‫,ערום‬ also, is rightly translated, meaning primarily, subtle, or crafty, from ‫,ערם‬ caliditate usus est,
and is so rendered Job 5:12, and so interpreted 2 Corinthians 11:3, where the word πανουργια is
used, which certainly never means intelligence, but always craft or subtlety. Than any beast of
the field — Serpents, in general, have a great deal of subtlety. But this one had an extraordinary
measure of it, being either only a serpent in appearance, and in reality a fallen angel, or the
prince of fallen angels, Satan; or a real serpent possessed and actuated by him. Hence the devil is
termed the old serpent, Revelation 20:2-3. He said unto the woman — Whom it is probable he
found alone. In what way he spake to her we are not informed: but it seems most likely that it
was by signs of some kind. Some, indeed, have supposed that reason and speech were then the
known properties of serpents, and that, therefore, Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and
speaking, which they think she otherwise must have been: but of this there is no proof. Yea, hath
God said, &c. — As if he had said, Can it be that God, who has planted this garden with all these
beautiful and fruitful trees, and hath placed you in it for your comfort, should deny you the fruit
of it? Surely you must either be mistaken, or God must be envious and unkind. His first object
was by his insinuations either to beget in them unbelief, as to the reality of the prohibition, and to
persuade them that it would be no sin to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, or to produce in
them hard thoughts of God, in order to alienate their affections from him. And such are generally
his first temptations still. What! has God, who has given you various appetites and passions,
forbidden you to gratify them? Surely he has not: but if he has, he must be an unkind being. And
how then can you trust in or love him?
COFFMAN, "Verse 1
Paradise Lost
This chapter details the temptation and fall of humanity and their consequent expulsion from
Eden. The tempter is introduced (Genesis 3:1); the temptation is presented (Genesis 3:2-5); the
fall of Eve, then Adam, (Genesis 3:6); the consequent shame, loneliness and fear (Genesis 3:7,8);
their confrontation with God and their futile excuses (Genesis 3:9-13); the curse of the serpent
and the word of hope for mankind (Genesis 3:14-15); the outline of the penalties upon Eve and
Adam (Genesis 3:16-20); and their expulsion from Eden (Genesis 3:21-24) are other
developments that bring the chapter to its conclusion.
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And
16

he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?"
The problem that stands at the head of this chapter is that of understanding what the serpent was.
The near-unanimous opinion of scholars and commentators to the effect that he was a member of
the animal kingdom is somewhat perplexing in view of the fact that the grammar of our versions
does not support such a view. It is NOT stated that the serpent was more subtle than any other
beast of the field, but that he was more subtle than any beast. This is an indication that he was
not a beast at all. Nor does it appear that his becoming a beast following the curse (and one of the
lowest of creation at that) is alone sufficient reason for saying that he had been a beast all the
time. Whatever the serpent was, he would appear to have been an UPRIGHT creature and to have
been endowed with the gift of speech. The Scriptures do not provide any hard information
enabling a fuller identification of this creature which was used by Satan as an instrument in the
temptation. There is simply no way to know what the serpent was like before the curse.
Of course, the whole person of the serpent that appears in this tragic scene also includes a certain
identity with Satan himself, as indicated by Paul's reference in 2 Corinthians 11:3, the indication
there being that the same serpent who seduced Eve is, in this dispensation, engaged in seducing
the Church of Jesus Christ. Also, Satan is called, "The great Dragon, the old serpent, he that is
called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world" (Revelation 12:9).
Here, at the outset of our studies in the O.T., it needs to be established that the O.T. should be
understood only in the light of what is revealed in the N.T. We reject out of hand the dictum laid
down by Biblical interpreters that the text can have but a single meaning, namely, the one
"intended by the author.[1] Indeed, this is true enough if the "author" is understood to be
Almighty God. But the supposition that the mind of the instrument through whom God spoke can
be explored for the meaning of Biblical passages is false. We have cited in this series of
commentaries numerous instances in which the prophets through whom God spoke either did not
understand what they wrote at all or had a very improper notion of the full meaning, a fact cited
by no less an authority than Peter (1 Peter 1:10-12). An outstanding instance is that of Amos 8:9.
(See fuller comments in my commentary on Amos.) To follow the arbitrary dictum mentioned
above would forbid any identification at all of Satan in this entire chapter; for it is accepted that
at the period when Genesis was written, any belief in the existence of the Devil "was foreign to
the Hebrews."[2] Thus, exploring the mind of the author should mean exploring the mind of God
who is the real author of the whole Bible. For that reason, we do not hesitate to find Jesus Christ
and a whole summary of the scheme of Redemption in Genesis 3:15.
Therefore, Satan himself was the person speaking in the serpent of this verse. We cannot identify
the instrument, but the Tempter is surely known. We can confess our amazement that "Christian"
scholars would affirm that the serpent here told man the "truth,"[3] that the intention of the
serpent was "innocent,[4] and the serpent was "good,[5] etc. Such views are absolutely wrong.
The conversation here begun by the serpent was on the part of the serpent a vicious, malicious
lie, craftily designed to seduce and destroy the entire human family. He flatly contradicted and
made light of the Word of God; he lied to Eve regarding her becoming "like God"; and he
ascribed unworthy motives and intentions to the Almighty! The device by which interpreters who
are blinded and hog-tied by their own man-made rules are able to pass over the conversation of
the serpent in this passage as good or innocent is founded upon a false syllogism: All that God
made is good (Genesis 1:31); God made this serpent; therefore, this serpent was good! By this
syllogism, one may also prove that the Devil is good. As Skinner admitted, such views are
17

contradicted by the "spirit"[6] of this scripture.
One further word about the identity of the serpent: Yates mentioned a Hebrew tradition to the
effect that the serpent walked upright, was gifted with speech, and talked freely with Eve.[7] The
mystery of how Satan was able to use such a creature (previously called "good" in Genesis 1:31)
and also the problem of how it would have been just on God's part to curse such a creature
(condemned to crawl on its belly, etc.) present no real problem. God cursed the ground for
Adam's sake; and certainly the ground was innocent enough. Both the evil that came to this
serpent and that which befell the earth itself must be attributed to Satan as having been the
primary cause.
"Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden ... ?" The purpose of this query was to
focus upon the restriction and prohibition which God had made regarding a certain tree, that of
"knowledge of good and evil." Anything forbidden has always held a fascination for human
beings, and the Evil One in this approach went straight to the point of humanity's greatest
vulnerability.
K&D, "“The serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the field, which Jehovah
God had made.” - The serpent is here described not only as a beast, but also as a creature
of God; it must therefore have been good, like everything else that He had made. Subtilty
was a natural characteristic of the serpent (Mat_10:16), which led the evil one to select it
as his instrument. Nevertheless the predicate ‫רוּם‬ָ‫ע‬ is not used here in the good sense of
φρόνιμος (lxx), prudens, but in the bad sense of πανοῦργος, callidus. For its subtilty was
manifested as the craft of a tempter to evil, in the simple fact that it was to the weaker
woman that it turned; and cunning was also displayed in what it said: “Hath God indeed
said, Ye shall not eat of all the trees of the garden?” ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ ‫ף‬ ַ‫א‬ is an interrogative expressing
surprise (as in 1Sa_23:3; 2Sa_4:11): “Is it really the fact that God has prohibited you
from eating of all the trees of the garden?” The Hebrew may, indeed, bear the meaning,
“hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree?” but from the context, and especially the
conjunction, it is obvious that the meaning is, “ye shall not eat of any tree.” The serpent
calls God by the name of Elohim alone, and the woman does the same. In this more
general and indefinite name the personality of the living God is obscured. To attain his
end, the tempter felt it necessary to change the living personal God into a merely general
numen divinium, and to exaggerate the prohibition, in the hope of exciting in the
woman's mind partly distrust of God Himself, and partly a doubt as to the truth of His
word. And his words were listened to. Instead of turning away, the woman replied, “We
may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 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.” She was aware of the prohibition, therefore, and fully understood its meaning; but
she added, “neither shall ye touch it,” and proved by this very exaggeration that it
appeared too stringent even to her, and therefore that her love and confidence towards
God were already beginning to waver. Here was the beginning of her fall: “for doubt is
the father of sin, and skepsis the mother of all transgression; and in this father and this
mother, all our present knowledge has a common origin with sin” (Ziegler). From doubt,
the tempter advances to a direct denial of the truth of the divine threat, and to a
malicious suspicion of the divine love (Gen_3:4, Gen_3:5). “Ye will by no means die”
(‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ is placed before the infinitive absolute, as in Psa_49:8 and Amo_9:8; for the
18

meaning is not, “he will not die;” but, ye will positively not die). “But
(Note: ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ used to establish a denial.)
God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes will be opened,
(Note: ‫חוּ‬ ְ‫ק‬ֵ‫פ‬ִ‫נ‬ ְ‫ו‬ perfect c. ‫ו‬ consec. See Gesenius, §126, Note 1.)
and ye will be like God, knowing good and evil.” That is to say, it is not because the
fruit of the tree will injure you that God has forbidden you to eat it, but from ill-will and
envy, because He does not wish you to be like Himself. “A truly satanic double entendre,
in which a certain agreement between truth and untruth is secured!” By eating the fruit,
man did obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and in this respect became like God
(Gen_3:7 and Gen_3:22). This was the truth which covered the falsehood “ye shall not
die,” and turned the whole statement into a lie, exhibiting its author as the father of lies,
who abides not in the truth (Joh_8:44). For the knowledge of good and evil, which man
obtains by going into evil, is as far removed from the true likeness of God, which he
would have attained by avoiding it, as the imaginary liberty of a sinner, which leads into
bondage to sin and ends in death, is from the true liberty of a life of fellowship with
God.)
PULPIT 1-4, "How long the paradisiacal state of innocence and felicity continued the
historian does not declare, probably as not falling within the scope of his immediate
design. Psa_49:12 has been thought, though without sufficient reason, to hint that man’s
Eden life was of comparatively short duration. The present chapter relates the tragic
incident which brought it to a termination. Into the question of the origin of moral evil
in the universe it does not enter. The recta-physical problem of how the first thought of
sin could arise in innocent beings it does not attempt to resolve. It seeks to explain the
genesis of evil with reference to man. Nor even with regard to this does it aim at an
exhaustive dissertation, but only at such a statement of its beginnings as shall
demonstrate that God is not the author of sin, but that man, by his own free volition,
brought his pristine state of purity and happiness to an end. A due regard to this, the
specific object of the Mosaic narrative, will go far to answer not a few of the objections
which have been taken to its historic credibility. Like the Mosaic record of creation, the
Biblical story of the fall has been impugned on a variety of grounds.
1. The doctrine of a fall, which this chapter clearly teaches, has been assailed as
inconsistent with the dictates of a speculative philosophy, if not also with the tenets of a
Scriptural theology. While in the present narrative the origin of sin is distinctly traced
back to the free volition of man acting without constraint, though not without
temptation, in opposition to the Divine will, a more exact psychological analysis, it is
alleged, declares it to have been from the first a necessity, either
(1) metaphysically, as being involved in the very conception of a finite will (Spinoza,
Leibnitz, Baur); or
(2) historically, "as the expression of the necessary transition of the human race from
the state of nature to that of culture" (Fichte, Kant, Schiller), or as developing itself in
obedience to the law of antagonism and conflict (John Seotus Erigena, Hegel,
Sehleiermacher, Schelling); or
(3) theologically, as predetermined by a Divine decree (supralapsarianism). Without
19

offering any separate refutation of these anti-Scriptural theories, it may suffice to say
that in all questions affecting man’s responsibility, the testimony of the individual
consciousness, the ultimate ground of appeal, apart from revelation, affirms moral evil
to be no all-controlling necessity, but the free product of the will of the creature.
2. The narrative of the fall has been impugned—
(1) On the ground of its miraculous character. But unless we are prepared to equate the
supernatural with the impossible and incredible, we must decline to admit the force of
such objections.
(2) On the ground of its mythical form, resembling as it does, in some slight degree,
Oriental traditions, and in particular the Persian legend of Ormuzd and Ahriman (vide
infra, ’Traditions of the Fall’). But here the same remark will apply as was made in
connection with the similarity alleged to exist between the Mosaic and heathen
cosmogonies: it is immeasurably easier and more natural to account for the resemblance
of Oriental legend to Biblical history, by supposing the former to be a traditional
reflection of the latter, than it is to explain the unchallengable superiority of the latter to
the former, even in a literary point of view, not to mention ethical aspects at all, by
tracing both to a common source—the philosophic or theologic consciousness of man.
(3) There are also those who, while neither repudiating it on the ground of miracle, nor
discrediting it as a heathen myth, yet decline to accept it as other than a parabolic or
allegorical narration of what transpired in the spiritual experience of the first pair.
History is often a parable of truth.
Gen_3:1
Now (literally, and) the serpent. Nachash, from nachash—
(1) in Kal, to hiss (unused), with allusion to the hissing sound emitted by the reptile
(Gesenius, Furst), though it has been objected that prior to the fall the serpent could
hardly have been called by a name derived from its present constitution (Delitzsch);
(2) in Piel, to whisper, use sorcery, find out by divination (Gen_30:27), suggestive of the
creature’s wisdom (Bush), Which, however, is regarded as doubtful (Furst);
(3) to shine (unused, though supplying the noun nechsheth, brass, Gen_4:22), referring
to its glossy shining appearance, and in par-titular its bright glistening eye: cf. δραμκων
from δεμρκομαι, and ὁμφις from ὀμπτομαι (T. Lewis);
(4) from an Arabic root signifying to pierce, to move, to creep, so that nachash would be
Latin serpens (Furst). The presence of the article before nachash has been thought to
mean a certain serpent, but "by eminent authorities this is pronounced to be
unwarranted" (Macdonald). Was more subtle. ’Arum—
(1) Crafty (cf. Job_5:12; Job_15:5);
(2) prudent, in a good sense (cf. Pro_12:16), from ’aram—
(a) To make naked; whence atom, plural arumim, naked (Gen_2:25).
(b) To crafty (1Sa_23:22). If applied to the serpent in the sense of πανοῦργος (Aquila,
20

Keil, Lange, Macdonald),
it can only be either
(1) metaphorically for the devil, whose instrument it was; or
(2) proleptically, with reference to the results of the temptation; for in itself, as one of
God’s creatures, it must have been originally good. It seems more correct to regard the
epithet as equivalent to φρομνιμος (LXX.), and to hold that Moses, in referring to the
subtlety of this creature, "does not so much point out a fault as attribute praise to
nature" (Calvin), and describes qualities which in themselves were good, such as
quickness of sight, swiftness of motion, activity of the self-preserving instinct, seemingly
intelligent adaptation -of means to end, with perhaps a glance, in the use of ’arum, at the
sleekness of its glossy skin; but which were capable of being perverted to an unnatural
use by the power and craft of a superior intelligence (cf. Mat_10:16: γιμνεσθε ου}n
fro&nimoi w). Than any (literally, was subtil more than any) beast of the field
which the Lord God had made. The comparison here instituted is commonly
regarded as a proof that the tempter was a literal serpent, though Macdonald finds in the
contrast between it and all other creatures, as well as in the ascription to it of pre-
eminent subtlety, which is not now a characteristic of serpents, an intimation that the
reptile was no creature of earth, or one that received its form from God," an opinion
scarcely different from that of Cyril, that it was only the simulacrum of a serpent. But
(1) the curse pronounced upon the serpent (Gen_3:14) would seem to be deprived of all
force if the subject of it had been only an apparition or an unreal creature; and
(2) the language of the New Testament in referring to man’s temptation implies its
literality (cf. 2Co_11:3). "We are perfectly justified in concluding, from this mention of
the fall, that Paul spoke of it as an actual occurrence" (Olshausen). Adam Clarke
contends with much enthusiasm that the tempter was not a serpent, but an ape or
orangutan. And he said. Not as originally endowed with speech (Josephus, Clarke), or
gifted at this particular time with the power of articulation (’Ephrem; lib. de paradiso,’ c.
27, quoted by Willet), but simply as used by the devil, who from this circumstance is
commonly styled in Scripture ’The serpent," "the old serpent," "that old serpent" (cf.
Rev_12:9; Rev_20:2). Nor is it more difficult to understand the speaking of the serpent
when possessed by Satan, than the talking of Balaam’s ass when the Lord opened its
mouth (Num_22:28-30). Equally with the idea that the devil was the only agent in man’s
temptation, and that the serpent is purely the allegorical dress in which the historian
clothes him (Eusebius, Cajetan, Quarry, Alford), must the notion be rejected that there
was nothing but a serpent (Aben Ezra, Kalisch, Knobel). Why, if there was an evil spirit
manipulating the reptile, the historian did not say so has been explained
(1) on the ground that the belief in the devil was then foreign to the Hebrews (Knobel);
(2) that up to this point in the narrative there is no mention of the devil (White of
Dorchester);
(3) that Moses simply wished to be rei gestae scriptor non interpres (Pererins);
(4) that it was unnecessary, those for whom he wrote being sufficiently capable of
discerning that the serpent was not the prime mover in the transaction (Candlish);
21

(5) that "by a homely and uncultivated style he accommodates what he delivers to the
capacity of the people" (Calvin);
(6) that his object being merely to show that God had no hand in man’s temptation, but
that Adam sinned of himself, it was not needful to do more than recite the incident as it
appeared to the senses (White);
(7) that he wished "to avoid encouraging the disposition to transfer the blame to the evil
spirit which tempted man, and thus reduce sin to a mere act of weakness" (Keil).
Unto the woman. As the weaker of the two, and more likely to be easily persuaded
(1Ti_2:14; 1Pe_3:7). Cf. Satan’s assault on Job through his wife (Job_2:9). Milton’s idea
that Eve desired to be independent, and had withdrawn herself out of Adam’s sight, it
has been well remarked, "sets up a beginning of the fall before the fall itself" (Lunge).
Yea. ‫ף‬ ַ‫א‬ ‫.כּי‬ Is it even so that? (Gesenius). Is it really so that! (Ewald, Furst, Keil).
Etiamne, vel Itane (Calvin). A question either
(1) spoken in irony, as if the meaning were, "Very like it is that. God careth what you
eat!" or
(2) inquiring the reason of the prohibition (LXX.,—τιμ ὁμτι ει}peno( qeo_j; Vulgate,
cur praecepit vobis Deus); or
(3) simply soliciting information (Chaldee Paraphrase); but
(4) most likely expressing surprise and astonishment, with the view of suggesting
distrust of the Divine goodness and disbelief in the Divine veracity (Ewald, Rosenmόller,
Kalisch, Keil, Macdonald, Lunge). The conversation may have been commenced by the
tempter, and the question "thrown out as a feeler for some weak point where the fidelity
of the woman might be shaken" (Murphy); but it is more likely that the devil spoke in
continuation of a colloquy which is not reported (Kalisch, Macdonald), which has led
some, on the supposition that already many arguments had been adduced to
substantiate the Divine severity, to render "yea" by "
quanto margis," as if the meaning were, "How much more is this a proof of God’s
unkindness!" (Aben Ezra, Kimchi). Hath God said. "The tempter felt it necessary to
change the living personal God into a merely general numen divinum" (Keil); but the
Elohim of Gen_1:1-31. He was not a mere numen divinum As much astray is the
observation that Satan wished to avoid profaning the name of Jehovah (Knobel). Better
is the remark that the serpent could not utter the name Jehovah as his assault was
directed against the paradisiacal covenant of God with man (Lange). By using the name
Elohim instead of Jehovah the covenant relationship of God towards man was obscured,
and man’s position in the garden represented as that of a subject rather than a son. As it
were, Eve was first placed at the furthest distance possible from the supreme, and then
assailed. Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden. I.e. either accepting the
present rendering as correct, which the Hebrew will bear,—"Are there any trees in the
garden of which you may not eat?" "Is it really so that God hath prohibited you from
some?" (Calvin),—or, translating lo-kol as not any—Latin, nullus—"Hath God said ye
shall not eat of any?" (Macdonald, Keil). According to the first the devil simply seeks to
impeach the Divine goodness; according to the second he also aims at intensifying the
Divine prohibition. The second rendering appears to be supported by the fitness of Eve’s
22

reply.
Gen_3:2, Gen_3:3
And the woman said unto the serpent. Neither afraid of the reptile, there being not
yet any enmity among the creatures; nor astonished at his speaking, perhaps as being
not yet fully acquainted with the capabilities of the lower animals; nor suspicions of his
designs, her innocence and inexperience not predisposing her to apprehend danger. Yet
the tenor of the reptile’s interrogation was fitted to excite alarm; and if, as some
conjecture, she understood that Satan was the speaker, she should at once have taken
flight; while, if she knew nothing of him or his disposition, she should not have opened
herself so freely to a person unknown. "The woman certainly discovers some
uuadvisedness in entertaining conference with the serpent, in matters of so great
importance, in so familiar a manner" (White). We may eat of the fruit of the trees
of the garden.
(1) Omitting the Divine name when recording his liberality, though she remembers it
when reciting his restraint;
(2) failing to do justice to the largeness and freeness of the Divine grant (cf. with Gen_
2:16);—which, however, charity would do well not to press against the woman as
symptoms of incipient rebellion. 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.
An addition to the prohibitory enactment, which may have been simply an inaccuracy in
her understanding of Adam’s report of its exact terms (Kalisch); or the result of a rising
feeling of dissatisfaction with the too great strictness of the prohibition (Delitzsch), and
so an indication "that her love and confidence towards God were already beginning to
waver" (Keil); or a proof of her anxiety to observe the Divine precept (Calvin); or a
statement of her understanding "that they were not to meddle with it as a forbidden
thing" (Murphy). Lest ye die. Even Calvin here admits that Eve beans to give way,
leading ‫ן־‬ֶ‫פ‬ as forte, with which Macdonald appears to agree, discovering "doubt and
hesitancy" in her language; but—
(1) the conjunction may point to a consequence which is certain—indeed this is its usual
meaning (of. Gen_11:4; Gen_19:5; Psa_2:12);
(2) "Where there are so many real grounds for condemning Eve’s conduct, it is our duty
to be cautious in giving those which are problematical" (Bush); and,
(3) "she would have represented the penalty in a worse rather than a softened form had
she begun to think it unjust" (Inglis).
Gen_3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman. "As God had preached to Adam, so Satan
now also preaches to Eve … The object of Satan was to draw away Eve by his word or
saying from that which God had said" (Luther). Ye shall not surely die. Lo-moth
temuthun. Thus the second step in his assault is to challenge the Divine veracity, in
allusion to which it has been thought our Savior calls Satan a liar (cf. Joh_8:44: ὁμταν
λαλῇ τοΜ ψεῦδος ἐκ τῶν ἰδιμων λαλεῖ ὁτι ψευμστης ἐστιν καιΜ ὁ πατηΜρ αὐτοῦ).
"Here, as far as we know, is his first begottten lie" (Bush).
23

PULPIT, "Gen_3:1
The tempter.
I. WHO TEMPTS?
1. Not the mere serpent.
2. A higher power of evil.
3. This higher power a person.
4. The leader of the fallen angels.
II. WHY PERMITTED? Easy to see why moved; why permitted, a mystery. But we
may note—
1. That the intercourse of mind with mind is a general law of nature. To exclude the
devil, therefore, from gaining access to man might have involved as great a miracle as
preventing one mind from influencing another.
2. That the good as well as the evil angels have access to us. Can we estimate their
influence, or be sure that Adam’s position or the world’s would have been better if both
had been excluded?
3. That possibly by this sin under temptation we were saved from a worse sin apart from
temptation.
4. That God magnifies his grace and vindicates his power against the devil’s in raising
fallen man above his first place of creature-ship into that of sonship.
III. WHY EMPLOY THE SERPENT?
1. Because not permitted to assume a higher form—his masterpiece of craft, "an angel of
light" (2Co_11:14), or his masterpiece of power, a mighty prince (Mat_4:1).
2. Because of all animals the serpent seemed the fittest for his purpose.—W.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Gen_3:1-7
The moral chaos before the moral restoration.
Hitherto the moral nature of man may be said to be absorbed in his religious nature. He
has held intercourse with his Creator. He has ruled earth as "the paragon of animals."
The introduction of a helpmeet was the commencement of society, therefore of distinctly
moral relations. It is in the moral sphere that sin takes its origin, through the helpmeet,
and as a violation at the same time of a direct Divine commandment, and of that social
compact of obedience to God and dependence upon one another which is the root of all
true moral life. The woman was away from the man when she sinned. Her sin was more
than a sin against God; it was an offence against the law of her being as one with her
husband. There are many suggestive points in the verses (1-7) which we may call the
24

return of man’s moral state into chaos, that out of it may come forth, by Divine grace,
the new creation of a redeemed humanity.
I. As it is only IN THE MORAL SPHERE THAT SIN IS POSSIBLE, SO IT IS BY
THE CONTACT OF A FORMER CORRUPTION WITH MAN that the evil
principle is introduced into the world. The serpent’s subtlety represents that evil
principle already in operation.
II. While the whole transaction is on the line of moral and religious responsibility IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCONNECT THE ANIMAL NATURE FROM THE FIRST
TEMPTATION. The serpent, the woman, the tree, the eating of fruit, the pleasantness
to taste and sight, the effect upon the fleshly feelings, all point to the close relation of the
animal and the moral. There is nothing implied as to the nature of matter, but it is
plainly taught that the effect of a loss of moral and spiritual dignity is a sinking back into
the lower grade of life; as man is less a child of God he is more akin to the beasts that
perish.
III. THE TEMPTATION IS BASED ON A LIE; first soliciting the mind through a
question, a perplexity, then passing to a direct contradiction of God’s word, and
blasphemous suggestion of his ill-will towards man, together with an excitement of pride
and overweening desire in man’s heart. The serpent did not directly open the door of
disobedience. He led the woman up to it, and stirred in her the evil thought of passing
through it. The first temptation is the type of all temptation. Notice the three points:—
(1) falsification of fact and confusion of mind;
(2) alienation from God as the Source of all good and the only wise Ruler of our life;
(3) desire selfishly exalting itself above the recognized and appointed limits. Another
suggestion is—
IV. THE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT SIN SHOULD NOT FRUCTIFY
IMMEDIATELY THAT IT BECOME A FACT OF THE LIFE. Temptation is not sin.
Temptation resisted is moral strength. Temptation yielded to is an evil principle
admitted into the sphere of its operation, and beginning its work at once. The woman
violated her true position by her sin; it was the consequence of that position that she
became a tempter herself to Adam, so that the helpmeet became to Adam what the
serpent was to her. His eating with her was, as Milton so powerfully describes it, at
once—
(1) a testimony to their oneness, and therefore to the power of that love which might
have been only a blessing; and
(2) a condemnation of both alike. The woman was first in the condemnation, but the
man was first in the knowledge of the commandment and in the privilege of his position;
therefore the man was first in degree of condemnation, while the woman was first in the
order of time.
V. THE WORK OF SIN UPON THE WHOLE NATURE IS IMMEDIATE. The
knowledge of good and evil is the commencement of a conflict between the laws of
nature and the laws of the human spirit in its connection with nature, which nothing but
the grace of God can bring to an end in the "peace which passeth understanding." That
25

springing up of shame in the knowledge of natural facts is a testimony to a violation of
God’s order which he alone can set right. "Who told thee," God said, "that thou wast
naked?" God might have raised his creature to a position in which shame would have
been impossible. He will do so by his grace. Meanwhile the fall was what the word
represents a forfeiture of that superiority to the mere animal nature which was man’s
birthright. And the results of the fall are seen in the perpetual warfare between the
natural world and the spiritual world in that being who was made at once a being of
earth and a child of God. "They sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
In the sense of humiliation and defeat man turns to the mere material protection of
surrounding objects, forgetting that a spiritual evil can only be remedied by a spiritual
good; but the shameful helplessness of the creature is the opportunity for the gracious
interposition of God.—R.
HOMILIES BY J.F. MONTGOMERY
Gen_3:4
The tempter’s chief weapon.
Narrative of the fall is of interest not only as the record of how mankind became sinful,
but as showing the working of that "lie" (2Th_2:11) by which the tempter continually
seeks to draw men away (2Co_11:3). Eve’s temptation is in substance our temptation;
Eve’s fall illustrates our danger, and gives us matter whereby to try ourselves and mark
how far we "walk by faith."
The SUBSTANCE OF THE TEMPTATION was suggesting doubts—
(1) As to God’s love.
(2) As to God’s truth.
The former led to self-willed desire; the latter gave force to the temptation by removing
the restraining power. We are tempted by the same suggestions. The will and unbelief
act and react upon each other. Where the will turns away from God’s will doubt more
easily finds an entrance, and having entered, it strengthens self-will (Rom_1:28).
Unbelief is often a refuge to escape from the voice of conscience. But mark—the
suggestion was not, "God has not said," but, It will not be so; You have misunderstood
him; There will be some way of avoiding the danger. Excuses are easy to find: human
infirmity, peculiar circumstances, strength of temptation, promises not to do so again.
And a man may live, knowing God’s word, habitually breaking it, yet persuading himself
that all is well. Note two chief lines in which this temptation assails:—
1. As to the necessity for Christian earnestness. We are warned (1Jn_2:15; 1Jn_5:12;
Rom_8:6-13). What is the life thus spoken of? Nothing strange. A life of seeking the
world’s prizes, gains, pleasures. A life whose guide is what others do; in which the
example of Christ and guidance of the Holy Spirit are not regarded; in which religion is
kept apart, and confined to certain times and services. Of this God says it is living death
(cf. 1Ti_5:6); life’s work neglected; Christ’s banner deserted. Yet the tempter
persuades—times have changed, the Bible must not be taken literally, ye shall not die.
2. As to acceptance of the gift of salvation. God’s word is (Mar_16:15; Luk_14:21; Joh_
4:10) the record to be believed (Isa_53:5, Isa_53:6; 1Jn_5:11). Yet speak to men of the
26

free gift, tell them of present salvation; the tempter persuades—true; but you must do
something, or feel something, before it can be safe to believe;—God has said; but it will
not be so. In conclusion, mark how the way of salvation just reverses the process of the
fall. Man fell away from God, from peace, from holiness through doubting God’s love
and truth. We are restored to peace through believing these (Joh_3:16; 1Jn_1:9), and it
is this belief which binds us to God in loving service (2Co_5:14).—M.
SBC, "I. Satan’s temptations begin by laying a doubt at the root. He questions; he
unsettles. He does not assert error; he does not contradict truth; but he confounds both.
He makes his first entries, not by violent attack, but by secret sapping; he endeavours to
confuse and cloud the mind which he is afterwards going to kill.
II. The particular character of these troublesome and wicked questionings of the mind
varies according to the state and temperament and character of each individual. (1) In
order to combat them, every one should have his mind stored and fortified with some of
the evidences of the Christian religion. To these he should recur whenever he feels
disquieted; he should be able to give "a reason for the hope that is in him," and an
answer to that miserable shadow that flits across his mind, "Yea, hath God said?". (2) A
man must be careful that his course of life is not one giving advantage to the tempter. He
must not be dallying under the shadow of the forbidden tree, lest the tempter meet him
and he die.
III. The far end of Satan is to diminish from the glory of God. To mar God’s design he
insinuated his wily coil into the garden of Eden; to mar God’s design he met Jesus Christ
in the wilderness, on the mountain top, and on the pinnacle of the temple; to mar God’s
design he is always leading us to take unworthy views of God’s nature and God’s work.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 1874, p. 172 (Good Words, 1867, p. 310).
The tempter effected his purpose in Eden: (1) by a question; (2) by a negation; (3) by a
promise.
I. By a question. (1) Have we ever reflected on the tremendous power of a question?
Some of the most important social and intellectual revolutions have sprung from a
question. And it was through a question that the greatest of all revolutions was effected,
by which man, made in the image of God, was seduced from his allegiance—a question
that has carried with it consequences of which no man can foresee the end. (2) Mark the
subtlety of the question. It aimed at destroying the blessed fellowship between God and
man. "Men ask in vain," says Luther, "what was the particular sin to which Eve was
tempted." The solicitation was to all sins when she was tempted to doubt the word and
the goodwill of God.
II. The tempter makes the way to sin easy by removing all fear of the consequences.
There is the negation, "Ye shall not surely die." We listen to the lie, and we stake our all,
for time and for eternity, upon this blank and cruel negation.
III. The Satanic promise, Gen_3:5. (1) It is malevolent: "God doth know"; He has a
reason for the restriction; He dreads a rival. (2) It is fascinating: "Ye shall be as gods."
The perverted pride of man’s heart is the tempter’s best ally.
27

Genesis 3:1-24
Genesis 3
Consider: (1) some of the consequences, and (2) some of the corroborative proofs of the
fall.
I. Beside and behind the outward consequences, there were inward results far more
terrible. A disease had appeared on earth of the most frightful and inveterate kind. This
disease was (1) a moral disease. The grand disease of sin combines all the evil qualities of
bodily distempers in a figurative yet real form, and turns not the body, but the soul, into
a mass of malady. (2) The disease is universal in its ravages. The entire being is
encrusted with this leprosy. The whole head is sick and the whole heart faint. (3) This
disease is deep-seated in its roots. Its roots are in the very centre of the system, and it
infects all the springs of life. It makes us cold and dead and languid in the pursuit of
things that are good. The enemy, through the subtle power of this disease, has
penetrated into the very citadel of man, and waves his flag of victory upon its highest
battlements. (4) This disease is hereditary. It is within us as early as existence; it
descends from parent to child more faithfully than the family features or disposition or
intellect. (5) This is a disease which assumes various forms and aspects. Its varieties are
as numerous as the varieties of men and of sinners. In that great hospital, that
magnificent madhouse called the earth, we find all kinds and degrees of moral disease,
from the fever of ambition to the consumption of envy, from the frantic fury of the
conqueror to the dull idiocy of the miser. (6) This is a disease which defies all human
means of cure, and a disease which, if not cured, will terminate in everlasting
destruction.
II. Apart from the declarations of God’s word, there are strong and startling proofs of a
fall. (1) There are all those dreadful phenomena mentioned above, which are connected
with man’s present diseased moral condition. (2) The doctrine of a fall alone explains the
anomalous and ambiguous condition of man. The fracture he has suffered has, in its very
fierceness and depth, opened up a light into his structure. From the great inequality of
human character we cannot but conclude that a catastrophe must have overwhelmed the
whole mass of mankind and reduced them to a medley of confusion. We find the echo of
man’s fall in every strain of primeval song and in every breath of old tradition.
G. Gilfillan, Alpha and Omega, vol. i., pp. 98, 130.
GUZIK, "MAN’S TEMPTATION AND FALL
A. The temptation from the serpent.
1. (Gen_3:1) The serpent begins his temptation.
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God
had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of
every tree of the garden’?”
a. The serpent: The text here does not, by itself alone, clearly identify the
serpent as Satan, but the rest of the Bible makes it clear this is Satan appearing
as a serpent.
28

Genesis 3 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Genesis 3 commentary

Similar to Genesis 3 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Genesis 3 commentary