This document provides commentary from multiple scholars on Genesis 3 and the fall of man. It discusses the possible identity and nature of the serpent or nachash mentioned in Genesis. Some key points made: - The nachash is described as more crafty than other animals, but its exact identity is unclear or ambiguous in the text. - Scholars debate whether it was a literal serpent or something else, as serpents do not have the abilities described. - One scholar argues it was likely a type of ape or orangutan based on similarities between the Hebrew and Arabic words and the abilities matched to the text. - Overall the document analyzes the original Hebrew and opinions of other scholars to try

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. (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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. i. In Eze_28:13-19 tells us that Satan was in Eden. Many other passages
associate a serpent or a snake-like creature with Satan (such as Job_26:13
and Isa_51:9). Rev_12:9 and Rev_20:2 speak of the dragon, that serpent of
old, who is the Devil and Satan.
ii. The representation of Satan as a serpent makes the idea of Moses saving
Israel by lifting up a bronze serpent all the more provocative (Num_21:8-9),
especially when Jesus identifies Himself with that very serpent (Joh_3:14).
This is because in this picture, the serpent (a personification of sin and
rebellion) is made of bronze (a metal associated with judgment, since it is
made with fire). The lifting of a bronze serpent is the lifting up of sin judged,
in the form of a cross.
iii. Eze_28:1-26 tells us Satan, before his fall, was an angel of the highest rank
and prominence, even the “worship leader” in heaven. Isa_14:1-32 tells us
Satan’s fall had to do with his desire to be equal to or greater than God, to set
his will against God’s will.
b. The serpent was more cunning than any beast: Satan’s effectiveness is
often found in His cunning, crafty ways. We can’t outsmart Satan, but we can
overcome him with the power of Jesus.
i. It was the craftiness of Satan that made him successful against Eve: as the
serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness (2Co_11:3).
c. And he said to the woman: Apparently, before the curse pronounced in
Gen_3:14-15, the serpent was different than what we know today as a serpent.
This creature didn’t start as a snake as we know it, it became one.
i. “The creature that tempted Eve became a serpent as a result of God’s
judgment on it, and it went slithering away into the bushes to the intense
horror of Adam and Eve.” (Boice)
ii. Demonic spirits evidently have the ability, under certain circumstances, to
indwell human or animal bodies (Luk_8:33). On this occasion, Satan chose
to indwell the body of a pre-curse serpent.
iii. Poole says the woman wasn’t surprised at the serpent’s speaking because
Adam and Eve had free conversation with angelic beings that often appeared
in the form of men. If this is true, it wasn’t so strange to Eve that an angelic
being might appear to her in the form of a beautiful pre-curse serpent.
iv. Perhaps Satan made the voice supernaturally seem to come forth from the
serpent, or perhaps Satan “said” this to Eve in her thoughts. What Satan said
is more important than how he said it.
d. To the woman: Satan brought his temptation against the woman because he
perceived she was more vulnerable to attack. This is because she did not receive
the command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil directly
from God but through Adam (Gen_2:15-17).
i. Perhaps Satan knew by observation Adam didn’t do an effective job in
communicating to Eve what the LORD told him. This failure on Adam’s part
made Eve more vulnerable to temptation.
ii. Satan will often attack a chain at its weakest link, so he gets at Adam by
29

30. tempting Eve. The stronger ones in a “chain” must expect attack against
weaker links and support them against those attacks.
iii. It was also in God’s plan to allow Satan to tempt Eve this way. If Adam
would have sinned first, and if he had given the fruit to Eve, she might have a
partial excuse before God: “I was simply obeying the head of our home. When
he gave me the fruit, I ate of it.”
e. Has God indeed said: Satan’s first attack is leveled against the Word of God.
If he can get Eve confused about what God said, or to doubt what God said, then
his battle is partially won.
i. From the beginning, Satan has tried to undermine God’s people by
undermining God’s Word. He can undermine just as effectively by getting us
to neglect God’s Word as by getting us to doubt it.
f. “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the
garden’?” Satan took God’s positive command (Of every tree of the garden you
may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not
eat [Gen_2:16-17]) and rephrased it in a negative way: “God won’t let you eat of
every tree.”
BI 1-6, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
The first great temptation
I. THAT THE HUMAN SOUL IS FREQUENTLY TEMPTED BY A DIRE FOE OF
UNUSUAL SUBTLETY.
1. The tempter of human souls is subtle.
2. Malignant.
3. Courageous.
II. THAT THE TEMPTER SEERS TO ENGAGE THE HUMAN SOUL IN
CONVERSATION AND CONTROVERSY.
1. He seeks to hold controversy with human souls, that he may render them
impatient of the moral restrictions of life.
2. That he may insidiously awaken within them thoughts derogatory to the character
of God.
3. That he may lead them to yield to the lust of the eye.
III. THAT THE TEMPTER SEEKS TO MAKE ONE SOUL HIS ALLY IN THE
SEDUCTION OF ANOTHER.
IV. THAT THE HUMAN SOUL SOON AWAKENS FROM THE SUBTLE VISION OF
TEMPTATION TO FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN DELUDED AND RUINED (see Gen_3:7).
1. That the human soul soon awakes from the charming vision of temptation.
Temptation is a charming vision to the soul. The tree looks gigantic. The fruit looks
rich and ripe, and its colour begins to glow more and yet more, then it is plucked and
eaten. Then comes the bitter taste. The sad recollection. The moment of despair. To
Adam and Eve sin was a new experience. No man is the better for the woeful
30

31. experience of evil.
2. That the human soul, awakening from the vision of temptation, is conscious of
moral nakedness. Sin always brings shame, a shame it deeply feels but cannot hide.
How sad the destitution of a soul that has fallen from God.
3. That the human soul awakening from the vision of temptation, conscious of its
moral nakedness, seeks to provide a clothing of its own device. Adam and Eve sewed
fig leaves together to make them aprons. Sin must have a covering. It is often
ingenious in making and sewing it together. But its covering is always unworthy and
futile. Man cannot of himself clothe his soul. Only the righteousness of Christ can
effectually hide his moral nakedness. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
How could God justly permit satanic temptation?
We see in this permission not injustice but benevolence.
1. Since Satan fell without external temptation, it is probable that man’s trial would
have been substantially the same, even though there had been no Satan to tempt
him.
2. In this case, however, man’s fall would perhaps have been without what now
constitutes its single mitigating circumstance. Self-originated sin would have made
man himself a Satan.
3. As, in the conflict with temptation, it is an advantage to objectify evil under the
image of corruptible flesh, so it is an advantage to meet it as embodied in a personal
and seducing spirit.
4. Such temptation has in itself no tendency to lead the soul astray. If the soul be
holy, temptation may only confirm it in virtue. Only the evil will, self determined
against God, can turn temptation into an occasion of ruin. As the sun’s heat has no
tendency to wither the plant rooted in deep and moist soil, but only causes it to send
down its roots the deeper and to fasten itself the more strongly, so temptation has in
itself no tendency to pervert the soul. The same temptation which occasions the ruin
of the false disciple stimulates to sturdy growth the virtue of the true Christian.
Contrast with the temptation of Adam the temptation of Christ. Adam had
everything to plead for God, the garden and its delights, while Christ had everything
to plead against Him, the wilderness and its privations. But Adam had confidence in
Satan, while Christ had confidence in God; and the result was in the former case
defeat, in the latter victory. How could a penalty so great be justly connected with
disobedience to so slight a command.
To this question we may reply:
1. So slight a command presented the best test of the spirit of obedience.
2. The external command was not arbitrary or insignificant in its substance. It was a
concrete presentation to the human will of God’s claim to eminent domain or
absolute ownership.
3. The sanction attached to the command shows that man was not left ignorant of its
meaning or importance.
31

32. 4. The act of disobedience was therefore the revelation of a will thoroughly
corrupted and alienated from God—a will given over to ingratitude, unbelief,
ambition, and rebellion. The motive to disobedience was not appetite, but the
ambition to be as God. The outward act of eating the forbidden fruit was only the
thin edge of the wedge, behind which lay the whole mass—the fundamental
determination to isolate self and to seek personal pleasure regardless of God and His
law. So the man under conviction for sin commonly clings to some single passion or
plan, only half-conscious of the fact that opposition to God in one thing is opposition
in all.
Consequences of the fall, so far as respects Adam
1. Death. This death was two fold. It was partly—
(1) Physical death, or the separation of the soul from the body. The seeds of
death, naturally implanted in man’s constitution, began to develop themselves
the moment that access to the tree of life was denied him. Man from that
moment was a dying creature. But this death was also, and chiefly—
(2) Spiritual death, or the separation of the soul from God. In this are included—
(a) Negatively, the loss of man’s moral likeness to God, or that underlying
tendency of his whole nature toward God which constituted his original
righteousness.
(b) Positively, the depraving of all those powers which, in their united action
with reference to moral and religious truth, we call man’s moral and religious
nature; or, in other words, the blinding of his intellect, the corruption of his
affections, and the enslavement of his will. Seeking to be a god, man became a
slave; seeking independence, he ceased to be master of himself. In fine, man
no longer made God the end of his life, but chose self instead. While he
retained the power of self-determination in subordinate things, he lost that
freedom which consisted in the power of choosing God as his ultimate aim,
and became fettered by a fundamental inclination of his will toward evil. The
intuitions of the reason were abnormally obscured, since these intuitions, so
far as they are concerned with moral and religious truth, are conditioned
upon a right state of the affections; and—as a necessary result of this
obscuring of reason—conscience, which, as the moral judiciary of the soul,
decides upon the basis of the law given to it by reason, became perverse in its
deliverances. Yet this inability to judge or act aright, since it was a moral
inability springing ultimately from will, was itself hateful and condemnable.
2. Positive and formal exclusion from God’s presence. This included—
(1) The cessation of man’s former familiar intercourse with God, and the setting
up of outward barriers between man and his Maker (cherubim and sacrifice).
(2) Banishment from the garden, where God had specially manifested His
presence. Eden was perhaps a spot reserved, as Adam’s body bad been, to show
what a sinless world would be. This positive exclusion from God’s presence, with
the sorrow and pain which it involved, may have been intended to illustrate to
man the nature of that eternal death from which he now needed to seek
deliverance. (A. H. Strong, D. D.)
32

33. The temptation
Observe, in general, its nature and subtlety
1. He concealed his true character as the enemy of God. He appears to pay a
deference to the Creator, not presuming to insinuate any question about His right to
give laws, such laws as seemed good in His sight, to His intelligent creatures. He
does not begin to tell of his own fall, and to speak boastfully of his own rebellion. He
pretends great regard and friendly wishes for them, and at the same time carefully
conceals his enmity against God.
2. He assails Eve, as would appear, when alone; in the absence of Adam. He thus
took her at the greatest disadvantage, knowing well that in such a case “two are
better than one”; that what was yielded by one might have been resisted by them
both.
3. There is a probability, amounting as nearly as possible to certainty, that he
assaulted her at a moment when she was near the tree, so that there might be no
length of time allowed her for reflection and deliberation.
4. Mark the ingredients included in the temptation itself. There is, first, an
insinuation of unkindness of an unnecessary and capricious restriction, put in the
form of a question of surprise, as if it were a thing be found difficult to believe, and
for which he could imagine no reason. There was, secondly, a direct contradiction of
the assurance she gave him of the consequence of eating, as having been intimated to
them by Jehovah. (R. Wardlaw, D. D.)
The nature of the test to which Adam’s allegiance was put
1. So far as we are capable of judging, it was a thing in itself indifferent, having
nothing in it of an intrinsically moral character. Now, in this view of it, it was
peculiarly appropriate. It was a test of subjection to the Divine will; a test, simply
considered, of obedience to God.
2. It has been remarked that the circumstances in which Adam was, at his creation,
were such as to remove him from all temptations to, and, in some instances, from all
possibility of, committing those sins which now most frequently abound amongst his
posterity; “which is one thought of considerable importance to vindicate the Divine
wisdom in that constitution under which he was placed.”
3. We further observe that it was specially appropriate in this, that, from the
comparatively little and trivial character of the action prohibited, it taught the
important lesson that the real guilt of sin lay in its principle, the principle of
rebellion against God’s will; not in the extent of the mischief done, or of the
consequences arising out of it.
4. I might notice also its precision. The language of Dr. Dwight on another part of
this subject may be fairly applied here. “It brought the duty which he (Adam) was
called to perform up to his view in the most distinct manner possible, and rendered
it too intelligible to be mistaken. No room was left for doubt or debate. The object in
question was a sensible object, perfectly defined, and perfectly understood.” No
33

34. metaphysical or philosophical discussion was demanded or admitted.
5. A test of this particular kind being once admitted to be suitable, the one actually
selected was one which, from its obvious connection with the condition in which our
first parents were placed, was, in the highest degree, natural. “Considering they were
placed in a garden, what so natural, what so suitable to their situation, as forbidding
them to eat of the fruit of a certain tree in that garden?” “The liberal grant of food
was the extent of their liberty; this single limitation the test of their obedience.”
6. It was, besides, an easy test. It was neither any mighty thing they were to do, nor
any mighty indulgence they were to deny themselves, that was made the criterion of
their subjection to God. (R. Wardlaw, D. D.)
Observations
I. IT IS THE USUAL CUSTOM OF SATAN TO ATTEMPT MEN BEFORE THEY BE
CONFIRMED, AND SETTLED IN A COURSE OF GODLINESS.
II. SATAN CONTRIVES MISCHIEF, EVEN AGAINST SUCH AS NEVER PROVOKED
HIM. Hope not for peace with wicked men, who being Satan’s seed, must needs
resemble his nature, as our Saviour testifies they do Joh_8:44), seeing a good man’s
peace with them is—
1. Impossible, because of the contrariety between good and evil men every way. As,—
(1) In their very disposition a good and wicked man are an abomination one to
another (Pro_29:27).
(2) And are employed in the service of contrary masters, Christ and Belial 2Co_
6:15).
(3) They follow, and are guided by contrary rules, the law of sin (as the apostle
terms it, Rom_7:23), and the law of righteousness, as God’s law is termed (Psa_
119:172).
(4) And are carried in all their ways and actions to contrary ends: whence it
necessarily follows that they must continually cross one another in all the course
of their conversation.
III. NO PLACE NOR EMPLOYMENT CAN FREE US FROM SATAN’S ASSAULTS.
IV. THOUGH SATAN BE THE AUTHOR AND PERSUADER TO EVERY SINFUL
MOTION, YET HE LOVES NOT TO BE SEEN IN IT. In casting of evil thoughts into the
heart, he makes use of inward and indiscernible suggestions; that though we find the
motion in our hearts, yet we cannot discover how they entered into our minds. Thus he
stirred up David to number the people 1Ch_21:1), entered into Judas (Luk_22:3), was a
lying spirit in the mouth of Zedekiah, though he knew not which way he entered into
him (1Ki_22:23-24). But oftentimes he makes use of some outward instruments by
which he conveys his counsels, sometimes taking on him the shape of unreasonable
creatures, as he always doth in dealing with witches and conjurers, and as we see he
dealt with Eve in this place, although more usually he makes use of men to beguile men
by, as he did in tempting Ahab by Jezebel his wife (1Ki_21:25), and by his false prophet.
V. SATAN USUALLY MAKES CHOICE OF THOSE INSTRUMENTS WHICH HE FINDS
34

35. FITTEST FOR THE COMPASSING OF HIS OWN WICKED ENDS. Thus he makes use of
the wise and learned to persuade, of men of power and authority to command, and to
compel men to evil practices, of beautiful women to allure to lust, of great men to
countenance, and of men of strength and power to exercise violence and oppression.
And this he doth upon a double reason.
1. That whereas God hath therefore given great abilities to some above others, to
enable them the better for His service, that He might have the more honour thereby,
Satan, as it were, to despite God the more, turns his own weapons against himself to
dishonour him all he can in that wherein he seeks, and out of which he ought to
receive his greatest glory.
2. Necessity enforceth him to make the best choice he can of able instruments,
because carrying men in sinful courses, he must needs have the help of strong
means, the work being difficult in itself, as crossing all God’s ways.
VI. CUNNING AND SUBTLE PERSONS ARE DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS TO
DECEIVE AND THEREBY TO DO MISCHIEF. Such a one was Jonadab, to show Amnon
the way to defile his own sister (2Sa_13:1-39). Ahitophel to further Absalom’s treason
against his own father (2Sa_15:1-37; 2Sa_16:23). Such were the scribes and Pharisees,
our Saviour’s enemies, and murderers at last, whom He everywhere taxeth for their
pride, covetousness, and subtle dissimulation: with whom we may join Elymas the
sorcerer, fall of all subtilty, whom the devil made use of, to turn away the people’s hearts
from receiving Paul’s ministry. But what are those to Satan himself, that sets them all on
work, called the old serpent, more subtle, and consequently more dangerously
mischievous than all his agents?
VII. NO ADVANTAGE CAN ASSURE A CHILD OF GOD FROM THE ASSAULTS AND
TEMPTATIONS OF SATAN.
VIII. OUR WEAKNESS IS SATAN’S ADVANTAGE.
IX. SOLITARINESS IS OFTEN A SNARE.
1. It yields advantage to temptations (as appears in David’s entangling himself with
lust after Bath-sheba when he was alone); whence it was, that our Saviour, to give
Satan all the advantage that might be, that thereby He might make His victory over
him the more glorious, went out to encounter with him in the solitary wilderness.
2. Solitariness gives the greater opportunity to commit sin unespied of men; an
advantage upon which Joseph’s mistress attempts him to commit adultery with her
(Gen_39:11-12).
3. It deprives men of help, by advice and counsel to withstand the temptation. So,
Ecc_4:10; Ecc_4:12.
4. Man was ordained for society, and fitted with abilities for that purpose, and as he
is most serviceable that way, so he is most safe, as being secured by God’s protection
in that way and employment, to which the Lord hath assigned him.
X. SATAN’S MAIN END IS MAN’S DESTRUCTION, BY TURNING AWAY HIS HEART
FROM GOD.
XI. IT IS USUAL WITH SATAN AND HIS INSTRUMENTS TO PRETEND THE GOOD
OF THOSE WHOM THEY INTEND WHOLLY TO DESTROY.
35

36. XII. SATAN AND HIS AGENTS IN TEMPTING MEN TO SIN, ARE VERY WARY IN
DISCOVERING THEIR FULL INTENTIONS AT FIRST, TILL THEY SEE HOW THEY
WILL BE ENTERTAINED.
XIII. DISCRETION AND WARINESS IN MEN’S ACTIONS OUGHT NOT TO HINDER
THE EFFECTUAL PROSECUTION OF THAT WHICH THEY INTEND.
XIV. THE FORGETTING OF GOD’S MERCIES IS A GREAT MEANS TO TAKE OFF A
MAN’S HEART FROM CLEAVING TO HIM.
XV. IT IS A DANGEROUS SNARE TO A MAN TO HAVE HIS EYES TOO MUCH FIXED
UPON HIS WANTS.
XVI. THE NATURE OF MAN, BY THE ART AND POLICY OF SATAN, IS APT TO BE
CARRIED AGAINST ALL RESTRAINT AND SUBJECTION.
XVII. AMBIGUOUS AND DOUBTFUL EXPRESSIONS MAY BE AND MANY TIMES
ARE DANGEROUS SNARES. If they be purposely used. As—
1. Betraying an ill mind and affection in him that proposeth them, seeing men that
think well and sincerely have no cause to cover their intentions with the darkness of
doubtful terms.
2. And being dangerous means to lead men into error, if they be not wisely and
heedfully observed. (J. White, M. A.)
But why did God give Adam this law, seeing God did foresee that Adam
would transgress it?
I. It was Adam’s fault that he did not keep the law; God gave him a stock of grace to
trade with, but he of himself broke.
II. Though God foresaw Adam would transgress, yet that was not a sufficient reason that
Adam should have no law given him; for, by the same reason, God should not have given
His written word to men, to be a rule of faith and manners, because He foresaw that
some would not believe, and others would be profane. Shall not laws be made in the
land, because some break them?
III. God, though He foresaw Adam would break the law, He knew how to turn it to a
greater good, in sending Christ. The first covenant being broken, He knew how to
establish a second, and a better. (T. Watson.)
The woman and the serpent
I. THE WISDOM OF THE WORLD. Among the maxims of this wisdom are these—
1. That happiness is the end of human existence.
2. That nature is a sufficient source of happiness.
3. That man’s chief happiness lies in forbidden objects.
4. That God is what we fancy or desire Him to be.
36

37. II. THE QUALITIES OF SIN.
1. The elements of all sin are here—sensuality, covetousness, ambition.
2. Sin originates in unbelief.
3. It wears a specious appearance of goodness.
III. THE RESULTS OF SIN. It—
1. Transforms its victims into Satanic incarnations.
2. Reveals its own deceptiveness.
3. Covers its victims with confusion. (J. A. Macdonald.)
Little sins, if not prevented, bring on greater, to the ruin of the soul
Thieves, when they go to rob a house, if they cannot force the doors, or that the wall is so
strong that they cannot break through, then they bring little boys along with them, and
these they put in at the windows, who are no sooner in, but they unbolt the doors and let
in the whole company of thieves. And thus Satan, when by greater sins he cannot tell
how to enter the soul, then he puts on and makes way by lesser, which, insensibly having
got entrance, set open the doors of the eyes and the doors of the ears, and then comes in
the whole rabble: there they take up their quarters, there, like unruly soldiers, they rule,
domineer, and do what they list, to the ruin of the soul so possessed. (J. Spencer.)
The great danger of not keeping close to God’s Word
It is a thing very well known in the great and populous city of London, that when
children, or some of bigger growth newly come out of the country, and so not well
acquainted with the streets, are either lost or found straying from their home, there is a
sort of lewd, wicked people (commonly called “spirits”) that presently fasten upon them,
and, by falsehood and fair language, draw them further out of their way, then sell them
to foreign plantations, to the great grief of their parents and friends, who, in all
likelihood, never afterwards hear what is become of them. Thus it is that, when men and
women are found straggling from God their Father, the Church their mother, and refuse
to be led by the good guidance of the blessed Spirit—when they keep not to the Law and
to the Testimony, nor stick close to the Word of God, which is in itself a lantern to their
feet and a light unto their paths—then no marvel if they meet with wicked spirits,
seducers and false teachers, that lead them captive at their will, and that, not receiving
the truth in the love of the truth, God gives them over to strong delusions, to believe a
lie. (J. Spencer.)
The serpent
Here is the devil—that apostate spirit—that accursed being—that arch rebel—that daring
adversary of God—that merciless foe of man. Eden’s serpent truly is the devil. His work
declares him. God’s Word denounces him.
1. The devil is a real person. This relation is no myth—no dream—no vision—no
37

38. fable—no allegory. It narrates the real conduct of a real person. Works prove a
workman. Acts show an agent. So real performances stamp a real devil. Watch then,
and pray. He is always personally near; for he “walketh about seeking whom he may
devour” 1Pe_5:8). Bar the portals of your heart. He seeks to make that heart his
personal home. He is the “spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience”
(Eph_2:2).
2. The devil is a hater of God. Who hates God most? Surely he who most contravenes
His will. Of the devil’s antecedent rebellion nothing should be said, for nothing can
be proved. But here a patent fact evidences his enmity. He aims directly to upset
God’s plans. He arms himself in the panoply of bold opposition. Thus he schemes;
thus he uplifts his arm boldly to fight against God. See, then, how he hates God.
Reader, you profess to love God. Where is your evidence? Do you abhor the fiend,
who from the beginning has strained his every power to subvert God’s kingdom?
3. The devil is a hater of man. Who hates man most? Surely he who most contrives
his misery. In Eden there was sweet bliss. Every faculty was the inlet of God. Every
thought—full of Him—was only joy. Satan beholds and writhes. What I shall man
share the peace which he has lost: and joy in joys, which never can be his again?
Such bliss is torture to him. He will not rest till he uproot it. Sad that the sons of men
should ]end their ears so gladly to their deadliest foe, and drink so readily this viper’s
poison! What madness to court the embrace of such an enemy—to admit the sure
murderer to our abode—to open the door to the known robber!
4. The devil is most daring. Truly nothing daunts him. His case is hopeless, therefore
he is reckless.
5. The devil is consummate in skill. He watches for the fit opportunity; and then
applies the fit snare.
6. The devil shrinks not from the blackest sin. His first appearance shows that there
is no iniquity so foul, but he will handle it; no depth of evil so profound, but he will
fathom it. He commences with trampling down all truth. “Ye shall not surely die.” He
rises upon earth the meridian orb of crime. He blushes not—nor trembles—nor
pauses—nor scruples. His earliest words are the lie of lies. So now he allures each
victim to the extremest extremity of evil.
7. The devil has awful power. Weak agents fail. Difficulties baffle them. But he is not
baffled. His first victory was hard to win. But he quickly won it. Reader, beware. All
his mighty arts plot your destruction. (Dean Law.)
Original state of man
Now, in respect of this I cannot but believe that we often impose upon ourselves, and
cherish a picture which is not consonant with the reality, and foster an illusion which is
not a little heightened and strengthened by the strong language commonly used in
speaking or writing of man’s condition paradise as one of absolute perfection. From such
language we are apt to carry away the notion that Adam was a being not only physically
complete and perfect, but also a being whose intellectual and moral nature was in its
highest degree developed,—a being, in short, to whom nothing needed to be added to
render him perfect in all his parts. Along with this, we are apt to fancy that his condition
in paradise was one of the most perfect felicity which the human nature is capable of
38

39. enjoying. Now, that this is an illusive view of man’s primitive condition, will, I think,
appear from the following considerations:
1. On a mere general survey, and looking at man simply in his physical and
intellectual aspect, it must strike one that the highest state of man is not and cannot
be that of a naked animal, with nothing to do but to keep a garden, already richly
furnished with all that is “pleasant to the eye and good for food.” It is inconceivable
that with capacities for thought and work, such as man even in the lowest state of
civilization is seen to possess, the perfection of his nature and his supreme felicity
can have been realized in a state of such simplicity and in a sphere so limited as that
which paradise afforded to our first parents.
2. It must also, I think, strike one that if Adam was the perfect being intellectually
and morally he is often represented as having been, it is inconceivable that he should
have fallen before so slight a temptation, or yielded to so trifling an impulse as that
by which he was led to transgress the Divine prohibition.
3. The law of man’s nature is that he reaches perfection only by a slow process of
growth and gradual development, secured through the due exercise of his faculties.
This is inseparable from his constitution as a free intelligent agent. That God could
create an intelligent being from the first absolutely perfect, so that he neither needed
to become nor could become more complete either intellectually or morally than he
was at the moment of his creation, is not to be denied, for with God all things are
possible. But such a being would not be like any of those whom God has formed. It
was not so that God made man. Man, as he came from the hand of his Maker, was a
free, intelligent, self-governing agent, capable of development, and needing
experience, trial, and use in order to attain both the proper growth of his physical
and mental faculties, and the strengthening, maturing, and perfecting of his moral
nature. Of every such being it is in a very important sense true that he is his own
maker. From God he receives the faculties and capacities by which he is to be
enabled to fulfil the functions of his position; but he must himself use these, and use
them wisely and well, if he is really to advance in culture and rise towards the
perfection of his being. Now, we have no reason to believe that it was otherwise with
our first parents. Their nature was the same as ours, and it is to be presumed that the
same law applied to them in this respect as to us. They could reach perfection only by
the continuous use of the faculties they possessed. It would seem even that their
moral perceptions needed the discipline of evil before it could be fully developed; for
it was after they had sinned that God said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us,
to know good and evil,” i.e., to make moral distinctions, to discern between good and
evil Gen_3:22). Not that they needed personally to sin in order to attain to this, but
that it was only by experience that they could arrive at an apprehension of the
distinction between good and evil. And as it was only by experience that their moral
nature could be fully matured, so we may safely affirm of their whole nature that it
could reach perfection only by the free and intelligent use of those faculties, physical,
intellectual, and moral, with which God had endowed them. “Mere animal natures
are finished from the first; God took everything that concerned them upon Himself,
and left them nothing to do. But it was His will that man should be His fellow worker
in the great feat of his own creation, and thereby in the completion of all creation;
the Father left the mighty work unfinished, so to speak, until the child should set his
seal on it.” We must think of man, then, in his first estate, as he came from the hand
of his Creator, not as a perfect, fully matured being, but rather as a man-child,—a
39

40. man with noble capacities, but these as yet undeveloped, and with everything to
learn—an innocent, pure, guileless being, with no bias to evil, without any knowledge
of evil, with affections tending naturally to good, and with a soul capable of rising to
a freedom like that of God, who is of purer eyes than to behold sin, and who cannot
be tempted of evil. Adam was placed in paradise as in a school, a training place
suited to a beginner, and where the lessons and the discipline were such as his
almost infantile condition required. (W. L. Alexander, D. D.)
Probation, temptation, and fall of man
1. The probation.
(1) This assumed the form of a restriction upon their absolute right to do as they
would with the place in which God had placed them.
(2) To some it has appeared as if there was something in this arrangement
unworthy of the dignity of the parties involved in it, or unbecoming the wisdom
and beneficence of Him to whom it is ascribed; and hence doubts have been cast
on the historical integrity of this part of the Mosaic narrative.
1. And, first, there are some who seem to stumble at the littleness of the trial to
which man was thus exposed, and on which such mighty results were made to
depend. If so, they must be prepared to object to one of the most manifest of those
laws under which this world is administered; for nothing can be more obvious and
certain than that the mightiest and most permanent effects are constantly resulting
from the most apparently trivial and transient causes. Or do they object to so feeble a
test of man’s obedience being imposed? If this be their meaning, it is obvious to reply
that so much the more was the arrangement favourable to man, and therefore
beneficent and gracious. The more insignificant the self-denial required in order to
obedience, the easier the obedience and the more probable the success of the
probationer. Never, we may say, was a moral experiment conducted under
circumstances more favourable to the subject of it.
2. As others advance this objection, it assumes the shape of a protest against the
dishonour which it is alleged is done to God by the representation of Him as a being
who would make a condition of spiritual advantage dependent on an external act. A
mere physical act as such has no moral character at all; and though it may be the
index of a man’s moral state or tendencies, it is not, nor ever can be, an adequate test
of them. The test to which Adam and Eve were subjected was not so much whether
they would eat or not eat this particular fruit, but whether they would respect and
obey or neglect and transgress God’s prohibition. It was not, therefore, on any mere
external act that man’s fate depended; it was on such an act as connected with,
flowing from, and giving evidence of a particular state of mind. The hinge in Adam’s
testing turned really not so much on his eating or abstaining from this fruit or that,
but on his obeying or transgressing
God’s commandment. Was such a test unfair to man? Was it unworthy of God?
3. Another form in which the objection to the Mosaic account of the trial of our first
parents is presented is that in which stress is laid on the purely positive and
apparently arbitrary character of the test by which their obedience was to be tried.
This was the only arrangement possible; for how is the virtue of a sinless being to be
40

41. tested but by means of some positive precept? In such a being moral truth is so
perfectly a part of the inner life, that it is only when a positive duty is enjoined that
the mind comes to a consciousness of objective law and extrinsic government so as to
render obedience. But even supposing a moral test could have been proposed, was it
not much more in Adam’s favour that his obedience should have been tested by a
positive enactment? What God required of him was thus clearly and unmistakably
brought before him.
4. Some profound thinkers have started the doubt whether it be possible for a
limited intelligence, left to the freedom of its own will, to avoid transgressing the
boundaries of duty, and so falling into sin. Without entering at present into so
difficult a speculation, we may admit that a limited intelligence is, from the very fact
of its limitation, very likely to be exposed to a strong inducement from mere
curiosity, not to speak of other motives, to pass beyond the limits within which it
may be confined. What lies on the other side of this barrier which I am forbidden to
pass? Why am I forbidden to pass it? What will be the result to me if I do pass it?
These and such like questionings, working in the mind, are very likely to result in a
daring attempt to remove the barrier, or to overleap it, and thereby, if it be a moral
barrier, to plunge into sin. Obviously, therefore, the kindest and best arrangement
for man in his state of primeval probation was one which should reduce the action of
such provocative curiosity to the lowest possible form, which should hem him in by
no vague, mystic, uncertain prohibition, but by one perfectly single and intelligible,
and which should leave him in no doubt as to the certain misery into which he would
bring himself if he suffered any motive to carry him beyond the limits which that
prohibition prescribed. Such an arrangement the wisdom and the goodness of God
instituted for our first parents in their probationary state; their continuance in
happiness was made to depend on their submission to one simple and most
intelligible restriction; they had but to refrain from the fruit of one tree, while of all
the others they might freely eat; and they knew beforehand what the consequences
would be of their violating this restriction. (W. L. Alexander, D. D.)
Eastern ideas regarding the serpent
1. Almost throughout the East, the serpent was used as an emblem of the evil
principle, of the spirit of disobedience and contumacy. A few exceptions only can be
discovered. The Phoenicians adored that animal as a beneficent genius; and the
Chinese consider it as a symbol of superior wisdom and power, and ascribe to the
kings of heaven (tien-hoangs)
bodies of serpents. Some other nations fluctuated in their conceptions regarding the
serpent. The Egyptians represented the eternal spirit Kneph, the author of all good,
under the mythic form of that reptile; they understood the art of taming it, and
embalmed it after death; but they applied the same symbol for the god of revenge
and punishment (Tithrambo), and for Typhon, the author of all moral and physical
evil; and in the Egyptian symbolical alphabet the serpent represents subtlety and
cunning, lust and sensual pleasure. In Greek mythology, it is certainly, on the one
hand, the attribute of Ceres, of Mercury, and of AEsculapius, in their most beneficent
qualities; but it forms, on the other hand, a part of the terrible Furies or Eumenides:
it appears, in the form of Python, as a fearful monster, which the arrows of a god
only were able to destroy; and it is the most hideous and most formidable part of the
41

42. impious giants who despise and blaspheme the power of heaven. The Indians, like
the savage tribes of Africa and America, suffer and nourish, indeed, serpents in their
temples, and even in their houses; they believe that they bring happiness to the
places which they inhabit; they worship them as the symbols of eternity; but they
regard them also as evil genii, or as the inimical powers of nature which is gradually
depraved by them, as the enemies of the gods, who either tear them to pieces, or
tread their venomous head under their all-conquering feet. So contradictory is all
animal worship. Its principle is, in some instances, gratitude, and in others fear; but
if a noxious animal is very dangerous, the fear may manifest itself in two ways, either
by the resolute desire of extirpating the beast, or by the wish of averting the conflict
with its superior power: thus the same fear may, on the one hand, cause fierce
enmity, and, on the other, submission and worship. Further, the animals may be
considered either as the creatures of the powers of nature, or as a production of the
Divine will; and those religious systems, therefore, which acknowledge a dualism,
either in nature or in the Deity, or which admit the antagonism between God and
nature, must almost unavoidably regard the same animals now as objects of horror,
and now of veneration. From all these aberrations, Mosaism was preserved by its
fundamental principle of the one and indivisible God, in whose hands is nature with
all its hosts, and to whose wise and good purposes all creatures are subservient. (M.
M.Kalisch, Ph. D.)
Yea, hath God said
The devil’s questions
I. IT IS DANGEROUS TO LAY OPEN OURSELVES FREELY TO PERSONS
UNKNOWN, OR SUCH OF WHOM WE HAVE NO ASSURANCE.
II. IT IS A DANGEROUS THING TO QUESTION OR DEBATE EVIDENT AND KNOWN
TRUTHS. Principles in all sciences are exempted from dispute, much more should they
be in divinity. Amongst which we may account—
1. The dictates of nature, written by the finger of God in all men’s hearts, as, that
there is a God (Rom_1:19-20); that He judgeth the world Psa_58:11), and that in
righteousness, which is a principle that Jeremy will not dispute (Jer_12:1); and that
consequently it shall be well with the good, and ill with the wicked at last (Ecc_
12:13), as being truths, which every man’s conscience within his own breast gives
testimony unto.
2. Such truths as are delivered by God Himself, either recorded in His Word (as the
creation of the world and that great mystery of man’s redemption by Jesus Christ,
etc.), or made known unto us by any special message from God. And by this
assenting unto the truths of God, without questioning or admitting them into debate,
(1) We seal unto His truth (Joh_3:33), and give him the honour of a God, to be
believed upon His own testimony; whereas we believe not men upon their word
without some further evidence.
(2) And by the same means we provide for our safety, who having our minds full
of ignorance, and by their corrupt disposition, more inclinable to embrace lies
rather than truth, might be endangered by admitting known truth to debate, to
be mislead by the mists of human reasonings into error, to the endangering or
42

43. overthrowing of our faith. These were Eve’s gross oversights in entertaining
conference with Satan, a person unknown, and that about such a manifest and
evident truth.
III. BLASPHEMOUS AND FOUL SUGGESTIONS OUGHT NOT TO BE HEARD
WITHOUT INDIGNATION AND DETESTATION.
1. To manifest our zeal for God’s honour and for His truth.
2. By it we secure ourselves from a farther assault, which we easily invite when we
bear such blasphemies with too much softness of spirit and patience.
3. And harden our own hearts against such wicked suggestions by abhorring the very
mention of them.
4. And oftentimes terrify the suggesters themselves, or at least put them to shame.
IV. WHEN GOD’S MERCIES ARE MENTIONED WE MUST WITHAL BE CAREFUL TO
REMEMBER HIS NAME THAT BESTOWS THEM.
1. That by entitling God unto, and prefixing His own name before His works of
mercy, wherewith men’s hearts are most affected, He may be highly advanced above
all things, and held out and proclaimed to the world as the fountain of all goodness,
when all the good things which we enjoy, and in which we rejoice, are still laid down
at His foot.
2. There is an evil disposition in men’s hearts to forget God in His mercies Deu_
32:18; Psa_106:21), and to ascribe them to themselves (Dan_4:25).
V. GOD’S MERCIES OUGHT NOT, WHEN THEY ARE SPOKEN OF, TO BE
REPRESENTED IN COLD AND WEAK EXPRESSIONS.
1. Because they, having their hearts enlarged in the apprehension of them inwardly,
cannot but speak as they think of them.
2. It is our duty to advance the Lord by all the means we can, that His name alone
may be excellent (Psa_148:13), and great (Mal_1:11). Now, nothing advanceth His
name more than His mercies, which therefore must be set out as the mercies of God,
high, and without comparison.
3. When all is done, and we have made use of all our art and abilities, to set out
God’s mercies in the largest manner that we can devise, all our words come infinitely
short of the full extent of those things which we desire to represent.
4. In the meantime, while we strive to set out things in the fullest measure, we warm
our own hearts, and quicken our affections the more, and fill our hearts with the
greater admiration of those things which exceed all our expressions. (J. White, M. A.)
Satan’s question
I. SATAN’S TEMPTATIONS BEGIN BY LAYING A DOUBT AT THE ROOT. 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
43

44. QUESTIONINGS OF THE MIND VARIES ACCORDING TO THE STATE AND
TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER OF EACH INDIVIDUAL.
1. In order to combat them, everyone 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 designs he insinuated his wily coil into the garden of Eden; to mar God’s designs
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, M. A.)
The temptation, the fall, and the promise
I. THE PARTIES TO BE TESTED.
II. THE TEMPTER.
1. The instrument was a serpent.
2. The real agent was Satan.
III. THE TEMPTATION. Literally the tempter says, “Then it is so that God hath said, ‘Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden.’” As if so incredible a report could be believed
only on the positive assertion of Eve herself. He then insinuates that God had issued this
prohibition from other motives than love. He hints at something strange, if not unjust or
unkind, on the part of God. Like other trees, Eve perceives that the forbidden one is
“good for food and pleasant to the sight.” Unlike other trees, she is now informed that it
is capable of affording wisdom; that eating from it gives knowledge of good and evil; that
while other trees minister to the sense, this ministers also to the reason. Thus all parts of
Eve’s sensitive nature are wrought upon; her fancy is aroused, curiosity awakened,
desire for knowledge excited.
IV. THE SIN. Eve sought knowledge in a way foreign to God’s will. He would have her
know good by adopting it, and evil by resisting it. By disobedience she came to know
good as a forfeited possession, and evil as a purchased bane. She found that unlawful
knowledge was dearly bought, and that a stolen likeness to God brought sorrow.
V. THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF SIN. Conscious of their sin, they fancy that
their guilty bosoms are open to every eye. But the accuser is in their own breasts. They
have opened the door, and the sweet-songed bird of innocence has flown.
VI. THE SENTENCE. In God’s dealings with the human pair there was a mingling of
justice and mercy. By their sin they had become spiritually dead—had died in the sense
in which God declared they should. Their true life—that of holiness—was gone. Existence
now was but partial andabnormal. For this altered moral state God made for them a
change externally. The world which they and their sinful seed were to inhabit, must be
44

45. adapted to a race of sinners. Hence God made it, not a place of punishment, but of
discipline; the end being to restore to the race their lost holiness. Bodily fatigue, the
thorn-infested ground, and the dread of dying (an event which, but for the Fall, would
have had no terror), all these were designed as chastisements for man’s sins, and at the
same time as agencies to reclaim him from it.
VII. THE PROMISE OF A DELIVERER. (P. B. Davis.)
Man’s enemy makes his appearance
The passage takes for granted that there was already an enemy in existence. There had
been sin before, somewhere, though where is not said. There had been an enemy
somewhere; but how he had become so, or where he had hitherto dwelt, or how he had
found his way to this world, is not recorded. That he knew about our world, and that he
had some connection with it, is evident; though whether as its original possessor, or a
stranger coming from far in search of spoil, we cannot discover. All that is implied in the
narrative is, that there did exist an enemy—one who hated God, and who now sought to
get vent to that hatred by undoing His handiwork. This enemy now makes his
appearance. He has not been bound; he has not been prohibited entrance: he gets free
scope to work. He shall be bound hereafter, when the times of restitution of all things
commence, but not yet. He shall not be permitted to enter the “new earth,” but he is
allowed to enter and do his work of evil in the first earth. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
God not the author of sin
Thus we learn, even at the outset, that God is not the author of sin. It is the creature that
introduces it. God, no doubt, could have hindered it, but for wise ends He allows it. We
know also how sin spreads itself. It is always active. It multiplies and propagates itself.
Every fallen being becomes a tempter, seeking to ruin others—to drag them down to the
same death into which he has himself been driven. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
The process of temptation
1. We may consider that the fact is established that man was created with a nature
capable of temptation, and placed in the highest possible probation for the discipline
of that nature. Our first parents stood as a stately oak upon a plain, beat upon by an
impetuous storm, but meeting it with all the vigour and power of original
uprightness. The hurricane beneath which they sunk may have been more severe
than ours, but the bias of their nature made their probation less difficult. What, then,
is that nature in us to which temptation addresses itself?
2. Who is the being that applies that temptation? And what are the instruments and
modes of his attacks, and of our self-defence? These are questions of no small
moment. Temptation implies the existence of two natures to which adverse powers
and influences appeal, and in Holy Scripture these two natures in us are called the
“flesh and spirit”; that they exist in more or less activity in every one of us an
examination of ourselves will prove. We all know it; but more than this, they are
contrary one to the other. It is this very perverseness in our nature which shows
45

46. more than anything the contradictoriness of sin, and the warfare between the flesh
and the spirit.
3. The personality and individuality of the tempter are points which it is most
important to establish. That tempter is our constant companion, he has gauged his
word to bring his one victim a bound captive to the gate of hell. The only solace, if we
may use such a term, to his miserable eternity will be the consciousness that by his
side is one who shares forever the intensity of his agony, though not one throb of
anguish will be alleviated in himself. It will be something that every throe is but a
reflex of the torture of his companion; his delight is in suffering, his sympathy is in
woe; he rejoices, if joy can be felt in hell, in iniquity and pain. That tempter, if he
loses his one victim, has no other which he can effect, unless he can regain his
entrance into the home from which he has been expelled.
4. But I pass on to the next point, the medium through which the tempter acts. That
he has power to affect every portion of our being, and to cast the deepest shadow
over it, as an evening cloud can obscure the radiance of the setting sun on the marble
columns of some eastern temple, there is no doubt. The lustful thought, the disrelish
for heaven, the positive dislike for goodness, the deep despondency, are, with a
thousand other infirmities and sins, traceable to the connection of the spirit with the
body; and in proportion as that body is subjugated by discipline, the power of those
sins will be weakened, and when the spirit will be freed from the present corruptible
body, it will be wholly liberated. But all this is widely different from the doctrine
which would teach that the bodies of men or matter generally are materially and
actually wicked. They are instruments, and that is all. We have the same kind of
power over them as we have over the staff we lean on, or the glass we use to aid the
eyesight. Let us conceive the case of some instrument which has the greatest possible
degree of connection with ourselves, and the greatest possible power to influence us,
yet over which we have perfect control: such a case will be a very fair analogy for our
relation with the body. Our bodies are temples; we may neither worship them nor
despise them. They are instruments, as we use them, for good or evil. They are given
for the discipline of the soul; for its aid, or for its hindrance. They are its school
house, in which it is taught to spell the syllables of heaven. But more, it is manifest
that Satan affects the spirit independently of the body. There are dreams when the
soul realizes that awful state of separation from its physical condition, and ranges
unfettered up and down the universe. Then sometimes Satan pursues it in its flight,
and suggests awful thoughts. There are sudden unaccountable bursts of passion;
injuries long since forgotten; exciting feelings for vengeance; dislikes for holiness, for
good men; unaccountable desires to swear; without a cause to curse; for its own sake
to steal, though the next instant the object for which honesty was bartered is thrown
unvalued aside to rot and decay; there are strange wanderings when we would pray,
in the church, in the chancel, at the altar, the spirit yet wings her flight to every
region of the imagined universe, the corners furthest removed from God: all these
are influences of Satan. Satan does tempt the spirit independently of the body; for
these temptations, many of them, show no trace of physical cause. But that spirit,
too, is in our power to bear us heavenward, or to the gate of hell, as we would have it.
It may be the wing of the archangel soaring to the gate of paradise, or, it may be as
the waxen wing of Icarus bringing us down to destruction. It is as we would have it.
Has Satan ever power to tempt body or spirit in such a manner as we have no power
to resist? It seems that he has. There are faint foreshadowings of that power in the
cases of Pharaoh and Judas. There are cases in the experience of most of us, where
46

47. the drunkard, after years of resisted conscience, has so entirely become the victim of
the tempter, that the resolution formed daily with the bitter weeping of remorse,
pales off each evening before the fire of the tempter, until at last, he passes from the
hell on earth to the hell of eternity.
5. Satan binds us first with cords of silk; ere long they have become coils of rope; a
little while and they are cables, scarcely to be bent; another interval, and the rope has
become a chain, and the chain a bar of iron which no human power can resist. He
creeps upon us.
6. Another favourite mode of his attack will be, as Jeremy Taylor quaintly illustrates,
through the outward circumstances of a man. Adam, says he, so fascinated by the
beauty and meekness of his new wife, was easily ensnared by her solicitations, and
Satan consequently made use of her as the instrument of the fall of man. Over the
stumbling stones of their partial affection for their younger born, even Rebecca and
Jacob successively fell; and the same overweening love which the mother bore to her
child was inherited and transmitted to its cost to Joseph and Benjamin. To us a
favourite scheme, an idolized child, a friend on whom we lean, an honest calling, a
noble aim, a brilliant yet well-directed talent, may, each one of them, from at first
being planets clear and radiant in our sky, turn into baseless meteors and falling
stars. They may be the fire damps of our ruin when they were the guiding stars of our
salvation.
7. But I must mention a third mode through which the tempter will affect our
spiritual nature independently alike of disposition or circumstance. He often acts, as
was suggested above, in a sudden and unaccountable manner, and, as the Arab who
kneels at the muezzin on the sand of the desert, over whose crimson sea the setting
sun is shedding its ray without a cloud in the sky or an object on the earth, would be
startled at the sight of a shadow fleeting over the bosom of the wilderness; so we are
often startled by the sudden suggestion of lust, of doubt, of anger, of intense pride, of
ruthless bitterness against another, of dislike to God, when within five minutes of the
passing shade we thought we were kneeling in the cloudless sunshine of prayer,
meditation, or communion. Nothing so shows the actual existence of the tempter as
this. Against these unexpected attacks the habit of holiness and prayer can alone be a
protection. We cannot tell where the weed will grow in the most highly cultivated
garden; at any point may spring couch grass and the nettle; it is only by a state of
general cultivation and purity that we can depend on the produce of our soil. The
fever, the pestilence, may fall on the best ordered house and the most abstemious
body, yet we know cleanliness and temperance are the best preservers. Apply the
same rule to your spiritual life. One word of high encouragement and I have done.
The eyes that watch us like lamps around our path; the watching eyes of the holy and
the just, like starlight gleaming above us; the quiet gaze of the blessed in paradise,
beaming like the moon that shines in softness with its borrowed lustre; the hosts of
unfallen angels, like the sun that shines in its strength; the eye of Jesus and the
Father from the great white throne, watch us daily. The page of man’s brief annals
teems with instances of suffering, borne to its last throb without a sigh, and all
because the world around or the generations to come would smile on or admire the
deed. The eyes that gaze on us are more radiant and more holy; they are the eyes of
eternity; let us not disappoint them, they watch us. Perhaps but another day and our
strife may be ended! (E. Monro, M. A.)
47

48. Temptation of the first and of the second man
I invite you to notice how exactly parallel the temptation of the second Adam was to the
temptation of the first. This cannot fail to concern us very greatly: for it is a clear
intimation, afforded us by the person best qualified to make it, viz., by the devil, of our
special liability, through certain avenues of choice, to fall away from God.
1. We are to note that the rebellion of the lower appetites against the powers of
reason and the dictates of conscience, must be the prevailing form of human sin: for
it was the seductiveness of the fruit of one particular tree which originally moved our
first mother to disobey. And this is what the beloved disciple calls “the lust of the
flesh.”
2. There is the illusion produced in our higher nature when outward things are seen
otherwise than in the light of God. Eve was seduced by the prospect of enlarged
views, and the promise that her eyes should be opened. And this is that “lust of the
eyes” of which the same apostle speaks.
3. There is the spiritual snare of becoming to oneself the highest object, the standard
to which all other things are to be referred. Man thus becomes a god to himself, and
straightway directs his proceedings by reference to himself instead of to God. And to
this, Eve’s desires tended when her pride (that special work of the devil) was called
forth by the representation “ye shall be as gods.” St. John calls this the “pride of
life.”. . .”God doth know” (said the tempter) “that in the day ye eat thereof”—here
was the first seduction: “your eyes shall be opened”—there was the second: “and ye
shall be as gods”—there was the third. Accordingly, it was “when the woman saw that
the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be
desired to make one wise,” that “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.” How
exactly in our Lord’s case Satan addressed himself to the same three instincts,
seeking first to inspire sensual distrust; next spiritual presumption; lastly worldly
ambition; needs hardly to be pointed out. The order of the last two temptations was
however inverted in the case of the second Adam. And why? I presume because the
first of the three temptations had been resisted. Accordingly, from the seduction of
sensuality the transition is made at once to the seduction of pride, these being the
two extremes between which the fallen nature of man oscillates continually. Let us
further note, in both cases (in paradise, I mean, and in the wilderness), that the
instrument with which the reason is plied is still the same, namely, calumnious
insinuation. A misrepresentation of the truth, and that couched in the modest form
of an inquiry, was the tempter’s device. He at first asserted nothing. He asked, as if
for information. He might have known, he did know, the truth . . . I am much
mistaken if something very similar to this is not Satan’s method still. “It is most
important to observe this first origin of evil. It is in the form of a question. It is not a
direct denial of God’s truth or faithfulness, but a questioning of it. Because faith in
God is the foundation of all good, it is to unsettle the foundation that this attempt is
made. The poison is inserted in the way the question is stated. Thus also in dealing
with our Divine Lord, Satan begins with a like questioning of what God had just
declared. ‘If Thou be,’ which implies, ‘Art Thou then indeed the Son of God?’” And
next, he insinuated what he dared not openly to proclaim: for by calumniously
imputing to God a base motive for withholding the fruit of the one forbidden tree, he
misrepresented God’s whole nature. But he did it by insinuation. And here, again, I
48

49. recognize a favourite device of the enemy of souls in these last days. And then, the
point to which his seductive speech tended, was, to make the creature desire to be as
God: to be himself the standard, himself supreme, himself as God unto himself. It
was a suggestion that the bondage of external law should be thrown aside, and that
the conscience should henceforth become a law unto itself. Further—You are invited
to note how the mischief began with an attempt to tamper with God’s Word. “Yea,
hath God said?” But God had not said it! And then you will note that Satan beguiled
Eve’s understanding by the seductive avenue of an increase of knowledge in
prospect . . . Knowledge—that first appetite of man—and his last!. . .And is not
“knowledge” good then? Yea, surely, most good: for indeed what were life without it?
But like every other creature of God, it is good only when it subordinates to God’s
revealed mind and will. Yet once more, and for the last time, death was the penalty of
all; and yet, “Ye shall not surely die,” was the promise wherewith Satan sought to
silence the fears of our first mother What but that, what but the assurance “Ye shall
not surely die,” is Satan’s cry at this very hour to a willing world? (Dean Burgon.)
The temptation
There are in this question two things equally dangerous to the soul of Eve, a fatal doubt
of the truth of the Word of God, and a perfidious exaggeration, calculated to insinuate
distrust. I say, first, a doubt of the truth of the Word of God. “Hath God said?” Here is an
insinuation calculated to sap the foundation of all faith, all obedience, all morality, all
established order. Here is the most powerful weapon of the devil and of our own wicked
heart; the weapon by which thousands and thousands are smitten and plunged into ruin.
Hath God said that the “friendship of the world is enmity against God; and that
whosoever will be the friend of the world is the enemy of God”? Hath God said that we
must forsake all and follow Him, bearing our cross; that “if we love father or mother, or
sister or brother, or house, or lands, more than Him, we are not worthy of Him”? Hath
God said that “the whole world lieth in wickedness,” that we have within us an evil and
corrupt heart, that “the carnal mind in us is not subject to the law of God,” that our life is
polluted with sin? Hath God said that “He doth not hold the sinner guiltless, that He
hateth sin, that the broad road leadeth to destruction”? No, no, God is not so severe; He
is too good a Father to punish the weaknesses of His children; beware of taking in the
letter, the figurative language of the threatenings of the Bible, or at least, reserve them
for the wicked or great criminals. God well knows that we are weak; be honest, repent of
your faults, and all will go well. When doubt has thus despoiled the Word of God of its
immutable sanctity, weakened the obligation and responsibility of the creature towards
the Creator, opened a wide door to passion, which hurries us along and paves the way
for temptation; these same truths, which the deadly breath of doubt has not yet been
able to destroy, because they contain aid immortal force, are presented to the already
wavering soul with an exaggeration which shall soon engender distrust. Hath God said,
“Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden”? These delicious fruits which the earth
produces, which seem to have been placed before you to spread in your abode
abundance, beauty, and well being, shall ye not taste of any of these gifts? Are they only
here to excite in you useless desires? Has He whom you adore as your God imposed
upon you such hard laws? It is thus in the present day also; they who insinuate doubts of
the truths of God’s Word, guard against presenting them faithfully and in their true
light. They are skilful in disfiguring them, in showing that observance to the laws of God
is incompatible with our weakness, that the morality of the gospel is not made for men,
49

50. and that there would be injustice in chastisement inflicted upon those who do not
conform their lives to them. They are skilful in throwing ridicule upon those who let the
Bible speak for itself, believe it in its whole extent, and abandon the multitude to range
themselves under the banner of obedience to their God. They are skilful in presenting,
under a false light, the vital doctrines of the gospel, in showing that they are contrary to
reason, and that we must, as soon as possible, apply to them the amendments of human
wisdom. They are skilful in persuading those who hear them, that a living and a true
faith is a renunciation of reason, that filial submission is bondage, and that to give up the
world, its joys, and its vanities, is to throw a veil of gloom and melancholy over the whole
life. They would willingly say to the God of the Bible, if they were as sincere as the
unprofitable servant in the parable, “I know that thou art an austere master, reaping
where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed.” Now let the
temptation present itself; everything in the heart of the unhappy being who has lent an
ear to the lying insinuations of the tempter, is prepared for the fatal hour of
seduction . . . and of ruin. Know ye, my brethren, the power of temptation? It is present,
it presses the poor heart, in which it finds but too much sympathy: it draws it along by
the charm of sin, decked in seducing colours; conscience lifts up its voice; the conflict
begins; you resist, for the thunders of God’s word against sin echo from afar, and bring
trouble into the depths of your soul. But, in the head of the conflict, a doubt arises; Hath
God said? Will He be offended at this weakness? Will He care for it? Will He punish?
Thus is broken the last restraint imposed upon the impetuosity of the temptation; the
barrier of the Word of God is overthrown: you yield . . . And thus you are delivered over
to the torments of remorse; you come forth from a vortex, to taste all the bitterness of
that which, a moment before, appeared to you so sweet! (L. Bonnet.)
After God comes the devil
In the former chapters we have heard nothing but the Lord said, the Lord said; but now
come we to hear the serpent said, and the serpent said. So see we plainly how after the
Word of God cometh the word of the devil. It was not so then only, but it hath so
continued ever since. When the Lord hath spoken by the mouth of His minister,
prophet, apostle, pastor, or teacher, then speaketh Satan by his serpents contrary. They
in the Church, these as soon as they be out of the Church, yea, many times even in the
Church they will be hissing in their ears that sit next them. If God have spoken to a child
by his parents, to a servant by his master, to a man by his friend what is true and good,
straight cometh a serpent, one or other, and overthroweth all, leading them captive to a
contrary course. What, say these serpents, wilt thou be thus used, will you bear all this?
you are now no child, do this and do that, you shall not die, but you shall live and be like
gods, knowing good and evil, etc. But as Eve sped by this serpent, so shall you by those,
if you avoid them not. Such serpents were those counsellors that made Rehoboam,
Solomon’s son, do contrary to the advice of the old counsellors, to his great loss. Again,
mark here which was first, the word of God or the word of Satan. Dixit Dominus, the
Lord said, goeth before Dixit serpens, the serpent said, and so you see truth is elder than
falsehood, and God’s Word before Satan’s lies: that is Tertullian’s rule to know truth by,
namely, to look which was first; “Quodcunque primum illud verum, quodcunque
posterius illud falsum.” Whatsoever was first, that is true, whatsoever was latter that is
false, and that is first that was from the beginning, and that was from the beginning, that
in the writings of the apostles may find his warrant. Let it not blind you then that such
an error hath continued a thousand years, if it be to be proved that a contrary truth is
50

51. elder far. (Bp. Babington.)
Satan attacks the weakest point
Satan tempteth the woman as the weaker vessel, and if you have anything wherein you
are weaker than in another, beware, for he will first assault you there. It is his manner
like a false devil to take his advantage. Happily you are easier drawn to adultery than
murder: that then shall please him, he will begin there. So did he with David, and then
brought him to murder after. David was weaker to resist the one than the other. Think of
your frailties and be godly wise, where the wall is lowest he will enter first. (Bp.
Babington.)
Satan’s subtlety in tempting
Satan did break over the hedge, where it was weakest; he knew he could more easily
insinuate and wind himself into her by a temptation. An expert soldier, when he is to
storm or enter a castle, observes warily where there is a breach, or how he may enter
with more facility; so did Satan the weaker vessel. (T. Watson.)
A crafty question
With well-feigned surprise and incredulity he puts the question, “Yea, hath God said, Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” meaning thereby to insinuate the harshness of
the injunction which he pretended hardly to believe. Is it possible that God can have said
so? Is it conceivable that He who has just made you, and provided you with such
abundance, should grudge you a little fragment of that plenty, and debar you from the
garden’s choicest fruits; making you lords of creation, yet not allowing you to put forth
your lordship; nay, refusing you access to that tree, the fruit of which would enable you
rightly to exercise wise dominion? In this his object was to calumniate God; at least,
cunningly to suggest an idea which would misrepresent His character to man. He keeps
out of sight all that God had done for man, all the proofs of love, so manifold, so vast; he
fixes on one thing which seemed inconsistent with this; he brings up this before man in
the way most likely to awaken evil thoughts of God. His object is to isolate the one fact,
and so to separate it from all God’s acts of love as to make it appear an instance of harsh
and unreasonable severity. Man had hitherto known the prohibition; but he had put no
such construction on it; he had not imagined it capable of being so interpreted. Now
Satan brings it up, and sets it out in an aspect likely to suggest such constructions as
these: “God is not your friend after all; He but pretends to care for you. He is a hard
Master, interfering with your liberty, not leaving you a free agent, but constraining you,
nay, fettering you. He mocks you, making you creation’s head, yet setting arbitrary limits
to your rule; placing you in a fair garden, yet debarring you from its fruits. He grudges
you His gifts, making a show of liberality, while withholding what is really valuable.”
Thus Satan sought to calumniate God, to malign His character, to represent Him as the
enemy, not the friend, of man. If he can succeed in this, then man will begin to entertain
hard thoughts of God, then he will become alienated from Him; then he will disobey;
and then comes the fall, the ruin, the guilt, the doom, the woe! Man is lost! Hell gets
another inmate. The devil gets another companion. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
51

52. The woman said unto the serpent
Eve parleying with the tempter
We wish on the present occasion to examine with all carefulness the workings of Eve’s
mind at that critical moment, when the devil, under the form of a serpent, sought to turn
her away from her allegiance unto God. This is no mere curious examination; as it might
indeed be, had Eve, before she yielded to temptation, been differently constituted from
one of ourselves. But there was not this different constitution. A piece of mechanism
may have its springs disordered, and its workings deranged, but it is not a different piece
of mechanism from what it was whilst every part was in perfect operation. And we may
find, as we go on, that the workings of Eve’s mind were wonderfully similar to those of
our own; so that we may present our common mother as a warning, and derive from her
fall instruction of the most practical and personal kind. Now the point of time at which
we have to take Eve, is one at which she is evidently beginning to waver. She has allowed
herself to be drawn into conversation with the serpent, which it would have been wise in
her, especially as her husband was not by, to have utterly declined; and there is a sort of
unacknowledged restlessness and uneasiness of feeling, as though God might not be that
all-wise and all-gracious Being, which she had hitherto supposed. She has not yet,
indeed, proceeded to actual disobedience, but she is certainly giving some entertainment
to doubts and suspicions; she has not yet broken God’s commandment, but she is
looking at that commandment with a disposition to question its goodness, and to
depreciate the risk of setting it at nought. There are certain preludes, certain approaches,
towards sin, which, even in ourselves, are scarcely to be designated sin, and which must
have been still further removed from it in the unfallen Eve. You remember how St.
James speaks: “Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and
enticed; then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin.” The apostle, you observe,
does not give the name of sin to the first motions. If these motions were duly resisted, as
they might be, the man would have been tempted, but he would not have actually sinned.
And if so much may be allowed of ourselves, in whom the inclinations and propensities
are corrupted and depraved through original sin, much more must it have been true of
Eve, when, if not fallen, she was yet tottering from her first estate. She was then still
innocent; but there were feelings at work which were fast bringing her to the very edge of
the precipice; and it is on the indications of these feelings, that for the sake of warning
and example we wish especially to fix your attention.
I. IT WAS A LARGE AND NOBLE GRANT, WHICH THE ALMIGHTY HAD MADE TO
MAN OF THE TREES OF THE GARDEN. “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely
eat.” It is true, indeed, there was one exception to this permission. Man was not to eat of
“the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”; but of every other tree he might not only
eat, he was told to eat “freely,” as though God would assure him of their being all
unreservedly at his disposal. Now observe, that when Eve comes to recount this
generous grant, she leaves out the word “freely,” and thus may be said to depreciate its
liberality. It is a disposition in all of us to think little of what God gives us to enjoy, and
much of what He appoints us to suffer. It may be but one tree which He withholds, and
there may be a hundred which He grants; but, alas! the one, because withheld, will seem
to multiply into the hundred; the hundred, because granted, to shrink into the one. If He
take from us a single blessing, how much more ready are we to complain, as though we
had lost all, than to count up what remains, and give Him thanks for the multitude! He
52

53. may but forbid us a single gratification, and presently we speak as though He had dealt
with us in a churlish and niggardly way; though, were we to attempt to reckon the
evidences of His loving kindness, they are more in number than the hairs of our head.
And when we suffer ourselves in any measure to speak or think disparagingly of the
mercies of God, it is very evident that we are making way for, if not actually indulging
suspicions as to the goodness of God; and it cannot be necessary to prove, that he who
allows himself to doubt the Divine goodness, is preparing himself for the breach of any
and of every commandment. Learn, then, to be very watchful over this moral symptom.
Be very fearful of depreciating your mercies.
II. But we may go further in tracing in Eve the workings of a dissatisfied mind—of a
disposition to suspect God of harshness, notwithstanding the multiplied evidences of
His goodness. You are next to observe HOW SHE SPEAKS OF THE PROHIBITION
WITH REGARD TO “THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.” She
left out a most important and significant word in stating God’s permission to “eat of the
trees of the garden,” and thus did much to divest that permission of its generous
character; but she put in words when she spoke of the prohibition, and thereby invested
it with strictness and severity. You would have argued from her version of the
prohibition, that God had altogether closed and shut up the tree, guarding it with the
most extreme jealousy and rigour, so that there was no possibility of detecting any of its
properties; whereas the restriction was only on examining the fruit in and through that
sense, which would make it bring death, and there was the warrant of the Divine word,
that to taste would be to die. All that could be learnt—and it was very considerable—from
sight and touch and scent, Adam and Eve were at liberty to learn, whilst what the taste
could have taught was distinctly revealed; and thus the single prohibition did not so
much withhold them from the acquisition of knowledge, as from the endurance of
disaster. But now, then, was Eve single in the misrepresenting the prohibition of God?
Was she not rather doing what has been done ever since; what is done every day by
those, who would excuse themselves from the duties and the obligations of religion? As
though He had given them appetites, which were never to be gratified; desires, which
were only to be resisted, and yet, all the while, had surrounded them with what those
appetites craved, and those desires sought after. Whereas, there is nothing forbidden by
the Divine law, but just that indulgence of our appetites and desires, which because
excessive and irregular, would from our very constitution, be visited with present
disappointment and remorse, and, from the necessary character of a retributive
government, with future vengeance and death.
III. It was bad enough to depreciate God’s permission, or to exaggerate His prohibition;
BUT IT WAS WORSE TO SOFTEN THE THREATS. This showed the workings of
unbelief; and there could have been but a step between our common mother and ruin,
when she brought herself to look doubtingly on the word of the Lord. And this symptom
was more strongly marked than even those which we have already examined. The
declaration of God had been, “Thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die.” But what is Eve’s version of this strong and unqualified
declaration? “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” “Lest ye die!”
This is what she substitutes for—“In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely
die.” “Lest ye die!” An expression which implies a sort of chance, a contingency, a bare
possibility; what might happen, or might not happen; what might happen soon, or might
not happen for years. It is thus she puts a denunciation as express, as explicit, as
language can furnish, “In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” Alas!
now, for Eve. Harbouring the thought that God would not carry His threatenings into
53

54. execution—and this she must have harboured, ere she could have softened His
threatening into “lest ye die,”—no marvel that she gave a ready ear to the lie of the
serpent, “Ye shallnot surely die.” She had whispered this lie to herself, before it was
uttered by Satan. The devil could do little then, and he can do little now, except as
openings are made for him by those upon whom he endeavours to work. It was probably
the incipient unbelief manifested by the “Lest ye die” of Eve, which suggested, as the
mode of attack, the “Ye shall not surely die” of Satan. The devil may well hope to be
believed, as soon as he perceives symptoms of God’s being disbelieved. And if we could
charge upon numbers in the present day, the imitating Eve in the disparaging God’s
permission, and the exaggerating God’s prohibition, can we have any difficulty in
continuing the parallel, now that the thing done is the making light of His threatenings?
Why, what fills hell, like the secretly cherished thought, that perhaps, after all, there may
be no hell to fill? What is a readier or more frequent engine for the destruction of the
soul, than the false idea of the compassion of God, as sure to interfere, either to shorten
the duration, or mitigate the intenseness of future punishment, if not altogether to
prevent its inflictions? God hath said, “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” When men
come to give their version of so stern and solemn a denunciation, they put it virtually
into some such shape as this: “The soul should not sin lest it die.” Christ hath said, “He
that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Men often practically throw this sweeping and startling affirmation into a much
smoother formula: “Believe upon Christ lest ye die.” “Lest ye die!” Is this, then, all? Is
there any doubt? Is it a contingency? Is it a “maybe”? “Lest ye die!”—when God hath
said, “Ye shall surely die!” “Lest ye die!” when God hath said, “The wicked shall be
turned into hell and all the people that forget God!” “Lest ye die!” when God hath said,
“Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God!” Nay, sirs, ye may give the
paragraph a smoother turn, but ye cannot give the punishment a shorter term. Ye may
soften away the expression; ye can neither abbreviate nor mitigate the vengeance. “If we
believe not,” says Paul, “yet He abideth faithful: He cannot deny Himself.” (H. Melvill, B.
D.)
Observations
I. MEN’S WORDS AND SPEECHES ARE USUALLY PROPORTIONED ACCORDING
TO THE MEASURE OF THE AFFECTIONS OF THE HEART.
1. First, because words being ordained to be the means of representing the thoughts
of the heart within, it is agreeable to all reason that they should express them in their
full proportion, as the glass doth the face.
2. Secondly, because although the understanding be, or at least should, hold the
reins of the tongue, yet the affections add the spurs unto it, as indeed they do many
times give the measure to our actions themselves, as we run according to our fear,
fight according to our anger, and wake according to our hope and desire; and so in
many other of our actions.
II. WHEN WE REMEMBER ANY LAW OF GOD, WE OUGHT WITHAL TO SET
BEFORE US THE SANCTION ANNEXED THEREUNTO.
1. Together with God’s name is represented unto us His authority, and withal both
54

55. His wisdom and goodness, which will be an effectual means to stay and silence all
carnal reasonings, which otherwise will very hardly be answered, considering how
hard a matter it is for the wisdom of the flesh to submit to the law (Rom_8:7). But
against God Himself, who dare dispute with the apostle (Rom_9:20).
2. By the same means we are quickened to obedience with cheerfulness, when we
consider that they are the commandments of that God who gave us our being and in
whom we subsist, to whom we owe ourselves and all we have, and from whom we
expect glory and immortality and eternal life. See David’s answer to his scoffing wife
(2Sa_6:21).
3. Only this looking upon God in all His commandments makes our services duties
of obedience when they are performed at the command and in submission to the will
of Him whose we are, whereby we acknowledge both His authority and besides His
will to be the rule of righteousness. Lastly, it wonderfully stirs us up to watchfulness,
diligence, and sincerity in all our carriage, when we behold the presence, majesty,
and holiness of Him to whom we perform our duties, serving Him with reverence
and fear and with a single heart, as being the God who sees in secret, and whose eyes
are purer than to behold evil.
III. WHEN WE LAY THE LAW OF GOD BEFORE US, WE MUST WITHAL FIX OUR
THOUGHTS UPON HIM THAT GIVES IT.
1. For God’s honour, that all our obedience may be tendered to Him, both in faith
and fear.
2. For our own necessity, whose dead hearts need such effectual means to quicken
us.
IV. IT IS A HARD MATTER TO BRING MAN’S HEART TO SUBMIT UNTO AND BEAR
WITH PATIENCE AND CHEERFULNESS ANY YOKE OF RESTRAINT.
V. WHOSOEVER WILL NOT BE ENTANGLED BY ALLUREMENTS TO SIN, MUST
NOT COME NEAR THEM. We may not stand in the council of the ungodly Psa_1:1), nor
come near their paths, as Solomon adviseth Pro_4:14); and we are commanded to hate
the very garment spotted with the flesh (Jud_1:23). And this we must do—
1. Out of the conscience of the weakness of our corrupt nature, which as easily takes
fire by the least allurement to sin as gunpowder doth by any spark that falls into it, or
rather of itself draws towards it, as iron doth towards an adamant: now we know that
he that will not be burnt must carry no coals in his bosom (Pro_6:27).
2. That we may manifest our perfect detestation of evil, which every man that will
approve himself to be a lover of God must hate (Psa_97:10).
VI. THE SLIGHTING OF THE CURSE OF THE LAW MAKES WAY TO THE
TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW. (J. White, M. A.)
Deceitfulness of sin
It is not only a crime that men commit when they do wrong, but it is a blunder. “The
game is not worth the candle.” The thing that you buy is not worth the price you pay for
it. Sin is like a great forest tree that we sometimes see standing up green in its leafy
beauty, and spreading a broad shadow over half a field; but when we get round on the
55

56. other side there is a great dark hollow in the very heart of it, and corruption is at work
there. It is like the poison tree in travellers’ stories, tempting weary men to rest beneath
its thick foliage, and insinuating death into the limbs that relax in the fatal coolness of its
shade. It is like the apples of Sodom, fair to look upon, but turning to acrid ashes on the
unwary lips. It is like the magician’s rod that we read about in old books. There it lies;
and if tempted by its glitter or fascinated by the power that it proffers you, you take it in
your hand, the thing starts into a serpent, with erect crest and sparkling eyes, and
plunges its quick barb into the hand that holds it, and sends poison through all the veins.
(A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Danger of the eye
Satan turned Eve’s eye to the apple; Achan’s eye to the wedges of gold; Ahab’s eye to
Naboth’s vineyard; and then what work did he make of them! (Alleine.)
Use of the eye
The eye, as it is used, will either be a help or a snare; either it will let in the sparks of
temptation, or enkindle the fire of true devotion. These are the windows which God hath
placed in the top of the building, that man from them may contemplate God’s works and
take a prospect of heaven, the place of an eternal residence. (T. Manton, D. D.)
Tests designed for the strengthening of virtue
I know not whether all soldiers love the thought of war, but there are many who pant for
a campaign. How many an officer of low rank has said, “There is no promotion, no hope
of rising, no honours, as if we had to fight. If we could rush to the cannon’s mouth, there
would be some hope that we might gain promotion in the ranks.” Men get few medals to
hang upon their breasts who never knew the smell of gunpowder. The brave days, as
men call them, of Nelson and Trafalgar have gone by, and we thank God for it; but still
we do not expect to see such brave old veterans, the offspring of this age, as those who
are still to be found lingering in our hospitals, the relics of our old campaigns. No,
brethren, we must have trials if we are to get on. Young men do not become midshipmen
altogether through going to the school at Greenwich and climbing the mast on dry land;
they must go out to sea. We must go out to sea and really be on deck in the storm; we
must have stood side by side with King David; we must have gone down into the pit to
slay the lion, or have lifted up the spear against the eight hundred. Conflicts bring
experience, and experience brings that growth in grace which is not to be attained by any
other means.
A talk about temptation
So paradise had a tempter in it. Then, one thing is quite certain—get where we may in
this world, we cannot get beyond temptation. Do you think that life would have been a
great deal better if there had been no possibility of evil? Certainly we might have been
made without any will, blindly obeying instinct, an animated machine. Then we should
never have fallen. But as certain is it that then we could never have risen. Or we might
have been placed in circumstances where the will could never have exerted itself; where
56

57. no temptation could have met us. Then, again, we could not have fallen; and then, again,
we should not have risen. Innocence is not a virtue until it has had temptation and
opportunity to sin; then innocence is strengthened by resistance, and exalted by victory
into virtue. Everywhere and in everything that is a poor, languid, sickly kind of life,
which knows no resistance; a flabby thing, not worthy the name of a man, is he who has
never had a chance of overcoming. Temptation overcome is the way, the only way, to the
very throne of God. Amongst the brave men of old there was a notion that when one
conquered an enemy the strength of the enemy went into the conqueror, and he became
so much stronger by every conquest, and thus went on from strength to strength. It is
thus that God grows His heroes, by overcoming.
Is not this the great law of all success? A young man comes to London for business or for
study. He does not expect to get on without any struggle. He knows that if he would
succeed he must be watchful, hard working, ready to resist and to overcome. If he is
worth his salt he rejoices in real difficulties rightly dealt with; in real hard work to be
done. It knits the muscle of his character; it developes in him courage, resoluteness,
heroism. Again, there was a serpent in paradise—one. But there are a great many in the
wilderness outside—fiery flying serpents! So then all men know the devil on one side or
the other. On the resisting side they know him as a tempter only; but on the other side,
the yielding side, they know him as infinitely more than that—as the cruel tyrant, the
bitterly hard master, Apollyon the Destroyer. Today the saddest people in the world, the
hardest worked, who spend most and earn least, who find life an awful weariness, are
those who have let the tempter lead them furthest by his promises of pleasure. It is true,
there is one serpent in the garden of God—but there are a great many outside. Learn the
lesson of his devices. “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field.”
Subtlety is his stock-in-trade. He is a doctor in philosophy, a master in logic; and if he
were subtle and skilful at the first, how much more so today, when for six thousand years
he has been diligently practising his art and perfecting it? Whenever any course wants a
very clever man to defend it, be quite sure that is not the path for you. The way of God is
a narrow way, but it is not a crooked way, nor is it a by-path; it is a highway. Trace his
subtlety in his methods. He comes to the woman first; perhaps because she is less
suspicious; possibly because she was less able to withstand his wiles; probably because
he knew the best way to get the man was to get the woman. The tempter finds her near to
the tree, looking at it and desiring it; so her eyes and her longing were on the side of the
enemy. If we would keep free from the tempter, keep out of the way of temptation. Some
do really tempt the tempter to destroy them. The tempter begins by questioning—for he
knows how innocently to begin—“So, is it true that God hath said that ye may not eat of
every tree of the garden?” “It is written, Thou shalt”; “it is written, Thou shalt not.” The
absolute surrender of ourselves to God for an utter obedience is our perfect safety. But to
loosen the authority of the law is to fall an easy prey to the adversary. It is to come forth
from our stronghold and to stand unharmed and helpless, face to face with the old Lion.
“I really am quite concerned about you,” he seems to say, “to see such gifted and noble
creatures as you are kept from your true position and sacred rights?” See how Eve might
have reasoned if only she had kept in mind the goodness of God. “What, then, hast thou
done for us, sir, since thou art so concerned for our welfare? Where are the tokens and
proofs of thine eagerness to serve us? He who said, ‘Thou shalt not eat of this tree,’ hath
made this fair earth and all that is therein. He planted this paradise, and hath given us
all things richly to enjoy. Canst thou be more generous, more gracious than He? Against
thy single word, behold, He sets ten thousand glorious assurances of His regard. If thou,
indeed, wert seeking our good, wouldst thou beget these doubts of Him whom we have
57

58. found all love, and who hath so perfect a claim upon us?” This completes our safety,
when to our utter obedience to His law there is added this abiding confidence in His
love. (M. G. Pearse.)
Longing for the forbidden
Speaking of the craving of colonists for dispossessing the Indians of their lands, a
modern writer says: “On their way to the Kansas border, they passed over thousands of
desirable acres, convenient to markets and schools, which they might have had at low
rates and on long credits. But they had a special craving for Indian lands, and lands ‘kept
out of market’; the simple desire to enter this territory is sufficient to make them think it
the fairest portion of the universe.”
Sin, a deceiver
Martha Browning, a young woman, aged twenty-four, was executed many years ago for
murder. The fatal deed was committed to obtain possession of a £5 note; but when the
tempting bait was at last really possessed, it proved to be not a note of the Bank of
England, but a flash note of the Bank of Elegance!
Ye shall not surely die
The first lie
I. THE AUTHOR OF THIS FIRST LIE. Satan. Devil. Deceiver.
II. THE NATURE OF THE LIE UTTERED. Direct falsification of God’s threatening.
III. A MOST DARING AND PRESUMPTUOUS LIE. A challenge of the Almighty.
IV. A MOST MALIGNANT AND ENVIOUS LIE.
V. A DESTRUCTIVE, MURDEROUS LIE. It slew our first parents: destroyed their
innocency—blinded their minds—defiled their consciences—and overspread their souls
with leprous defilement and guilt.
VI. THE GERM OF ALL UNREALNESS AND DECEPTION THAT SHOULD CURSE
MANKIND.
VII. A LYING ENTANGLEMENT FROM WHICH HUMANITY COULD NOT
EXTRICATE ITSELF.
VIII. JESUS, THE DIVINE TRUTH, CAME TO DELIVER US FROM THIS LIE AND
ITS RESULTS.
IX. THE GOSPEL IS THE DELIVERING POWER FROM SATAN’S FALSEHOODS. (J.
Burns, D. D.)
Satan’s counter-assertion
I. THERE ARE MANY THINGS AGAINST WHICH GOD HAS UTTERED HIS VOICE IN
EVERY MAN’S HEART; in which, even independently of written revelation, He has not
left Himself without witness. He who lives in concealed or open sin knows full well that
God hath said he shall surely die. But in the moment of temptation the certainty of ruin
58

59. is met by a counter assertion of the tempter—“Thou shalt not surely die”: “Do the act and
cast the consequences to the winds.” We have a notable instance of this in the case of the
prophet Balaam. Men with the full consciousness that God is against them persist in
opposition to Him, till they perish; persuading themselves, from one step to another,
that matters shall not turn out so badly as God’s words and God’s monitor within tell
them that they shall.
II. THERE ARE OTHER CLASSES OF PERSONS, BESIDES NOTORIOUS
PROFLIGATES WHO ARE CAUGHT BY THIS DEVICE, “Thou shalt not surely die.”
1. God has declared, “To be carnally minded is death.” To be carnally minded is to be
of the mind of the children of this world, to view things through a worldly medium,
to pass day by day without a thought beyond this world, and as if there wore no life
after this life. Of this kind of life God has said that it is death, that those who live it
shall surely die—nay, are dying now; and by this is meant that such a life is the
immortal spirit’s ruin, that it breaks up and scatters and wastes all man’s best and
highest faculties. “Ye shalt not surely die” is the tempter’s fallacy with which he
deludes the carnally minded. He persuades them that they can give this life to God’s
enemy, and yet inherit life eternal.
2. God has said, “He that hath the Son hath life; but he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life”—i.e., “If ye have not the Son of God ye shall surely die.” How many of
us have any persuasion of the reality of this sentence of death? How many have eared
enough about it to ascertain what it is to have the Son of God? Whosoever has not by
his own personal act taken Christ as his, has not life, and must certainly die eternally:
first by the very nature of things, for the desire for God has never been awakened in
his heart, the guilt of sin has not been removed from him, nor its power over him
broken; and then by solemn declarations of the God of truth—“He that believeth not
the Son shall not see life, for the wrath of God abideth on him.”
III. Mysterious as the history of our fall is, its greatest wonder is this: THAT GOD OUT
OF RUIN DROUGHT FORTH FRESH BEAUTY; out of man’s defeat, his victory; out of
death, life glorious and eternal. Thou shalt surely live is now the Divine proclamation to
man’s world. “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” (Dean
Alford.)
Satan’s character shown by the first temptation
I. SUBTLE.
1. Tempted the woman.
2. When alone.
3. Concealed himself, and spoke through the serpent.
II. A LIAR. “Ye shall not surely die.”
III. A SLANDERER. “God doth know,” etc.
IV. A DECEIVER. “Ye shall be as gods,” etc. (J. McConnell.)
59

60. Satan’s temptations
Eve was vanquished by three crafty thrusts. Three poisoned arrows gave the deadly
wounds. The flesh was seduced to lust—the eyes to long—and pride to covet. The
forbidden fruit was exhibited first, as good for food—next, as pleasant to the eyes—then,
as desirable to make one wise. Now, just as in the acorn, the monarch of the forest lives;
as a small seed contains the planks for mansions, ships, and mighty works—so, in the
earliest temptation there lies the embryo of sin’s whole progeny.
I. THE FLESH IS MIGHTY TO CORRUPT THE INNER MAN. Its doors are countless.
Its casements are seldom closed. Through these there is quick access to the heart. It also
is our encompassing mantle. We cannot escape its close embrace. We never move but in
its company. There is no time when it is absent. Hence its prodigious power.
II. THE EYE IS ALSO AN INLET OF SOLICITATIONS. Eve warns again. She fixed her
eyes upon the fruit, and soon its beauty put forth fearful fascination. The attraction
strengthened. Resistance melted, as snow before the sun. The enchanting appearance
bewitched. The outward show injected sparks of longing. The fire kindled. The bait was
taken. The eye betrayed. From that day he has been diligent to exhibit fascinating scenes,
to gild externals with bewitching beauty, and to lead through them into sin’s vilest paths.
3. There is another broad road open for temptation’s feet. It is the desire to be
great—the ambition to be distinguished—the lust of admiration. The Spirit names it,
“The pride of life” (1Jn_2:16). This net too was first spread in Eden. The devil
showed the fruit—and whispered that the taste would enlarge the faculties—give
nobler wings to intellect—communicate new stores of knowledge. While she beheld,
the poisonous thought took root, the tree is “to be desired to make one wise.” But
was not her intelligence enough? She knew God. In that knowledge is the joy of joys,
and life for evermore. (Dean Law.)
Lessons
1. Once yielding to the tempter’s charm gives him boldness to greater violence.
2. It is the devil’s method to draw souls from doubting of God’s truth to deny it.
3. It is a strong delusion of Satan to persuade a sinner that he shall not die.
4. It is the initial property of the tempter to be a lair, to deny what God affirms
(Gen_3:4).
5. It is Satan’s wile to deceive by urging God against God; and so make him vain.
6. It is Satan’s falsehood to persuade that God either allows man’s sin, or envies
man’s good and comfort.
7. The tempter dealeth in equivocations with double words and senses.
8. The time and cause of misery set by God is made the time and cause of good by
Satan. That day’s eating shall bring you good.
9. It is a strong temptation on man to persuade inlightning by sinning.
10. In all the light pretended, Satan intends nothing but experience of nakedness
and shame.
60

61. 11. Parity to God in place, not in nature, is a shrewd argument for Satan to tempt
with.
12. In such arguments the devil intends to make sinners like himself.
13. Knowledge of all states and things is a powerful engine to draw man to sin (Gen_
3:5).
14. Experience of all evil and miseries is the mark that Satan aims at in it. (G.
Hughes, B. D.)
Is death a reality?
1. Let us first consult reason. It says, God is good, and as to die would be painful, and
to be attended with all the ills of sickness, confinement, abstinence—as it necessarily
includes the privation of accustomed pleasures, the abandonment of gay associates—
the absence of every eye to admire, and every tongue to praise—it is not reasonable
to suppose that He would inflict it whose name is love. He is just—must the
righteous be slain with the wicked? Must the infant and the aged perish together?
But what is death? Has anyone ever seen or heard it? Can any tell where it is? Till all
these difficulties be removed, reason rebels against the assumption that we must all
die.
2. It is true, Scripture asserts “It is appointed unto men once to die,” and that “Death
has passed upon all men,” but is it not also said in Scripture, “Ye shall not surely
die”? David plainly says in Psa_118:1-29; Psa_17:1-15 th verse, “I shall not die,” and
Habakkuk, giving extension to the opinion and including his brethren, exclaims,” We
shall not die” (Hab_1:12). In what other sense are we to receive the declaration of St.
Paul, “We shall not all sleep”? (1Co_15:51) and does not God Himself assure us that
He has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, much less therefore in the death of the
righteous? Now, my friends, I have quoted for you Scripture for Scripture—You may
impugn my manner of doing it—you may say I mould and mutilate it for my
purpose—that I sacrifice its spirit to its letter, and make the one contradict the other.
To this I answer, whatever contrivance my method exhibits, it is not mine—it is in
use by thousands and millions of rational beings for the settlement of every question
involving the paramount interests of their immortal souls.
3. Passing from Scripture, let us turn to the last test by which I propose to try the
validity of my assumption—general observation. Were there such a formidable
enemy as death to be encountered by all, it would be but natural to expect to find it
the subject of general conversation and the object of universal alarm, its very name
filling all faces with dismay, and occupying all heads with devices either to evade or
successfully resist it. Can there therefore be such an enemy as death, not only in
existence, but continually in our very neighbourhood, and not a whisper regarding it
issue from the lips of its assumed victims in their most crowded assemblies, or an
apprehension of its approach blanch for an instant the cheek or interrupt the
ceaseless smile of the most sensitive among the daughters of mirth, who nightly
record their satisfaction with the joys of time, and their scepticism regarding those of
eternity? Both reason and precedent reject the supposition. Now, my friends, let us
suppose the position established, that death is only an empty name—a bugbear to
terrify the ignorant and superstitious; what do you suppose would be its effect on
61

62. yourselves? Doubtless, you would consider it expedient to erase every serious
impression which your mind had received, under the discipline of an imaginative
subject of apprehension—to shake off the trammels of a vulgar superstition, and
assert the freedom of a more enlightened judgment. How would you proceed?
Considering the world now as your inalienable possession—you would rush freely
into the intoxication of business, pleasure, or ambition. Self would be your only idol,
earth its capacious temple, and every achievable gratification its justly due and most
appropriate offering: to ensure the admiration of your fellows would be your highest
ambition, and to evade their censure your most anxious solicitude. The All-wise and
All-gracious Being who created you and the world you inhabit, who bestowed upon
you all the sources of gratification you possessed, and the ability to enjoy them,
would naturally be disregarded. Oh, my friends, what an awful picture have I
permitted my imagination to draw! Surely it could never be realized, except on the
supposition that there was no death—no judgment—no eternity! What if I undertake
to convince you that such a supposition must prevail now? But meanwhile the besom
of a long-insulted, but long suffering God, is sweeping our land. Wrath has gone out
from the Lord, and hundreds are dying in the plague; but where are the evidences of
its recognition—of the hand from whence it issues, or the object for which it is sent?
Where is the ear, attentive to the lesson of mortality it conveys?—where the fleeing,
under the convictions it awakens, for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us?
Where the awaking of the soul from its slumber of ignorance and death? You have
heard the fiat of Jehovah—“The wages of sin is death.” To this Satan replies,
addressing the soul, as he did before the body—“You shall not surely die”; and here
again he employs reason, Scripture,and experience, to substantiate his assertion.
I. Reason testifies that the God with whom we have to do, is merciful, loving, and just,
but when under the dominion of Satan, it exacts as the price of this admission the
privilege of representing Him in an attitude of falsehood—as too tenderly alive to the
well-being of His creatures, to expend a thought upon what is due to his own Divine
attributes—upon the demands of His justice, holiness, and truth. Its solution of a human
difficulty is the degradation of Him who dwelleth in light which no man can approach
unto.
II. Let us now advert to the mode by which Scripture is made to countenance a practical
denial of God’s repeated admonition to the wicked—“thou shalt surely die.” This, then, is
two fold.
1. By taking refuge behind particular characters or occurrences which bear a fancied
analogy to ourselves and our actions, in some case under reprehension, and from
their acknowledged exemption from Divine censure, feeling satisfied that we
establish our own. The character and conduct of Him who was “holy, harmless,
undefiled and separate from sinners” (Heb_7:26), are, strange to say, the most usual
refuge of “revellers, banqueters, and such like,” from an assumption that He
indulged on particular occasions in the society of the worldly and profane—engaging
in their festivities and partaking of their cheer.
2. Another and very common mode of arguing the point with Jehovah out of His
own Scriptures, is by reminding Him of such examples of his long suffering mercy
and forbearance, as they represent to have been admitted by a late repentance to the
forgiveness of their accumulated guilt, and thence asserting a claim to similar
indulgence to be followed by a similar result.
62

63. III. The sect of the Sadducees, as it existed in our Saviour’s time, is now fully
represented by the generality of professing Christians, in their notions of that spiritual
kingdom of which Christ is the head. Still earth and its constitutions, its laws, its
maxims, and its incidents, supply to them their only conceivable model of the things
which must be hereafter; and, consequently, Satan finds a ready basis for his falsehood,
in the apparent discrepancy between the character of God, as revealed in His
providences here, and such as it is represented in the Bible. Here His hatred of sin is but
faintly delineated, and His vengeance against the sinner by no means strikingly
displayed: many who confine their view to the results of conduct here, are ready to
exclaim—“The ways of the Lord are not equal,” since His chastisements do not seem
proportioned to the number or depravity of the offences committed. From this the
believers of the tempter often infer, that there is no positive law to “regulate the
adjudications of eternal punishment. (S. A. Walker, B. A.)
The subtlety of the first temptation, as impeaching the goodness, justice,
and holiness of God
The art of this temptation is very much the same as that which still prevails over men in
whom there is an evil heart of unbelief, leading them to depart from the living God
(Heb_3:12). It is by arguments of unbelief that the tempter solicits Eve to sin.
I. Thus, in the first instance, he insinuates his DOUBTS REGARDING THE EQUITY
AND GOODNESS OF GOD AS A BENEFACTOR, and the liberality of His gifts—“Yea,
hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Gen_3:1). Can it be? Has He
really subjected you to so unreasonable a restraint? And the insinuation takes effect.
Suspicion begins to rankle in the woman’s breast.
II. Then, again, in the second place, the tempter suggests DOUBTS REGARDING THE
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND TRUTH OF GOD AS A LAWGIVER:” “Ye shall not surely die.”
And for this he seems to find the woman already more than half prepared. She has very
faintly and inadequately quoted the threat.
III. And, thirdly, he has A PLAUSIBLE REASON TO JUSTIFY DOUBT AND UNBELIEF
ON THIS POINT. It cannot be that ye shall be so harshly dealt with, “for God doth know
that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil” (Gen_3:5). This, then, was the order of the temptation: First,
The goodness of God must be disbelieved; secondly, His justice; and, lastly, His holiness.
It begins with a rebellion of the will, or the heart, against the moral attributes of God, as
the Governor of His creatures. It ends in blindness of the understanding, or the mind, as
to His natural and essential perfections as the infinite and eternal Creator. God ceases to
be recognized as good, and just, and holy. Man, at the suggestion of Satan, would himself
be as good, as just, as holy as God. (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)
Observations
I. A LITTLE YIELDING TO SATAN IN HIS TEMPTATIONS, INVITES AND
ENCOURAGETH HIM TO A STRONGER AND MORE VIOLENT ASSAULT. If a man
yield so far as to stand in sinners’ counsels, Satan will not leave till he have brought him
to walk in sinner’s ways, till at last he sit down in the seat of scorners. The first reason
63

64. hereof may be taken from Satan’s diligence and vigilancy, to make the best of, and
pursue to the uttermost all advantages (like Benhadad’s messengers— 1Ki_20:23), as
waters, where the bank begins to yield, lie upon it with the greater weight, especially if
we join with his diligence his malice, which sets him on, and is never satisfied till he have
brought men to destruction (1Pe_5:8). Secondly, it is just with God to punish men’s
haltings and want of zeal with more dangerous errors and backslidings. Let us then be
careful to resist Satan strongly in his first encounters, as we are advised (1Pe_5:9), with
resolute denials. This resolute opposing of sinful motions—
1. Keeps our hearts free from all defilement by sin.
2. Moves God to strengthen us with a greater measure of grace, as did St. 2Co_12:9).
3. And daunts the devil, and makes him fly from us when he is readily opposed and
resisted (Jas_4:7).
II. EVEN THOSE WHO SEEM MODEST IN SIN AT THE FIRST, GROW BOLD AND
SHAMELESS IN IT AT THE LAST.
1. Because use and custom makes sin so familiar unto men, that it takes away, first
the sense, and then the shame that follows it, which as they feel not in themselves, so
they fear it not from others.
2. By this means God brings all evils to light, that the committers of them may be
abhorred of all men, and His justice may be the more clearly manifested in their
deserved punishment.
III. THERE IS NO TRUTH OF GOD SO CLEAR AND MANIFEST, WHICH SATAN
AND HIS AGENTS DARE NOT TO CONTRADICT.
1. Seeing Satan is both a liar, and the father of lies (Joh_8:44), so that by his own
nature he must needs be opposite to the truth.
2. Besides, it concerns him above all things to contradict fundamental truths, upon
which God’s honour and man’s salvation most depend, both which Satan labours to
overthrow with all his power.
3. And lastly, he well understands by experience, the corruption of man’s nature,
which inclines him to embrace darkness rather than light, to believe lies rather than
to love the truth, which gives him great hope of prevailing, even in suggesting the
foulest untruths to such favourable hearers.
IV. SATAN AND HIS AGENTS NEVER MAKE USE OF GOD’S WORK BUT FOR
MISCHIEF. (J. White, M. A.)
Satan’s commentary
Said a quaint New England preacher: “Beware of Bible commentators who are unwilling
to take God’s words just as they stand. The first commentator of that sort was the devil
in the Garden of Eden. He proposed only a slight change—just the one word ‘not’ to be
inserted—‘Ye shall not surely die.’ The amendment was accepted, and the world was
lost.” Satan is repeating that sort of commentary with every generation of hearers. He
insists that God couldn’t have meant just what he said. To begin with, Satan induced one
foolish woman to accept his exegesis; now he has theological professors who are of his
64

65. opinion on these points; and there are multitudes of men and women who go on in the
ways of sin because they believe Satan’s word, and do not believe the Word of God.
A serpent-like trick
A clever serpent, truly, to begin using words in a double sense! That is preeminently a
serpent-like trick. Observe how the word “die” is played upon. It is used by the serpent in
the sense of dropping down dead, or violently departing out of this world; whereas the
meaning, as we all know by bitter experience, is infinitely deeper. We lose our life when
we lose our innocence; we are dead when we are guilty; we are in hell when we are in
shame. Death does not take a long time to come upon us; it comes in the very day of our
sin—“in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (J. Parker, D. D.)
Dearth
A heathen exercised his genius in the formation of a goblet, in the bottom of which he
fixed a serpent, whose model he had made. Coiled for the spring, a pair of gleaming eyes
in its head, and in its open mouth fangs raised to strike, it lay beneath the ruby wine. As
Guthrie says: “Be assured that a serpent lurks at the bottom of guilt’s sweetest pleasure.”
(W. Adamson.)
Treachery of sin
Anthony Burgess says that sin is a Delilah, a sweet passion tickling while it stabs. Eve
saw that the tree was pleasant to the eye, and from its fragrance likely to be good for
food, a delicious morsel. Dr. Cuyler forcibly illustrates this by reference to the Judas
tree. The blossoms appear before the leaves, and they are of a brilliant crimson. The
flaming beauty of the flowers attracts innumerable insects; and the wandering bee is
drawn after it to gather honey. But every bee which alights upon the blossom, imbibes a
fatal opiate, and drops dead from among the crimson flowers to the earth. Well may it be
said that beneath this tree the earth is strewn with the victims of its fatal fascinations.
(W. Adamson.)
Ye shall be as gods.
Observations
I. SATAN IN ALL HIS PROMISES, GIVES MEN NO GROUND TO BUILD UPON, BUT
HIS OWN BARE WORD. It is true, that God Himself doth affirm things upon His own
Word alone, and justly may, seeing His Word is the standard of truth, and therefore the
only ground of faith: but this is a peculiar privilege to Him alone, incommunicable to any
creature, not to men who are all liars (Rom_3:4), much less to Satan, who is the father of
lies Joh_8:44). Indeed Satan sometimes imitates God in this way, and offers also, and
makes show, to confirm by experiments what he suggests, as that proud men are happy
because they prosper (Mal_3:15), by which means he prevails much upon wicked men,
to harden their hearts Ecc_8:11; Jer_44:17-18). Yea, and sometimes shakes the faith of
the godly themselves, as he did David’s (Psa_73:2-3; Psa_73:13). But therein he plays
the notable sophister.
65

66. 1. In representing wicked men’s prosperity so as if it were the reward of their
wickedness, whereas, it is either the blessing of God upon their provident care and
industry, in managing their affairs according to His own decree (Pro_10:4; Pro_
14:23), or for the manifesting of His goodness to all (Mat_5:45), and His justice in
their condemnation who abuse His mercies, and provoke Him by their sins, when He
doth them good; or for the fatting of them against the day of slaughter (Jer_12:3),
and raising them up on high unto eminent places, their casting down into sudden
and horrible destruction may be the more observed (Psa_73:18).
2. He deceives men, by making the world believe that to be their happiness which is
indeed their plague, as Solomon had found it in his own experience (Ecc_5:13).
II. IT IS SATAN’S CUSTOM AND POLICY TO CAST SUSPICIONS OF EVIL ENDS, ON
THAT WHICH HE CANNOT BLAME OR DISCREDIT OTHERWISE. In the like manner
he hath dealt with the Church of God in all ages, and cloth unto this day. The reasons
whereof may be—
1. Because evil intentions are, in true estimation, the greatest of all evils, wherewith
men can be charged.
2. Because nothing can be laid unto men’s charge (especially where their lives and
actions are without offence) with so much advantage, because things that appear not
in themselves may with as much probability be affirmed as they can be denied.
III. IT IS USUAL WITH SATAN AND HIS AGENTS TO CHARGE UPON OTHER MEN
THOSE EVILS FALSELY WHEREOF THEMSELVES ARE TRULY GUILTY.
1. Those who have false and evil hearts of their own, are apt to suspect that to be in
other men which they find in themselves.
2. By casting suspicions upon other men, they hope in some measure to clear
themselves, as if they might in all probability be free from those evils which they tax
in other men; or at least they hope to gain thus much, that their own evils may seem
the less heinous, when other men appear to be little better then they.
IV. DISCONTENT AT OUR PRESENT CONDITION IS A DANGEROUS TEMPTATION
OF SATAN. It is indeed directly contrary to God’s express direction (1Ti_6:8; Heb_
13:5), and unto the practice of all godly men (see the apostle’s example, Php_4:11); and
is the daughter of pride and self-love, which makes us think ourselves worthy of much
more than we have, and is the parent—
1. Of unthankfulness to God for what we have received, which proceeds from an
undervaluing of those blessings which we enjoy.
2. Of unquietness in our hearts, when our desires are not satisfied, as Ahab had no
rest in himself, when he could not get Naboth’s vineyard (1Ki_21:3-4).
3. Of envy at and contention with our neighbours, who possess that which we desire
to enjoy, and are consequently looked on by us with an evil eye, as standing in our
way to the obtaining of that which we aim at.
4. Of unconscionable dealing, and taking up ways of dishonest gain, that we may
purchase that by any means, without which we think ourselves not sufficiently
supplied, according to our worth.
V. BLINDNESS AND IGNORANCE IS A GREAT MISERY.
66

67. 1. Ignorance abases a man to the condition of a beast.
2. Ignorance makes a man unuseful and unserviceable every way, in all his
undertakings, for only a wise man’s eyes are in his head, but a fool walks in darkness
(Ecc_2:14), which we know hinders all manner of employments.
3. Ignorance leaves a man without comfort, for it is the light that is sweet, that is
comfortable (Ecc_11:7), and the light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart (Pro_15:30).
VI. IT IS GREAT INJUSTICE IN ANY MAN, TO KEEP UNDER AND HINDER
OTHERS FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE.
VII. IT IS FALSE LIBERALITY TO WITHHOLD THINGS THAT ARE OF TRUE VALUE
AND TO BESTOW THAT WHICH IS OF LITTLE WORTH. Let us, upon this ground
admire the infinite and incomprehensible love of God unto man, upon whom He hath
bestowed His own beloved Son, His choicest jewel, His delight daily (Pro_7:30), and
that from all eternity.
VIII. MAN’S LEANING TO THE CREATURE MUST NECESSARILY UTTERLY DIVIDE
HIS HEART FROM GOD. Let us therefore in this sin consider—
1. The indignity, both in respect of God, whom we abase below His own creatures
(see Jer_2:12-13), and in relation to ourselves, when we stoop to those things, which
are either far below us, or at the best but equal to us.
2. The folly, in forsaking the fountain of living waters, and digging cisterns that hold
no water, which makes them prove fools in the event Jer_17:11-13).
3. The danger of provoking God’s jealousy, which no man is able to endure.
IX. SELF-LOVE AND SEEKING IS ONE OF SATAN’S MOST DANGEROUS SNARES.
1. First, because it most easily seizeth upon man’s heart, as it is clearly manifested
unto any that will take notice of men’s ways, and of the scope whereat they aim, not
only men that live without God in this present world, or without any form of
godliness, whose character is to be lovers of themselves (2Ti_3:2), inquiring after
nothing else, but who will show them any good (Psa_4:6), referring all unto
themselves with the king of Babylon (Dan_4:30).
2. Secondly, as this evil disposition easily seizeth upon us, and possesseth us
strongly, so is it of all others most injurious.
(1) To God, against whom we lift up ourselves, advancing ourselves above Him,
in seeking ourselves more than His honour, for which we were created, and
preferring our own lusts before His righteous and holy will.
(2) To men, whom we must neglect in all offices and services of love, when we
seek only ourselves, and our own advantages.
(3) But most of all to ourselves, who neglecting both our duty to Him, when we
respect ourselves more than His honour, and towards our brethren, must
therefore lose all our reward, which is promised only to such as serve God
according to His will, and one another through love.
X. SATAN USUALLY LAYETH HIS SNARES FOR MEN IN THOSE THINGS
WHEREIN THEY NATURALLY TAKE MOST DELIGHT.
1. First, because by this means he prevails upon men much more easily, as having a
67

68. help within our own breasts, to let in those temptations wherewith he assails us.
2. And secondly, because such snares, when they have entangled us, hold us of all
others most strongly, as indeed love is strong as death (Son_8:6).
XI. SATAN TEMPTS US TO SIN, NOT ONLY IN OUR PLEASURES AND DELIGHTS,
BUT EVEN IN OUR DUTIES TOO.
1. Because we are in such ways most secure, and therefore most easily ensnared.
2. Satan desires most to corrupt our best endeavours, for the greater dishonour to
God and religion.
3. Because there be many easy and dangerous errors in circumstances of duty, even
where the substance of the action is warrantable in itself.
XII. THE SEARCHING AFTER THE KNOWLEDGE OF UNNECESSARY THINGS, IS
ONE OF SATAN’S SNARES, AND UNPROFITABLE TO US. Let us then learn to be wise
to sobriety (as the words, Rom_12:3, may not improperly be rendered), contenting
ourselves with the knowledge—
1. Of such things as God hath revealed in His Word, which belong to us Deu_29:29).
2. Which are most proper and useful to us, as our Saviour intimates in His answer to
St. Peter (Joh_21:21-22).
3. As are profitable to edification both of ourselves and others (see Eph_4:29). These
the apostle calls wholesome words (1Ti_6:3). As for the searching after the
knowledge of future events, which God hath sealed up in His own breast, and
oppositions of sciences 1Ti_6:20), they must needs occasion—
(1) Unprofitable expense of time.
(2) Needless distraction of our thoughts.
(3) The neglect of searching into things more useful and needful for ourselves
and others.
(4) And tends to ungodliness; the nourishing of pride, contention, and the like,
and are the very baits and snares of Satan.
XIII. THE PROMISES OF SATAN, OR HIS AGENTS, ARE OF SUCH THINGS AS ARE
EITHER EVIL OR UNPROFITABLE.
XIV. THE SPECIAL END THAT SATAN PERSUADES WICKED MEN TO AIM AT IS
THAT THEY MAY BE AS GODS. This was not only the high thought of the proud king of
Babel (Isa_14:13-14), or of antichrist his antitype (2 Thessalonians it. 4), but is the
desire of every wicked man, to have or do that which is peculiar to God Himself.
1. To excel alone, and to get themselves a name, that may be admired and spoken of
by all men, not only the builders of Babel (Gen_11:4), and Absalom (2Sa_18:18), but
generally all proud men, as they are described unto us (Psa_49:11).
2. To be independent, and to have sufficiency in their own hand, as that fool thought
himself to have (Luk_12:19), which is the desire of all covetous persons.
3. To be commanded by none, but to be their own lords (Psa_12:4), to follow only
their own counsel, and be guided by their own wills Jer_44:16).
68

69. 4. To give account to none but themselves, with those rebellious Jews, that desire to
have the Holy One of Israel cease from them (Isa_30:11), and Amaziah, who will not
be called to account by the prophet (2Ch_25:16).
5. To refer all to themselves, and to their own glory, with proud Nebuchadnezzar
(Dan_4:30), and to do well to themselves (Psalm xlix. 18).
XV. IT IS SATAN’S POLICY TO DRAW MEN TO DEPEND UPON THE CREATURE,
FOR THAT WHICH ONLY GOD CAN GIVE. Let all that are wise take notice of the least
motion of their hearts, that tends that way, abhorring the very least inclination of our
affections that way, as a dangerous evil.
1. Dishonourable both to God and ourselves.
2. Uncomfortable, when our hearts cannot be assured of that which we depend
upon, as having no firm ground to support our hopes.
3. Unprofitable, when men gain nothing by such a kind of dependence, more than
they do by a dream of a great feast, who find themselves empty and hungry when
they are awake.
4. Most dangerous, by drawing us from the service of God, to the service of the
creature, upon which we have our dependence.
XVI. SELF-SEEKING AND DEPENDENCE ON THE CREATURE ARE EVILS THAT BE
INSEPARABLE. Now this comes to pass—
1. By necessity, because man as well as all other creatures, wanting sufficiency in
himself for self-subsistence, having now in a sort departed from God, and thereby
lost his dependence upon Him, hath nothing else left him but the creature to fly unto
for his support.
2. Because God by His just judgment cannot bring upon a man a fitter plague to
avenge the dishonour done to Him, by lifting up ourselves against Him, than by
abasing us to submit to things below ourselves.
XVII. SATAN’S PREFERMENTS ARE IN TRUE ESTIMATION ABASEMENTS AND
BASE SLAVERIES.
XVIII. HASTY RESOLUTIONS PROVE COMMONLY DANGEROUS IN THE ISSUE.
1. Because in the thoughts of our heart natural motions, which are full of error, come
first to hand; upon which if we settle our resolutions, we must needs be mistaken,
and err dangerously ere we be aware.
2. Because our understanding, being weak in itself, is not able at once to take in, and
lay before it all things, upon which a well-grounded judgment should be settled; so
that we need some time to search out and lay together all those circumstances and
evidences which must guide us in all that we take in hand.
XIX. THE NEARER THINGS ARE TO BE ENJOYED, THE MORE STRONGLY THE
HEART IS AFFECTED TOWARDS THEM.
1. Let us be careful to fix our eyes upon the present examples of mercies or
judgments upon ourselves or others, especially upon those which are inward and
spiritual, laying hold of eternal life, upon the sense of God’s present favours, as the
Prophet David seems to do (Psa_73:24), and beholding and trembling at the very
69

70. face of hell in present judgments.
2. Labour to work those experiments upon our hearts, till they awaken faith by
which only those things which are to come are made present Heb_11:1), so that they
affect men with joy, as if they were possessed already (1Pe_1:8), and with like fear on
the other side.
3. Let us often recount with ourselves the shortness of this present life. Meditation
may and will show a man’s life unto him but a span long, and may make a thousand
years seem unto him, as God accounts them, but as one day. (J. White, M. A.)
A poisoned honour
If we are to credit the annals of the Russian empire, there once existed a noble order of
merit, which was greatly coveted by the princes and noblesse. It was, however, conferred
only on the peculiar favourites of the Czar, or on the distinguished heroes of the
kingdom. But another class shared in its honour in a very questionable form. Those
nobles or favourites who either became a burden to the Czar or who stood in his way,
received this decoration only to die. The pin point was tipped with poison—and when the
order was being fastened on the breast by the imperial messenger, the flesh of the person
was “accidentally” pricked. Death ensued, as next morning the individual so highly
honoured with imperial favour was found dead in bed from apoplexy. Satan offered to
confer a brilliant decoration upon Adam and Eve—“Ye shall be as gods.” It was poisoned;
the wages of sin is death. (W. Adamson.)
The devil’s bait
He telleth her, “they shall be like gods,” etc. And it is his continued practice still with
hope of higher climbing, to throw down many a man and woman. He will tickle you with
honour, with wealth, with friends, and many gay things that you shall get by yielding to
him, but whilst you so look to mount aloft to better your state, and to enjoy promises,
down shall you fall from heaven to hell, and find a false serpent when it is too late to call
again yesterday, that is, to undo what you have done. Our mother Eve whilst she looked
to become like God, and her husband with her, she became like the devil, and cast away
her husband also; even so shall you if any vain hope, promise, or speech tickle your heart
to offend the Lord, and to undo yourself and your friends. (Bp. Babington.)
She took of the fruit thereof
The moral aspect of the senses
I. THAT MAN REQUIRES A BOUNDARY FOR HIS SENSES. By prohibiting one tree,
God declares that there must be a limitation to the gratification of the senses. This is a
most important doctrine, and fearfully overlooked. But why should the senses be
restricted?
1. Because an undue influence of the senses is perilous to the spiritual interests of
men. The senses, as servants, are great blessings; as sovereigns, they become great
70

71. curses. Fleshly lusts “war against the soul.”
2. Because man has the power of fostering his senses to an undue influence. Unlike
the brute, his senses are linked to the faculty of imagination. By this he can give new
edge and strength to his senses. He can bring the sensual provisions of nature into
new combinations, and thereby not only strengthen old appetites, but create new
ones. Thus we find men on all hands becoming the mere creatures of the senses—
intellect and heart running into flesh. They are carnal.
II. THAT MAN’S MORAL NATURE IS ASSAILABLE THROUGH THE SENSES. Thus
Satan here assailed our first parents, and won the day. Thus he tempted Christ in the
wilderness, and thus ever. His address is always to the passions. By sensual plays, songs,
books, and elements, he rules the world. “Lust, when it is finished, bringeth forth sin.”
This fact is useful for two purposes:
1. To caution us against all institutions which aim mainly at the gratification of the
senses. We may rest assured, that Satan is in special connection with these.
2. To caution us against making the senses the source of pleasure. It is a proof of the
goodness of God that the senses yield pleasure; but it is a proof of depravity when
man seeks his chief pleasure in them. Man should ever attend to them rather as
means of relief than as sources of pleasure. He who uses them in this latter way,
sinks bruteward.
III. THAT MAN’S NIGHEST INTERESTS NAVE BEEN RUINED BY THE SENSES.
“She took of the fruit.” Here was the ruin. History teems with similar examples. Esau,
the Jews in the wilderness, and David, are striking illustrations. Men’s highest
interests—of intellect—conscience—soul—and eternity—are everywhere being ruined by
the senses. (Homilist.)
Stages to ruin
In Gen_3:1-7 are indicated the human stages through which evil entered the world.
I. INDETERMINATION. This afforded the tempter an opportunity of doing three
things.
1. Insinuating a doubt as to the truth of the prohibition.
2. Contradicting the sanction of the prohibition.
3. Impiously reflecting on the kindness of the prohibition. Parleying with the
tempter has ever been the ruin of man.
II. SELFISM. Two impulses arose within her to an undue power.
1. Appetite.
2. Ambition.
III. SEDUCTIVENESS. Eve no sooner falls, than she becomes a tempter. (Homilist.)
The fatal choice
71

72. I. THE PROCESS OF TEMPTATION AND FALL.
1. The first step towards ruin was, and is, willingness to parley with the tempter.
2. Desire.
3. Change of opinion regarding the expediency or morality of the sin.
4. The overt act of sin.
II. THE TRAIN OF CONSEQUENCES.
1. The tempted becomes at once a tempter of others.
2. Knowledge of sin works shame.
3. Knowledge of sin makes one especially afraid of God.
4. Sin brings the sentence of Divine displeasure.
III. THE INTERVENTION OF DIVINE GRACE. (The Homiletic Review.)
Temptation and Fall of man
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. The instrument used for the temptation. A tree.
2. The agent in conducting the temptation. The serpent.
3. The mode by which the temptation was conducted to its issue.
II. THE MORAL CHANCE which the success of this great temptation produced and
perpetuated.
1. The nature of the change. A change of character. Depravity and alienation from
God.
2. The extent and application of this change beyond those who submitted to it.
Universal.
III. THE PENAL INFLICTIONS which in consequence of the success of the great
temptation and its attendant moral changes have been incurred.
1. Exclusion from paradise.
2. Corporeal sorrow and toil.
3. The consignment of the body to death.
4. Exposure to future and eternal punishment.
CONCLUDING LESSONS:
1. The voluntariness of sin. Let no one for a moment suppose that man sins by
decree; he is saved by decree, but he is not lost by decree. Besides the voluntariness
of sin which is one truth which requires to be acknowledged, another is the
universality of sin. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
2. But it is vastly important, that the remedy provided against the consequences of
man’s fall should be at once and gratefully embraced. (James Parsons, M. A.)
72

73. Observations
I. THINGS USUALLY APPEAR UNTO US AS WE STAND AFFECTED TOWARDS
THEM IN OUR HEARTS.
II. SIN PROCEEDS NOT FROM THE OUTWARD OBJECT, BUT FROM THE
CORRUPTION OF THE HEART WITHIN.
III. IT IS DANGEROUS TO A MAN TO FIX HIS SENSES UPON ENTICING OBJECTS.
IV. MEN BY NATURE ARE MORE APT TO GIVE CREDIT UNTO LIES THAN UNTO
THE TRUTH OF GOD.
V. MEN ARE EASILY DRAWN TO BELIEVE AND HOPE ANYTHING OF THAT
WHICH THEY AFFECT AND DESIRE.
VI. THE TERRORS OF WRATH TO COME CANNOT PREVAIL AGAINST STRONG
AND VIOLENT AFFECTIONS TO THINGS THAT ARE PRESENT.
VII. OUTWARD SENSE IS AN ILL AND A DANGEROUS GUIDE.
1. Sense was never given men for a judge or counsellor to determine and direct, but
only for an informer.
2. Sense can show us nothing but the outward forms of such things as it represents,
upon which we shall never be able to lay the ground of a right judgment: wherefore
judgment according to appearance, is opposed to God’s true and infallible judgment
(1Sa_16:7).
VIII. A MAN CANNOT NATURALLY DESIRE ANYTHING BUT UNDER A SHOW AND
APPEARANCE OF GOOD.
IX. MAN IS AN ILL CHOOSER OF HIS OWN GOOD.
X. IT IS A GROSS EVIL TO CHOOSE NOT WHAT IS GRANTED US, BUT WHAT WE
LIKE ESPECIALLY, OUT OF RESPECT TO OURSELVES IN PARTICULAR.
XI. LUST, ONCE CONCEIVED, WILL AT LAST BRING FORTH ACTUAL SIN IN FULL
PERFECTION. First, it cannot be otherwise, because inward desires and affections are
the ground of all outward actions and performances, as Solomon tells us (Pro_4:23),
which therefore must needs follow, unless there be some impediment cast in the way,
especially in this corruption of man’s nature, wherein they bear all the sway. Secondly,
God is pleased it shall be so, that men may be made known by their actions, as a tree is
known by his fruit.
XII. IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF SATAN HIMSELF, TO DRAW ANY MAN TO SIN
WITHOUT HIS CONSENT.
XIII. THEY THAT SIN THEMSELVES, ARE COMMONLY SEDUCERS OF OTHERS TO
SIN.
XIV. ONE WHO HAS FALLEN INTO SIN, IS OFTEN MOST DANGEROUS TO HIS
NEAREST FRIENDS.
XV. IT IS THE PROPERTY OF TRUE LOVE TO COMMUNICATE TO OTHERS
73

74. WHATSOEVER ITSELF EMBRACETH AS GOOD.
XVI. THE STRONGEST MAN IS NOT ABLE TO STAND AGAINST SATAN, IF GOD
LEAVE HIM TO HIMSELF. (J. White, M. A.)
Temptation and Fall
Should it occur to any to ask, how it can be consistent with the Divine wisdom and
goodness to place creatures in the beginning of their life in a condition of such exposure
and peril, we must allow that the question is not unattended with difficulty. We know it,
however, to be a fact, imperfectly as we may be able to reconcile it with the
acknowledged character of God, that the beginning or early part of every human life, and
probably of the life of every moral being, is especially fraught with temptations and
dangers. The sacred writer may have had this idea in his mind when he said, “Better is
the end of a thing than the beginning thereof.” Childhood and youth are, in most cases,
seasons of temptation. The entrance on early manhood is a time of temptation.
Principles are then to be settled and habits to be formed, which will do much toward
shaping the character for all the future life. Viewed in relation to God and religion, the
first part of life is important. It is the period of moral formation; and the principles
which then gain an ascendency are likely to be permanent. Hence the solicitude which
parents feel in relation to their children, and especially their sons, when they go from
them to enter on a course of study in a public institution, or to engage as clerks and
apprentices in the employment of others, or to begin life for themselves. The young
cannot wholly escape these trials and dangers; and they greatly resemble the
temptations through which Adam and Eve passed. They are inseparable from the
responsibilities of self-government, until a stable and well-tried character is formed.
Men are put into the world to meet its duties, and to discipline themselves, amidst
difficulties and moral hazards, for a better state. The sooner in life they learn this truth,
the better will it be for them. The plan of God is not to shield any of us from temptation;
but to teach us to pass through it undamaged and with advantage. But it may help
somewhat to reconcile us to this part of the Divine government, if we inquire whether it
is possible for us to conceive of a better constitution? All creatures must begin to exist.
They must therefore either be as perfect as they ever can be at first, or they must have
scope to grow and to unfold themselves. Would we, any of us, choose to be created so
perfect at the beginning, as to preclude the idea of any improvement, or even of any
change? Would we be in favour of a constitution, supposing it possible, which would
permit no increase of knowledge, of virtue, or of happiness? Would we prefer to be
wholly without hope? Would we account a dead, stagnant monotony, an unvarying
sameness of existence, an improvement on our present state? I cannot think we should
any of us so elect, were the election in our power. And yet all these ideas belong to the
notion of a creature made at the outset as perfect as he ever can be. (D. N. Sheldon.)
The husband tempted through the wife
Agrippina poisoned the Emperor Commodus with wine in a perfumed cup; the cup
being perfumed and given him by his wife, it was the less suspected. Satan knew a
temptation coming to Adam from his wife, would be more prevailing, and would be less
suspected: O bitter! Sometimes relations prove temptations: a wife may be a snare, when
74

75. she dissuades her husband from doing his duty, or enticeth him to evil. “Ahab, which did
sell himself to work wickedness, whom his wife Jezebel stirred up.” She blew the coals
and made his sin flame out the more. Satan’s subtlety was in tempting Adam by his wife,
he thought she would draw him to sin. (T. Watson.)
The Fall of man
I. MAN’S FALL FROM A STATE OF INNOCENCE. Mark the steps of the transgression.
She “saw”: she should have turned away her eyes from beholding vanity; but she enters
into temptation by looking with pleasure on the forbidden fruit. “She took”: it was her
own act and deed. Satan may tempt, but he cannot force us into sin. She “did eat”: when
first she looked, perhaps she meant not to touch, or if she took, not to eat; but who can
say, So far I will go in sin, and no further? It is a downward road. Our only safety is to
stop the first thought, the first beginning. She “gave also unto her husband with her.” No
sooner was Eve a sinner than, like the devil, she became a tempter. Adam, it seems, had
joined her now; and he listened to her persuasion, “and he did eat.” And will any dare to
think the sin a small one? God had given him a plain and easy command; had made him
with a will free, a nature holy and good. His act, then, showed unbelief in God’s word,
discontent with his state, aspiring pride; in a word, it was disobedience. He sinned
against the clearest light, the highest knowledge, the greatest goodness, the dearest love.
He turned aside quickly. And will any ask, as men do now, What great harm was there?
II. THE UNHAPPY CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL.
1. Shame.
2. Fear.
3. Pride. Adam attempts to hide his offence from God.
4. Judgment. Sorrow, misery, death. Every sinner finds it so.
III. THE ONLY REMEDY PROVIDED—in Jesus Christ our Saviour. God has stooped
from heaven to redeem man. (E. Blencowe, M. A.)
Sin and death
This narrative teaches us great facts regarding temptation and sin.
I. REGARDING TEMPTATION.
1. Temptation often comes through Satanic influence. As in the cases of Eve, Judas,
Ananias, so today Satan is busy in placing temptation before us. How he does it we
know not, but he evidently has supernatural power to instill evil thoughts into our
minds.
(1) Satan’s method is to start doubts and queries in men’s minds. By parleying
with temptation Eve was lost.
(2) The narrative shows the subtilty of temptation. Satan was careful in this
narrative not to lie outright. All error begins in one-sided truths.
(3) But with this presentation of a part of the truth, Satan took care that doubts
75

76. should be awakened regarding God’s motives.
2. But the narrative teaches that, though there be Satanic influence from without,
there is a greater temptation from within (see Jas_1:14). Eve thought she should be
as God if she ate the forbidden fruit. She reasoned as do so many foolish young
people in these days who say about places of evil resort: “I want to see for myself. It
isn’t going to do me any harm, and I want to know about it.” And so young men—
bent on being as smart as their fellows and on knowing as much of the world as any
body, and seeing the gilded apple, fair to look upon and promising temporal
advantage, hanging in the liquor saloon, or the gambling resort, or the house of
death—pluck and eat.
II. REGARDING SIN.
1. The question at once arises—Why did God forbid the eating of the fruit of this
tree? The injunction was not arbitrary, we may be sure. The inherent wrong we do
not know, but we are certain that it was essential to the character and destiny of man
that there should be something prohibited. There must be law: first, because some
things are inherently right and others inherently wrong; second, because without
law, enjoining or forbidding, character can neither be tested nor developed.
2. We see again from the narrative that the essence of sin consists in unbelief. Why
does God forbid this and enjoin that? Because He loves us and knows a contrary
course would do us harm. What subtle conviction justifies us when we allow
ourselves in disobedience to God’s laws? Either that we know better than God, or
that God lays His commands on us from selfish and ungenerous motives. It is hard to
tell which conviction is the worse, but probably the latter is the more common. At
any rate, it is clear that all sin originates in distrust of God. Doubting His wisdom or
His truthfulness, or above all, His love, we rush on, heedless of His warnings, to our
destruction.
3. There is a lesson in this narrative regarding the propagation of sin. No sooner did
Eve eat the forbidden fruit than she offered it to Adam and persuaded him to be a
sinner also. In this she did but carry out instinctively an inevitable law of sin. Sin is a
contagious disease.
4. The penalty of sin is death. (A. P. Foster, D. D.)
The first sin
I. THE CHARACTER OF THE FIRST SIN. The strength of the first sin was the law of
God. There was no intrinsic poison in the forbidden fruit, for God cannot produce an
essentially evil thing; the creature’s disobedience gave to it its deadly power.
II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIRST SIN. So long as the creature’s love for God
was perfect, the first law remained unbroken; but even as in Elijah’s days, there arose
out of the sea a vapour, not larger than a man’s hand, which gathered unto itself other
clouds, until the whole heaven was covered with blackness; so there arose in the horizon
of Eden, as a little cloud, a doubt of God’s love, and behold now the sky is overcast above
our heads, even with the shadow of death. Yes, Eve began to think that her Maker had
withholden from her that which was good. She, looking upon the forbidden tree, formed
an independent judgment upon its qualities; she pronounced that it was good for food,
76

77. pleasant to the sight, and of a nature to communicate wisdom to the partaker thereof.
This was the first step in the development of her sin. Next, she desired it. It was “a tree
to be desired.” There is something wonderful in the typicality of the first sin; how
distinctly do we see the shadow of that, which is now in the world, as the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eye, and the pride of an intellectual life. In the full and final development
of sin the woman took of the fruit and ate. The deed of wickedness followed the unholy
thought; and the ruin of the world was completed.
III. THE PROLIFIC NATURE OF THE FIRST SIN. “Gave unto her husband, and he did
eat.” No sooner is one sin truly born, or brought forth in its maturity, than it becomes
the parent of a thousand or a million of other transgressions. There is no point which
should make us dread sin more than its hydra-like multiplication. It branches forth in
every direction; it is impossible to check its rapidity of reproduction.
IV. THE PERPETUITY OF ITS EFFECT ON POSTERITY. (The Protoplast.)
I. THE NATURE OF THE SIN.
1. Ingratitude.
2. Disbelief.
3. Disobedience.
The first sin
II. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SIN.
1. Our first parents were not the same afterwards.
2. That one sin paved the way for other sins. For insincerity and untruth.
3. It estranged them from God.
4. It broke up the home.
5. It shut them out of life.
III. THE REMEDY FOR SIN. In Christ. (J. Ogle.)
Ten sins in Adam’s disobedience
1. Incredulity. Our first parents did not believe what God had spoken was truth.
2. Unthankfulness, which is the epitome of all sin. Adam’s sin was committed in the
midst of paradise.
3. In Adam’s sin was discontent: had he not been discontented, he would never have
sought to have altered his condition. How wide was Adam’s heart, that a whole world
could not fill it.
4. Pride, in that he would be like God. But, by climbing too high, he got a fall.
5. Disobedience. How could God endure to see His laws trampled on before His
face? This made God place a flaming sword at the end of the garden.
77

78. 6. Curiosity: to meddle with that which was out of his sphere, and did not belong to
him. Adam would be prying into God’s secrets, and tasting what was forbidden.
7. Wantonness: though Adam had a choice of all the other trees, yet his palate grew
wanton, and he must have this tree. Adam had not only for necessity, but for delight;
yet his wanton palate lusted after forbidden fruit.
8. Sacrilege: the tree of knowledge was none of Adam’s, yet he took of it, and did
sacrilegiously rob God of His due. Sacrilege is a double theft.
9. Murder: Adam was a public person, and all his posterity were involved.
10. Presumption. One sin may have many sins in it. As in one volume there may be
many works bound up, so there may be many sins in one sin. The dreadfulness of the
effect: it hath corrupted men’s nature. How rank is that poison a drop whereof could
poison a whole sea! And how deadly is that sin of Adam, that could poison all
mankind, and bring a curse upon them, till it be taken away by Him who was “made
a curse for us.” (T. Watson.)
The first sin
I. THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIRST SIN.
1. Creating uncertainty in the mind as to duty towards God.
2. Nourishing the hope that God is not in earnest.
3. Producing a doubt as to God’s goodness and sincerity.
II. THE SOCIAL ASPECTS OF THE FIRST SIN.
1. Contaminating.
2. Destructive to human love.
3. Bringing men morally to the same level.
4. The precursor of physical suffering.
III. THE IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF THE FIRST SIN.
1. Burdening the soul with guilt.
2. Disturbing its peace with fear.
3. Obliterating its true conceptions of God.
IV. THE PUNISHMENT OF THE FIRST SIN.
1. Its punishment shows that sin is foreign to our nature.
2. That sin and punishment are linked together.
3. That God is just in its punishment.
4. That God is willing to pardon sin.
5. That liberty is not without its attendant risks.
6. That knowledge without holiness is dangerous. (Homilist.)
78

79. I. THE TEST OF OBEDIENCE WHICH GOD INSTITUTED.
1. It was just and reasonable.
2. Simple and plain.
3. Practicable and easy.
The Fall
II. THE MANNER OF ITS VIOLATION.
1. The serpent tempted.
2. The woman transgressed.
3. She gave also to Adam, and he did eat.
III. THE MORAL EVIL IT INVOLVED.
1. Great credulity, yet great unbelief.
2. Great discontent.
3. Great pride.
4. Great disobedience and presumption.
5. Great ingratitude.
IV. THE CALAMITOUS RESULTS IT PRODUCED.
1. Overwhelming fear and shame.
2. Open exposure and correction.
3. The Divine displeasure and punishment.
(1) On the serpent (see Gen_3:15).
(2) On the woman; subjection and sorrow in child-bearing (verse
16).
(3) On Adam. Ground cursed; toil, etc. (Gen_17:18-19). On both death, though
not immediately executed.
APPLICATION:
1. Learn the origin of human sin.
2. Its disastrous effects.
3. Our natural connection with it.
4. The only way of deliverance from it.
By faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was manifested in the flesh to destroy the work of
the devil (see Rom_5:12-17). (J. Burns, D. D.)
Man’s moral conflict
79

80. I. THE GREAT MORAL CONFLICT APPOINTED FOR MAN. In Eden and in every
human history there is a collision between appetite and conscience, between right and
wrong, between God’s will and human wilfulness. Things know nothing of such
oppositions. In self-governments and to wills they are inevitable.
1. That it was waged between powers both good in themselves for the exclusive rule
and supremacy of the lower over the life.
2. It begins with a suggestion from without and from beneath.
3. We are assailed from the most unlikely quarters, and are injured by the most
unlikely instruments.
4. The danger in this case arose from a lawless desire for knowledge,
II. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MAN’S MORAL DEFEAT. Given the fact of sin, the fact
of a fatal change in the condition and circumstances follows of necessity.
1. The harmonious and beautiful subordination of the powers of the human
constitution is destroyed.
2. Native innocence is lost.
3. Sin shuts out the light of heaven and prevents the enjoyment of the vision of God.
4. Sin changes the face of nature to the guilty, and banishes the spirit from the
regions of Divine joy. Men in the first consciousness of guilt dare not pray. (The
Preacher’s Monthly.)
Lessons from the Fall of man
I. TEMPTATION LIES IN THE DIRECTION OF PLEASURE.
II. GUILT OPENS MEN’S EYES.
III. GUILT VAINLY TRIES TO HIDE ITS DEFORMITY. (The Homiletic Review.)
A warning from Eve’s Fall
She was thus tempted, seduced, and overthrown in paradise; and it may well admonish
us, that if that paradise could not free them from temptation, surely our paradises here
shall never do it. But even in our princely palaces, our glittering chambers, our dainty
and delicate gardens, the devil will be chatting with us, and seeking to work our woe
forever and ever if he can. Nay, would God these painted paradises were not rather the
places and means of our woful falls than poorer places be, we giving ourselves so much
to the pleasures of them that God is forgotten, and the passage to Satan’s pleasure laid
open a thousand ways. Oh, how have they fallen swimming in pleasures, that stood most
holy when they had fewer delights! Oh, how have courts of princes robbed them of
virtue, whom in country and meaner places no devil could violate or defile! Beware we
then of Satan even in our paradises, yea, rather I say, than in poorer cots: when
everything about us is bright and brave, beware we that enemy that is black and foul.
Many pleasures should effect many desires to please the Giver, God Almighty, and no
pleasures should make me wanton, lusting and longing for unlawful things. Let Eve be
80

81. remembered where she was deceived, and I say no more, it was in paradise. (Bp.
Babington.)
A three-fold temptation
There were three things that wrought upon her.
1. The tree was good for food. A strong reason, had she been famishing, but none
when surrounded with the plenty of the rich garden. Strange that she should have
cared for it on such an account! She is in no need of food, yet it is on this account
that she covets it! She is without excuse in her sin. It was the lust of the flesh that
was at work (Eph_2:3; 1Jn_2:16). She saw in the tree the gratification of that lust,
and in God a hinderer of it. Thus she fell.
2. It was a desire of the eyes. And had she no other objects of beauty to gaze upon?
Yes; thousands. Yet this forbidden one engrossed her, as if it had acquired new
beauty by having been prohibited. Or can she not be satisfied with looking? Must she
covet? Must she touch and taste? It is plain that hers was no longer the natural and
lawful admiration of a fair object, but an unlawful desire to possess what she
admired. It was “the lust of the eye.”
3. It was a tree to be desired for imparting wisdom. This was the crowning
allurement. She must have wisdom, and she must have it at all risks, and she must
have it without delay. She made haste to be wise. She would not in faith wait for
God’s time and way of giving wisdom. Such was the desire (or lust) of the mind
(Eph_2:3). These three reasons prevailed. She plucked the fruit, and did eat. Nay,
more, she gave also to her husband, who was with her, and he did eat. She was not
content to sin alone. Even the dearest on earth must be drawn into the same snare.
Let us mark here such lessons as the following:—
1. The danger of trifling with objects of temptation. To linger near them; to hesitate
about leaving them; to think of them as harmless—these are the sure forerunners of a
fall.
2. The three sources of temptation: the lust of the flesh, of the eye, of the mind.
Strictly speaking, they are not in themselves sinful, but in their excess, or disorderly
indulgence.
3. The swift progress of temptation. She listened, looked, took, ate! These were the
steps. All linked together, and swiftly following each other. The beginning how small
and simple; the end how terrible! (Jas_1:25). You begin with a look, you end in
apostasy from God. You begin with a touch, you end in woe and shame. You begin
with a thought, you end in the second death. Yet of all these steps God protests
solemnly that He is not the Author (Jas_1:13). It is man that is his own ensnarer and
destroyer. Even Satan cannot succeed unless seconded by man himself.
4. The tendency of sin to propagate itself. No sooner has the tempted one yielded
than he seeks to draw others into the snare. He must drag down his fellows with him.
There seems an awful vitality about sin; a fertility in reproduction, nay, a horrid
necessity of nature for self-diffusion. It never lies dormant. It never loses its power of
propagation. Let it be the smallest conceivable, it possesses the same terrific
diffusiveness. Like the invisible seeds that float through our atmosphere, it takes
81

82. wing the moment it comes into being, flying abroad, and striking root everywhere,
and becoming the parent of ten thousand others. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
Apostasy
I. THE TEMPTATION BY WHICH ADAM WAS ASSAILED.
II. THE GREATNESS OF HIS GUILT. A fearful complication.
1. Disbelief of the Creator.
2. Rebellion against the highest authority.
3. The most criminal ambition.
4. The basest and vilest ingratitude.
5. A sin against his own soul, and against all his posterity.
III. THE SCRUTINY TO WHICH HE WAS SUBJECTED.
IV. THE SENTENCE PRONOUNCED ON ADAM.
1. Exclusion from paradise must have been a painful evil considered in itself.
2. But the sentence included death also. The death of the body, the precursor, if
grace prevent not, of the death of the soul. (H. Burder, M. A.)
Paradise lost; or, man’s Fall
I. THE SUBTLE TEMPTER. Changed the tree of probation into a tree of temptation.
II. THE FATAL TRANSGRESSION. Eve hesitated, and was drawn into the tempter’s
net. Then sin reproduces sin.
III. THE SAD DISCOVERY. Innocence gone: in its place was shame. LESSONS:
1. To obey God’s word, even when it contradicts our own inclinations.
2. To be humble and patient, waiting God’s time and will, as to His “secret things.”
3. To refuse to listen to temptation from without, and to evil lusts in ourselves. (W.
S. Smith, B. D.)
Temptation and Fall of man
Corroborative of the Mosaic account of the Fall are numerous ancient corrupted
traditions. Thus—
1. On an ancient bas-relief of the story of Prometheus and Pandora, a man and
woman are represented standing naked and disconsolate under a tree; and a figure
seated on a rock is strangling a serpent.
2. Apollo destroys the serpent Python, and is crowned with laurel.
3. Hercules—who in his infancy had destroyed a serpent—gathered the apples of
82

83. Hesperides, having killed the serpent that kept the tree.
4. Many gems, etc., represent Hercules killing a serpent entwined about a fruit-laden
tree.
I. THE FIRST TEMPTATION.
1. To be tempted, and to sin, two different things. Christ was tempted but did not sin
(Heb_4:15).
2. Its source—
(1) Not man, who was holy, innocent, happy. “A solicitation to sin could come
only from without.”
(2) Not from God. He “tempteth no man” (Jas_1:13).
(3) But from the devil. Disarmed suspicion by assuming a familiar form. No
living creature, not even the serpent, then inspired fear.
3. Appeared thus to Eve, whose knowledge was partial. Speech used by a serpent
would have “opened the eyes” of Adam, who had named the beasts according to their
nature.
4. Concealed the real death that would be introduced. Told a partial truth: “your eyes
shall be opened.” Half truths are the devil’s most successful lies. Thus Tennyson
says:—
“That a lie, which is part a truth, is ever the blackest of lies;
That a lie, which is all a lie, may be met, and fought with, outright;
But a lie, which is part a truth, is a harder matter to fight.”
II. THE FIRST SIN. Apparently small, and by the thoughtless often spoken lightly of, as
such. But as all sin is a violation of principle, injures the moral sense, imperils the soul,
and dishonours God, no transgression can be truly called a little sin. Sin is the
transgression of law (1Jn_3:4). This was the only sin that could be committed, since
there was but one law Rom_4:15). It was great, because the only one possible. It
contained the elements of all evil: disobedience (Rom_5:19), pride, unbelief, blindness,
ingratitude, selfishness, covetousness, etc. As from small fountains, mighty rivers nave
their beginning; so from this sin, all transgression took its rise and character (Rom_
5:12; 1Co_15:22). (J. C. Gray.)
Adam; or, human nature
I. ADAM, OR MAN. First, to trace this path in that world of thought and will which is
within; for, to this day, when we sin nothing else is done but what is here set forth in the
man, the woman, and the serpent. In this view the man is the understanding, the woman
the will, the serpent some animal faculty or emotion in us—good when in subjection, but
which may be a means, under the influence of the evil spirit, to tempt the will and lead it
to disobedience and independence, and so to misery. For the will, not the understanding
is that in us which is first assailed, seduced by some lower sense or emotion, which
seems to promise more happiness. But for the will, the emotions would not be felt, but
only thought about: but they are felt: hence they are passions; for we really suffer,
83

84. though we should command, them. Only thus is man led away.
II. MAN’S WAY. From God to self and independence.
III. THE FRUIT OF MAN’S WAY.
1. A bad conscience.
2. An attempt to hide from God.
3. An attempt to clear self by throwing blame on some other one.
4. But there are other fruits of sin, more external, and having to do with man’s body
and his dwelling place. The earth is cursed, and henceforth sorrow and toil are to be
man’s due portion until he return to the dust whence he was taken; a lot which seems
hard, and yet is mercy; by toil to draw man out of self, and then by death to destroy
him that hath the power of death, that is the devil.
5. One consequence of sin remains, characteristic of the lot of man as man, namely,
exclusion from paradise. Fallen man is driven out, lest as fallen he eat and live
forever. This, too, is love. Old Adam is shut out, but the Seed can enter through the
flaming sword and past the cherubim.
IV. THE REMEDY FOR MAN. This too has stages, all of God; first a call, then a
promise, then a gift, from Him.
1. First comes a call, a voice which will be heard, to convince man of his state, saying,
“Where art thou?” A voice which may sound in different ways, but which in all is
crying to draw man back again; at first only convicting of sin, yet by this very
conviction laying the foundation for man’s recovery; leading man to come to himself
before it is too late, that he may come to his Father, and from Him receive another
life; and asking, though man oft turns a deaf ear, why we are not with Him, who still
loves and yearns over us.
2. Then comes a promise, full of grace and truth, touching the woman’s Seed; a
promise not to old Adam, for the old man is fallen and must pay the penalty—no
reprieve is given to the flesh: the cross which saves us is Adam’s condemnation—but
a promise to the Seed or New Man, who shall be born, in and by whom man shall
regain paradise.
3. God adds a gift—“The Lord God made them coats of skins and clothed them.”
Again He works, for sin had broken His rest; working, as ever, to restore
blessedness; to cover not with fig-leaf screens only that part of our nakedness which
is before each of us; but to give us, upon us, in token of our state—for the skins spoke
of death, and so confessed trespass—a covering which, while it puts us in our place as
sinful creatures, yet shelters us. (A. Jukes.)
The peril of capacity
Why did God make man capable of falling? Because God could not have made man upon
any other condition: He made the sun incapable of falling, and all the stars incapable of
falling; but the moment you pass from matter to life you multiply your danger; increased
life means increased risk. I drive a nail into this piece of wood to hold some article until I
return for it; I also request a child to watch another article for a time. On my return I
84

85. find the nail where I put it, I also find the child where I left him, do I say to the nail, “You
are very good for doing what I wanted to have done”? Certainly not. But I may say to the
child, “You have been good, and I thank you for doing me this kindness.” But why not
express my thanks to the nail? Simply because the nail had no will in the matter. The
child had a will, and could have foregone his charge; and by so much as he could have
broken his promise he was honourable in keeping it. But put the case the other way.
Suppose that on my return I discovered that the child had abandoned his position; then
I should see that in passing from matter to life I pass from comparative certainty to
probable uncertainty; yet even the bad child is greater than the nail, for his capacity of
badness is also his capacity of goodness. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Man fallen
You see a beautiful capital still bearing some of the flowers and some of the vestiges of
the foliage which the sculptor’s chisel had carved upon the marble. It lies on the ground,
half-buried under rank weeds and nettles, while beside it the headless shaft of a noble
column springs from its pedestal. Would you not at once conclude that its present
condition, so base and mean, was not its original position? You say the lightning bolt
must have struck it down; or an earthquake had shaken its foundations; or some
ignorant barbarian had climbed the shaft, and with rude hand hurled it to the ground.
Well, we look at man, and arrive at a similar conclusion. (T. Guthrie, D. D.)
Original sin
A minister having preached on the doctrine of original sin, was afterwards waited on by
some persons, who stated their objections to what he had advanced. After hearing them
he said, “I hope you do not deny actual sin too?” “No,” they replied. The good man
expressed his satisfaction at their acknowledgment; but, to show the absurdity of their
opinions in denying a doctrine so plainly taught in Scripture, he asked them, “Did you
ever see a tree growing without a root?”
Consciousness of the Fall
The degenerate plant has no consciousness of its own degradation, nor could it, when
reduced to the character of a weed or a wild flower, recognize in the fair and delicate
garden plant the type of its former self. The tamed and domesticated animal, stunted in
size, and subjugated in spirit, could not feel any sense of humiliation when confronted
with its wild brother of the desert, fierce, strong, and free, as if discerning in that
spectacle the noble type from which itself had fallen. But it is different with a conscious
moral being, Reduce such an one ever so low, yet you cannot obliterate in his inner
nature the consciousness of falling beneath himself; you cannot blot out from his mind
the latent reminiscence of a nobler and bettor self which he might have been, and which
to have lost is guilt and wretchedness. (J. Caird.)
The Fall
1. Temptation comes like a serpent; like the most subtle beast of the field; like that
one creature which is said to exert a fascinating influence on its victims, fastening
85

86. them with its glittering eye, stealing upon them by its noiseless, low, and unseen
approach, perplexing them by its wide circling folds, seeming to come upon them
from all sides at once, and armed not like the other beasts with one weapon of
offence—horn or hoof, or teeth—but capable of crushing its victim with every part of
its sinuous length.It lies apparently dead for months together, but when roused it
can, as the naturalist tells us, “outclimb the monkey, outswim the fish, outleap the
zebra, outwrestle the athlete, and crush the tiger.”
2. Temptation succeeds at first by exciting our curiosity. It is a wise saying that “our
great security against sin lies in being shocked at it. Eve gazed and reflected when
she should have fled.” The serpent created an interest, excited her curiosity about
this forbidden fruit. And as this excited curiosity lies near the beginning of sin in the
race, so does it in the individual. I suppose if you trace back the mystery of iniquity in
your own life and seek to track it to its source, you will find it to have originated in
this craving to taste evil. No man originally meant to become the sinner he has
become. He only intended, like Eve, to taste. It was a voyage of discovery he meant to
make; he did not think to get nipped and frozen up and never more return from the
outer cold and darkness. He wished before finally giving himself to virtue, to see the
real value of the other alternative.
3. Through this craving for an enlarged experience unbelief in God’s goodness finds
entrance. In the presence of forbidden pleasure we are tempted to feel as if God were
grudging us enjoyment. The very arguments of the serpent occur to our mind. No
harm will come of our indulging; the prohibition is needless, unreasonable, and
unkind; it is not based on any genuine desire for our welfare.
4. If we know our own history we cannot be surprised to read that one taste of evil
ruined our first parents. It is so always. The one taste alters our attitude towards God
and conscience and life. It is a veritable Circe’s cup.
5. The first result of sin is shame. The form in which the knowledge of good and evil
comes to us is the knowing we are naked, the consciousness that we are stripped of
all that made us walk unabashed before God and men. The promise of the serpent
while broken in the sense is fulfilled to the ear; the eyes of Adam and Eve were
opened, and they knew that they were naked. Self-reflection begins, and the first
movement of conscience produces shame.
6. But when Adam found he was no longer fit for God’s eye, God provided a covering
which might enable him again to live in His presence without dismay. Man had
exhausted his own ingenuity and resources, and exhausted them without finding
relief to his shame. If his shame was to be effectually removed, God must do it. It is
also to be remarked that the clothing which God provided was in itself different from
what man had thought of. Adam took leaves from an inanimate, unfeeling tree; God
deprived an animal of life, that the shame of His creature might be relieved. This was
the last thing Adam would have thought of doing. To us life is cheap and death
familiar, but Adam recognized death as the punishment of sin. Death was to early
man a sign of God’s anger. And he had to learn that sin could be covered not by a
bunch of leaves snatched from a bush as he passed by and that would grow again
next year, but only by pain and blood. Sin cannot be atoned for by any mechanical
action nor without expenditure of feeling. Suffering must ever follow wrong-doing.
From the first sin to the last, the track of the sinner is marked with blood. (M. Dods,
D. D.)
86

87. The allurements of the temptation
If we translate these words in a language more metaphysical, we shall find that they
include the three elements which are considered to constitute perfection: goodness,
beauty, and truth. Goodness in that which pleases the taste, beauty in that which
delights the sight, truth in that which gives knowledge or wisdom. And remark, that in
seeking this perfection the woman obeyed an impulse which God Himself had given to
her nature. Yes, it was the eternal destination of man to love, admire, and appropriate to
himself all that is good, all that is beautiful, all that is true. It was his destination to grow
in that perfection which he already possessed by nature, but which might be developed
to infinity by his union with Him who is Goodness, Beauty, Truth, and Sovereign
Perfection. It was, therefore, in Him alone, and in the harmony of their will with His,
that our first parents were to seek perfection. The commandment which God had given
them was intended to lead them to this perfection, by placing them in a state of
dependence and responsibility. It was designed to unite them to their Creator and to give
them the consciousness of all that is good, beautiful, and true in the moral, as well as in
the visible world, which was their habitation. But, alas! a doubt has entered into the
mind of Eve, already guilty through the admission of it; the word of her God is no longer
her light and the sole object of her confidence; she is going to seek out of God, goodness,
beauty, and truth; yea, she expects to find them in the very object whose enjoyment has
been forbidden her under pain of death, in disobedience, and in sin! Henceforward all is
changed in the objects of her desires, because all is changed in her heart; henceforward
we see in her pursuit of a false perfection and of a false happiness, nothing but what St.
John calls, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.” (L. Bonnet.)
COKE, "Verse 1
Genesis 3:1. The serpent— If, in the account of the fall, there should be many difficulties,
it will not seem strange to any who observe, that Moses gives only general hints,
sufficient to acquaint us indeed with the fact, that man transgressed the divine
command; but by no means sufficient to inform us of every minute particular respecting
that fact. We are, however, sufficiently assured from those texts, in which Satan is
spoken of as the tempter of man, and the introducer of sin and death into the world, that
the animal serpent was only an instrument of this fallen spirit's malice to deceive our
first parents: Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2. John 8:44. 2 Corinthians 11:3. And a
reason is given by Moses why he made choice of this creature, because it was more
SUBTLE than any other beast of the field; and therefore the properest agent for his
diabolical purposes. I conceive the word rendered subtle, ‫ערום‬ arum, to be used here
rather in a good than a bad sense. It is used in both senses in scripture: but it seems to
me as if the sacred historian meant to inform us, that the serpent was by nature the most
sagacious of the animal race, and consequently known to be so by our first parents; on
which account it was the properest to be chosen, as the least suspected instrument of
this temptation. For its natural subtlety could be no recommendation to the spiritual
agent, who, doubtless, could as well have used the organs of the most stupid, as of the
most wise, animal to his purposes; a full proof of which is his use of dumb idols
afterwards in the heathen world. But the woman would naturally wonder less at this
87

88. superior wisdom in an animal already esteemed the most wise of the brute creation. The
LXX render the word by φρονιμωτατος —, the same used by our Saviour, Matthew 10:16
when he says, Be wise as serpents, where it certainly is used in a good sense.
In the history of the fall of man (says Bishop Warburton in his Divine Legation) it is to
be observed, that Moses mentions only the instrument of the agent, the serpent, not the
agent himself, the devil; and the reason is plain: there was a close connexion between
that agency, the spiritual effects of the fall, the work of redemption, and the doctrine of a
future state. If you say, the connexion was not so close, but that the agent might have
been mentioned, without any more of his history than the temptation to the fall; I reply,
it is true, it might, but not without danger of giving countenance to the impious doctrine
of two principles which at that time prevailed throughout the pagan world.
And he said unto the woman— The introduction to the conversation between the woman
and the serpent appears abrupt: but if we suppose, which seems extremely probable,
that the woman, by some means or other, had been invited by the serpent to eat of the
fruit of the forbidden tree, especially by his eating of it himself before her, and shewing
that no pernicious consequences followed; and if we suppose that upon this she objects
to eating herself, on account of the divine interdiction; then the words of the serpent
come in with propriety: "You will not eat of this fruit? Why? Is it because God hath
forbidden it? Is it because he hath said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" To
which the woman replies as in Matthew 10:2.
WHEDON, " 1. The serpent is here represented as a beast of the field which the Lord
God had made, and, therefore, must have been good, as all the rest of the creation.
Genesis 1:25. Hence we should not understand the word ‫,ערום‬ subtile, in a bad sense,
implying malignant craftiness, as some expositors have done. This term is frequently
employed in the Old Testament in a good sense, as meaning prudent, or sagacious. Such
is the import of the Septuagint, φρονιμος . Our Lord enjoined upon his disciples to be
“wise as serpents.” Matthew 10:16. The serpent’s sagacity is seen in its keen eye, its
power to charm birds and men, its prudence in avoiding danger, its skill in shielding the
head, its most vulnerable part, from the attack of man. The words more subtile do not
imply that all other beasts of the field were also subtile, but rather that this feature
separated or distinguished the serpent from them. As to the prominence which the
serpent holds in the religious symbolism of ancient peoples, Lenormant observes:
“These creatures are there used with the most opposite meanings, and it would be
contrary to all the rules of criticism to group together and in confusion, as has been done
by scholars of former times, the very contradictory notions attached in this way to the
different serpents in the ancient myths, in such wise as to create a vast ophiolatric
system, derived from a single source, and made to harmonize with the narration of
Genesis. But side by side with divine serpents of an essentially favourable and protective
character, oracular, or allied with the gods of health, of life, or of healing, we find in all
mythologies a gigantic serpent, personifying the nocturnal, hostile power, the evil
principle, material darkness, and moral wickedness.” — Beginnings of History, pp. 107,
108.
88

89. He said unto the woman — The serpent spoke in an intelligible way. Le Clerc (after some
of the rabbies) supposes that the serpent tempted Eve, not by language audibly spoken,
but by significant signs, and by repeatedly eating the fruit in her sight. Others imagine
she was charmed into a visionary or ecstatic condition in which the movements of the
serpent seemed to her like words. Some, as we have seen, deny that any real serpent was
connected with the event, and hold that the temptation was purely spiritual; while others
have denied the agency of Satan in this temptation, and affirmed that the tempter of Eve
was nothing but a serpent, which, by repeatedly using the forbidden fruit before her
eyes, at length induced her to follow its example. Less strained, and far more compatible
with the general doctrine of the Scriptures, is that ancient interpretation which has been
commonly received by Christian scholars, namely, that Satan made use of a serpent in
his work of falsehood and ruin. There is no sufficient ground for denying the possibility
of Satan speaking through the organs of a serpent. Mind and spirit are superior to
matter, and control it. A fallen spirit is, in intellect, untold degrees above a brute. The
mystery of demoniacal possession is too great for us to allow any a priori assumptions to
govern our interpretation. According to the New Testament records, evil spirits usurped
the powers of human speech, and entered also into swine. Mark 5:1-17. Why the
Almighty should have permitted Satan to make such an approach to the first woman is
as idle as to ask why he permits any sin or sinners to exist in his universe. We regard this
first temptation and transgression as a great mystery, and a momentous event, but not a
myth nor a fable. The mystery of God in Christ, by which God himself becomes flesh and
redeems sinful man, implies other mysteries that may well surpass our knowledge. The
incarnation, temptation, righteousness, death, and resurrection of the One who
accomplishes the work of redemption, furnish to our thought a series of stupendous
events; if we believe them, why do we stagger over that which appears startling and
wonderful in the offence of the one by whom “judgment came upon all men to
condemnation?” Romans 5:18.
Yea, hath God said — Or, as the Hebrew strictly implies: Really, is it true that God has
said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? The language seems like the
continuation of a conversation, the previous part of which is not given. The question was
adapted to awaken doubt in the woman’s mind, and the tempter shrewdly addressed
himself to the woman first, as the one more easily to be deceived than the man.
Chrysostom thus expands the thought in the serpent’s words: “What good is life in
Paradise if we may not enjoy the things which are found therein, but must feel the pain
of seeing before our eyes what we are forbidden to take and eat?” Critics have raised a
needless and profitless question over the serpent’s use of the name Elohim, rather than
Jehovah. Keil thinks, that the tempter felt it necessary to ignore the personality of God
by this omission of his covenant name in order to work distrust in the woman’s mind.
Lange says, that the demon could not utter the name of the covenant-God Jehovah, not
knowing him in that relationship. According to Knobel, the writer omitted the name of
Jehovah from fear of profaning it in such a connexion. All which seems far-fetched and
worthless. See Introd., pp. 51-54.
LANGE, "1. The comparatively stronger symbolical that appeared in the representation
of the primeval facts, and which we have noted in the second chapter, continues here
also in the third; since the subject is the primeval history of Adam, as it Isaiah, at the
same time, the primitive history of Prayer of Manasseh, or of humanity. The fact of the
89

90. first temptation is the symbol of every human temptation; the fact of the first fall is the
symbol of every human transgression; the great mistake that lay in the first human sin is
the symbol of every effect of sin.
2. Genesis 3:1. Now the serpent.—The tree of knowledge, a part of the vegetable world,
was made by God the medium of probation; from the animal world proceeds the serpent
as the instrument of the temptation which God did not make. True it Isaiah, that the
serpent appears as the probable author of this temptation, but such probability is
weakened by what is said Genesis 1:25; Genesis 2:20. “It was (though Richers denies it)
a good creation of God, though different, as originally created, from what it afterwards
became” (Delitzsch). Through this supposition, however, of another created quality, he
is brought nearer to the view of Richers. Does it appear as the mere instrument of a
tempting spirit belonging to the other world, then must the decree of judgment, as
pronounced, have regard not so much to it as to the spirit of sin, whose instrument and
allegorical symbol it had become. How it could be such an instrument may be briefly
explained by its craftiness; how it becomes an allegorical representation of the Evil One
is taught us afterwards in the enmity that is proclaimed between the woman and the
serpent. According to Nork (Etym-Symb-Myth. Real-Wörterbuch), “the serpent is just as
well the figure of health and renovation, as of death; since it every year changes its skin,
and ejects, moreover, its venom. This double peculiarity, and double character, as
ἀγαθοδαίμων and κακοδαίμων, is indicated not only in language, but also in myths, in
sculpture, and in modes of worship.” In this relation, however, we must distinguish two
diverging views of the ancient peoples. To the Egyptian reverence for the serpent stands
in opposition the abhorrence for it among the Israelites (see the article “Serpent” in the
“Biblical Dictionary for Christian People”), Greeks, Persians, and Germans. Among the
Slavonians, too, does the serpent appear to have been an object of religious fear; and
from them may there have come modified views to the Germans, as from the Egyptians
to the Greeks. Concerning the species of serpents mentioned in the Bible, see Winer. It
may not be without significance that Genesis ( Genesis 3) is in such distinct contrast
with the Egyptian views, not only in respect to the serpent, but also in respect to the
Egyptian cultus of death and the other world. Delitzsch thinks that the serpent could
hardly, at that time, have had such a name as ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫ָח‬‫נ‬, since this (from ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ָח‬‫נ‬, to hiss[FN12]) is
derived from its present constitution. In this way the original constitution of the
seductive serpent is regarded by him in a more favorable light than the nature of the tree
of probation. Knobel, on the contrary, is of opinion that “the choice of the serpent was
occasioned by the Persian myth, then known to the Hebrews, which makes the evil being
Ahriman to be the tempter of the first man (giving to him the form and designation of
the serpent), and represents him as the introducer of monstrous serpent forms.”
Nevertheless, since in his time (according to Knobel), the belief in a devil was still
foreign to the Hebrews, the author, he maintains, meant a real serpent, “as Josephus
also rightly supposes (Antiq. i1, 4), as well as Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, and most of the
later commentators.” There Isaiah, however, not the slightest reason for deriving the
primitive tradition, here given in its original Hebrew form, from any Persian myth, nor,
in the second place, for ascribing to the Hebrews, not only a dependence on such Persian
myth, but also an acknowledgment of its symbolical character or demoniacal
background without any reasons for such anticipation; and, thirdly, is the alternative of
its being either an actual serpent, or the devil himself, wholly untenable.—Now the
serpent was more subtle. The question arises whether the adjective ‫רוּם‬ ָ‫ﬠ‬ here stands in
connection with ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ as expressing the comparative degree. At all events, the wholly
90

91. analogous passage, Genesis 3:14 (reminding us of this even by similarity of sound, ‫ל‬ֹ‫כּ‬ ִ‫מ‬
‫רוּם‬ ָ‫ֹל—ﬠ‬‫כּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫רוּר‬ ָ‫)א‬ cannot mean: cursed more than every beast of the field. Among the
beasts, the serpent was just a single example of cunning; and so is it afterwards said of
the curse. “Wisdom is a native property of the serpent ( Matthew 10:16), on account of
which the Evil One chose it his instrument. Nevertheless, the predicate ‫רוּם‬ ָ‫ﬠ‬ is not given
to it here in the good sense of φρόνιμος (Sept.), prudent, but in the bad sense of
πανοἀργος, callidus, crafty. For its wisdom presents itself as the craft of the tempter in
this respect, that it applies itself to the weaker woman.” Keil.—And he said unto the
woman.—The idea that the wife had a wish to be independent, and, for the sake of
release, had withdrawn herself out of the man’s sight, as we find it in Milton, is original
indeed, but sets up, when closely examined, a beginning of the fall before the fall itself.—
Yea, hath God said.—The deluding ambiguity of his utterance is admirably expressed by
the particles ‫י‬ִ‫כּ‬ ‫ף‬ ַ‫.א‬ The word in question denotes a questioning surprise, which may have
in view now a yes, and now a no, according to the connection. This is the first striking
feature in the beginning of the temptation. In the most cautious manner there is shown
the tendency to excite doubt. Then the expression aims, at the same time, to awaken
mistrust, and to weaken the force of the prohibition: Not eat of every tree of the garden!
But, finally, there is also intended the lowering of belief through the bare use of the
single name Elohim. The demon that has taken possession of the serpent cannot
naturally recognize God as Jehovah, the Covenant-God for men. Knobel thinks, that the
author left out the name Jehovah to avoid profaning it. Keil interprets: In order to reach
his aim must the tempter seek to transform the personal living God into a universal
numen divinum. But would, then, the Elohim of ch. i. be merely an universal numen
divinum? The assault is directed against the paradisaical covenant of God with men;
therefore it is that the serpent cannot utter the name Jehovah.
NISBET, "THE TEMPTATION OF MAN
‘Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had
made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of
the garden?’
Genesis 3:1
(1)
The writer of the narrative intended to imply, by his language, the existence and
operation of a personal agent of evil.
I. The tempter is admitted into the garden.—The garden was not a sacred enclosure,
which he was forbidden to enter. It was not meant then, any more than now—that
human beings should be protected from the assaults of temptation. Not the virtue which
stands, because it has never been tried, but the virtue which has passed through trial,
and come triumphantly out of it—this is what God demands, and expects at the hands of
91

92. His creatures. Just as it is with us now, so was it with Eve, temptation met her in the
ordinary walk of life, and when she was occupied with the tasks which God had given her
to fulfil. She had not wandered into some perilous region. She may have been
intellectually a child; but she had a moral instinct that must have given her warning, and
must have hinted plainly that even to parley with such an interlocutor was a deviation
from the path of duty. Clearly, what she ought to have done was to have turned at once
from a being who cast a covert slur upon the character of her God, and to have refused to
hold further communication with him.
A point of resemblance between the first temptation and all subsequent ones is to be
found in the injecting into the mind of suspicions about God, especially with reference to
the prohibitions which He imposes. In our better moments we can see that these
prohibitions are intended for our good, that they are really evidences of the Divine love
and watchfulness over us, and that the great Father would never really deny His children
anything but what He knows it would be injurious to them to possess. But when God
puts limits to our self-indulgence, or warns us altogether off from certain regions of
enjoyment, is there not sometimes a feeling in our heart akin to that inspired by the
tempter into the heart of Eve? and are we not sometimes inclined to suspect that the
Creator grudges to see His creatures happy, and that there must be something
exceptionally delicious about the fruit of the forbidden tree, inasmuch as it is so carefully
guarded and placed beyond our reach?
II. Consider, in the next place, the result of the temptation—I mean the result that
appeared at once, and which is indeed the type and forerunner of all the results of
successful temptation which we see in the world around us. This was their shrinking
from the presence of God. Up to this time, it had been a delight to Adam and Eve to go
forth and meet their Heavenly Visitant, when He descended to converse with them. Now,
as soon as they are aware of His approach, they hide themselves among the trees of the
garden. And are we not reminded by this circumstance of our own natural recoil from
personal contact with God?
III. The instrument which the tempter employed to make his temptation successful was
falsehood. He persuaded Eve to believe a lie. And Satan uses precisely the same weapon
now—falsehood, but falsehood with a certain admixture in it of the element of truth.
—Rev. Gordon Calthrop.
(2)
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.
92

93. 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.
—Rev. Jas. Vaughan.
(3)
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.—(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.
93

94. Bishop Perowne.
Illustration
(1) ‘We shall err greatly if we treat Adam’s history in Eden as nothing more than a fabled
picture of the experience of man; rather is it the root out of which your experience and
mine has grown, and in virtue of which they are other than they would have been had
they come fresh from the hand of God. We recognise the law of headship which God has
established in humanity, whereby Adam, by his own act, has placed his race in new and
sadder relations to Nature and to the Lord, (a) The origin of evil may still remain a
mystery, but this history of Eden stands between it and God. Eden is God’s work, the
image of His thought; and man’s spirit joyfully accepts the history, and uses it as a
weapon against haunting doubts about the origin of evil. (b) The sin of Adam is
substantially the history of every attempt of self-will to counterwork the will of God.
Every sin is a seeking for a good outside the region which, in the light of God, we know to
be given us as our own.’
(2) ‘Mysterious as the history of our fall is, its greatest wonder is this: that God out of
ruin hath brought forth fresh beauty; out of man’s defeat, His victory; out of death, life
glorious and eternal. Thou shall surely live is now the Divine proclamation to man’s
world. “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.”’
(3) ‘Let us learn to be early undeceived about the Tempter’s falsehood, “Ye shall not
surely die.” If a man will serve his sin, let him at least reckon upon this, that in one way
or other it will be ill with him; his sin will find him out; his path will be hard; there will
be to him no peace. The night of concealment may be long, but dawn comes like the
Erinnys to reveal and avenge its crimes.’
(4) ‘The temptation had a personal source. There are beings who desire to draw men
away from God. The serpent, by its poison and its loathly form, is the natural symbol of
such an enemy of man. The insinuating slyness of the suggestions of evil is like the
sinuous gliding of the snake, and truly represents the process by which temptation found
its way into the hearts of the first pair, and of all their descendants. For it begins with
casting a doubt on the reality of the prohibition. “Hath God said?” is the first parallel
opened by the besieger. The fascinations of the forbidden fruit are not dangled at first
before Eve, but an apparently innocent doubt is filtered into her ear. And is not that the
way in which we are still snared? The reality of moral distinctions, the essential
wrongness of the sin, are obscured by a mist of sophistication. “There is no harm in it”
steals into some young man’s or woman’s mind about things that were forbidden at
home, and they are half conquered before they know that they have been attacked. Then
comes the next besieger’s trench, much nearer the wall,—namely, denial of the fatal
consequences of the sin: “Ye shall not surely die,” and a base hint that the prohibition
was meant, not as a parapet to keep him from falling headlong into the abyss, but as a
barrier to keep from rising to a great good; “for God doth know that in the day ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods.” These are still the two
94

95. lies which wile us to sin,—“It will do you no harm,” and “You are cheating yourselves out
of good by not doing it.”’
(5) ‘A burglar, not long ago, rifled an unoccupied dwelling by the seaside. He ransacked
the rooms, and heaped his plunder in the parlour. There were evidences that he sat
down to rest. On a bracket in the corner stood a marble bust of Guido’s “Ecce Homo”—
Christ crowned with thorns. The guilty man had taken it in his hands and examined it. It
bore the marks of his fingers, but he replaced it with its face turned to the wall, as if he
would not have even the sightless eyes of the marble Saviour look upon his deeds of
infamy. So the first act of the first sinner was to hide himself at the sound of God’s voice.’
PETT, "Verse 1
Catastrophe In The Garden (3:1-24).
Genesis 3:1 a
‘Now the snake was wiser than any creature that the Lord God had made.’
The word for snake always refers to ordinary snakes in the Old Testament, with the
exception of Isaiah 27:1 and possibly Amos 9:3. However these exceptions do show that
the Israelites were familiar with the myths of surrounding peoples relating to ‘snakes’
and ‘serpents’, which were often looked on as semi-divine creatures involved in evil,
although also often in good. It is the behaviour of this snake that reveals its innate evil.
The fact that the writer also calls him ‘wiser’, (a word usually translated ‘more prudent’),
‘than any creature that the Lord God had made’ demonstrates that he is indicating that
this snake is unusual. Given the fact that the root of the word used for snake (nachash) is
also used for ‘enchantment’, it is difficult to avoid the thought that the writer intends it
to be seen as somehow endowed with some sinister power. But he does not dwell on the
question because he does not want to be seen to take away the responsibility for failure
from the man and woman.
The word for ‘wiser’ comes from the same root as the word for ‘naked’ in the previous
verse. This is written in a way that shows that there is an intentional connection. There is
an ironic contrast between their nakedness, a proof of their innocence and what they are
revealed to be, and his ‘wisdom’ which is the proof of his devilishness and what he is
revealed to be, which will later result in their ‘nakedness’ being revealed.
Genesis 3:1 b
‘And he said to the woman, “Yes. Has God said that you shall not eat of any tree of the
95

96. garden?” ’
This immediately raises the question as to how the snake was able to speak. Does the
author really see it as chatting with the woman, or are we to see the conversation as
going on in her mind? Or was there a Satanic voice which spoke through it? The sinuous
beauty of the snake, curled round a branch of the tree, (possibly the very tree itself, with
its fruit clearly visible), and gazing at her with an hypnotic stare, might certainly have an
hypnotic effect, on a hot day, on a languid and slightly resentful woman. Possibly what
happened was the result of the woman’s reverie combined with a growing sense of
unhappiness and discontent which had arisen within her, influenced by suggestions
placed in her mind by the one behind ‘the snake’. The writer may well have imagined
such a scene.
In other words did the snake in fact ‘speak’ through his silent gaze? Did the woman look
at the fruit and think of that fruit which was forbidden, and then sense words which she
felt came from the hypnotic influence of the snake? The Bible is full of places where we
are told that ‘God said’ when that word was probably expressed in other ways, for
example through use of the Urim and Thummim. Indeed the usage is common today
when we say, ‘God told me to ---’ or ‘the Devil persuaded me ---’. Such anthropomorphic
language has been common in all ages. Thus we might be justified in seeing here a
conversation going on in her mind, induced by some evil power, for which the snake
takes the blame! It may be significant that later, while God questions Adam and Eve, He
does not question the snake. Was it becaise He knew that the snake could give no reply?
If we ask, why then would God blame the snake, we must recognise that it is not really
the snake that God is blaming, but the shadowy figure behind the snake. Just as Jesus
would curse a fig tree to teach a lesson about a nation (Mark 11:14; Mark 11:21), so God
‘curses’ a snake to teach a lesson about this shadowy figure from the spiritual realm.
Otherwise we are left with a choice between a talking snake and a demon possessed one.
Or rather not a choice, for while we may see the latter, the woman sees the former. She
sees only a creature who comes below her in the order of things, one who is not to be
feared, unaware of dangerous undercurrents. The reader, on the other hand, is aware of
a power at work that is both subtle and dangerous. To her a talking snake is an
interesting phenomenon. To the reader it is indicative of sinister undertones. Suddenly
into this idealistic world something ‘foreign’ has introduced itself. Elsewhere God will
speak through an ass (Numbers 22:28). Here some evil presence could well literally
speak through the snake.
Whatever way it was the idea sown by the snake was effective. The question was
ambiguous, suggesting a God Who somehow was a little unreasonable without actually
saying so. The implication was, was God really being behaving as He should?
96

97. PULPIT 1-7, "EXPOSITION
Gen_3:1-7
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
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
97

98. 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,
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
98

99. 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);
(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
99

100. 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
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;
100

101. (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).
Gen_3:5
For (‫י‬ִ‫—כּ‬nam, γαρ, for because; assigning the reason
(1) for the devil’s, statement, and so,
(2) by implication, for the Divine prohibition)
God doth know. Thus the serpent practically charges the Deity with
(1) envy of his creatures’ happiness, as if he meant to say, Depend upon it, it is not
through any fear of your dying from its fruit that the tree has been interdicted, but
through fear of your becoming rivals to your Master himself; and
(2) with falsehood—
(a) in affirming that to be true which he knew to be false;
(b) in doing this while delivering his law;
(c) in pretending to be careful of man’s safety while in reality he was only jealous of his
101

102. own honor.
That in the day ye eat thereof. Cf. the Divine prohibition (Gen_2:17), the exact
terms of which are again used—a mark of growing aggressiveness towards the woman,
and of special audacity towards God. The prohibition employs the singular number,
being addressed to Adam only; the devil employs the plural, as his words were meant not
for Eve alone, but for her husband with her. Your eyes shall be opened. "To open the
eyes," the usual Biblical phrase for restoring sight to the blind (2Ki_6:17, 2Ki_6:20;
Psa_146:8; Isa_42:7), is also used to denote the impartation of power to perceive
(physically, mentally, spiritually) objects not otherwise discernible (cf. Gen_21:19; Isa_
35:5). Here it was designed to be ambiguous; like all Satan’s oracles, suggesting to the
hearer the attainment of higher wisdom, but meaning in the intention of the speaker
only a discovery of their nakedness. The same ambiguity attaches to the devil’s
exposition of his own text. And ye shall be as gods. Literally, as Elohim; not &c θεοιΜ
(LXX.), sicut dii (Vulgate), as gods (A.V.), as the angels (R. Jonathan), as the devils
(Ainsworth), daemonibusque, diisve similes (Rosenmόller), as princes (White); but as
the supreme Deity (Calvin, Keil, Kalisch, et alia)—ostensibly a promise of divinity.
Knowing good and evil. As they knew this already from the prohibition, the language
must imply a fullness and accuracy of understanding such as was competent only to
Elohim (vide on Gen_3:22)
Gen_3:6
And (when) the woman saw. "An impure look, infected with the poison of
concupiscence" (Calvin); cf. Jos_7:21. That the tree was good for food. "The fruit of
this tree may have been neither poisonous nor beautiful, or it may have been both; but
sin has the strange power of investing the object of desire for the time being, whatever
its true character, with a wonderful attraction" (Inglis). And that it (was) pleasant
Literally, a desire (Psa_10:17), a lust (Num_11:4). To the eyes. ἈριστοΜν τοῖς
ὀφθαλμοῖς (LXX.); pulchrum oculis (Vulgate); lust ye unto the eyes (Coverdale); i.e.
stimulating desire through the eyes (cf. 1Jn_2:16). And a tree to be desired to make
(one) wise. ‫יל‬ִ‫כּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ל‬ (from ‫ַל‬‫כ‬ ָ‫—שׂ‬
(1) to look at, to behold; hence
(2) to be prudent, 1Sa_18:30.
Hiph.,
(1) to look at;
(2) to turn the mind to;
(3) to be or become understanding, Psa_2:10)
being susceptible of two renderings, the clause has been taken to mean "a tree desirable
to look at" (Syriac, Onkelos, Vulgate, Gesenius, Kalisch, Wordsworth), or, more
correctly, as it stands in the English Version, the external loveliness of the tree having
been already stated in the preceding clause (LXX , Aben Ezra, Calvin, Hengstenberg,
Macdonald). This is the third time the charms of the tree are discerned and expressed by
the woman—a significant intimation of how far the Divine interdict had receded from
her consciousness. She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat. Thus consummating
102

103. the sin (Jas_1:15). And gave also to her husband. Being desirous, doubtless, of
making him a sharer in her supposed felicity. The first time Adam is styled Eve’s
husband, or man; perhaps designed to indicate the complete perversion by Eve of the
Divine purpose of her marriage with Adam, which was to be a helpmeet for him, and not
his destroyer. With her. An indication that Adam was present throughout the whole
preceding scene (Delitzsch, Wordsworth), which is not likely, else why did he not
restrain Eve? or that he arrived just as the temptation closed (Calvin), which is only a
conjecture; better regarded as a reference to their conjugal oneness (Macdonald). And
he did eat. And so involved himself in the criminality of his already guilty partner; not
simply as being "captivated with her allurements" ("fondly overcome with female
charms"—Milton, Par. Lost,’ Book 10.), which 1Ti_2:14 is supposed to justify’; but
likewise as being "persuaded by Satan’s impostures," which doubtless Eve had related to
him. This much is distinctly implied in those Scriptures which speak of Adam as the
chief transgressor (vide Rom_5:12; 1Co_15:21, 1Co_15:22).
Gen_3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened. The fatal deed committed, the promised
results ensued, but not the anticipated blessings.
(1) The eyes of their minds were opened to perceive that they were no longer innocent,
and
(2) the eyes of their bodies to behold that they were not precisely as they had been. And
they knew that they were naked.
(1) Spiritually (cf. Exo_32:25; Eze_16:22; Rev_3:17), and
(2) corporeally, having lost that enswathing light of purity which previously engirt their
bodies (vide Gen_2:25). And they sewed. Literally, fastened or tied by twisting. Fig
leaves. Not the pisang tree (Muss Paradisiaca), whose leaves attain the length of twelve
feet and the breadth of two (Knobel Bohlen); but the common fig tree (
Ficus Carica), which is aboriginal in Western Asia, especially in Persia, Syria, and Asia
Minor (Kalisch, Keil, Macdonald). Together, and made themselves aprons.
Literally, girdles, περιζωμματα (LXX.), i.e. to wrap about their loins. This sense of
shame which caused them to seek a covering for their nudity was not due to any physical
corruption of the body (Baumgarten), but to the consciousness of guilt with which their
souls were laden, and which impelled them to flee from the presence of their offended
Sovereign.
Traditions of the Fall.
I. ORIENTAL.
1. Babylonian. "There is nothing in the Chaldean fragments indicating a belief in the
garden of Eden or the tree of knowledge; there is only an obscure allusion to a thirst for
knowledge having been a cause of man’s fall" … The details of the temptation are lost in
the cuneiform text, which "opens where the gods are cursing the dragon and the Adam
or man for his transgression." … "The dragon, which, in the Chaldean account, leads
man to sin, is the creature of Tiamat, the living principle of the sea and of chaos, and he
is an embodiment of the spirit of chaos or disorder which was opposed to the deities at
103

104. the creation of the world." The dragon is in-eluded in the curse for the fall; and the gods
invoke on the human race all the evils which afflict humanity—family quarrels, tyranny,
the anger of the gods, disappointment, famine, useless prayers, trouble of mind and
body, a tendency to sin.
2. Persian. For a time the first pair, Meschia and Mesehiane, were holy and happy, pure
in word and deed, dwelling in a garden wherein was a tree whose fruit conferred life and
immortality; but eventually Ahriman deceived them, and drew them away from Ormuzd.
Emboldened by his success, the enemy again appeared, anti gave them a fruit, of which
they ate, with the result that, of the hundred blessings which they enjoyed, all
disappeared save one. Falling beneath the power of the evil one, they practiced the
mechanical arts, and subsequently built themselves houses and clothed themselves with
skins. Another form of the legend represents Ahriman as a serpent. So close is the
resemblance of this legend to the Scriptural account, that Rawlinson regards it not as a
primitive tradition, but rather as "an infiltration into the Persian system of religious
ideas belonging properly to the Hebrews".
3. Indian. In the Hindoo mythology the king of the evil demons, "the king of the
serpents," is named Naga, the prince of the Nagis or Nacigs, "in which Sanserit
appellation we plainly trace the Hebrew Nachash." In the Vishnu Purana the first beings
created by Brama are represented as endowed with righteousness and perfect faith, as
free from guilt and filled with perfect wisdom, wherewith they contemplated the glory of
Visham, till after a time they are seduced. In the legends of India the triumph of Krishna
over the great serpent Kali Naga, who had poisoned the waters of the river, but who
himself was ultimately destroyed by Krishna trampling on his head, bears a striking
analogy to the Mosaic story (Kitto’s ’Daily Bible Illustrations’).
II. OCCIDENTAL.
1. The story of Pandora. According to Hesiod the first men lived wifeless and ignorant,
but innocent and happy. Prometheus ("Forethought") having stolen fire from heaven,
taught its use to mankind. To punish the aspiring mortals, Zeus sent among them
Pandora, a beautiful woman, whom he had instructed Hephaestus to make, and
Aphrodite, Athena, and Hermes had endowed with all seductive charms. Epimetheus
("Afterthought"), the brother of Prometheus, to whom she was presented, accepted her,
and made her his wife. Brought into his house, curiosity prevailed on her to lift the lid of
a closed jar in which the elder brother had with prudent foresight shut up all kinds of ills
and diseases. Forthwith they escaped to torment mankind, which they have done ever
since.
2. The apples of the Hesperides. These golden apples, which were under the
guardianship of the nymphs of the West, were closely watched by a terrible dragon
named Laden, on account of an ancient oracle that a son of the deity would at a certain
time arrive, open a way of access thither, and carry them off. Hercules, having inquired
his way to the garden in which they grew, destroyed the monster and fulfilled the oracle.
3. Apollo and the Pythen. "This Python, ancient legends affirm, was a serpent bred out
of the slime that remained after Deucalion’s deluge, and was worshipped as a god at
Delphi. Eminent authorities derive the name of the monster kern a Hebrew root
signifying to deceive." As the bright god of heaven, to whom everything impure and
104

105. unholy is hateful, Apollo, four days after his birth, slew this monster with his arrows.
"What shall we say then to these things? This—that the nations embodied in these
traditions their remembrances of paradise, of the fall, and of the promised salvation".
HOMILETICS
Gen_3:6
The first sin.
I. THE TEMPTATION.
1. The fact. That sin is possible even in pure beings without the intervention of
solicitation, at least ab extra, must be held to be the doctrine of Scripture (vide Jas_1:14
and Jud Jas_1:6). Hence man might have fallen, even had he not been tempted. The fact,
however, that he was tempted is explicitly revealed; a circumstance which notes an
important distinction between his sin and that of the angels. Does this explain Heb_2:16
and 2Pe_2:4?
2. The author. Though ostensibly a serpent, in reality the devil. Besides being expressly
stated in the inspired word, it is involved in the very terms of the Mosaic narrative. If the
reptile possessed the malice to conceive and the skill to manage such an assault upon the
first pair as this book describes, then clearly it was not a serpent, but a devil. It is
doubtful if all man’s temptations come from the devil, but many, perhaps most, do. He is
pre-eminently styled "the tempter" (Mat_4:3; 1Th_3:5). From the days of Adam
downward he has been engaged in attempting to seduce the saints; e.g. David (1Ch_
21:1); Job (Gen_2:7); Christ (Luk_4:13); Ananias and Sapphira (Act_5:3). At the
present moment he is laboring to deceive the whole world (Rev_12:9).
3. The instrument. The serpent, which was a proof of Satan’s skill, that particular reptile
being specially adapted for his purpose (N.B.—The devil can always find a tool adapted
to the work he has in hand); and is an indication of our danger, it being only a reptile,
and therefore little likely to be suspected as a source of peril; whence we may gather that
there is no quarter so unexpected, and no instrument so feeble, that out of the one and
through the other temptation may not leap upon us.
4. The nature. This was threefold. A temptation
(1) to suspect the Divine goodness (verse 1);
(2) to disbelieve the Divine word (verse 4);
(3) to emulate the Divine greatness (verse 5).
(Cf. the three assaults upon the Second Adam (Mat_4:1; Luk_4:1), which were
essentially the same.) The first aimed a death-blow at their filial confidence in God; the
second removed the fear of punishment from their path; the third fired their souls with
the lust of ambition. Separation from God, disobedience of God, opposition to or rivalry
with God—the devil’s scala coeli.
5. The subtlety. That great art should have been displayed in the conduct of this
campaign against the citadel of human holiness is what might have been expected from
105

106. such a general. In these respects it was evinced.
(1) The assault was commenced before use and practice had confirmed the first pair in
obedience.
(2) He began with the woman, who was the weaker of the two.
(3) He attacked her when alone—the best time for temptation. Beware of solitude.
(4) He selected the best ground for delivering his first blow—when the woman was in
full sight of the tree.
(5) He was extremely cautious so to moderate his onset as not to excite alarm—
beginning with a casual inquiry.
(6) He advanced by degrees as he obtained a footing in the woman’s heart.
(7) He never revealed the proper scope and drift of his observations, but always couched
them in obscure and ambiguous language.
(8) He never seemed to lead, but always to be following the woman’s thought.
(9) In all he said and did he pretended to be seeking his victim’s good.
(10) He chose the best of all possible baits to captivate the woman’s fancy and excite her
cupidity—the hope of gaining knowledge.
II. THE TRANSGRESSION.
1. Its guilty perpetrators. Not the serpent or the devil, but the first pair. The devil may
tempt man to sin, but he cannot sin for man. A creature may be the unconscious
instrument of leading man aside from the path of virtue, but it cannot possibly compel
man to go astray. Men are prone to blame other things and persons for their sins, when
the true criminals are themselves.
2. Its impelling motive. No temptation, however skillfully planned or powerfully applied,
can succeed until it finds a footing in the nature that is tempted. Unless the devil’s logic
and chicanery had produced the effect described in verse 6, it is more than probable that
Eve would have stood. But first it wrought a change upon herself, and then it
transformed the tree. First it created the need for sinful motives, and then it supplied
them. So works temptation still. As with Eve, so with us. Sinful motives are
(1) demanded by the heart;
(2) supplied by the evil which the heart contemplates; and
(3) are generally as weak and insufficient as Eve’s.
3. Its essential wickedness, as consisting of
(1) unbelief, revealing itself in disobedience;
(2) selfishness, making self the center of all things;
106

107. (3) desire, love of the world, gratification of the senses,
the fundamental elements in all sin, corresponding to the three fundamental elements of
man’s being and consciousness—spirit, soul, body (cf. Auberlen’s ’ Divine Revelation,’
Part I; § 3, Gen_9:1-29.).
4. Its sad results.
(1) A discovery of sin. "Their eyes were opened," as the devil said, and as he meant. They
felt that they had fallen, and that they had lost their purity. It is impossible to sin and not
to have this knowledge and feel this loss.
(2) A consciousness of guilt. "They knew that they were naked." Sin reports itself
quickly to the conscience, and conscience quickly discovers to the guilty soul its true
position as an unprotected culprit before the bar of God.
(3) A sense of shame, which impelled them to seek a covering for their persons. "They
sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves girdles." A picture of men’s fruitless
efforts to find a covering for their guilty souls.
Lessons:—
1. The responsibility of man.
2. The duty of guarding against temptation.
3. The contagious character of moral evil.
4. The havoc wrought by a single sin.
HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS
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
107

108. 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
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
108

109. 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
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;
109

110. 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
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.
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat
fruit from the trees in the garden,
110

111. BARNES, "Gen_3:2-3
The woman gives the natural and distinct answer of unaffected sincerity to this
suggestion. The deviations from the strict letter of the law are nothing more than the free
and earnest expressions of her feelings. The expression, “neither shall ye touch it,”
merely implies that they were not to meddle with it, as a forbidden thing.
GILL, "And the woman said unto the serpent,.... Or to him that spoke in the
serpent, which she might take to be a messenger from heaven, a holy angel: had she
known who it was, she might be chargeable with imprudence in giving an answer, and
carrying on a conversation with him; and yet even supposing this, she might have a good
design in her answer; partly to set the matter in a true light, and assert what was truth;
and partly to set forth the goodness and liberality of God, in the large provision he had
made, and the generous grant he had given them: from this discourse of Eve and the
serpent, no doubt Plato (g) had his notion of the first men discoursing with beasts:
we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; of all and every one of them,
which is to be understood, excepting the one after mentioned; so far are we from being
debarred from eating of any, which the speech of the Serpent might imply, that they
were allowed to eat of what they pleased, but one.
HENRY, " In answer to this question the woman gives him a plain and full account of
the law they were under, Gen_3:2, Gen_3:3. Here observe, [1.] It was her weakness to
enter into discourse with the serpent. She might have perceived by his question that he
had no good design, and should therefore have started back with a Get thee behind me,
Satan, thou art an offence to me. But her curiosity, and perhaps her surprise, to hear a
serpent speak, led her into further talk with him. Note, It is a dangerous thing to treat
with a temptation, which ought at first to be rejected with disdain and abhorrence. The
garrison that sounds a parley is not far from being surrendered. Those that would be
kept from harm must keep out of harm's way. See Pro_14:7; Pro_19:27. [2.] It was her
wisdom to take notice of the liberty God had granted them, in answer to his sly
insinuation, as if God has put them into paradise only to tantalize them with the sight of
fair but forbidden fruits. “Yea,” says she, “we may eat of the fruit of the trees, thanks to
our Maker, we have plenty and variety enough allowed us.” Note, To prevent our being
uneasy at the restraints of religion, it is good often to take a view of the liberties and
comforts of it. [3.] It was an instance of her resolution that she adhered to the command,
and faithfully repeated it, as of unquestionable certainty: “God hath said, I am confident
he hath said it, You shall not eat of the fruit of this tree;” and that which she adds,
Neither shall you touch it, seems to have been with a good intention, not (as some think)
tacitly to reflect upon the command as too strict (Touch not, taste not and handle not),
but to make a fence about it: “We must not eat, therefore we will not touch. It is
forbidden in the highest degree, and the authority of the prohibition is sacred to us.” [4.]
She seems a little to waver about the threatening, and is not so particular and faithful in
the repetition of that as of the precept. God has said, In the day thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die; all she makes of that is, Lest you die. Note, Wavering faith and wavering
111

112. resolutions give great advantage to the tempter.
JAMISON, "the woman said, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the
garden — In her answer, Eve extolled the large extent of liberty they enjoyed in ranging
at will amongst all the trees - one only excepted, with respect to which, she declared
there was no doubt, either of the prohibition or the penalty. But there is reason to think
that she had already received an injurious impression; for in using the words “lest ye
die,” instead of “ye shall surely die” [Gen_2:17], she spoke as if the tree had been
forbidden because of some poisonous quality of its fruit. The tempter, perceiving this,
became bolder in his assertions.
COFFMAN, ""And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the
garden we may eat; 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."
"God hath said ..." The glaring error on Eve's part is her mishandling of God's
Word. She added to it, saying "neither shall ye touch it"; and the old Hebrew
legend tells how the Tempter took advantage of it. The serpent is said to have taken
the fruit and touched Eve with it, pointing out that no bad consequence came of it,
thus reinforcing his argument that no evil would follow her eating of it. It is
extremely dangerous to add to God's Word, and the eternal curse rests upon all who
do so (Revelation 22:18,19).
But Eve did something else: she diminished God's Word. God had stated
emphatically that death would be the consequence of eating of the forbidden fruit,
but Eve changed this to "lest ye die," meaning that "ye might die." Thus, the
groundwork for the Fall had already been laid through adding to and altering the
Word of God., "
CONSTABLE, "Verse 2-3
Eve was vulnerable to this suggestion because she distorted the word of God. She
added to it "or touch it" ( Genesis 3:3).
112

113. "In her reply to [the serpent"s] question, she perverted and misquoted three times
the divine law to which she and Adam were subject: (1) She disparaged her
privileges by misquoting the terms of the Divine permission as to the other trees. (2)
She overstated the restrictions by misquoting the Divine prohibition. (3) She
underrated her obligations by misquoting the Divine penalty." [Note: W.H. Griffith
Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary, p48.]
God reveals His character through His word. When we do not retain His word
precisely, a distorted concept of God is often the result. This led Eve to doubt God"s
goodness.
The serpent"s claim directly contradicted the main point of chapters1,2 , namely,
that God would provide what is good for mankind.
"It is because "Yahweh Elohim" expresses so strongly the basic OT convictions
about God"s being both creator and Israel"s covenant partner that the serpent and
the woman avoid the term in their discussion. The god they are talking about is
malevolent, secretive, and concerned to restrict man: his character is so different
from that of Yahweh Elohim that the narrative pointedly avoids the name in the
dialogue of Genesis 3:1-5." [Note: Wenham, p57.]
One natural tendency that we have when we do not understand or recall God"s
word precisely is to make it more restrictive than He does. This is what Eve did.
This is a form of legalism.
LANGE, " Genesis 3:2-3. And the woman said unto the serpent.—That the serpent
should address the woman, and not the Prayer of Manasseh, is explained from the
circumstance that the woman is the weaker and the seducible ( 1 Peter 3:7). The
text, however, supposes that the woman knew the prohibition of God, and in some
way, indeed, through the man. Still, the woman does not offer, in her defence, this
mediateness of her knowledge, as neither does Adam present as an excuse that he
saw that Eve did not die from the eating of the fruit. The answer of both appears to
be wholly right, and to correct the serpent she would seem to make the prohibition
still stronger by the addition: Neither shall ye touch it. And yet by this very addition
does her first wavering disguise itself under the form of an overdoing obedience.
113

114. The first failure is her not observing the point of the temptation, and the allowing
herself to to be drawn into an argument with the tempter; the second, that she
makes the prohibition stronger than it really Isaiah, and thus lets it appear that to
her, too, “the prohibition seems too strict” (Keil); the third Isaiah, that she weakens
the prohibition by reducing it to the lesser caution: lest ye die, thus making the
motive to obedience to be predominantly the fear of death. Or simply thus: She
begins herself to doubt, and to explain away the simple clear prohibition of God,
instead of turning away from the author of the doubt. There is something, too, in the
thought that the woman does not denote God as her Covenant-God. And yet many
have regarded her first answer as a sign of steadfastness in the beginning.
PETT, "Verse 2-3
‘And the woman said to the snake, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the
garden. But God has said ‘you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the
midst of the garden, nor shall you touch it, lest you die’.”.’
The woman’s conscience is struggling to be fair to God. But she cannot help but
think of THAT tree, and she slightly ameliorates God’s warning and slightly
exaggerates His demands. God had not said ‘lest you die’, He had said ‘you shall
surely die’. Dangerously she has in mind the possibility that it might not be true. It
is always unwise to ‘improve’ the word of God. Nor had He said, ‘you shall not
touch it’. But in the latter she was interpreting God perfectly correctly. To touch it
was to be half way to eating it. (Here we have an indication that the man and the
woman saw the tree as ‘sacred’. It was ‘untouchable’). Possibly she is also trying to
build up her protection against the temptation she is now experiencing.
Some have tried to see in the reference to this tree as ‘the tree which is in the midst
of the garden’ (which was how the tree of life was previously described by the
writer) an indication that the story originally only contained one tree, the tree of life.
Others have suggested that the woman only knew of one tree, because the tree of life
had not yet been revealed to man. But neither is necessary. To the woman in her
condition there was only ONE tree, that which was forbidden to her. Her
concentration on that tree is intended by the writer to demonstrate the seeds of
doubt in her mind. Whereas the most important tree to the writer and to God was
the tree of life, which offered continuing life and was therefore central, to the
114

115. woman the most important tree was the one which was she was unable to partake of,
and in her thinking that was central.
3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from
the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and
you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
CLARKE, "Neither shall ye touch it - Did not the woman add this to what God
had before spoken? Some of the Jewish writers, who are only serious on comparative
trifles, state that as soon as the woman had asserted this, the serpent pushed her against
the tree and said, “See, thou hast touched it, and art still alive; thou mayest therefore
safely eat of the fruit, for surely thou shalt not die.”
GILL, "But of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden,.... This
tree stood near the tree of life, as is highly probable, since that is described in the same
situation, Gen_2:9 she does not give it any name, which perhaps was not as yet given it;
or she was not acquainted with it, its name in the preceding chapter being given by
anticipation; and most likely it is, it had its name from the event, and as yet was without
one:
God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die: here
the woman is charged by some both with adding to, and taking from the law of God; and
if so, must have sinned very heinously before she eat of the fruit; but neither of them are
sufficiently proved; not the former by her saying, "neither shall ye touch it", which
though not expressed in the prohibition, is implied, namely, such a touching the fruit as
to pluck it off the tree, take it in the hand, and put it to the mouth, in order to eat it: nor
the latter by these words, "lest ye die", or "lest perhaps ye die" (h); as if it was a matter of
doubt, when it was most strongly assured; for the word used is not always to be
understood of doubting, but of the event of a thing; see Psa_2:12 and may be rendered,
"that ye die not" (i); which would certainly be the case, should they pluck the fruit and
eat of it.
115

116. 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to
the woman.
BARNES, "Gen_3:4-5
The serpent now makes a strong and bold assertion, denying the deadly efficacy of the
tree, or the fatal consequence of partaking of it, and affirming that God was aware that
on the eating of it their eyes would be opened, and they would be like himself in knowing
good and evil.
Let us remember that this was the first falsehood the woman ever heard. Her mind
was also infantile as yet, so far as experience was concerned. The opening mind is
naturally inclined to believe the truth of every assertion, until it has learned by
experience the falsehood of some. There was also in this falsehood what gives the power
to deceive, a great deal of truth combined with the element of untruth. The tree was not
physically fatal to life, and the eating of it really issued in a knowledge of good and evil.
Nevertheless, the partaking of what was forbidden issued in the legal and actual
privation of life. And it did not make them know good and evil altogether, as God knows
it, but in an experimental sense, as the devil knows it. In point of knowledge, they
became like God; in point of morality, like the tempter.
CLARKE, "Ye shall not surely die - Here the father of lies at once appears; and
appears too in flatly contradicting the assertion of God. The tempter, through the
nachash, insinuates the impossibility of her dying, as if he had said, God has created thee
immortal, thy death therefore is impossible; and God knows this, for as thou livest by
the tree of life, so shalt thou get increase of wisdom by the tree of knowledge.
GILL, "And the serpent said unto the woman,.... In reply to her answer:
ye shall not surely die; in direct contradiction to the divine threatening, and which he
would insinuate was a mere threatening, and which God never intended to put in
execution; so that they had nothing to fear from that, God would never be so rigid and
severe, and beat so hard upon them as to put them to death for such an offence, if it was
116

117. one; he only gave out the menace to frighten them, and deter from it: however, at most it
was not a certain thing they should die, and they might safely conclude they would not.
HENRY, "He denies that there was any danger in it, insisting that, though it might be
the transgressing of a precept, yet it would not be the incurring of a penalty: You shall
not surely die, Gen_3:4. “You shall not dying die,” so the word is, in direct contradiction
to what God had said. Either, (1.) “It is not certain that you shall die,” so some. “It is not
so sure as you are made to believe it is.” Thus Satan endeavours to shake that which he
cannot overthrow, and invalidates the force of divine threatenings by questioning the
certainty of them; and, when once it is supposed possible that there may be falsehood or
fallacy in any word of God, a door is then opened to downright infidelity. Satan teaches
men first to doubt and then to deny; he makes them sceptics first, and so by degrees
makes them atheists. Or, (2.) “It is certain you shall not die,” so others. He avers his
contradiction with the same phrase of assurance that God had used in ratifying the
threatening. He began to call the precept in question (Gen_3:1), but, finding that the
woman adhered to that, he quitted that battery, and made his second onset upon the
threatening, where he perceived her to waver; for he is quick to spy all advantages, and
to attack the wall where it is weakest: You shall not surely die. This was a lie, a
downright lie; for, [1.] It was contrary to the word of God, which we are sure is true. See
1Jo_2:21, 1Jo_2:27. It was such a lie as gave the lie to God himself. [2.] It was contrary
to his own knowledge. When he told them there was no danger in disobedience and
rebellion he said that which he knew, by woeful experience, to be false. He had broken
the law of his creation, and had found, to his cost, that he could not prosper in it; and yet
he tells our first parents they shall not die. He concealed his own misery, that he might
draw them into the like: thus he still deceives sinners into their own ruin. He tells them
that, though they sin, they shall not die; and gains credit rather than God, who tells
them, The wages of sin is death. Note, Hope of impunity is a great support to all
iniquity, and impenitency in it. I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of
my heart, Deu_29:19.
JAMISON, "Ye shall not surely die — He proceeded, not only to assure her of
perfect impunity, but to promise great benefits from partaking of it.
PULPIT, "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).
SBC, "There are many things against which God has uttered His voice in every man’s
heart; in which, even independently of written revelation, He has not left Himself
without witness. He who lives in concealed or open sin knows full well that God hath
117

118. said he shall surely die. But in the moment of temptation the certainty of ruin is met by a
counter assertion of the tempter, "Thou shalt not surely die": "Do the act and cast the
consequences to the winds." We have a notable instance of this in the case of the prophet
Balaam. Men with the full consciousness that God is against them persist in opposition
to Him, till they perish; persuading themselves, from one step to another, that matters
shall not turn out so badly as God’s words and God’s monitor within tell them that they
shall.
II. There are other classes of persons, besides notorious profligates who are caught by
this device, "Thou shalt not surely die. (1) God has declared, "To be carnally minded is
death." To be carnally minded is to be of the mind of the children of this world, to view
things through a worldly medium, to pass day by day without a thought beyond this
world, and as if there were no life after this life. Of this kind of life God has said that it is
death, that those who live it shall surely die—nay, are dying now; and by this is meant
that such a life is the immortal spirit’s ruin, that it breaks up and scatters and wastes all
man’s best and highest faculties. What can await those who frustrate the best ends of
their being but misery and ruin? "Ye shall not surely die" is the tempter’s fallacy with
which he deludes the carnally minded. He persuades them that they can give this life to
God’s enemy, and yet inherit life eternal. (2) God has said, "He that hath the Son hath
life; but he that hath not the Son of God hath not life"—i.e., "If ye have not the Son of
God ye shall surely die." How many of us have any persuasion of the reality of this
sentence of death? How many have cared enough about it to ascertain what it is to have
the Son of God? Whosoever has not by his own personal act taken Christ as his, has not
life, and must certainly die eternally: first by the very nature of things, for the desire for
God has never been awakened in his heart, the guilt of sin has not been removed from
him, nor its power over him broken; and then by solemn declarations of the God of
truth—"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, for the wrath of God abideth on
him."
III. Mysterious as the history of our fall is, its greatest wonder is this: that God out of
ruin hath brought forth fresh beauty; out of man’s defeat, His victory; out of death, life
glorious and eternal. Thou shall surely live is now the Divine proclamation to man’s
world. "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world."
H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. i., p. 100.
CALVIN, "4.And the serpent said unto the woman Satan now springs more boldly
forward; and because he sees a breach open before him, he breaks through in a
direct assault, for he is never wont to engage in open war until we voluntarily expose
ourselves to him, naked and unarmed. He cautiously approaches us at first with
blandishments; but when he has stolen in upon us, he dares to exalt himself
petulantly and with proud confidence against God; just as he now seizing upon
Eve’s doubt, penetrates further, that he may turn it into a direct negative. It behaves
us to be instructed, by much examples, to beware of his snares, and, by making
timely resistance, to keep him far from us, that nearer access may not be permitted
to him. He now, therefore, does not ask doubtingly, as before, whether or not the
command of God, which he opposes, be true, but openly accuses God of falsehood,
118

119. for he asserts that the word by which death was denounced is false and delusive.
Fatal temptation! when while God is threatening us with death, we not only securely
sleep, but hold God himself in derision!
BENSON, "Genesis 3:4-5. The tempter, finding that the woman began to doubt
whether eating this fruit was a crime, and if it were, whether punishment would
follow, now became more bold in his attack, and, giving God the lie direct, asserted
roundly, “Ye shall not surely die.” So far from it, you shall have much advantage
from eating of this tree. He suits the temptation to the pure state they were now in,
proposing to them, not any carnal pleasure, but intellectual delights. 1st, Your eyes
shall be opened — You shall have much more of the power and pleasure of
contemplation than now you have: your intellectual views shall be extended, and
you shall see further into things than now you do. 2d, Ye shall be as gods — As
Elohim, mighty gods, beings of a higher order. 3d, Ye shall know good and evil —
That is, every thing that is desirable to be known. To support this part of the
temptation, he abuseth the name given to this tree. It was intended to teach the
practical knowledge of good and evil; that is, of duty and disobedience, and it would
prove the experimental knowledge of good and evil; that is, of happiness and misery.
But he perverts the sense of it, and wrests it to their destruction, as if the tree would
give them a speculative knowledge of the natures, kinds, and originals of good and
evil. And, 4th, All this presently; In the day ye eat thereof — You will find a sudden
and immediate change for the better.
COFFMAN, ""And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; for
God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye
shall be as God, knowing good and evil."
"Ye shall not surely die ..." This was a bold and cunning falsehood; and one is a
little distressed by the scholars who are still treating this narrative as if the Devil
told the truth. Their error is the same as that of Eve, in that they alter what God
said and then claim that what God allegedly said failed to come true. For example, it
is affirmed that God meant that they would, "immediately be struck dead,"[8] or
that, "he did not die (physically) immediately as God said,"[9] and that, "It is also
true that death does not immediately follow the act of eating,"[10] etc., etc. It seems
to be ignored by everyone that God said NONE of those things. He did not say that
death would follow INSTANTANEOUSLY upon their eating the forbidden fruit,
119

120. nor that they would die immediately. All such thoughts are interpretive errors.
What God said was that, "In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt surely die," the day
here having no reference whatever to days of the week but to the seventh day of
Creation, a day that is still in progress. See a full comment on the length of this day
under Genesis 1:5 above.
Furthermore, the penalty of death here incurred by the human race was never
commuted, repealed, or altered in any manner whatsoever. It still stands; and in the
fullness of time, during that very day when the penalty was incurred, namely during
the present dispensation of God's grace, the death penalty will be executed upon
Adam in the person of his total posterity, the redeemed ones in Christ Jesus being
the sole survivors of it. The judgment of the Great Day, which shall terminate the
current dispensation, will be the occasion when this penalty will be executed.
"Ye shall be as God, knowing good from evil ..." This also was a lie, skillfully
interwoven with a half-truth. "Ye shall be as God," was a vicious falsehood. Eating
the forbidden fruit did not make them "like God" at all, but sent them full of
shame, fear, and apprehension into hiding from the loving face of the Creator,
whose word they had violated. And as for their "knowing good and evil," that also
was a half-lie. They already knew what was right and wrong. They knew it was
wrong to eat of that certain tree. The additional knowledge they received was
nothing beautiful and desirable at all. It was only that wretched, soul-killing
knowledge that comes experientially to every sinner who violates God's Word. What
an unprincipled and malignant falsehood was Satan's alluring promise!
It is significant that Satan in this passage used the word [~'Elohiym] for God,
presenting a problem that casts doubt upon the various documentary theories
regarding the alleged sources of Moses, making those theories "doubtful."[11] The
plurality of the word [~'Elohiym] caused some translators to render this passage,
"ye shall be as gods," but the reference is clearly to the [~'Elohiym] of the first
chapter.
The dimensions of Satan's lying contradiction of God in this passage are truly
fantastic. As Kline put it, "With one stroke, Satan re-interpreted God as a devil, a
120

121. liar possessed by jealous pride, and the way of the curse as the way of blessing!"[12]
It is simply an astounding mystery to us that Simpson, writing in The Interpreter's
Bible could have designated the tempter in this passage as a "benefactor of the
human race!"[13]
COKE, "Genesis 3:4. The serpent said, ye shall not die— The woman having urged
God's malediction, the tempter was interested to remove its force, without which it
was impossible for him to prevail. And therefore, with the most daring, yet subtle
boldness, he contradicts the divine assertion, and throws the vilest aspersion upon
God's goodness, by assuring the woman, that by eating the fruit she would be so far
from dying, as she feared, that she would be made wise as God himself. And this he
urges as the reason why God forbad the eating of the fruit: tempting the woman at
once to disbelieve her Creator's veracity, and to consider him as a hard and severe
master, withholding the means of good from his creatures. "God forbids you to eat
of this tree," says the deceiver, "out of a desire to withhold from you happiness; and
therefore idly terrifies you with the threats of death, from what he knows will be the
means of wisdom and bliss to you!" And is not this a too successful method still used
by the tempter, who persuades men to doubt the divine veracity, and to practise
sins, from which they expect felicity, in contradiction to his declaration, who hath
positively said, that they who do such things shall die the death, and shall not inherit
the kingdom of God?
SIMEON, "THE SERPENT BEGUILING EVE
Genesis 3:4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.
IN reference to the fact before us, St. Paul says, “The serpent beguiled Eve through
his subtilty.” And great is the subtilty which appears throughout the whole of his
conduct on this occasion. He took an opportunity of addressing himself to Eve when
she was alone, that so she might become an easier victim to his wiles. He insinuated
his temptation first in a way of inquiry only; “Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of
every tree in the garden?” By this he intimated, that she had made some mistake
respecting the supposed prohibition, since it was scarcely probable that her Maker,
who had granted her every thing else in the garden, should impose such an
unnecessary restriction upon her. When, in answer to this, Eve informed him, that
not only was the restriction really given, but that it was enforced with the most
121

122. tremendous sanction that could possibly be imagined, he again insinuated that she
must be under a mistake, since it could not be that so good a God should inflict so
heavy a judgment for so slight an offence: “Ye shall not surely die.”
Now this is the very temptation with which he has ever since, even to this present
hour, assaulted unwary men, and by which he is yet daily ruining millions of the
human race. We will therefore endeavour to put you on your guard against it, by
shewing,
I. The falsehood of the suggestion—
Two things were here insinuated, namely, That the threatening was not of such a
terrific import as she imagined; and that, whatever it might import, it should not be
eventually executed. But in both these things “he lied unto her;” for,
1. God will fulfil his threatenings to whatsoever they may relate—
[See his threatenings to individuals—Ahab, in dependence on his false prophets, and
on Satan who inspired them, thought to come off victorious: but, notwithstanding
his device to escape the notice of the Syrians, he was slain, according to the
prediction of the prophet Micaiah. Hiel the Bethelite would rebuild the city of
Jericho: but did he escape the judgment denounced, many hundred years before,
against any person who should presume to make the attempt? Did he not lay the
foundation in the death of his first-born, and raise up the gates in the death of his
youngest son [Note: Joshua 6:26 with 1 Kings 16:34.] ? See his threatenings against
the whole nation of Israel: Were they not carried captive to Babylon, according to
His word? and is not the dispersion of the Jews at this day a proof, that no word of
God shall ever fall to the ground? See his threatenings against the whole world—
Did not the deluge come according to the prediction, and sweep away every living
creature (those only excepted that were in the ark) from the face of the earth? Let us
be sure that God is true: and that whatever He has spoken shall surely come to
pass.]
122

123. 2. He will fulfil them in the extent that is here declared—
[Death temporal, spiritual, and eternal were included in the sentence denounced
against transgression: and on our first parents it came, the very day that they ate of
the forbidden tree. They did not, it is true, cease on that day to live, because God
had purposes to serve by their continuance in life: but the seeds of death were that
day implanted in their constitution; and in due time they returned to their native
dust. That they died at that very moment a spiritual death, is evident from their
conduct: for they foolishly hoped to hide themselves among the trees of the garden
from the eyes of the omniscient God; and offered vain excuses for their
transgression, instead of humbling themselves for it before God. To eternal death
also they were subjected; and to it they would have been consigned, had not God, of
his infinite mercy, provided a way of deliverance from it, through that seed of the
woman, who was in due time to bruise the serpent’s head. If it be doubted whether
God will execute so heavy a judgment on the sinners of mankind, I hesitate not to
declare, that he most assuredly will; since he has himself declared it in terms that
admit of no reasonable doubt [Note: See Matthew 25:46 the Greek—and Mark
9:43-48—and Revelation 14:10-11.] —and “he is not a man that he will lie, nor the
son of man that he will repent.”]
But since so many are deceived by this suggestion, I will endeavour to shew, more
distinctly,
II. The danger of listening to it—
The effect of this sad delusion is visible in all around us. It is entirely owing to this
that Satan retains so many in bondage, and leads them captive at his will.
1. Hence it is that men make so light of sin—
123

124. [Whence is it, I would ask, that men are drawn aside by every temptation, and that
for a momentary gratification they will offend their God? Is it not from a secret
persuasion, that God will not fulfil his threatenings, and that they may sin against
him with impunity? If men saw before their eyes the instruments of torture whereby
the violators of a law were to be put to a lingering and cruel death, and knew at the
same time that there was no possibility of escape to any one who should transgress
the law, would they incur the penalty with the same indifference that they now
transgress the laws of God? How much less then would they rush into wretchedness,
if they saw hell open before them, and heard the groans of those who are now
suffering under the wrath of God? No verily: they would not then “make a mock at
sin, but would tremble at it, and flee from it as from the face of a serpent. If then
you would be preserved from sin, listen not a moment to this accursed suggestion:
and if the whole world should unite in saying, “Ye shall not surely die,” reply to
them, “Get thee behind me, Satan,” for “thou art a liar from the beginning.”]
2. Hence it is also that men make so light of salvation—
[Salvation by Christ is offered to a ruined world. But who believes our report? Who
receives it with that gratitude which it might well be expected that a perishing
sinner should feel towards his reconciled God and Saviour? With the exception of a
few, the whole world regard the Gospel as little better than a cunningly devised
fable; so faint are the emotions it excites, and so transient the effects which it
produces. And what is the reason of this? Is it not that men do not feel their need of
such a Saviour, and that they do not believe that God’s threatenings will ever be
executed upon them? Yes: to this source must it be traced: for if they verily believed,
that the wrath of God, which is revealed against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, would fall upon them, and that all their hope of escaping it
was by embracing the Gospel, they would flee to Christ with their whole hearts, and
cleave unto him with their whole souls, and not rest a moment till they saw
themselves within the gates of the city of refuge. Were they duly sensible of their
danger, even a hope, a mere peradventure that God might have mercy upon them,
would be sufficient to make them weep before him day and night. Not a word of
mercy was mixed in Jonah’s message to Nineveh: yet the most distant hope of mercy
was sufficient to encourage that whole city to repent in dust and ashes. What then
would not all the promises of the Gospel effect, if men really felt the greatness of
their guilt and danger?. It is evident, that all the indifference of men about the
Gospel must be traced to this one source, their believing of Satan’s lie in preference
124

125. to the truth of God: and, if ever the Gospel is to have a saving influence on our
hearts, we must begin by rejecting this suggestion of the devil, and by believing that
all the threatenings of God against sin and sinners shall assuredly be accomplished.]
Observe then, on the whole,
1. What need there is of fidelity in ministers—
[Satan at this time, no less than formerly, suggests to men, “Ye shall not surely die:”
and his emissaries all the world over are re-echoing the, delusive sound. Every
friend we have, father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, the very instant we
begin to dread the wrath of God, unite their endeavours to compose our minds, by
saying, ‘There is no such penalty against sin as ye suppose, nor have you any reason
to fear that it shall be inflicted on you.’ Our own wicked hearts also are but too
ready to adopt a sentiment so gratifying to the mind, and to speak peace to us on
insufficient grounds. And what would be the consequence if ministers also favoured
such delusions, and, through fear of alarming you, neglected to warn you of your
danger? Would not Satan triumph to a far greater extent than he already does?
Would he not be secure of his prey? Is not this the very effect produced, wherever
the Gospel, instead of being preached with apostolic fidelity, is kept upon the back
ground, and modified to the taste of a deluded world? Be thankful then if you hear
your guilt and danger faithfully set before you: be thankful, as you would be if a
man, seeing your house on fire, roused you from your slumbers, and saved you from
death. And, if God have vouchsafed to you this mercy, improve it with all diligence,
by fleeing from the wrath to come, and laying hold on eternal life.]
2. What a mercy it is, that, notwithstanding the truth of God in his threatenings,
there is a way o salvation opened for us in the Gospel—
[Yes; God can be true, and yet absolve the sinner from his guilt: for, in Christ Jesus,
“Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each
other.” The penalty of death has been inflicted upon the Lord Jesus Christ, as the
surety and substitute of sinners: and, if we believe in him, all that he has done and
125

126. suffered for us shall be so imputed to us as to be accepted of God in our behalf, so
that God shall be “a just God, and yet a Saviour,” yea “just, and yet the justifier” of
sinful man. O blessed tidings! amply sufficient to pacify the most afflicted mind, and
to warrant in our hearts the most joyful hope! Brethren, only believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ, and I will adopt with confidence the very words of Satan, and say, “Ye
shall not surely die.” I will go further still, and from a doubtful suggestion turn
them to a direct affirmation, and say, ‘Surely ye shall not die.’ So says our blessed
Lord himself: “My sheep shall never perish:” St. Paul also says, “There is no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” On this, therefore, you may rely,
with the fullest possible assurance: for, if the threatenings of God shall be fulfilled,
so shall also His promises be: not one of them shall ever fail, as long as the world
shall stand. Fear not then to see the worst of your state: fear not to acknowledge the
extent of your guilt and danger, since the provision for you in Christ Jesus is fully
commensurate with your necessities, and suited to your wants. Only believe in Him,
and you shall not be ashamed or confounded world without end.]
CONSTABLE, "Verse 4-5
The second step in Satan"s temptation was to deny God"s word. In denying it he
imputed motives to God that were not consistent with God"s character. God"s true
motive was the welfare of Prayer of Manasseh , but the serpent implied it was
God"s welfare at man"s expense.
This added suggestion seemed consistent with what the serpent had already implied
about God"s motives in Genesis 3:1. Having entertained a doubt concerning God"s
word, Eve was ready to accept a denial of His word.
What the serpent said about Eve being as God was a half-truth. Ironically she was
already as God having been made in His image ( Genesis 1:26). She did become like
God, or divine beings (Heb. "elohim), in that she obtained a greater knowledge of
good and evil by eating of the tree. However, she became less like God because she
was no longer innocent of sin. Her relationship with God suffered. Though she
remained like God she could no longer enjoy unhindered fellowship with God
( Genesis 3:24). The consequent separation from God is the essence of death
( Genesis 2:17).
126

127. The first doctrine Satan denied in Scripture was that sin results in death (separation
from God), or, we could say, the doctrine that God will not punish sin. This is still
the truth he tries hardest to get people to disbelieve.
PETT, "Verse 4-5
‘And the snake said to the woman, “You shall not surely die, for God knows that in
the day you eat of it then your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God
knowing good and evil”.’
The snake knows he has won. He now drops his mask. He no longer prevaricates
but blatantly and with stress reveals his true nature. No ordinary snake could be
seen as speaking like this, for he is forcefully claiming to know better than God. The
reader has his suspicions confirmed that something dreadfully sinister lies behind
the snake. (Supernatural beings are ever in the background in these passages
without being mentioned e.g. Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22; Genesis 3:24. They are the
background to all that happens).
‘But the snake said to the woman, “You will not die. For God knows that when you
eat of it you will be like God, knowing good and evil”.’ How subtle the snake is. He
is suggesting that knowing good and evil is a good thing for the woman, and that
God is only pretending when He makes His threats so as to prevent them getting on
equality with Himself. Indeed he makes God look mean-spirited and he makes a
curse look like a blessing. Why, do they not realise that they can be ‘like God” (or
‘like the elohim’, like spiritual beings)? Of course, the truth is that had they
continued in obedience they would have known the difference between good and evil
through persevering in goodness, and would then indeed have been more Godlike.
On the other hand the snake’s way was a much quicker route, learning by
experience rather than by obedience, but it was a way that led to disaster.
Note that the snake uses simply the term God. This, along with the woman’s reply
(Genesis 3:3), is the only place where the term ‘the Lord God’ (Yahweh Elohim) is
not used in Genesis 2:5 to Genesis 3:24. It is probably intended to be seen as the
127

128. snake ‘watering down’ the authority and closeness of God in the woman’s mind, and
an indication of the woman responding.
5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your
eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil.”
CLARKE, "Your eyes shall be opened - Your understanding shall be greatly
enlightened and improved; and ye shall be as gods, ‫כאלהים‬ kelohim, like God, so the
word should be translated; for what idea could our first parents have of gods before
idolatry could have had any being, because sin had not yet entered into the world? The
Syriac has the word in the singular number, and is the only one of all the versions which
has hit on the true meaning. As the original word is the same which is used to point out
the Supreme Being, Gen_1:1, so it has here the same signification, and the object of the
tempter appears to have been this: to persuade our first parents that they should, by
eating of this fruit, become wise and powerful as God, (for knowledge is power), and be
able to exist for ever, independently of him.
GILL, "For God doth know,.... Or "but (k) God doth know", who knows all things,
and has foreknowledge of all future events; he foreknows what will be the consequence
of this event, eating the fruit of this tree, that it would be so far from issuing in death,
which he has threatened, that the effect of it would be a clearer understanding, and a
greater degree of knowledge of things, which he is unwilling should be enjoyed, and
therefore has endeavoured to prevent it by this prohibition; suggesting hereby, even in
God, hatred of the creatures he had made, and unwilling they should be as happy as they
might:
that in the day ye eat thereof then your eyes shall be opened; not the eyes of
their bodies, as if they were now blind, but the eyes of their understanding; meaning,
that their knowledge should be enlarged, and they should see things more clearly than
they now did, and judge of them in a better manner; yea, even together with the light of
their mind, the sight of their bodily eyes would receive some advantage; and particularly,
that though they saw the nakedness of their bodies, yet it was as if they saw it not, and
128

129. were unconcerned about it, and heedless of it; did not see it as unseemly and indecent,
and so were not ashamed; but now they should see it as it was, and be filled with shame
and confusion:
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil: as "Elohim", which word is
sometimes used of civil magistrates, sometimes of angels, and sometimes of God
himself, and of the divine Persons in the Godhead: the Targum of Onkelos seems to
respect the former, rendering it "as great personages", princes, judges, civil magistrates,
who ought to know the difference between good and evil, or otherwise would be unfit for
their office; but this cannot be the sense here, since there were no such persons in being,
to whom the reference could be made; nor could it convey any proper idea to the mind of
Eve, unless by them are meant principalities and powers, or "the mighty angels", as the
Targum of Jonathan paraphrases the word; and so it intimates, that upon eating this
fruit they should be as wise and as knowing as those intelligent creatures: though
perhaps Satan might mean, such angels as himself and his were, and that they should by
sad experience know the difference between good and evil, as they did: but rather it is to
be understood of that Elohim that made the heavens and the earth, for as yet the word
had never been used, but of the true God, and of the divine Persons in the Trinity: and
this agrees with what is ironically said, Gen_3:22 "behold the man is become as one of
us", as the devil told him he should, and as he believed he would: this was the bait laid
for than, suited to his intellectual mind, and to the ambitious desires of it, not being
content with finite knowledge, but aiming at omniscience, or something like it: now the
temptation began to take place and operate.
HENRY, " He promises them advantage by it, Gen_3:5. Here he follows his blow,
and it was a blow at the root, a fatal blow to the tree we are branches of. He not only
would undertake that they should be no losers by it, thus binding himself to save them
from harm; but (if they would be such fools as to venture upon the security of one that
had himself become a bankrupt) he undertakes they shall be gainers by it, unspeakable
gainers. He could not have persuaded them to run the hazard of ruining themselves if he
had not suggested to them a great probability of bettering themselves.
(1.) He insinuates to them the great improvements they would make by eating of this
fruit. And he suits the temptation to the pure state they were now in, proposing to them,
not any carnal pleasures or gratifications, but intellectual delights and satisfactions.
These were the baits with which he covered his hook. [1.] “Your eyes shall be opened;
you shall have much more of the power and pleasure of contemplation than now you
have; you shall fetch a larger compass in your intellectual views, and see further into
things than now you do.” He speaks as if now they were but dim-sighted, and short-
sighted, in comparison of what they would be then. [2.] “You shall be as gods, as Elohim,
mighty gods; not only omniscient, but omnipotent too;” or, “You shall be as God himself,
equal to him, rivals with him; you shall be sovereigns and no longer subjects, self-
sufficient and no longer dependent.” A most absurd suggestion! As if it were possible for
creatures of yesterday to be like their Creator that was from eternity. [3.] “You shall
know good and evil, that is, every thing that is desirable to be known.” To support this
part of the temptation, he abuses the name given to this tree: it was intended to teach
the practical knowledge of good and evil, that is, of duty and disobedience; and it would
prove the experimental knowledge of good and evil, that is, of happiness and misery. In
129

130. these senses, the name of the tree was a warning to them not to eat of it; but he perverts
the sense of it, and wrests it to their destruction, as if this tree would give them a
speculative notional knowledge of the natures, kinds, and originals, of good and evil.
And, [4.] All this presently: “In the day you eat thereof you will find a sudden and
immediate change for the better.” Now in all these insinuations he aims to beget in
them, First, Discontent with their present state, as if it were not so good as it might be,
and should be. Note, No condition will of itself bring contentment, unless the mind be
brought to it. Adam was not easy, no, not in paradise, nor the angels in their first state,
Jud_1:6. Secondly, Ambition of preferment, as if they were fit to be gods. Satan had
ruined himself by desiring to be like the Most High (Isa_14:14), and therefore seeks to
infect our first parents with the same desire, that he might ruin them too.
(2.) He insinuates to them that God had no good design upon them, in forbidding
them this fruit: “For God doth know how much it will advance you; and therefore, in
envy and ill-will to you, he hath forbidden it:” as if he durst not let them eat of that tree
because then they would know their own strength, and would not continue in an inferior
state, but be able to cope with him; or as if he grudged them the honour and happiness
to which their eating of that tree would prefer them. Now, [1.] This was a great affront to
God, and the highest indignity that could be done him, a reproach to his power, as if he
feared his creatures, and much more a reproach to his goodness, as if he hated the work
of his own hands and would not have those whom he has made to be made happy. Shall
the best of men think it strange to be misrepresented and evil spoken of, when God
himself is so? Satan, as he is the accuser of the brethren before God, so he accuses God
before the brethren; thus he sows discord, and is the father of those that do so. [2.] It
was a most dangerous snare to our first parents, as it tended to alienate their affections
from God, and so to withdraw them from their allegiance to him. Thus still the devil
draws people into his interest by suggesting to them hard thoughts of God, and false
hopes of benefit and advantage by sin. Let us therefore, in opposition to him, always
think well of God as the best good, and think ill of sin as the worst of evils: thus let us
resist the devil, and he will flee from us.
JAMISON, "your eyes shall be opened — His words meant more than met the
ear. In one sense her eyes were opened; for she acquired a direful experience of “good
and evil” - of the happiness of a holy, and the misery of a sinful, condition. But he
studiously concealed this result from Eve, who, fired with a generous desire for
knowledge, thought only of rising to the rank and privileges of her angelic visitants.
PULPIT, "Gen_3:5
For (‫י‬ִ‫—כּ‬nam, γαρ, for because; assigning the reason
(1) for the devil’s, statement, and so,
(2) by implication, for the Divine prohibition)
God doth know. Thus the serpent practically charges the Deity with
(1) envy of his creatures’ happiness, as if he meant to say, Depend upon it, it is not
130

131. through any fear of your dying from its fruit that the tree has been interdicted, but
through fear of your becoming rivals to your Master himself; and
(2) with falsehood—
(a) in affirming that to be true which he knew to be false;
(b) in doing this while delivering his law;
(c) in pretending to be careful of man’s safety while in reality he was only jealous of his
own honor.
That in the day ye eat thereof. Cf. the Divine prohibition (Gen_2:17), the exact
terms of which are again used—a mark of growing aggressiveness towards the woman,
and of special audacity towards God. The prohibition employs the singular number,
being addressed to Adam only; the devil employs the plural, as his words were meant not
for Eve alone, but for her husband with her. Your eyes shall be opened. "To open the
eyes," the usual Biblical phrase for restoring sight to the blind (2Ki_6:17, 2Ki_6:20;
Psa_146:8; Isa_42:7), is also used to denote the impartation of power to perceive
(physically, mentally, spiritually) objects not otherwise discernible (cf. Gen_21:19; Isa_
35:5). Here it was designed to be ambiguous; like all Satan’s oracles, suggesting to the
hearer the attainment of higher wisdom, but meaning in the intention of the speaker
only a discovery of their nakedness. The same ambiguity attaches to the devil’s
exposition of his own text. And ye shall be as gods. Literally, as Elohim; not &c θεοιΜ
(LXX.), sicut dii (Vulgate), as gods (A.V.), as the angels (R. Jonathan), as the devils
(Ainsworth), daemonibusque, diisve similes (Rosenmόller), as princes (White); but as
the supreme Deity (Calvin, Keil, Kalisch, et alia)—ostensibly a promise of divinity.
Knowing good and evil. As they knew this already from the prohibition, the language
must imply a fullness and accuracy of understanding such as was competent only to
Elohim (vide on Gen_3:22)
CALVIN, "5.For God doth know. There are those who think that God is here
craftily praised by Satan, as if He never would prohibit men from the use of
wholesome fruit. But they manifestly contradict themselves, for they at the some
time confess that in the preceding member of the sentence he had already declared
God to be unworthy of confidence, as one who had lied. Others suppose that he
charges God with malignity and envy, as wishing to deprive man of his highest
perfection; and this opinion is more probable than the other. Nevertheless,
(according to my judgments) Satan attempts to prove what he had recently asserted,
reasoning, however, from contraries: (167) God, he says, has interdicted to you the
tree, that he may not be compelled to admit you to the participation of his glory;
therefore, the fear of punishment is quite needless. In short, he denies that a fruit
which is useful and salutary can be injurious. When he says, God does know, he
censures God as being moved by jealousy: and as having given the command
concerning the tree, for the purpose of keeping man in an inferior rank.
131

132. Ye shall be as gods. Some translate it, ‘Ye shall be like angels.’ It might even be
rendered in the singular number, ‘Ye shall be as God.’ I have no doubt that Satan
promises them divinity; as if he had said, For no other reason does God defraud you
of the tree of knowledge, than because he fears to have you as companions.
Moreover, it is not without some show of reason that he makes the Divine glory, or
equality with God, to consist in the perfect knowledge of good and evil; but it is a
mere pretense, for the purpose of ensnaring the miserable woman. Because the
desire of knowledge is naturally inherent in and happiness is supposed to be placed
in it; but Eve erred in not regulating the measure of her knowledge by the will of
God. And we all daily suffer under the same disease, because we desire to know
more than is right, and more than God allows; whereas the principal point of
wisdom is a well-regulated sobriety in obedience to God.
The meaning of the passage seems to be this: Satan had first said in plain terms, “Ye
shall not surely die;” and then, to confirm his position, had argued that, supposing
God had forbidden the tree, he must have done it out of envy, lest he should be
compelled to raise them to an equality with himself, and therefore on no possible
supposition had they any ground to fear; for they had only to eat in order to be
beyond the reach of his vengeance. — Ed.
LANGE, " Genesis 3:4-5. Ye shall not surely die.—This bold step in the temptation
seems to suppose a wavering already observable in the woman; although, in truth, it
may be noted, that, in spite of the perfect readiness of answer, the temptation of our
Lord, Matthew 4, even advances in increasingly bolder forms. Still those forms are
properly co-ordinate, whilst here the gradation is very strongly marked. Moreover,
Christ, as the perfect Prayer of Manasseh, could allow Satan to come out in all his
boldness, whilst here the unprotected woman can only find safety in an immediate
turning away.
5. And the serpent said.—The temptation steps out from the area of cautious craft
into that of a reckless denial of the truth of God’s prohibition, and a malicious
suspicion of its object. Ye shall not die at all;[FN13] thus is the truth of the
threatening stoutly denied; that Isaiah, the doubt becomes unbelief. The way,
however, is not prepared for the unbelief without first arousing a feeling of distrust
in respect to God’s love, His righteousness, and even His power. Along with this,
and entering with it, there must be also a proud self-confidence; and a wilful
132

133. striving after a false independence. For the transition from doubt to unbelief the
way is specially opened through a false security. The serpent denies all evil
consequences as arising from the forbidden enjoyment, whilst he promises, on the
contrary, the best and most glorious results from the same.—For God doth know
that in the day, etc.—The imitation of the divine language contains a species of
mockery. Your eyes, says the voice of the tempter, instead of closing in death, will
be, for the first time, truly opened. Here it is to be remarked, that the hour when
unbelief is born is immediately the birth-hour of superstition. The serpent would
have the woman believe, that on eating of that fruit she would become wonderfully
enlightened, and, at the same time, raised to a divine glory. And Song of Solomon, in
like manner, is every sin a senseless and superstitious belief in the salutary effects of
sin. The promise of the tempter’s voice is first regarded for its own sake, and then as
a complaint against God. Against the immediate deadly effect it sets the immediate
pleasurable effect, whilst, at the same time, it represents the condition of men
hitherto as a lamentable one—as an existence with closed eyes. Against the fearful
threatening: to die the death, it sets the opened eyes, and the being like God, as a
caricaturing, as it were, of that promise which had appointed men to the image of
God. The eyes were opened—a biblical expression which in the Old Testament
frequently denotes a high spiritual seeing, either as an enlightenment in respect to
truth, or as the seeing of some theophanic manifestation in prophetic vision
( Genesis 21:29; Numbers 22:21). The knowledge, however, of good and evil, as the
words are employed by Satan, must here denote not merely a condition of higher
intelligence, but rather a state of perfect independence of God. They would then
know of themselves what was good and what was evil, and would no longer need the
divine direction. To the same effect the assurance: for God doth know, etc. This
must mean: He enviously seeks to keep back your happiness; and He is envious
because He is weak in opposition to nature, because the fruit of the forbidden tree
will make you independent of Him, and because He is tyrannical and without love in
His dealings with you. In this distorting of the divine image, there is reflected the
darkening of the divine consciousness which the temptation tends to call out in the
woman, and actually does call out. In all this it must be noted, that the temptation
here is already at work with those crafty lies (see 2 Thessalonians 2:9) which it has
employed through the whole course of the world’s history—that Isaiah, with lies
containing elements of the truth, but misplaced and distorted. Already that first
question of the serpent contains a truth, so far as man ought to become conscious in
himself of the certainty and divine suitableness of God’s commands. The doubt,
however, which tends to life, is to be distinguished from that which tends to death,
by its design and direction. The tendency of the devil is to scepticism. But in this
bold assurance of the serpent which immediately follows, namely, that no evil
effects, but only good, would result from the eating, there lies the truth that the
133

134. outward death would not immediately succeed the enjoyment of the forbidden fruit;
that with the consciousness of guilt there comes in a conscious though a disturbed
distinction between good and evil, and that the sinner has placed himself in a false
independence through his own self-wilfulness (comp. Genesis 3:22). When we take it
all together, however, it is the appointment to the divine image which the spirit of
the tempter perverts into a caricature: Ye shall be as gods, and into an anticipation
of immediately reaching their aim: “A satanic amphiboly, in which truth and
falsehood are united to a certain degree of coincidence.” Ziegler. Comp. Job 8:44.
Very dark is Knobel’s comprehension of this passage: “In the account of the
Jehovist,” he says, “God appears to be jealous of ambitious men ( Genesis 3:22;
Genesis 6:3; Genesis 11:16). This same view of the jealousy of the gods appears also
among the Grecian writers, e. g, Herod, i32; iii40. vii10, 46; Pausan. ii33; iii.; comp.
Nägelsbach: ‘Homeric Theology,’ p33.”[FN14]
PULPIT, "Gen_3:5
For (‫י‬ִ‫—כּ‬nam, γαρ, for because; assigning the reason
(1) for the devil’s, statement, and so,
(2) by implication, for the Divine prohibition)
God doth know. Thus the serpent practically charges the Deity with
(1) envy of his creatures’ happiness, as if he meant to say, Depend upon it, it is not
through any fear of your dying from its fruit that the tree has been interdicted, but
through fear of your becoming rivals to your Master himself; and
(2) with falsehood—
(a) in affirming that to be true which he knew to be false;
(b) in doing this while delivering his law;
(c) in pretending to be careful of man’s safety while in reality he was only jealous of his
own honor.
That in the day ye eat thereof. Cf. the Divine prohibition (Gen_2:17), the exact
terms of which are again used—a mark of growing aggressiveness towards the woman,
and of special audacity towards God. The prohibition employs the singular number,
being addressed to Adam only; the devil employs the plural, as his words were meant not
for Eve alone, but for her husband with her. Your eyes shall be opened. "To open the
eyes," the usual Biblical phrase for restoring sight to the blind (2Ki_6:17, 2Ki_6:20;
Psa_146:8; Isa_42:7), is also used to denote the impartation of power to perceive
(physically, mentally, spiritually) objects not otherwise discernible (cf. Gen_21:19; Isa_
35:5). Here it was designed to be ambiguous; like all Satan’s oracles, suggesting to the
hearer the attainment of higher wisdom, but meaning in the intention of the speaker
134

135. only a discovery of their nakedness. The same ambiguity attaches to the devil’s
exposition of his own text. And ye shall be as gods. Literally, as Elohim; not &c θεοιΜ
(LXX.), sicut dii (Vulgate), as gods (A.V.), as the angels (R. Jonathan), as the devils
(Ainsworth), daemonibusque, diisve similes (Rosenmόller), as princes (White); but as
the supreme Deity (Calvin, Keil, Kalisch, et alia)—ostensibly a promise of divinity.
Knowing good and evil. As they knew this already from the prohibition, the language
must imply a fullness and accuracy of understanding such as was competent only to
Elohim (vide on Gen_3:22)
WHEDON, " 5. For God doth know — The Satanic utterance here recorded is a specimen
of blasphemously changing God’s truth into a lie. The deceiver would make the woman
believe that God was keeping her in ignorance of some great good.
Your eyes shall be opened — “’Your eyes,’” says the voice of the tempter, ‘instead of
closing in death, will be for the first time truly opened.’ Here it is to be remarked that the
hour when unbelief is born is immediately the birth hour of superstition.… And so, in
like manner, is every sin a senseless and superstitious belief in the salutary effects of
sin.” — Lange.
Ye shall be as gods — Rather, as God. The tempter would pervert the image of God in
man by inducing a false aspiration. Elohim has made you in his own image, and yet
withholds from you the honour and glory of knowing good and evil. Break this bond, eat
this forbidden fruit, and you will at once become like Elohim, your Maker.
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree
was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and
also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some
and ate it. She also gave some to her husband,
who was with her, and he ate it.
135

136. BARNES, "Gen_3:6
And the woman saw. - She saw the tree, no doubt, and that it was likely to look
upon, with the eye of sense. But only with the eye of fancy, highly excited by the hints of
the tempter, did she see that it was good for food, and to be desired to make one wise.
Appetite, taste, and philosophy, or the love of wisdom, are the great motives in the
human breast which fancy assumes this tree will gratify. Other trees please the taste and
the sight. But this one has the pre-eminent charm of administering not only to the sense,
but also to the reason.
It would be rash to suppose that we can analyze that lightning process of instinctive
thought which then took place in the mind of the woman; and worse than rash, it would
be wrong, to imagine that we can show the rationale of what in its fundamental point
was a violation of right reason. But it is evident from this verse that she attached some
credit to the bold statement of the serpent, that the eating of the fruit would be attended
with the extraordinary result of making them, like God himself, acquainted with good
and evil, especially as it did not contradict any assertion of Yahweh, God, and was
countenanced by the name, “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” It was evidently
a new thought to her, that the knowledge of good and evil was to result from the eating
of it. That God should know this, if a fact, was undeniable. Again, to know good and evil
as the effect of partaking of it, implied that the consequence was not a cessation of
existence, or of consciousness; for, if so, how could there be any knowledge? And, if
death in her conception implied merely exclusion from the favor of God and the tree of
life, might she not imagine that the new knowledge acquired, and the elevation to a new
resemblance, or even equality to God himself in this respect, would be more than a
compensation for such losses; especially as the disinterestedness of the divine motives
had been at least called in question by the serpent? Here, no doubt, is a fine web of
sophistry, woven by the excited fancy in an instant of time.
It is easy to say the knowledge of good and evil was not a physical effect of eating of
the fruit; that the obtaining of this knowledge by partaking of it was an evil, and not a
good in itself and in its consequences, as it was the origin of an evil conscience, which is
in itself an unspeakable ill, and attended with the forfeiture of the divine favor, and of
the tree of life, and with the endurance of all the positive misery which such a condition
involves; and that the command of God was founded on the clearest right - that of
creation - occasioned by the immediate necessity of defining the rights of man, and
prompted by disinterested benevolence toward His intelligent creatures, whom He was
framing for such intellectual and moral perfection, as was by them attainable. It is easy
to cry out, How unreasonable was the conduct of the primeval pair! Let us not forget that
any sin is unreasonable, unaccountable, essentially mysterious. In fact, if it were wholly
reasonable, it would no longer be sin. Only a moment before, the woman had declared
that God had said, “Of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, ye shall not eat.”
Yet she now sees, and her head is so full of it that she can think of nothing else, that the
tree is good for food and pleasant to the eyes, - as if there were no other good and
pleasant trees in the garden, and, as she fancies, desirable to make one wise, like God; as
if there were no other way to this wisdom but an unlawful one, and no other likeness to
God but a stolen likeness - and therefore takes of the fruit and eats, and gives to her
husband, and he eats! The present desire is without any necessity gratified by an act
136

137. known to be wrong, at the risk of all the consequences of disobedience! Such is sin.
CLARKE, "The tree was good for food -
1. The fruit appeared to be wholesome and nutritive. And that it was pleasant to the
eyes.
2. The beauty of the fruit tended to whet and increase appetite. And a tree to be
desired to make one wise, which was,
3. An additional motive to please the palate.
From these three sources all natural and moral evil sprang: they are exactly what the
apostle calls the desire of the flesh; the tree was good for food: the desire of the eye; it
was pleasant to the sight: and the pride of life; it was a tree to be desired to make one
wise. God had undoubtedly created our first parents not only very wise and intelligent,
but also with a great capacity and suitable propensity to increase in knowledge. Those
who think that Adam was created so perfect as to preclude the possibility of his increase
in knowledge, have taken a very false view of the subject. We shall certainly be convinced
that our first parents were in a state of sufficient perfection when we consider,
1. That they were endued with a vast capacity to obtain knowledge.
2. That all the means of information were within their reach.
3. That there was no hindrance to the most direct conception of occurring truth.
4. That all the objects of knowledge, whether natural or moral, were ever at hand.
5. That they had the strongest propensity to know; and,
6. The greatest pleasure in knowing.
To have God and nature continually open to the view of the soul; and to have a soul
capable of viewing both, and fathoming endlessly their unbounded glories and
excellences, without hindrance or difficulty; what a state of perfection! what a
consummation of bliss! This was undoubtedly the state and condition of our first
parents; even the present ruins of the state are incontestable evidences of its primitive
excellence. We see at once how transgression came; it was natural for them to desire to
be increasingly wise. God had implanted this desire in their minds; but he showed them
that this desire should be gratified in a certain way; that prudence and judgment should
always regulate it; that they should carefully examine what God had opened to their
view; and should not pry into what he chose to conceal. He alone who knows all things
knows how much knowledge the soul needs to its perfection and increasing happiness,
in what subjects this may be legitimately sought, and where the mind may make
excursions and discoveries to its prejudice and ruin. There are doubtless many subjects
which angels are capable of knowing, and which God chooses to conceal even from them,
because that knowledge would tend neither to their perfection nor happiness. Of every
attainment and object of pursuit it may be said, in the words of an ancient poet, who
conceived correctly on the subject, and expressed his thoughts with perspicuity and
energy: -
Est modus in rebus: sunt certi denique fines,
Quos ulta citraque nequit consistere rectum.
137

138. Hor. Sat., lib. i., Sat. 1., ver. 106.
“There is a rule for all things; there are in fine fixed and stated limits, on either side of
which righteousness cannot be found.” On the line of duty alone we must walk.
Such limits God certainly assigned from the beginning: Thou shalt come up to this;
thou shalt not pass it. And as he assigned the limits, so he assigned the means. It is
lawful for thee to acquire knowledge in this way; it is unlawful to seek it in that. And had
he not a right to do so? And would his creation have been perfect without it?
GILL, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,.... She being
near the tree, and perhaps just at it when the serpent first attacked her; wherefore
looking more wishfully at it, she could discern nothing in the fruit of the tree which
showed it to be bad, and unfit to be eaten, or why it should be forbidden for food; but, on
the contrary, had a most promising aspect to be very delicious, nourishing and salutary,
as any other fruit in the garden:
and that it was pleasant to the eyes; of a beautiful colour, and very inviting to the
taste:
and a tree to be desired to make one wise; which above all was the most engaging,
and was the most prevailing motive to influence her to eat of it, an eager desire of more
wisdom and knowledge; though there was nothing she could see in the tree, and the fruit
of it, which promised this; only she perceived in her mind, by the discourse she had with
the serpent, and by what he had told her, and she believed, that this would be the
consequence of eating this fruit, which was very desirable, and she concluded within
herself that so it would be:
she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; she took it off of the tree, and not only
tasted of it, but ate of it; what quantity cannot be said, enough to break the divine law,
and to incur the divine displeasure: so Sanchoniatho says (l), that Aeon (the same with
Eve) found the way of taking food from trees:
and gave also to her husband with her; that he might eat as well as she, and
partake of the same benefits and advantages she hoped to reap from hence; for no doubt
it was of good will, and not ill will, that she gave it to him; and when she offered it to
him, it is highly probable she made use of arguments with him, and pressed him hard to
it, telling him what delicious food it was, as well as how useful it would be to him and
her. The Jews infer from hence, that Adam was with her all the while, and heard the
discourse between the serpent and her, yet did not interpose nor dissuade his wife from
eating the fruit, and being prevailed upon by the arguments used; or however through a
strong affection for his wife, that she might not die alone, he did as she had done:
and he did eat; on which an emphasis may be observed, for it was upon his eating the
fate of his posterity depended; for not the woman but the man was the federal head, and
he sinning, all his posterity sinned in him, and died in him; through this offence
judgment came upon all to condemnation; all became sinners, and obnoxious to death,
Rom_5:12. If Eve only had eaten of the forbidden fruit, it could only have personally
138

139. affected herself, and she only would have died; and had this been the case, God would
have formed another woman for Adam, for the propagation of mankind, had he stood;
though since he fell as well as she, it is needless to inquire, and may seem too bold to say
what otherwise would have been the case.
HENRY, "Here we see what Eve's parley with the tempter ended in. Satan, at length,
gains his point, and the strong-hold is taken by his wiles. God tried the obedience of our
first parents by forbidding them the tree of knowledge, and Satan does, as it were, join
issue with God, and in that very thing undertakes to seduce them into a transgression;
and here we find how he prevailed, God permitting it for wise and holy ends.
I. We have here the inducements that moved them to transgress. The woman, being
deceived by the tempter's artful management, was ringleader in the transgression, 1Ti_
2:14. She was first in the fault; and it was the result of her consideration, or rather her
inconsideration. 1. She saw no harm in this tree, more than in any of the rest. It was said
of all the rest of the fruit-trees with which the garden of Eden was planted that they were
pleasant to the sight, and good for food, Gen_2:9. Now, in her eye, this was like all the
rest. It seemed as good for food as any of them, and she saw nothing in the colour of its
fruit that threatened death or danger; it was as pleasant to the sight as any of them, and
therefore, “What hurt could it do them? Why should this be forbidden them rather than
any of the rest?” Note, When there is thought to be no more harm in forbidden fruit than
in other fruit sin lies at the door, and Satan soon carries the day. Nay, perhaps it seemed
to her to be better for food, more grateful to the taste, and more nourishing to the body,
than any of the rest, and to her eye it was more pleasant than any. We are often betrayed
into snares by an inordinate desire to have our senses gratified. Or, if it had nothing in it
more inviting than the rest, yet it was the more coveted because it was prohibited.
Whether it was so in her or not, we find that in us (that is, in our flesh, in our corrupt
nature) there dwells a strange spirit of contradiction. Nitimur in vetitum - We desire
what is prohibited. 2. She imagined more virtue in this tree than in any of the rest, that
it was a tree not only not to be dreaded, but to be desired to make one wise, and therein
excelling all the rest of the trees. This she saw, that is, she perceived and understood it
by what the devil had said to her; and some think that she saw the serpent eat of that
tree, and that he told her he thereby had gained the faculties of speech and reason,
whence she inferred its power to make one wise, and was persuaded to think, “If it made
a brute creature rational, why might it not make a rational creature divine?” See here
how the desire of unnecessary knowledge, under the mistaken notion of wisdom, proves
hurtful and destructive to many. Our first parents, who knew so much, did not know
this - that they knew enough. Christ is a tree to be desired to make one wise, Col_2:3;
1Co_1:30. Let us, by faith, feed upon him, that we may be wise to salvation. In the
heavenly paradise, the tree of knowledge will not be a forbidden tree; for there we shall
know as we are known. Let us therefore long to be there, and, in the mean time, not
exercise ourselves in things too high or too deep for us, nor covet to be wise above what
is written.
II. The steps of the transgression, not steps upward, but downward towards the pit -
steps that take hold on hell. 1. She saw. She should have turned away her eyes from
beholding vanity; but she enters into temptation, by looking with pleasure on the
forbidden fruit. Observe, A great deal of sin comes in at the eyes. At these windows Satan
throws in those fiery darts which pierce and poison the heart. The eye affects the heart
with guilt as well as grief. Let us therefore, with holy Job, make a covenant with our eyes,
139

140. not to look on that which we are in danger of lusting after, Pro_23:31; Mat_5:28. Let the
fear of God be always to us for a covering of the eyes, Gen_20:16. 2. She took. It was her
own act and deed. The devil did not take it, and put it into her mouth, whether she
would or no; but she herself took it. Satan may tempt, but he cannot force; may persuade
us to cast ourselves down, but he cannot cast us down, Mat_4:6. Eve's taking was
stealing, like Achan's taking the accursed thing, taking that to which she had no right.
Surely she took it with a trembling hand. 3. She did eat. Perhaps she did not intend,
when she looked, to take, nor, when she took, to eat; but this was the result. Note, The
way of sin is downhill; a man cannot stop himself when he will. The beginning o it is as
the breaking forth of water, to which it is hard to say, “Hitherto thou shalt come and no
further.” Therefore it is our wisdom to suppress the first emotions of sin, and to leave it
off before it be meddled with. Obsta principiis - Nip mischief in the bud. 4. She gave
also to her husband with her. It is probable that he was not with her when she was
tempted (surely, if he had, he would have interposed to prevent the sin), but came to her
when she had eaten, and was prevailed upon by her to eat likewise; for it is easier to
learn that which is bad than to teach that which is good. She gave it to him, persuading
him with the same arguments that the serpent had used with her, adding this to all the
rest, that she herself had eaten of it, and found it so far from being deadly that it was
extremely pleasant and grateful. Stolen waters are sweet. She gave it to him, under
colour of kindness - she would not eat these delicious morsels alone; but really it was the
greatest unkindness she could do him. Or perhaps she gave it to him that, if it should
prove hurtful, he might share with her in the misery, which indeed looks strangely
unkind, and yet may, without difficulty, be supposed to enter into the heart of one that
had eaten forbidden fruit. Note, Those that have themselves done ill are commonly
willing to draw in others to do the same. As was the devil, so was Eve, no sooner a sinner
than a tempter. 5. He did eat, overcome by his wife's importunity. It is needless to ask,
“What would have been the consequence if Eve only had transgressed?” The wisdom of
God, we are sure, would have decided the difficulty, according to equity; but, alas! the
case was not so; Adam also did eat. “And what great harm if he did?” say the corrupt and
carnal reasonings of a vain mind. What harm! Why, this act involved disbelief of God's
word, together with confidence in the devil's, discontent with his present state, pride in
his own merits, and ambition of the honour which comes not from God, envy at God's
perfections, and indulgence of the appetites of the body. In neglecting the tree of life of
which he was allowed to eat, and eating of the tree of knowledge which was forbidden, he
plainly showed a contempt of the favours God had bestowed on him, and a preference
given to those God did not see fit for him. He would be both his own carver and his own
master, would have what he pleased and do what he pleased: his sin was, in one word,
disobedience (Rom_5:19), disobedience to a plain, easy, and express command, which
probably he knew to be a command of trial. He sinned against great knowledge, against
many mercies, against light and love, the clearest light and the dearest love that ever
sinner sinned against. He had no corrupt nature within him to betray him; but had a
freedom of will, not enslaved, and was in his full strength, not weakened or impaired. He
turned aside quickly. Some think he fell the very day on which he was made; but I see
not how to reconcile this with God's pronouncing all very good in the close of the day.
Others suppose he fell on the sabbath day: the better day the worse deed. However, it is
certain that he kept his integrity but a very little while: being in honour, he continued
not. But the greatest aggravation of his sin was that he involved all his posterity in sin
and ruin by it. God having told him that his race should replenish the earth, surely he
could not but know that he stood as a public person, and that his disobedience would be
140

141. fatal to all his seed; and, if so, it was certainly both the greatest treachery and the
greatest cruelty that ever was. The human nature being lodged entirely in our first
parents, henceforward it could not but be transmitted from them under an attainder of
guilt, a stain of dishonour, and an hereditary disease of sin and corruption. And can we
say, then, that Adam's sin had but little harm in it?
JAMISON, "Gen_3:6-9. The Fall.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food — Her imagination
and feelings were completely won; and the fall of Eve was soon followed by that of Adam.
The history of every temptation, and of every sin, is the same; the outward object of
attraction, the inward commotion of mind, the increase and triumph of passionate
desire; ending in the degradation, slavery, and ruin of the soul (Jam_1:15; 1Jo_2:16).
K&D, "The illusive hope of being like God excited a longing for the forbidden fruit.
“The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a pleasure to the eyes,
and to be desired to make one wise (‫יל‬ ִ‫כּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫ה‬ signifies to gain or show discernment or
insight); and she took of its fruit and ate, and gave to her husband by her (who was
present), and he did eat.” As distrust of God's command leads to a disregard of it, so the
longing for a false independence excites a desire for the seeming good that has been
prohibited; and this desire is fostered by the senses, until it brings forth sin. Doubt,
unbelief, and pride were the roots of the sin of our first parents, as they have been of all
the sins of their posterity. The more trifling the object of their sin seems to have been,
the greater and more difficult does the sin itself appear; especially when we consider that
the first men “stood in a more direct relation to God, their Creator, than any other man
has ever done, that their hearts were pure, their discernment clear, their intercourse
with God direct, that they were surrounded by gifts just bestowed by Him, and could not
excuse themselves on the ground of any misunderstanding of the divine prohibition,
which threatened them with the loss of life in the event of disobedience” (Delitzsch). Yet
not only did the woman yield to the seductive wiles of the serpent, but even the man
allowed himself to be tempted by the woman.
PULPIT, "Gen_3:6
And (when) the woman saw. "An impure look, infected with the poison of
concupiscence" (Calvin); cf. Jos_7:21. That the tree was good for food. "The fruit of
this tree may have been neither poisonous nor beautiful, or it may have been both; but
sin has the strange power of investing the object of desire for the time being, whatever
its true character, with a wonderful attraction" (Inglis). And that it (was) pleasant
Literally, a desire (Psa_10:17), a lust (Num_11:4). To the eyes. ἈριστοΜν τοῖς
ὀφθαλμοῖς (LXX.); pulchrum oculis (Vulgate); lust ye unto the eyes (Coverdale); i.e.
stimulating desire through the eyes (cf. 1Jn_2:16). And a tree to be desired to make
(one) wise. ‫יל‬ִ‫כּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ל‬ (from ‫ַל‬‫כ‬ ָ‫—שׂ‬
(1) to look at, to behold; hence
141

142. (2) to be prudent, 1Sa_18:30.
Hiph.,
(1) to look at;
(2) to turn the mind to;
(3) to be or become understanding, Psa_2:10)
being susceptible of two renderings, the clause has been taken to mean "a tree desirable
to look at" (Syriac, Onkelos, Vulgate, Gesenius, Kalisch, Wordsworth), or, more
correctly, as it stands in the English Version, the external loveliness of the tree having
been already stated in the preceding clause (LXX , Aben Ezra, Calvin, Hengstenberg,
Macdonald). This is the third time the charms of the tree are discerned and expressed by
the woman—a significant intimation of how far the Divine interdict had receded from
her consciousness. She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat. Thus consummating
the sin (Jas_1:15). And gave also to her husband. Being desirous, doubtless, of
making him a sharer in her supposed felicity. The first time Adam is styled Eve’s
husband, or man; perhaps designed to indicate the complete perversion by Eve of the
Divine purpose of her marriage with Adam, which was to be a helpmeet for him, and not
his destroyer. With her. An indication that Adam was present throughout the whole
preceding scene (Delitzsch, Wordsworth), which is not likely, else why did he not
restrain Eve? or that he arrived just as the temptation closed (Calvin), which is only a
conjecture; better regarded as a reference to their conjugal oneness (Macdonald). And
he did eat. And so involved himself in the criminality of his already guilty partner; not
simply as being "captivated with her allurements" ("fondly overcome with female
charms"—Milton, Par. Lost,’ Book 10.), which 1Ti_2:14 is supposed to justify’; but
likewise as being "persuaded by Satan’s impostures," which doubtless Eve had related to
him. This much is distinctly implied in those Scriptures which speak of Adam as the
chief transgressor (vide Rom_5:12; 1Co_15:21, 1Co_15:22).
BENSON, "Genesis 3:6. When the woman saw, (or perceived) — But how?
Certainly by believing Satan and disbelieving God. Here we see what her parley
with the tempter ended in; Satan, at length, gains his point; God permitting it for
wise and holy ends. And he gains it: 1st, By injecting unbelief respecting the divine
declaration. 2d, By the lust of the flesh: she saw that the tree was good for food,
agreeable to the taste, and nutritive. 3d, By the lust of the eye, that it was pleasant to
the eye. 4th, By the pride of life, a tree not only not to be dreaded, but to be desired
to make one wise. In a similar way Satan still tempts, and too often prevails: by
unbelief and their own lusts, men, being tempted and drawn away ( εξελκομενος,
drawn out of God, James 1:14) from his fear and love, and obedience to his will, are
enticed, insnared, and overcome.
142

143. She gave also to her husband with her — It is likely he was not with her when she
was tempted; surely if he had been, he would have interposed to prevent the sin; but
he came to her when she had eaten, and was prevailed with, by her, to eat likewise.
She gave it to him; persuading him with the same arguments that the serpent had
used with her; adding this, probably, to the rest, that she herself had eaten of it, and
found it so far from being deadly, that it was extremely pleasant and grateful. And
he did eat — This implied unbelief of God’s word, and confidence in the devil’s;
discontent with his present state and an ambition of the honour which comes not
from God. His sin was disobedience, as St. Paul terms it, Romans 5:19, and that to a
plain, easy, and express command, which he knew to be a command of trial. He sins
against light and love, the clearest light and the dearest love that ever sinner sinned
against. But the greatest aggravation of his sin was, that by it he involved all his
posterity in sin and ruin. He could not but know that he stood as a public person,
and that his disobedience would be fatal to all his seed; and if so, it was certainly
both the greatest treachery and the greatest cruelty that ever was.
CALVIN, "6.And when the woman saw This impure look of Eve, infected with the
poison of concupiscence, was both the messenger and the witness of an impure
heart. She could previously behold the tree with such sincerity, that no desire to eat
of it affected her mind; for the faith she had in the word of God was the best
guardian of her heart, and of all her senses. But now, after the heart had declined
from faith, and from obedience to the word, she corrupted both herself and all her
senses, and depravity was diffused through all parts of her soul as well as her body.
It is, therefore, a sign of impious defection, that the woman now judges the tree to be
good for food, eagerly delights herself in beholding it, and persuades herself that it
is desirable for the sake of acquiring wisdom; whereas before she had passed by it a
hundred times with an unmoved and tranquil look. For now, having shaken off the
bridle, her mind wanders dissolutely and intemperately, drawing the body with it to
the same licentiousness. The word ‫להשכיל‬ (lehaskil,) admits of two explanations:
That the tree was desirable either to be looked upon or to impart prudence. I prefer
the latter sense, as better corresponding with the temptation.
And gave also unto her husband with her From these words, some conjecture that
Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which
is by no means credible. Yet it might be that he soon joined her, and that, even
before the woman tasted the fruit of the tree, she related the conversation held with
the serpent, and entangled him with the same fallacies by which she herself had
143

144. been deceived. Others refer the particle ‫עמה‬ (immah,) “with her,” to the conjugal
bond, which may be received. But because Moses simply relates that he ate the fruit
taken from the hands of his wife, the opinion has been commonly received, that he
was rather captivated with her allurements than persuaded by Satan’s impostures.
(168) For this purpose the declaration of Paul is adduced,
‘Adam was not deceived, but the woman.’
(1 Timothy 2:14.)
But Paul in that place, as he is teaching that the origin of evil was from the woman,
only speaks comparatively. Indeed, it was not only for the sake of complying with
the wishes of his wife, that he transgressed the law laid down for him; but being
drawn by her into fatal ambition, he became partaker of the same defection with
her. And truly Paul elsewhere states that sin came not by the woman, but by Adam
himself, (Romans 5:12.) Then, the reproof which soon afterwards follows ‘Behold,
Adam is as one of us,’ clearly proves that he also foolishly coveted more than was
lawful, and gave greater credit to the flatteries of the devil than to the sacred word
of God.
It is now asked, What was the sin of both of them? The opinion of some of the
ancients, that they were allured by intemperance of appetite, is puerile. For when
there was such an abundance of the choicest fruits what daintiness could there be
about one particular kind? Augustine is more correct, who says, that pride was the
beginning of all evils, and that by pride the human race was ruined. Yet a fuller
definition of the sin may be drawn from the kind of temptation which Moses
describes. For first the woman is led away from the word of God by the wiles of
Satan, through unbelief. (169) Wherefore, the commencement of the ruin by which
the human race was overthrown was a defection from the command of God. But
observe, that men then revolted from God, when, having forsaken his word, they
lent their ears to the falsehoods of Satan. Hence we infer, that God will be seen and
adored in his word; and, therefore, that all reverence for him is shaken off when his
word is despised. A doctrine most useful to be known, for the word of God obtains
its due honor only with few so that they who rush onward with impunity in
contempt of this word, yet arrogate to themselves a chief rank among the
worshippers of God. But as God does not manifest himself to men otherwise than
144

145. through the word, so neither is his majesty maintained, nor does his worship remain
secure among us any longer than while we obey his word. Therefore, unbelief was
the root of defection; just as faith alone unites us to God. Hence flowed ambition
and pride, so that the woman first, and then her husband, desired to exalt
themselves against God. For truly they did exalt themselves against God, when,
honor having been divinely conferred upon them, they not contented with such
excellence, desired to know more than was lawful, in order that they might become
equal with God. Here also monstrous ingratitude betrays itself. They had been made
in the likeness of God; but this seems a small thing unless equality be added. Now, it
is not to be endured that designing and wicked men should labor in vain, as well as
absurdly, to extenuate the sin of Adam and his wife. For apostasy is no light offense,
but detestable wickedness, by which man withdraws himself from the authority of
his Creator, yea, even rejects and denies him. Besides it was not simple apostasy, but
combined with atrocious contumelies and reproaches against God himself. Satan
accuses God of falsehoods of envy, and of malignity, and our first parents subscribe
to a calumny thus vile and execrable. At length, having despised the command of
God, they not only indulge their own lust, but enslave themselves to the devil. If any
one prefers a shorter explanation, we may say unbelief has opened the door to
ambition, but ambition has proved the parent of rebellion, to the end that men,
having cast aside the fear of God, might shake off his yoke. On this account, Paul
teaches use that by the disobedience of Adam sin entered into the world. Let us
imagine that there was nothing worse than the transgression of the command; we
shall not even thus have succeeded far in extenuating the fault of Adam. God,
having both made him free in everything, and appointed him as king of the world,
chose to put his obedience to the proof, in requiring abstinence from one tree alone.
This condition did not please him. Perverse declaimers may plead in excuse, that the
woman was allured by the beauty of the tree, and the man ensnared by the
blandishments of Eve. Yet the milder the authority of God, the less excusable was
their perverseness in rejecting it. But we must search more deeply for the origin and
cause of sin. For never would they have dared to resist God, unless they had first
been incredulous of his word. And nothing allured them to covet the fruit but mad
ambition. So long as they firmly believing in God’s word, freely suffered themselves
to be governed by Him, they had serene and duly regulated affections. For, indeed,
their best restraint was the thoughts which entirely occupied their minds, that God
is just, that nothing is better than to obey his commands and that to be loved by him
is the consummation of a happy life. But after they had given place to Satan’s
blasphemy, they began, like persons fascinated, to lose reason and judgment; yea,
since they were become the slaves of Satan; he held their very senses bound. Still
further, we know that sins are not estimated in the sight of God by the external
145

146. appearance, but by the inward disposition.
Again, it appears to many absurd, that the defection of our first parents is said to
have proved the destruction of the whole race; and, on this accounts they freely
bring an accusation against God. Pelagius, on the other hand, lest, as he falsely
feared, the corruption of human nature should be charged upon God, ventured to
deny original sin. But an error so gross is plainly refuted, not only by solid
testimonies of Scripture, but also by experience itself. The corruption of our nature
was unknown to the philosophers who, in other respects, were sufficiently, and more
than sufficiently, acute. Surely this stupor itself was a signal proof of original sin.
For all who are not utterly blinds perceive that no part of us is sound; that the mind
is smitten with blindness, and infected with innumerable errors; that all the
affections of the heart are full of stubbornness and wickedness; that vile lusts, or
other diseases equally fatal, reign there; and that all the senses burst forth (170)
with many vices. Since, however none but God alone is a proper judge in this cause,
we must acquiesce in the sentence which he has pronounced in the Scriptures. In the
first place, Scripture clearly teaches us that we are born vicious and perverse. The
cavil of Pelagius was frivolous, that sin proceeded from Adam by imitation. For
David, while still enclosed in his mother’s womb, could not be an imitator of Adam,
yet he confesses that he was conceived in sin, (Psalms 51:5.) A fuller proof of this
matter, and a more ample definition of original sin, may be found in the Institutes;
(171) yet here, in a single word, I will attempt to show how far it extends. Whatever
in our nature is vicious — since it is not lawful to ascribe it to God — we justly
reject as sin. (172) But Paul (Romans 3:10) teaches that corruption does not reside
in one part only, but pervades the whole soul, and each of its faculties. Whence it
follows, that they childishly err who regard original sin as consisting only in lust,
and in the inordinate motion of the appetites, whereas it seizes upon the very seat of
reason, and upon the whole heart. To sin is annexed condemnation, (173) or, as Paul
speaks,
‘By man came sin, and by sin, death,’ (Romans 5:12.)
Wherefore he elsewhere pronounces us to be ‘the children of wrath;’ as if he would
subject us to an eternal curse, (Ephesians 2:3.) In short, that we are despoiled of the
excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit, of the light of reason, of justice, and of rectitude,
and are prone to every evil; that we are also lost and condemned, and subjected to
146

147. death, is both our hereditary condition, and, at the same time, a just punishments
which God, in the person of Adam, has indicted on the human race. Now, if any one
should object, that it is unjust for the innocent to bear the punishment of another’s
sin, I answer, whatever gifts God had conferred upon us in the person of Adams he
had the best right to take away, when Adam wickedly fell. Nor is it necessary to
resort to that ancient figment of certain writers, that souls are derived by descent
from our first parents. (174) For the human race has not naturally derived
corruption through its descent frown Adam; but that result is rather to be traced to
the appointment of God, who, as he had adorned the whole nature of mankind with
most excellent endowments in one man, so in the same man he again denuded it. But
now, from the time in which we were corrupted in Adam, we do not bear the
punishment of another’s offense, but are guilty by our own fault.
A question is mooted by some, concerning the time of this fall, or rather ruin. The
opinion has been pretty generally received, that they fell on the day they were
created; and, therefore Augustine writes, that they stood only for six hours. The
conjecture of others, that the temptation was delayed by Satan till the Sabbath, in
order to profane that sacred day, is but weak. And certainly, by instances like these,
all pious persons are admonished sparingly to indulge themselves in doubtful
speculations. As for myself, since I have nothing to assert positively respecting the
time, so I think it may be gathered from the narration of Moses, that they did not
long retain the dignity they had received; for as soon as he has said they were
created, he passes, without the mention of any other thing, to their fall. If Adam had
lived but a moderate space of time with his wife, the blessing of God would not have
been unfruitful in the production of offspring; but Moses intimates that they were
deprived of God’s benefits before they had become accustomed to use them. I
therefore readily subscribe to the exclamation of Augustine, ‘O wretched freewill,
which, while yet entire, had so little stability!’ And, to say no more respecting the
shortness of the time, the admonition of Bernard is worthy of remembrance: ‘Since
we read that a fall so dreadful took place in Paradise, what shall we do on the
dunghill?’ At the same time, we must keep in memory by what pretext they were led
into this delusion so fatal to themselves, and to all their posterity. Plausible was the
adulation of Satan, ‘Ye shall know good and evil;’ but that knowledge was therefore
accursed, because it was sought in preference to the favor of God. Wherefore, unless
we wish, of our own accord, to fasten the same snares upon ourselves, let us learn
entirely to depend upon the sole will of God, whom we acknowledge as the Author
of all good. And, since the Scripture everywhere admonishes us of our nakedness
and poverty, and declares that we may recover in Christ what we have lost in
147

148. Adams let us, renouncing all self-confidence, offer ourselves empty to Christ, that he
may fill us with his own riches.
He scrupled not to eat
Against his better knowledge, not deceived,
But fondly overcome with female charm.
Paradise Lost, Book IX
It can be scarcely necessary to inform the reader, that a controversy of some
magnitude engaged the attention of the learned, on the subject to which Calvin here
alludes; namely, whether the souls of men are, like their bodies, propagated by
descent from Adam, or whether they proceed immediately from God. The supposed
descent of the soul from Adam was said to be ex traduce, by traduction. — Ed.
PETT, "Verse 6
‘So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was a delight to the
eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and
ate, and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.’
The woman clearly did not give way immediately. She contemplated the tree and the
fruit carefully, and no doubt she wrestled with her conscience. How wonderful the
fruit looked, so much to be desired, and how beautiful the tree was, surely
something so beautiful could not cause her any harm? Had not God made them?
And to be made wise in knowing good and evil like God. How wonderful that must
be. She was not aware of Paul’s words to Timothy, ‘flee youthful desires’. For that is
what she should have done. Victory over desires like this is only found through
flight, not by trying to fight them. Had she fled all would have been well. But she
lingered on, and in the end she inevitably gave way. She took of its fruit and ate.
148

149. Of course the man and the woman had a conscience and knew the difference
between right and wrong in a semi-theoretical way (having never experienced evil)
but she saw the snake as offering something more, a God-like knowledge of good
and evil.
But she did worse. She went to her mate and took him with her, for she gave the
fruit to him, and he ate as well. Seemingly he ate because the woman asked him to.
There was no thought for him that it would make him wise like God. He allowed the
woman to be more important to him than God. That is why Paul can say, the
woman was deceived ( 1 Timothy 2:14), but the man was not deceived. He was
flagrantly disobedient because of his wife. How often when we fall we drag others
down with us.
So the one who was ‘a helper suitable for him’ has proved man’s downfall. Perhaps
because she was only a helper she did not consider her privilege and responsibility
as God’s representative on earth. (How easy it is for us to think that we are
unimportant and therefore that what we do ‘doesn’t really matter’). Thus instead of
seeing the tree as a proof of her exalted position she saw it only as a way of getting
satisfaction and status.
We are constantly brought into positions where we too, as God’s representatives on
earth, have to make choices. When something alluring comes before us we need to
‘flee’. That is the only way to fight such things. Otherwise we too will fail, and drag
others down with us. On the other hand, if someone important to us begins to
suggest we disregard the Lordship of God, we need to be stern with them, and if
necessary even be willing to turn away from them. For otherwise we too will fall.
Notice how the temptation is a basis for the words of John in 1 John 2:16. She saw
that it was good for food (the lust of the flesh), a delight to the eyes (the lust of the
eyes), and to be desired to make one wise (the pride of life). Herein lies the root of
most sin.
COFFMAN, ""And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that
149

150. it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desired to make one wise, she took
of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he
did eat."
Davis mistakenly believed that, "Sin, here, is not a breaking of a law."[14] However,
there was the breaking of a law, God's law that they should not eat of that certain
tree; thus, the action here lies clearly within the perimeter of the N.T. definition of
sin as "transgression of the law." The three primary avenues of temptation are also
visible here. The lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life (1 John
2:16) appear here in a manner suggesting the three temptations of Christ (Matthew
4). Another feature of this passage is the greater blame that lay upon Adam for
involving himself and his total posterity in the disaster of Paradise Lost. "Adam was
not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled fell into temptation" (1 Timothy 2:14).
Thus, Adam sinned deliberately with his eyes wide open, whereas Eve was deceived.
WHEDON, " 6. Good for food… pleasant to the eyes… to be desired to make one
wise — Observe the threefold form of this first temptation. First, appeal is made to
the animal appetite; next, to the longing eye; and then to an ambition to become
wise and godlike. Thus, too, the apostle comprehends all generic forms of human
temptation under “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of
life.” 1 John 2:16. It is notable that when this same old serpent attempted the ruin of
the Second Adam he employed the same threefold method of assault. The first, was
based upon his sense of hunger; the second, was a suggestion to exhibit a vain
display at the temple of God; and the third, to make himself a hero-god of the world.
Comp. Matthew 4:1-11. After the failure of the first Adam and the triumph of the
Second in conflict with the devil, we may not plead that we are ignorant of Satan’s
devices.
She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat — So it is that “when lust hath conceived it
bringeth forth sin,” (James 1:15,) and the heart walks after the eyes. Job 31:7.
Her husband with her — This is understood by some to imply that Adam was
present with the woman during her temptation; but such a supposition seems
inconsistent with the narrative, which exhibits Satan and the woman so
prominently, and makes no allusion to the man. Better, therefore, to understand the
‫,עמה‬ with her, of his subsequent partnership with her in transgression. Manifestly
150

151. we have here a very concise record of a most important event. The great facts are
stated, the guile of the tempter is exposed, and the sad result is chronicled. Other
details are not attempted.
LANGE, ". Genesis 3:6. And when the woman saw.—There is truly indicated by the
words, according to Luther’s translation, the lustful looking of the woman; but the
expression presents, besides, the spiritual disturbance that attended it. She beheld it
now with a glance made false by the germinating unbelief, or, so to speak, enchanted
by it. “The satanic promise drove the divine threatening out of her thought. Now she
beholds the tree with other eyes ( Genesis 3:6). Three times is it said how charming
the tree appeared to her.” “The words ‫להשׂכיל‬ ‫העץ‬ ‫ונחמד‬ (to be desired, to make one
wise) are taken by Hofmann for a remark of the narrator.” Delitzsch rightly rejects
this view. First, there is painted, in general, the overpowering charm of the tree. It
appears to her as something from which it would be good to eat; that Isaiah, good
for food. The charm has now, too, its sensual side: The tree Isaiah, moreover,
pleasant to the eye. It appears also to have a special worth in supplying a want; it is
to be desired to make one wise. The sensual desire and the demoniacal spiritual
interest (especially curiosity and pride) unite in leading her to the fall. Tuch, Beck,
Baumgarten, and others, give to ‫יל‬ ִ‫כּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫ה‬ְ‫ל‬ the sense of making wise: it appeared to her
as a means for spiritual advancement. Delitzsch (as also Knobel) disputes this, with
the remark that it docs not agree with the word ‫נהמד‬ (a thing to be desired). But why
should there not be supposed a charm in this property of making wise? Herein is
indicated not only the common power which the charm of novelty has for our
human nature in general, but also its special influence on the female nature.—She
took of the fruit thereof and did eat.—The decisive act of sin ( James 1:15). Knobel:
The heart follows the eyes ( Job 31:7; Ecclesiastes 11:9).—And gave also unto her
husband.—The addition ‫הּ‬ ָ‫מּ‬ ִ‫ﬠ‬ interpreted by Delitzsch as denoting “an actual
presence, instead of mere association.” We hold both suppositions to be wrong. An
actual presence of the husband standing mute in the very scene of the temptation
presents great difficulty; whilst the second view amounts to nothing. If it is taken,
however, as the representation of an eating together, then the language is an
abridgment; after that she had eaten she gave it to her husband to eat thereof after
her, or to eat with her. In the very moments of temptation, as we must take the
account, there comes in the perception of the fact, that she does not die from the
eating; and so it is that the wife’s power of persuasion, and Adam’s sympathy with
her, are not made specially prominent.
CONSTABLE "Having succumbed to temptation Eve disobeyed God"s will.
Whereas the serpent initiated the first two steps, he let Eve"s natural desires (her
flesh) carry her into his trap.
151

152. All three avenues of fleshly temptation are present in Genesis 3:6.
1. She saw that the tree was "good for food" (the lust of the flesh: the desire to do
something contrary to God"s will, i.e, eat the tasty fruit).
2. It was a "delight to the eyes" (the lust of the eyes: the desire to have something
apart from God"s will, i.e, possess the beautiful fruit).
3. It was "desirable to make one wise" (the pride of life: the desire to be something
apart from God"s will, i.e, as wise as God, or gods). It was the quest for wisdom that
led Eve to disobey God. [Note: Sailhamer, " Genesis ," p51.]
Eve saw, coveted, and took the fruit (cf. Joshua 7:21; 2 Samuel 11:2-4). We perceive,
then lust, then act.
"We have already noted ... how the scenes themselves are arranged in a concentric
palistrophic pattern (ABCDCBA). Within this central scene, the same device is
used; the midpoint "and he ate" employs the key verb of this tale-"eat." On either
side we have the woman"s hopes of eating, "good to eat," "delight to the eyes,"
"giving insight," balanced by its effects, "eyes opened," "knowing they were nude,"
"hiding in the trees." These contrasts are deliberately drawn." [Note: Wenham,
p75.]
"The proposition that an adult can gaze at anything is ludicrous and naive, for
gazing is too often followed by desiring and sinning." [Note: Davis, p90. Cf9:20-27.]
In view of Jesus" statement that a lustful look is as sinful as an overt act of sin
( Matthew 5:27-28), did Eve commit the first sin when she desired the forbidden
fruit? Sinful desires are sinful, but temptations are not sins until we respond by
152

153. giving in to them. Eve did this when she ate the fruit. Until she did that, she was
only experiencing temptation.
"Here is the essence of covetousness. It is the attitude that says I need something I
do not now have in order to be happy." [Note: Hamilton, p190.]
"What Adam and Eve sought from the tree of knowledge was not philosophical or
scientific knowledge desired by the Greeks, but practical knowledge that would give
them blessing and fulfillment." [Note: K. Armstrong, In the Beginning, p27.]
Ignorance or disregard of God"s word makes one very vulnerable to temptation
( Psalm 119:11). These conditions produce distrust, dissatisfaction, and finally
disobedience. Failure to appreciate God"s goodness leads to distrust of His
goodness. God"s prohibitions as well as His provisions are for our good.
"The root of sin should be understood. The foundation of all sin lies in man"s desire
of self-assertion and his determination to be independent of God. Adam and Eve
chafed under the restriction laid upon them by the command of God, and it was in
opposition to this that they asserted themselves, and thereby fell. Man does not like
to be dependent upon another, and subject to commands upon another, and subject
to commands from without. He desires to go his own way, to be his own master; and
as a consequence he sins, and becomes "lord of himself, that heritage of woe.""
[Note: Thomas, p49. Cf. Waltke, Genesis , p103.]
God has always asked people to believe and trust His word that His will for us will
result in our blessing. However, Satan has always urged us to have experiences that
will convince us that we can obtain even greater blessings. He says, "Try it; you"ll
like it!" But God says, "Trust me, and you"ll live." Satan"s appeal to get us to
experience something to assure ourselves of its goodness directly contradicts God"s
will for us. It is the way of sight rather than the way of faith.
153

154. Adam chose to obey his wife rather than God (cf. Genesis 3:17).
PULPIT, "Gen_3:6
And (when) the woman saw. "An impure look, infected with the poison of
concupiscence" (Calvin); cf. Jos_7:21. That the tree was good for food. "The fruit of
this tree may have been neither poisonous nor beautiful, or it may have been both; but
sin has the strange power of investing the object of desire for the time being, whatever
its true character, with a wonderful attraction" (Inglis). And that it (was) pleasant
Literally, a desire (Psa_10:17), a lust (Num_11:4). To the eyes. ἈριστοΜν τοῖς
ὀφθαλμοῖς (LXX.); pulchrum oculis (Vulgate); lust ye unto the eyes (Coverdale); i.e.
stimulating desire through the eyes (cf. 1Jn_2:16). And a tree to be desired to make
(one) wise. ‫יל‬ִ‫כּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ל‬ (from ‫ַל‬‫כ‬ ָ‫—שׂ‬
(1) to look at, to behold; hence
(2) to be prudent, 1Sa_18:30.
Hiph.,
(1) to look at;
(2) to turn the mind to;
(3) to be or become understanding, Psa_2:10)
being susceptible of two renderings, the clause has been taken to mean "a tree desirable
to look at" (Syriac, Onkelos, Vulgate, Gesenius, Kalisch, Wordsworth), or, more
correctly, as it stands in the English Version, the external loveliness of the tree having
been already stated in the preceding clause (LXX , Aben Ezra, Calvin, Hengstenberg,
Macdonald). This is the third time the charms of the tree are discerned and expressed by
the woman—a significant intimation of how far the Divine interdict had receded from
her consciousness. She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat. Thus consummating
the sin (Jas_1:15). And gave also to her husband. Being desirous, doubtless, of
making him a sharer in her supposed felicity. The first time Adam is styled Eve’s
husband, or man; perhaps designed to indicate the complete perversion by Eve of the
Divine purpose of her marriage with Adam, which was to be a helpmeet for him, and not
his destroyer. With her. An indication that Adam was present throughout the whole
preceding scene (Delitzsch, Wordsworth), which is not likely, else why did he not
restrain Eve? or that he arrived just as the temptation closed (Calvin), which is only a
conjecture; better regarded as a reference to their conjugal oneness (Macdonald). And
he did eat. And so involved himself in the criminality of his already guilty partner; not
simply as being "captivated with her allurements" ("fondly overcome with female
charms"—Milton, Par. Lost,’ Book 10.), which 1Ti_2:14 is supposed to justify’; but
likewise as being "persuaded by Satan’s impostures," which doubtless Eve had related to
him. This much is distinctly implied in those Scriptures which speak of Adam as the
chief transgressor (vide Rom_5:12; 1Co_15:21, 1Co_15:22).
154

155. PULPIT, "Gen_3:6
The first sin.
I. THE TEMPTATION.
1. The fact. That sin is possible even in pure beings without the intervention of
solicitation, at least ab extra, must be held to be the doctrine of Scripture (vide Jas_1:14
and Jud Jas_1:6). Hence man might have fallen, even had he not been tempted. The fact,
however, that he was tempted is explicitly revealed; a circumstance which notes an
important distinction between his sin and that of the angels. Does this explain Heb_2:16
and 2Pe_2:4?
2. The author. Though ostensibly a serpent, in reality the devil. Besides being expressly
stated in the inspired word, it is involved in the very terms of the Mosaic narrative. If the
reptile possessed the malice to conceive and the skill to manage such an assault upon the
first pair as this book describes, then clearly it was not a serpent, but a devil. It is
doubtful if all man’s temptations come from the devil, but many, perhaps most, do. He is
pre-eminently styled "the tempter" (Mat_4:3; 1Th_3:5). From the days of Adam
downward he has been engaged in attempting to seduce the saints; e.g. David (1Ch_
21:1); Job (Gen_2:7); Christ (Luk_4:13); Ananias and Sapphira (Act_5:3). At the
present moment he is laboring to deceive the whole world (Rev_12:9).
3. The instrument. The serpent, which was a proof of Satan’s skill, that particular reptile
being specially adapted for his purpose (N.B.—The devil can always find a tool adapted
to the work he has in hand); and is an indication of our danger, it being only a reptile,
and therefore little likely to be suspected as a source of peril; whence we may gather that
there is no quarter so unexpected, and no instrument so feeble, that out of the one and
through the other temptation may not leap upon us.
4. The nature. This was threefold. A temptation
(1) to suspect the Divine goodness (verse 1);
(2) to disbelieve the Divine word (verse 4);
(3) to emulate the Divine greatness (verse 5).
(Cf. the three assaults upon the Second Adam (Mat_4:1; Luk_4:1), which were
essentially the same.) The first aimed a death-blow at their filial confidence in God; the
second removed the fear of punishment from their path; the third fired their souls with
the lust of ambition. Separation from God, disobedience of God, opposition to or rivalry
with God—the devil’s scala coeli.
5. The subtlety. That great art should have been displayed in the conduct of this
campaign against the citadel of human holiness is what might have been expected from
such a general. In these respects it was evinced.
(1) The assault was commenced before use and practice had confirmed the first pair in
obedience.
155

156. (2) He began with the woman, who was the weaker of the two.
(3) He attacked her when alone—the best time for temptation. Beware of solitude.
(4) He selected the best ground for delivering his first blow—when the woman was in
full sight of the tree.
(5) He was extremely cautious so to moderate his onset as not to excite alarm—
beginning with a casual inquiry.
(6) He advanced by degrees as he obtained a footing in the woman’s heart.
(7) He never revealed the proper scope and drift of his observations, but always couched
them in obscure and ambiguous language.
(8) He never seemed to lead, but always to be following the woman’s thought.
(9) In all he said and did he pretended to be seeking his victim’s good.
(10) He chose the best of all possible baits to captivate the woman’s fancy and excite her
cupidity—the hope of gaining knowledge.
II. THE TRANSGRESSION.
1. Its guilty perpetrators. Not the serpent or the devil, but the first pair. The devil may
tempt man to sin, but he cannot sin for man. A creature may be the unconscious
instrument of leading man aside from the path of virtue, but it cannot possibly compel
man to go astray. Men are prone to blame other things and persons for their sins, when
the true criminals are themselves.
2. Its impelling motive. No temptation, however skillfully planned or powerfully applied,
can succeed until it finds a footing in the nature that is tempted. Unless the devil’s logic
and chicanery had produced the effect described in verse 6, it is more than probable that
Eve would have stood. But first it wrought a change upon herself, and then it
transformed the tree. First it created the need for sinful motives, and then it supplied
them. So works temptation still. As with Eve, so with us. Sinful motives are
(1) demanded by the heart;
(2) supplied by the evil which the heart contemplates; and
(3) are generally as weak and insufficient as Eve’s.
3. Its essential wickedness, as consisting of
(1) unbelief, revealing itself in disobedience;
(2) selfishness, making self the center of all things;
(3) desire, love of the world, gratification of the senses,
the fundamental elements in all sin, corresponding to the three fundamental elements of
man’s being and consciousness—spirit, soul, body (cf. Auberlen’s ’ Divine Revelation,’
Part I; § 3, Gen_9:1-29.).
156

157. 4. Its sad results.
(1) A discovery of sin. "Their eyes were opened," as the devil said, and as he meant. They
felt that they had fallen, and that they had lost their purity. It is impossible to sin and not
to have this knowledge and feel this loss.
(2) A consciousness of guilt. "They knew that they were naked." Sin reports itself
quickly to the conscience, and conscience quickly discovers to the guilty soul its true
position as an unprotected culprit before the bar of God.
(3) A sense of shame, which impelled them to seek a covering for their persons. "They
sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves girdles." A picture of men’s fruitless
efforts to find a covering for their guilty souls.
Lessons:—
1. The responsibility of man.
2. The duty of guarding against temptation.
3. The contagious character of moral evil.
4. The havoc wrought by a single sin.
CONSTABLE, "The Fall3:6-8
In this section the relationship that God had established with Prayer of Manasseh ,
which is the focus of the creation story, is broken. We can gain great insight into human
nature from this story. Adam and Eve"s behavior as recorded here has been repeated by
every one of their descendants.
"It is hardly too much to say that this chapter is the pivot of the Bible . . . . With the
exception of the fact of Creation, we have here the record of the most important and far-
reaching event in the world"s history-the entrance of sin." [Note: Thomas, p46.]
". . . Genesis does not explain the origins of evil; rather, the biblical account, if anything,
says where evil does not have its source. Evil was not inherent in man nor can it be said
that sin was the consequence of divine entrapment. The tempter stands outside the
human pair and stands opposed to God"s word." [Note: Mathews, p226.]
COKE, "Genesis 3:6. Saw that the tree was good for food, &c.— It is not easy to
determine how the woman could discover this, unless by supposing, as we have done in
a note above, that she saw the serpent eat of it, and that without prejudice, nay, with
great advantage to him, raised, as he seemed, by means of this good food, from the
animal to the rational nature: well might she therefore conclude, that by the same means
157

158. she should be raised from the rational to the divine nature. Thus pride, as the tempter
wished, stole into her heart; and with pride, animal appetite co-operated: she saw it
pleasant to the eyes, which joined to an affectation of wisdom, perfected her ruin: and
she did, what we see done every day, give to her passions power over her reason;
distrusted God, and trusted herself: eat and was undone, and soon drew her husband
into the same fatal error. "Reason is quickly deceived," says Saurin, "when the senses
have been seduced: it was already yielding to the temptation to hearken so long to the
tempter." Vain are all conjectures respecting the manner in which she seduced her
husband. The text only tells us that she did so: but considering their situation, there can
be no wonder that the man was willing to experience the same lot with his offending, but
beloved companion and wife.
The phrase with her, to her husband with her, seems only to express, that she gave to her
husband as well as took herself. The whole transaction shews that Adam was absent, but
she came to him and gave him of the fruit, and he eat of it with her, or as she had done.
In whatever view we consider the crime of Eve, it appears enormous. Her disobedience
to what God had so expressly enjoined is an inexcusable fault. Her wish to become equal
to God is perhaps even still more terrible. Pride is the source of all these crimes: it
produces blindness of mind, and haughtiness of heart, curiosity, luxury, and
disobedience.
It may throw light on this transaction to consider what and how HE resisted, who, in the
wilderness, foiled this original tempter, and regained what the first man lost.
REFLECTIONS.— 1. The woman is singled out for the snare. Satan knew that of the two
she was the weaker, not only in body but in mind. Thus he still tempts: he knows our
weak side, whatever it may be, and usually there begins his attacks. 2. The woman was
alone. She is not the only woman who hath been thus undone. 'Tis safest for the wife to
be near her husband's side. 3. She was near the tree, perhaps gazing on it: it is dangerous
to be in the way of evil; they who would not eat of the forbidden fruit, must not approach
the forbidden tree.
The 2nd and 3rd verses contain her answer to the question of the tempter. It was plain
and full. She was not ignorant of the command; nay, rather adds to it: they must not only
not eat, but not touch it. O, it is ever bad meddling with edged tools! Nor was the
threatening concealed, though here she hesitates, and rather diminishes its awful
import.
Observe, 1. How inexcusable she was: she fully knew the will of God: and sin against
light and knowledge hath peculiar aggravation. 2. Her weakness to discourse about a
point so dangerous: the very mention should have awakened suspicion, and bid her fly.
Temptations have more than half prevailed, when they can get a hearing. To parley, is
158

159. the prelude to submission.
In the 4th and 5th verses we have the serpent's reply. He no longer seeks to invalidate
the command, but the threatening being faintly urged by her, he boldly denies. Hence we
may observe, 1. Confident assertions readily pass with weak minds, and with those who
are willing to be persuaded; and it is much easier boldly to deny, than clearly to Proverbs
2. The hopes of impunity are the great encouragement to sin, and the support of
impenitence. By these, Satan's kingdom is still upheld. Did a sinner see before him the
wages of sin, and were everlasting burnings once truly believed, the devil would tempt in
vain! I shall have peace, when God hath said, there is no peace, is still the grand lie. 3.
Satan not only promises her peace, but profit; and when most effectually ruining her,
assures her of the greatest advantages. O how often, by pursuing a false and fancied good
in view, do we still lose the portion we actually possessed! Behold his devices! He is still
the same. Thus he continues to deceive with fair speeches and lying promises: thus he
misrepresents the restraints of God's law as severe; and, grievous to think, thus he still
prevails, and the world lieth εν τω πονηρω, under the power and dominion of this
wicked one.
And she did eat, and gave unto her husband, and he did eat! Unhappy souls! thus to give
ear to a lying and seducing spirit, rather than to the God of truth. 1. She looked, and
because she saw the fruit beautiful to the eye, she concluded the serpent in the right, and
that there could be no more harm in this, than in any other tree. O it is often bad judging
by the eye: the most pleasing fruit contains sometimes the deadliest poison. 2. She not
only promised herself pleasure for the taste, but wisdom for her mind. This tree herein
excelled all the rest, and was more desirable; perhaps too, still more, because forbidden.
When sin begins in the desire, restraint only whets the appetite. 3. She boldly plucked
the fruit, perhaps for a nearer view, or by the touch first to assay whether any ill
consequence really would accrue. 4. She did eat; eager to make the last experiment; and
it may be, hoping to surprise her husband with the transforming change she had
experienced, and the superior knowledge she had attained. 5. She gave him also; came to
him with the tempter's power, and, either out of love, wished him to make the trial with
her, and enjoy the pleasure and dignity; or out of malice, lost herself, resolves not to sink
alone. 6. Vanquished by her importunity, and by his affection for her, he joined in the
transgression.
Behold here the usual process of temptation. 1. An outward object presented by the
devil, promising us much pleasure and advantage in the pursuit. 2. The eye caught with
it, and led to gaze upon it. The eye is the great inlet of temptation: those who would
guard their heart, must often veil their eyes. To look upon a woman's beauty is the road
to lust after her; and to fix the greedy eye on gold, is the prelude to covet it. 3. Desire
after it: when temptation has got so far, lust hath conceived, and sin will be the birth. 4.
The gratification of the desire. There is no stopping, if once the unbridled appetite is let
loose. When we first gazed, we thought it should rest there: we then drew nearer, but
resolved to stop. The hand was stretched out to touch, but not to take; till, like the
revolving stone on a declivity, each revolution accelerated its motion, and sin no longer
159

160. could be resisted. 5. We cannot be content to sin alone: those who themselves hearken to
the devil's wiles, quickly turn tempters for him. O how little does many a sinner think of
the dreadful charges which will be brought against him by those souls, to whose sin and
ruin he may have, by his solicitations, some way contributed!
SIMEON, "THE FALL OF MAN
Genesis 3:6-7. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit
thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the
eyes of them both were opened.
THE happiness of our first parents in Paradise must have far exceeded any thing which
we can conceive. Formed in the image of God, they had not a desire or thought contrary
to His holy will. There was no cloud upon their understanding; no undue bias on their
will, nothing inordinate in their affections. With respect to outward comforts, they
possessed all that they could wish. God himself had planted a garden for them, and given
them the whole produce, except one tree, for their support. Above all, they enjoyed the
freest intercourse with their Maker, and conversed with Him as a man converseth with
his friend. But this happiness, alas! was of short continuance: for Satan, who had left his
first estate, and, from being a bright angel before the throne of God, was become an
apostate spirit and a wicked fiend, he, I say, envied their felicity, and sought to reduce
them to the same misery with himself. An opportunity for making his attempt soon
occurred. He saw the woman near the forbidden tree, and at a distance from her
husband. So favourable an occasion was not to be lost. He instantly took possession of a
serpent; which being confessedly the most subtle of all animals, was least likely to create
suspicion in her mind, and fittest to be employed in so arduous a service. Through the
instrumentality of this creature, Satan entered into conversation with her; and, as we
learn from the history before us, succeeded in withdrawing both her and her husband
from their allegiance to God. In the text we have a summary of the fatal tragedy: in it, as
connected with the context, the whole plot is developed, and the awful catastrophe
declared.
That we may have a just view of the conduct of our first parents, we shall consider,
I. Their temptation—
The scope of Satan’s conversation with Eve was to persuade her that she might partake
of the forbidden tree,
160

161. 1. With safety—
[With this view, his first attempt was to raise doubts in her mind respecting the
prohibition. And here his subtilty is very conspicuous; he does not shock her feelings by
any strong assertion; but asks, as it were for information, whether such a prohibition as
he had heard of had been really given. Nevertheless, his mode of putting the question
insinuates, that he could scarcely credit the report; because the imposing of such a
restraint would be contrary to the generosity which God had shewn in other respects,
and to the distinguished love which he had professed to bear towards them.
Now, though he did not so far prevail as to induce her to deny that God had withheld
from her the fruit of that tree, yet he gained much even in this first address: for, he led
her to maintain a conversation with him: he disposed her also to soften the terms in
which the prohibition had been given [Note: God had said, “In the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die:” and she, in reporting it, said,” Ye shall not eat of it or
touch it, lest ye die; “thus converting a most positive threatening of instant and certain
death, into a gentle caution against a possible, or probable, misfortune: “Touch not, for
fear ye die.”]: and though she might intend nothing more than to prevent his
entertaining any hard thoughts of God, she hereby emboldened him to prosecute his
purpose in a more direct and open manner.
Improving the advantage he had already gained, he proceeded to question in direct
terms the grounds of her fears, in relation to the penalty: “Ye shall not surely die.” He
here intimates, that she must be mistaken with respect both to the extent and certainty
of the penalty. God could never threaten “death” for such an offence as that: he could
threaten nothing worse even for the most heinous transgression that could be
committed: how then could he annex that to so small a matter as the eating of a piece of
fruit? At least, if he did put forth his threat, he certainly would never execute it; “Ye shall
not surely die:” it could not be, that a just and good God should ever proceed to such
rigorous measures on so slight an occasion. By this daring assertion, he quite disarmed
her; and persuaded her, that she must have misunderstood the divine declaration, or, at
least, that it never could be carried into effect.]
2. With advantage—
[Finding that Eve did not revolt at his impious assertions, he went on to direct and open
blasphemy. He knew, that to an intelligent and holy being nothing was so desirable as
knowledge: he therefore affirmed, that there was in the fruit of that tree a virtue capable
of wonderfully enlarging her views, so that she and her husband should “become as
gods,” and possess a self-sufficiency and independence suited to that high character. In
confirmation of this, he appeals to God himself; and blasphemously insinuates, that
161

162. God, in withholding the fruit from them, had been actuated by nothing but envy, and a
jealousy, lest they should become as wise and happy as himself.
Such was the temptation with which that “old serpent” assaulted Eve; hoping that, if he
could prevail with her, he might, through her influence, overcome her husband also.]
Happy would it have been, if we could have reported of them, as we can of the second
Adam, that they repelled the Tempter. But, in following the course of their history, we
are constrained to notice,
II. Their sin—
Eve, overpowered by the alluring aspect of the fruit, and the hope of attaining a
knowledge as superior to what she already possessed, as this serpent’s was to that of all
the rest of the creation, ate of the fruit, and prevailed upon her husband to partake with
her [Note: A variety of questions might be asked respecting different parts of this
history; but where God has not been pleased to inform us, we should be contented to be
ignorant: and where no certainty can be attained, we judge it better to pass over matters
in silence, than to launch out into the boundless and unprofitable regions of
conjecture.].
Without inquiring how she prevailed with him, or what would have been the effect if she
alone had fallen, let it suffice to know, that Adam transgressed in eating the forbidden
fruit, and that this was the sin whereby he and all his posterity were ruined. That the
offence may not be thought trivial, let us consider of what malignant qualities it was
composed:
1. What pride!
[Our first parents were endowed with facilities unknown to any other creatures. While,
in common, with all the rest, they possessed a beautifully constructed frame of body,
they had a rational soul also, which assimilated them to God; so that they were a
connecting link between God and the brute-creation, a kind of compound of both.
Moreover, they were constituted lords of this lower world; and all other creatures were
subjected to their dominion. None was above them but God himself. But they chose to
have no superior: they affected to be as gods. What daring presumption! What criminal
ambition! It was time indeed that “their loftiness should be bowed down, and their
haughtiness be made low.”]
162

163. 2. What unbelief!
[God had spoken with a perspicuity which could not admit of misconstruction, and an
energy that precluded doubt. Yet they listen to the suggestions of a wicked fiend, and
believe the lies of Satan in preference to Jehovah’s word. Can any thing be conceived
more insulting to the Majesty of heaven than this? Can an offence be deemed light which
offers such an indignity to the God of truth?]
3. What ingratitude!
[What could God have done more for them than he had done? What could they have, to
augment their felicity? And, if any restraint at all was to be laid upon them for the
purpose of trying their fidelity and obedience, what smaller restraint could be conceived
than the prohibition of one single tree amidst ten thousand? Was one tree too much for
Him to reserve, who had created all the rest for their use? Were they to think much of so
small an act of self-denial, where so much was provided for their indulgence? Were they
to be so unmindful of all which He had done for them, and of all the good things which
He had in store for them, as to refuse Him so small a testimony of their regard?
Amazing! Incredible! that such favours should be so requited!]
4. What rebellion!
[God had an undoubted right to command; and, whatever His injunctions were, they
were bound to obey them. But how do they regard this single, this easy precept? They set
it at nought: they transgress it: they violate it voluntarily, immediately, and without so
much as a shadow of reason. They lose sight of all the considerations of duty, or interest:
they are absorbed in the one thought of personal gratification; and upon that they rush,
without one moment’s concern, how much they may displease their Friend and
Benefactor, their Creator and Governor, their Lord and Judge. Shall not God visit for
such rebellion as this?]
After their transgression, we are naturally led to inquire into,
III. Their recompence—
Satan had told them, that “their eyes should be opened:” but little did they think in what
163

164. sense his words should be verified! “Their eyes were now opened;” but only like the eyes
of the Syrian army when they saw themselves in the heart of an enemy’s country [Note: 2
Kings 6:20.], or those of the rich man when he lifted them up in hell torments. [Note:
Luke 16:23.] They beheld now, what it was their happiness not to know, the
consequences of sin. They beheld,
1. The guilt they had contracted—
[Sin, while yet they were only solicited to commit it, appeared of small malignity: its
present pleasures seemed to overbalance its future pains. But when the bait was
swallowed, how glad would they have been if they had never viewed it with desire, or
ventured to trespass on what they knew to have been forbidden! Now all the
aggravations of their sin would rush into their minds at once, and overwhelm them with
shame. It is true, they could not yet view their conduct with penitence and contrition,
because God had not yet vouchsafed to them the grace of repentance: they could at
present feel little else than self-indignant rage, and self-tormenting despondency: but
their anguish, though not participating the ingenuous feelings of self-lothing and self-
abhorrence, must have been pungent beyond all expression: and they must have seemed
to themselves to be monsters of iniquity.]
2. The misery they had incurred—
[Wherever they cast their eyes, they must now see how awfully they were despoiled. If
they lifted them up to heaven, there they must behold the favour of their God for ever
forfeited. If they cast them around, every thing must remind them of their base
ingratitude; and they would envy the meanest of the brute creation. If they looked
within, O what a sink of iniquity were they now become! The nakedness of their bodies,
which in innocence administered no occasion for shame, now caused them to feel what
need they had of covering, not for their bodies merely, but much more for their souls. If
they thought of their progeny, what pangs must they feel on their account; to have
innumerable generations rise in succession to inherit their depravity, and partake their
doom! If they contemplated the hour of dissolution, how terrible must that appear! to be
consigned, through diseases and death, to their native dust; and to protract a miserable
existence in that world, whither the fallen angels were banished, and from whence there
can be no return! Me-thinks, under the weight of all these considerations, they wept till
they could weep no more [Note: 1 Samuel 30:4.] ; and till their exhausted nature sinking
under the load, they fell asleep through excess of sorrow [Note: Luke 22:45.].]
Infer,
164

165. 1. How deplorable is the state of every unregenerate man!
[Any one who considers the state of our first parents after their fall, may easily conceive
that it was most pitiable. But their case is a just representation of our own. We are
despoiled of the divine image, and filled with all hateful and abominable dispositions: we
are under the displeasure of the Almighty: we have nothing to which we can look
forward in this world, but troubles, disorders, and death; and in the eternal world,
indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish for evermore. Why do we not endeavour
to get our minds suitably affected with this our melancholy condition? Why do we not
see ourselves, as in a glass; and apply to ourselves that commiseration which we are
ready to bestow on our first parents? Alas! “the god of this world hath blinded our
minds:” else we should smite upon our breasts with sorrow and anguish, and implore
without delay the mercy which we so much need.]
2. How astonishing was the grace of God in providing a Saviour for us!
[It is needless to say that our first parents could do nothing to repair the evil which they
had committed. And how far they were from attempting to make reparation for it, we
see, when they fled from God, and cast the blame on others, yea even on God himself,
rather than acknowledge their transgressions before him. But God, for His own great
name sake, interposed, and promised them a Saviour, through whom they, and their
believing posterity, should be restored to his favour. To this gracious promise we owe it,
that we are not all involved in endless and irremediable misery. Let heaven and earth
stand astonished at the goodness of our God! And let all the sinners of mankind testify
their acceptance of his proffered mercy, by fleeing for refuge to the hope set before
them.]
3. How vigilant should we all be against the devices of Satan!
[He who “beguiled Eve under the form of a serpent,” can assume any shape, for the
purpose of deceiving us. He is sometimes “transformed into an angel of light,” so that we
may be ready to follow his advice, as if he were a messenger from heaven. But we may
easily distinguish his footsteps, if only we attend to the following inquiries:—Does he
lessen in our eyes the sinfulness of sin? Does he weaken our apprehensions of its
danger? Does he persuade us to that which is forbidden? Would he make us think lightly
of that which is threatened? Does he stimulate our desires after evil by any
considerations of the pleasure or the profit that shall attend it? Does he calumniate God
to us, as though He were unfriendly, oppressive, or severe? If our temptations be
accompanied with any of these things, we may know assuredly that “the enemy hath
done this,” and that he is seeking our destruction. Let us then be on our guard against
him. Let us watch and pray that we enter not into temptation. However remote we may
imagine ourselves to be from the love of evil, let us not think ourselves secure: for if
165

166. Satan vanquished our first parents under all the advantages they enjoyed, he will
certainly overcome us, unless “we resist him,” “strong in the Lord, and in the power of
his might.”]
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and
they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig
leaves together and made coverings for
themselves.
BARNES, "Gen_3:7
Their eyes were opened. - Certain immediate effects of the act are here stated. This
cannot mean literally that they were blind up to this moment; for Adam, no doubt, saw
the tree in the garden concerning which he received a command, the animals which he
named, and the woman whom he recognized as bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh.
And of the woman it is affirmed that she saw that the tree possessed certain qualities,
one of which at least was conspicuous to the eye.
It must therefore mean that a new aspect was presented by things on the commission
of the first offence. As soon as the transgression is actually over, the sense of the
wrongfulness of the act rushes on the mind. The displeasure of the great Being whose
command has been disobeyed, the irretrievable loss which follows sin, the shame of
being looked upon by the bystanders as a guilty thing, crowd upon the view. All nature,
every single creature, seems now a witness of their guilt and shame, a condemning
judge, an agent of the divine vengeance. Such is the knowledge of good and evil they
have acquired by their fall from obedience - such is the opening of the eye which has
requited their wrong-doing. What a different scene had once presented itself to the eyes
of innocence! All had been friendly. All nature had bowed in willing obedience to the
lords of the earth. Neither the sense nor the reality of danger had ever disturbed the
tranquility of their pure minds.
They knew that they were naked. - This second effect results immediately from
the consciousness of guilt. They now take notice that their guilty persons are exposed to
view, and they shrink from the glance of every condemning eye. They imagine there is a
witness of their guilt in every creature, and they conceive the abhorrence which it must
166

167. produce in the spectator. In their infantile experience they endeavor to hide their
persons, which they feel to be suffused all over with the blush of shame.
Accordingly, “they sewed the leaves of the fig,” which, we may suppose, they wrapped
round them, and fastened with the girdles they had formed for this purpose. The leaves
of the fig did not constitute the girdles, but the coverings which were fastened on with
these. These leaves were intended to conceal their whole persons from observation. Job
describes himself sewing sackcloth on his skin Job_16:15, and girding on sackcloth 1Ki_
20:32; Lam_2:10; Joe_1:8 is a familiar phrase in Scripture. The primitive sewing was
some sort of tacking together, which is not more particularly described. Every operation
of this sort has a rude beginning. The word “girdle” ‫חגורה‬ chăgôrâh) signifies what girds
on the dress.
Here it becomes us to pause for a moment that we may mark what was the precise
nature of the first transgression. It was plainly disobedience to an express and well-
understood command of the Creator. It matters not what was the nature of the
command, since it could not be other than right and pure. The more simple and easy the
thing enjoined, the more blameworthy the act of disobedience. But what was the
command? Simply to abstain from the fruit of a tree, which was designated the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death. We have seen already that this
command arose from the necessity of immediate legislation, and took its shape as the
only possible one in the circumstances of the case. The special attraction, however,
which the forbidden tree presented, was not its excellence for the appetite or
pleasantness to the eyes, since these were common to all the trees, but its supposed
power of conferring moral knowledge on those who partook of it, and, according to the
serpent’s explanation, making them like God in this important respect.
Hence, the real and obvious motive of the transgressor was the desire of knowledge
and likeness to God. Whatever other lusts, therefore, may have afterwards come out in
the nature of fallen man, it is plain that the lust after likeness to God in moral
discernment was what originally brought forth sin in man. Sexual desire does not appear
here at all. The appetite is excited by other trees as well as this. The desire of knowledge,
and the ambition to be in some sense, divine, are alone special and prevalent as motives.
Hence, it appears that God proved our first parents, not through any of the animal
appetites, but through the higher propensities of their intellectual and moral nature.
Though the occasion, therefore, may at first sight appear trivial, yet it becomes awfully
momentous when we discover that the rectitude of God is impugned, his prerogative
invaded, his command disregarded, his attribute of moral omniscience and all the
imaginable advantages attendant thereupon grasped at with an eager and wilful hand.
To disobey the command of God, imposed according to the dictates of pure reason, and
with the authority of a Creator, from the vain desire of being like him, or independent of
him, in knowledge, can never be anything but an offence of the deepest dye.
We are bound, moreover, to acknowledge and maintain, in the most explicit manner,
the equity of the divine procedure in permitting the temptation of man. The only new
thing here is the intervention of the tempter. It may be imagined that this deciever
should have been kept away. But we must not speak with inconsiderate haste on a matter
of such import. First. We know that God has not used forcible means to prevent the rise
of moral evil among his intelligent creatures. We cannot with reason affirm that he
should have done so; because, to put force on a voluntary act, and yet leave it voluntary,
seems to reason a contradiction in terms, and, therefore, impossible; and unless an act
be voluntary, it cannot have any moral character; and without voluntary action, we
167

168. cannot have a moral agent. Second. We know that God does not immediately annihilate
the evil-doer. Neither can we with reason that he ought to have done so; for, to lay an
adequate penalty on sin, and then put the sinner out of existence, so that this penalty can
never be exacted, seems to reason a moral inconsistency, and, therefore, impossible in a
being of moral perfection.
Third. We know that God does not withdraw the evil-doer from all contact with other
moral agents. Here, again, reason does not constrain us to pronounce that it is expedient
so to do; for the innocent ought, and it is natural that they should, learn a holy
abhorrence of sin, and a salutary dread of its penalty, from these waifs of society, rather
than follow their pernicious example. The wrong-doers are not less under the control of
God than if they were in the most impenetrable dungeon; while they are at the same time
constant beacons to warn others from transgression. He leaves them to fill up the
measure of their inequity, while the intelligent world are cognizant of their guilt, that
they may acknowledge the justice of their punishment, and comprehend the infinite
holiness of the judge of all the earth. Fourth. We know that God tries his moral
creatures. Abraham, Job, and all his saints have to undergo their trial.
He suffered the Lord Jesus Christ, the second Adam, to be tempted. And we must not
expect the first Adam to be exempted from the common ordeal. We can only be assured
that his justice will not allow his moral creatures to be at any disadvantage in the trial.
Accordingly, first, God himself in the first instance speaks to Adam, and gives him an
explicit command not arbitrary in its conception, but arising out of the necessity of the
case. And it is plain that Eve was perfectly aware that he had himself imposed this
prohibition. Second. The tempter is not allowed to appear in his proper person to our
first parents. The serpent only is seen or heard by them - a creature inferior to
themselves, and infinitely beneath the God who made them, and condescended to
communicate with them with the authority of a father. Third. The serpent neither
threatens nor directly persuades; much less is he permitted to use any means of
compulsion: he simply falsities. As the God of truth had spoken to them before, the false
insinuation places them at no disadvantage.
Man has now come to the second step in morals - the practice. Thereby he has come to
the knowledge of good and evil, not merely as an ideal, but as an actual thing. But he has
attained this end, not by standing in, but by falling from, his integrity. If he had stood
the test of this temptation, as he might have done, he would have come by the knowledge
of good and evil equally well, but with a far different result. As he bore the image of God
in his higher nature, he would have resembled him, not only in knowledge, thus
honorably acquired by resisting temptation, but also in moral good, thus realized in his
own act and will. As it is, he has gained some knowledge in an unlawful and disastrous
way; but he has also taken in that moral evil, which is the image, not of God, but of the
tempter, to whom he has yielded.
This result is rendered still more lamentable when we remember that these
transgressors constituted the human race in its primeval source. In them, therefore, the
race actually falls. In their sin the race is become morally corrupt. In their guilt the race
is involved in guilt. Their character and doom descend to their latest posterity.
We have not yet noticed the circumstance of the serpent’s speaking, and of course
speaking rationally. This seems to have awakened no attention in the tempted, and, so
far as we see, to have exercised no influence on their conduct. In their inexperience, it is
probable that they did not yet know what was wonderful, and what not; or, in preciser
terms, what was supernatural, and what natural. But even if they had known enough to
168

169. be surprised at the serpent speaking, it might have told in opposite ways upon their
conclusions. On the one hand, Adam had seen and named the serpent, and found in it
merely a mute, irrational animal, altogether unfit to be his companion, and therefore he
might have been amazed to hear him speak, and, shall we say, led to suspect a prompter.
But, on the other hand, we have no reason to suppose that Adam had any knowledge or
suspicion of any creature but those which had been already brought before him, among
which was the serpent. He could, therefore, have no surmise of any superior creature
who might make use of the serpent for its own purposes. We question whether the
thought could have struck his mind that the serpent had partaken of the forbidden fruit,
and thereby attained to the marvellous elevation from brutality to reason and speech.
But, if it had, it would have made a deep impression on his mind of the wonderful
potency of the tree. These considerations apply with perhaps still greater force to Eve,
who was first deceived.
But to us who have a more extensive experience of the course of nature, the speaking
of a serpent cannot be regarded otherwise than as a preternatural occurrence. It
indicates the presence of a power above the nature of the serpent, possessed, too, by a
being of a malignant nature, and at enmity with God and truth; a spiritual being, who is
able and has been permitted to make use of the organs of the serpent in some way for the
purposes of temptation. But while for a wise and worthy end this alien from God’s home
is permitted to test the moral character of man, he is not allowed to make any
appearance or show any sign of his own presence to man. The serpent alone is visibly
present; the temptation is conducted only through words uttered by bodily organs, and
the tempted show no suspicion of any other tempter. Thus, in the disposal of a just
Providence, man is brought into immediate contact only with an inferior creature, and
therefore has a fair field in the season of trial. And if that creature is possessed by a
being of superior intelligence, this is only displayed in such a manner as to exert no
influence on man but that of suggestive argument and false assertion.
CLARKE, "The eyes of them both were opened - They now had a sufficient
discovery of their sin and folly in disobeying the command of God; they could discern
between good and evil; and what was the consequence? Confusion and shame were
engendered, because innocence was lost and guilt contracted.
Let us review the whole of this melancholy business, the fall and its effects.
1. From the New Testament we learn that Satan associated himself with the creature
which we term the serpent, and the original the nachash, in order to seduce and
ruin mankind; 2Co_11:3 Rev_12:9 Rev_20:2.
2. That this creature was the most suitable to his purpose, as being the most subtle,
the most intelligent and cunning of all beasts of the field, endued with the gift of
speech and reason, and consequently one in which he could best conceal himself.
3. As he knew that while they depended on God they could not be ruined, he
therefore endeavored to seduce them from this dependence.
4. He does this by working on that propensity of the mind to desire an increase of
knowledge, with which God, for the most gracious purposes, had endued it.
5. In order to succeed, he insinuates that God, through motives of envy, had given
169

170. the prohibition - God doth know that in the day ye eat of it, ye shall be like himself,
etc.
6. As their present state of blessedness must be inexpressibly dear to them, he
endeavors to persuade them that they could not fall from this state: Ye shall not
surely die - ye shall not only retain your present blessedness, but it shall be greatly
increased; a temptation by which he has ever since fatally succeeded in the ruin of
multitudes of souls, whom he persuaded that being once right they could never
finally go wrong.
7. As he kept the unlawfulness of the means proposed out of sight, persuaded them
that they could not fall from their steadfastness, assured them that they should
resemble God himself, and consequently be self-sufficient, and totally independent
of him; they listened, and fixing their eye only on the promised good, neglecting
the positive command, and determining to become wise and independent at all
events, they took of the fruit and did eat.
Let us now examine the effects.
1. Their eyes were opened, and they saw they were naked. They saw what they never
saw before, that they were stripped of their excellence; that they had lost their
innocence; and that they had fallen into a state of indigence and danger.
2. Though their eyes were opened to see their nakedness, yet their mind was clouded,
and their judgment confused. They seem to have lost all just notions of honor and
dishonor, of what was shameful and what was praise-worthy. It was dishonorable
and shameful to break the commandment of God; but it was neither to go naked,
when clothing was not necessary.
3. They seem in a moment, not only to have lost sound judgment, but also reflection:
a short time before Adam was so wise that he could name all the creatures brought
before him, according to their respective natures and qualities; now he does not
know the first principle concerning the Divine nature, that it knows all things, and
that it is omnipresent, therefore he endeavors to hide himself among the trees
from the eye of the all-seeing God! How astonishing is this! When the creatures
were brought to him he could name them, because he could discern their
respective natures and properties; when Eve was brought to him he could
immediately tell what she was, who she was, and for what end made, though he
was in a deep sleep when God formed her; and this seems to be particularly noted,
merely to show the depth of his wisdom, and the perfection of his discernment.
But alas! how are the mighty fallen! Compare his present with his past state, his
state before the transgression with his state after it; and say, is this the same
creature? the creature of whom God said, as he said of all his works, He is very
good - just what he should be, a living image of the living God; but now lower than
the beasts of the field?
4. This account could never have been credited had not the indisputable proofs and
evidences of it been continued by uninterrupted succession to the present time. All
the descendants of this first guilty pair resemble their degenerate ancestors, and
copy their conduct. The original mode of transgression is still continued, and the
original sin in consequence. Here are the proofs. 1. Every human being is
endeavoring to obtain knowledge by unlawful means, even while the lawful means
and every available help are at hand. 2. They are endeavoring to be independent,
170

171. and to live without God in the world; hence prayer, the language of dependence on
God’s providence and grace, is neglected, I might say detested, by the great
majority of men. Had I no other proof than this that man is a fallen creature, my
soul would bow to this evidence. 3. Being destitute of the true knowledge of God
they seek privacy for their crimes, not considering that the eye of God is upon
them, being only solicitous to hide them from the eye of man. These are all proofs
in point; but we shall soon meet with additional ones. See on Gen_3:10 (note),
Gen_3:12 (note).
GILL, "And the eyes of them both were opened,.... Not of their bodies, but of
their minds; not so as to have an advanced knowledge of things pleasant, profitable, and
useful, as was promised and expected, but of things very disagreeable and distressing.
Their eyes were opened to see that they had been deceived by the serpent, that they had
broke the commandment of God, and incurred the displeasure of their Creator and kind
benefactor, and had brought ruin and destruction upon themselves; they saw what
blessings and privileges they had lost, communion with God, the dominion of the
creatures, the purity and holiness of their nature, and what miseries they had involved
themselves and their posterity in; how exposed they were to the wrath of God, the curse
of the law, and to eternal death:
and they knew that they were naked; they must know before that they were naked
in their bodies, but they did not perceive that their nakedness was at all uncomely, or
any disadvantage to them; but now they were sensible of both, that whereas they could
look upon it before, and not blush or feel any sinful emotions in them, now they could
not behold it without shame, and without finding evil concupiscence arising in them;
and it being now the cool of the day, and their spirits also seized with fear of the divine
displeasure, they might feel a shivering all over them, and wanted something to cover
them: but more especially this may respect the nakedness of their souls they were now
conscious of, being stripped of that honour and glory, privileges and power, they were
vested with; and having lost the image of God that was upon them, and that robe of
purity, innocence, and righteousness, the rectitude of their nature, with which they were
arrayed, and finding themselves naked and defenceless, and unable to screen themselves
from the curses of a righteous law, and the fury of vindictive justice:
and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons; not to cover
their whole bodies, but only those parts which, ever since, mankind have been ashamed
to expose to public view, and which they studiously conceal from sight: the reason of
which perhaps is, because by those members the original corruption of human nature
has been from the beginning, and still is propagated from parents to children. The leaves
of the fig tree were pitched upon because of the largeness of them; the leaves of the
common fig tree are very large, as everyone knows; and perhaps those in the eastern
countries, and especially in paradise, were much larger than ours. Pliny (m) says of the
fig tree, that its leaf is the largest, and the most shady. Some think the Indian fig tree is
meant; so John Temporarius, as Drusius relates; and so our Milton (n); and according to
Pliny (o), the breadth of the leaves of this tree has the shape of an Amazonian shield.
171

172. And when they are said to sew these together, it is not to be supposed that they sewed
them as tailors sew their garments together, since they cannot be thought to be
furnished with proper instruments, or that they tacked them together with some sort of
thorns, or made use of them instead of needles; but they took the tender branches of the
fig tree with leaves on them, as the word signifies, see Neh_8:15 and twisted them round
their waists; which served for "girdles", as some render the word (p), and the broad
leaves hanging down served for aprons; but these, whatever covering they may be
thought to have been to their bodies, which yet seem to be but a slender one, they could
be none to their souls, or be of any service to hide their sin and shame from the all seeing
eye of God; and of as little use are the poor and mean services of men, or their best
works of righteousness, to shelter them from the wrath of God, and the vengeance of
divine justice.
K&D, "“Then the eyes of them both were opened” (as the serpent had foretold: but
what did they see?), “and they knew that they were naked.” They had lost “that blessed
blindness, the ignorance of innocence, which knows nothing of nakedness” (Ziegler).
The discovery of their nakedness excited shame, which they sought to conceal by an
outward covering. “They sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” The
word ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫תּ‬ always denotes the fig-tree, not the pisang (Musa paradisiaca), nor the
Indian banana, whose leaves are twelve feet long and two feet broad, for there would
have been no necessity to sew them together at all. ‫ת‬ֹ‫ר‬ֹ‫ג‬ֲ‫ח‬, περιζώματα, are aprons, worn
round the hips. It was here that the consciousness of nakedness first suggested the need
of covering, not because the fruit had poisoned the fountain of human life, and through
some inherent quality had immediately corrupted the reproductive powers of the body
(as Hoffmann and Baumgarten suppose), nor because any physical change ensued in
consequence of the fall; but because, with the destruction of the normal connection
between soul and body through sin, the body ceased to be the pure abode of a spirit in
fellowship with God, and in the purely natural state of the body the consciousness was
produced not merely of the distinction of the sexes, but still more of the worthlessness of
the flesh; so that the man and woman stood ashamed in each other's presence, and
endeavoured to hide the disgrace of their spiritual nakedness, by covering those parts of
the body through which the impurities of nature are removed. That the natural feeling of
shame, the origin of which is recorded here, had its root, not in sensuality or any
physical corruption, but in the consciousness of guilt or shame before God, and
consequently that it was the conscience which was really at work, is evident from the fact
that the man and his wife hid themselves from Jehovah God among the trees of the
garden, as soon as they heard the sound of His footsteps. ‫ָה‬ ‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ק‬ (the voice of Jehovah,
Gen_3:8) is not the voice of God speaking or calling, but the sound of God walking, as in
2Sa_5:24; 1Ki_14:6, etc. - In the cool of the day (lit., in the wind of the day), i.e., towards
the evening, when a cooling wind generally blows. The men have broken away from God,
but God will not and cannot leave them alone. He comes to them as one man to another.
This was the earliest form of divine revelation. God conversed with the first man in a
visible shape, as the Father and Instructor of His children. He did not adopt this mode
for the first time after the fall, but employed it as far back as the period when He brought
the beasts to Adam, and gave him the woman to be his wife (Gen_2:19, Gen_2:22). This
human mode of intercourse between man and God is not a mere figure of speech, but a
reality, having its foundation in the nature of humanity, or rather in the fact that man
was created in the image of God, but not in the sense supposed by Jakobi, that “God
172

173. theomorphised when creating man, and man therefore necessarily anthropomorphises
when he thinks of God.” The anthropomorphies of God have their real foundation in the
divine condescension which culminated in the incarnation of God in Christ. They are to
be understood, however, as implying, not that corporeality, or a bodily shape, is an
essential characteristic of God, but that God having given man a bodily shape, when He
created him in His own image, revealed Himself in a manner suited to his bodily senses,
that He might thus preserve him in living communion with Himself.
HENRY, "III. The ultimate consequences of the transgression. Shame and fear seized
the criminals, ipso facto - in the fact itself; these came into the world along with sin, and
still attend it.
1. Shame seized them unseen, Gen_3:7, where observe,
(1.) The strong convictions they fell under, in their own bosoms: The eyes of them both
were opened. It is not meant of the eyes of the body; these were open before, as appears
by this, that the sin came in at them. Jonathan's eyes were enlightened by eating
forbidden fruit (1Sa_14:27), that is, he was refreshed and revived by it; but theirs were
not so. Nor is it meant of any advances made hereby in true knowledge; but the eyes of
their consciences were opened, their hearts smote them for what they had done. Now,
when it was too late, they saw the folly of eating forbidden fruit. They saw the happiness
they had fallen from, and the misery they had fallen into. They saw a loving God
provoked, his grace and favour forfeited, his likeness and image lost, dominion over the
creatures gone. They saw their natures corrupted and depraved, and felt a disorder in
their own spirits of which they had never before been conscious. They saw a law in their
members warring against the law of their minds, and captivating them both to sin and
wrath. They saw, as Balaam, when his eyes were opened (Num_22:31), the angel of the
Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand; and perhaps they saw the
serpent that had abused them insulting over them. The text tells us that they saw that
they were naked, that is, [1.] That they were stripped, deprived of all the honours and
joys of their paradise-state, and exposed to all the miseries that might justly be expected
from an angry God. They were disarmed; their defence had departed from them. [2.]
That they were shamed, for ever shamed, before God and angels. They saw themselves
disrobed of all their ornaments and ensigns of honour, degraded from their dignity and
disgraced in the highest degree, laid open to the contempt and reproach of heaven, and
earth, and their own consciences. Now see here, First, What a dishonour and
disquietment sin is; it makes mischief wherever it is admitted, sets men against
themselves disturbs their peace, and destroys all their comforts. Sooner or later, it will
have shame, either the shame of true repentance, which ends in glory, or that shame and
everlasting contempt to which the wicked shall rise at the great day. Sin is a reproach to
any people. Secondly, What deceiver Satan is. He told our first parents, when he
tempted them, that their eyes should be opened; and so they were, but not as they
understood it; they were opened to their shame and grief, not to their honour nor
advantage. Therefore, when he speaks fair, believe him not. The most malicious
mischievous liars often excuse themselves with this, that they only equivocate; but God
will not so excuse them.
(2.) The sorry shift they made to palliate these convictions, and to arm themselves
against them: They sewed, or platted, fig-leaves together; and to cover, at least, part of
173

174. their shame from one another, they made themselves aprons. See here what is
commonly the folly of those that have sinned. [1.] That they are more solicitous to save
their credit before men than to obtain their pardon from God; they are backward to
confess their sin, and very desirous to conceal it, as much as may be. I have sinned, yet
honour me. [2.] That the excuses men make, to cover and extenuate their sins, are vain
and frivolous. Like the aprons of fig-leaves, they make the matter never the better, but
the worse; the shame, thus hidden, becomes the more shameful. Yet thus we are all apt
to cover our transgressions as Adam, Job_31:33.
K&D, "“Then the eyes of them both were opened” (as the serpent had foretold: but
what did they see?), “and they knew that they were naked.” They had lost “that blessed
blindness, the ignorance of innocence, which knows nothing of nakedness” (Ziegler).
The discovery of their nakedness excited shame, which they sought to conceal by an
outward covering. “They sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” The
word ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫תּ‬ always denotes the fig-tree, not the pisang (Musa paradisiaca), nor the
Indian banana, whose leaves are twelve feet long and two feet broad, for there would
have been no necessity to sew them together at all. ‫ת‬ֹ‫ר‬ֹ‫ג‬ֲ‫ח‬, περιζώματα, are aprons, worn
round the hips. It was here that the consciousness of nakedness first suggested the need
of covering, not because the fruit had poisoned the fountain of human life, and through
some inherent quality had immediately corrupted the reproductive powers of the body
(as Hoffmann and Baumgarten suppose), nor because any physical change ensued in
consequence of the fall; but because, with the destruction of the normal connection
between soul and body through sin, the body ceased to be the pure abode of a spirit in
fellowship with God, and in the purely natural state of the body the consciousness was
produced not merely of the distinction of the sexes, but still more of the worthlessness of
the flesh; so that the man and woman stood ashamed in each other's presence, and
endeavoured to hide the disgrace of their spiritual nakedness, by covering those parts of
the body through which the impurities of nature are removed. That the natural feeling of
shame, the origin of which is recorded here, had its root, not in sensuality or any
physical corruption, but in the consciousness of guilt or shame before God, and
consequently that it was the conscience which was really at work, is evident from the fact
that the man and his wife hid themselves from Jehovah God among the trees of the
garden, as soon as they heard the sound of His footsteps. ‫ָה‬ ‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ק‬ (the voice of Jehovah,
Gen_3:8) is not the voice of God speaking or calling, but the sound of God walking, as in
2Sa_5:24; 1Ki_14:6, etc. - In the cool of the day (lit., in the wind of the day), i.e., towards
the evening, when a cooling wind generally blows. The men have broken away from God,
but God will not and cannot leave them alone. He comes to them as one man to another.
This was the earliest form of divine revelation. God conversed with the first man in a
visible shape, as the Father and Instructor of His children. He did not adopt this mode
for the first time after the fall, but employed it as far back as the period when He brought
the beasts to Adam, and gave him the woman to be his wife (Gen_2:19, Gen_2:22). This
human mode of intercourse between man and God is not a mere figure of speech, but a
reality, having its foundation in the nature of humanity, or rather in the fact that man
was created in the image of God, but not in the sense supposed by Jakobi, that “God
theomorphised when creating man, and man therefore necessarily anthropomorphises
when he thinks of God.” The anthropomorphies of God have their real foundation in the
divine condescension which culminated in the incarnation of God in Christ. They are to
174

175. be understood, however, as implying, not that corporeality, or a bodily shape, is an
essential characteristic of God, but that God having given man a bodily shape, when He
created him in His own image, revealed Himself in a manner suited to his bodily senses,
that He might thus preserve him in living communion with Himself.
CALVIN, "7.And the eyes of them both were opened. It was necessary that the eyes
of Eve should be veiled till her husband also was deceived; but now both, being alike
bound by the chain of an unhappy consent, begin to be sensible of their
wretchedness although they are not yet affected with a deep knowledge of their
fault. They are ashamed of their nakedness, yet, though convinced, they do not
humble themselves before God, nor fear his judgements as they ought; they even do
not cease to resort to evasions. Some progress, however, is made; for whereas
recently they would, like giants, assault heaven by storm; now, confounded with a
sense of their own ignominy, they flee to hiding-places. And truly this opening of the
eyes in our first parents to discern their baseness, clearly proves them to have been
condemned by their own judgment. They are not yet summoned to the tribunal of
God; there is none who accuses them; is not then the sense of shame, which rises
spontaneously, a sure token of guilt? The eloquence, therefore, of the whole world
will avail nothing to deliver those from condemnation, whose own conscience has
become the judge to compel them to confess their fault. It rather becomes us all to
open our eyes, that, being confounded at our own disgrace, we may give to God the
glory which is his due. God created man flexible; and not only permitted, but willed
that he should be tempted. For he both adapted the tongue of the serpent beyond the
ordinary use of nature, to the devil’s purpose, just as if any one should furnish
another with a sword and armor; and then, though the unhappy event was
foreknown by him, he did not apply the remedy, which he had the power to do. On
the other hand, when we come to speak of man, he will be found to have sinned
voluntarily, and to have departed from God, his Maker, by a movement of the mind
not less free than perverse. Nor ought we to call that a light fault, which, refusing
credit to the word of God, exalted itself against him by impious and sacrilegious
emulation, which would not be subject to his authority, and which, finally, both
proudly and perfidiously revolted from him. Therefore, whatever sin and fault there
is in the fall of our first parents remains with themselves; but there is sufficient
reason why the eternal counsel of God preceded it, though that reason is concealed
from us. We see, indeed, some good fruit daily springing from a ruin so dreadful,
inasmuch as God instructs us in humility by our miseries and then more clearly
illustrates his own goodness; for his grace is more abundantly poured forth, through
Christ, upon the world, than it was imparted to Adam in the beginning. Now, if the
reason why this is so lies beyond our reach, it is not wonderful that the secret
175

176. counsel of God should be to us like a labyrinth. (175)
And they sewed fig - leaves together. What I lately said, that they had not been
brought either by true shame or by serious fear to repentance, is now more
manifest. They sew together for themselves girdles of leaves. (176) For what end?
That they may keep God at a distance, as by an invincible barrier! Their sense of
evil, therefore, was only confused, and combined with dulness, as is wont to be the
case in unquiet sleep. There is none of us who does not smile at their folly, since,
certainly, it was ridiculous to place such a covering before the eyes of God. In the
meanwhile, we are all infected with the same disease; for, indeed, we tremble, and
are covered with shame at the first compunctions of conscience; but self-indulgence
soon steals in, and induces us to resort to vain trifles, as if it were an easy thing to
delude God. Therefore unless conscience be more closely pressed there is no shadow
of excuse too faint and fleeting to obtain our acquiescence; and even if there be no
pretext whatever, we still make pleasures for ourselves, and, by an oblivion of three
days’ duration, we imagine that we are well covered. (177) In short, the cold and
faint (178) knowledge of sin, which is inherent in the minds of men, is here
described by Moses, in order that they may be rendered inexcusable. (179) Then (as
we have already said) Adam and his wife were yet ignorant of their own vileness,
since with a covering so light they attempted to hide themselves from the presence of
God.
“Quaeritamen potest, si tota natura peccati sordibus infecta est, cur tantum una in
parte corporis deformitas appareat. Neque enim faciem vel pectus operiunt Adam et
Heva: sed tantum pudenda quae vocamus. Hac occasione factum esse arbitror ut
vulgo non aliam vitae corruptelam agnoscerent quam in libidine venerea. Atqui
expendere debebant, non minorem fuisse in oculis et auribus verecundiae causam,
quam in parte genitali, quae peccato nondum foedata erat: quum aures et oculi
inquinassent Adam et Heva, et diabolo quasi arma praebuissent. Sed Deo fuit satis,
extare in corpore humano aliquam pudendam notam, quae nos peccati
commonefaciat.”
BENSON, "Genesis 3:7. The eyes of them both — Of their minds and consciences,
which hitherto had been closed and blinded by the arts of the devil; were opened —
As Satan had promised them, although in a very different sense. Now, when it was
too late, they saw the happiness they had fallen from, and the misery they were
176

177. fallen into. They saw God was provoked, his favour forfeited, and his image lost.
They felt a disorder in their own spirits, of which they had never before been
conscious. They saw a law in their members warring against the law of their minds,
and captivating them both to sin and wrath; they saw that they were naked — That
is, that they were stripped, deprived of all the honours and joys of their paradise
state, and exposed to all the miseries that might justly be expected from an angry
God; laid open to the contempt and reproach of heaven, and earth, and their own
consciences. And they sewed, or platted fig leaves together — And, to cover at least
part of their shame one from another, made themselves aprons — See here what is
commonly the folly of those that have sinned: they are more solicitous to save their
credit before men, than to obtain their pardon from God!
COFFMAN, "CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR SIN
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and
they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons, and they heard the
voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day; and the man and
his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the
garden."
What a tragic failure of Satan's glorying promises! "Like God?" Well, God was
never ashamed, conscious of an intolerable nakedness, fearful, and seeking a place
to hide. How brutally and viciously Satan had betrayed them!
A lot of sexually-related nonsense has been written about this event, but we find full
agreement with Skinner who wrote that:
"A connection between sexual shame and sin is not suggested by this passage, and
is, besides, not true to experience."[15]
"Walking in the garden in the cool of the day ..." The anthropomorphisms of this
passage present no problem. The only way God could communicate with man was
177

178. upon a level that man could understand. Furthermore, the ultimate intention of
God's becoming a man in the person of Jesus Christ was surely inherent in his early
intimacies with his human creation.
TRYING TO HIDE FROM GOD It was impossible, of course, for the sinful couple
to hide from the Creator, but that did not prevent their trying to do so. Men still try
to hide from God by turning away from Bible reading, forsaking worship services,
and by pretending to be so busy that they have no time for thoughts of God. Ahab
tried to hide from God in the battle, but the arrow of God found him anyway. Jonah
tried to flee from the "presence of Jehovah," but the eyes of the Lord were upon the
wide seas, and God found him just the same.
CONSTABLE, "Verse 7-8
The separation that sin produces in man"s relationship with God stands out clearly
in these verses. Their new knowledge that the serpent promised would make them as
God actually taught them that they were no longer even like each other. They were
ashamed of their nakedness and sewed fig leaves together to hide their differences
from each other ( Genesis 3:7). [Note: Sailhamer, " Genesis ," p52.] Perhaps they
chose fig leaves because fig leaves are large and strong.
The "cool" of the day is literally the "wind" of the day. God came to Adam and Eve
in this wind. He came in a wind earlier in Creation ( Genesis 1:2) and later to Job
( Job 38:1), Israel ( Exodus 20:18-21; cf. Deuteronomy 5:25), and Elijah ( 1 Kings
19:11).
"A more complete transformation could not be imagined. The trust of innocence is
replaced by the fear of guilt. The trees that God created for man to look at ( Genesis
2:9) are now his hiding place to prevent God seeing him." [Note: Wenham, p76.]
Genesis 3:7 marks the beginning of the second dispensation, the dispensation of
conscience (or moral responsibility). Adam and Eve had failed in their responsibility
under the dispensation of innocence; they were now sinners. They had rebelled
against a specific command of God ( Genesis 2:16-17), and this rebellion marked a
178

179. transition from theoretical to experiential knowledge of good and evil. Their new
responsibility now became to do all known good, to abstain from all known evil, and
to approach God through blood sacrifice, which anticipated the sacrifice of Christ.
As a period of testing for humanity, the dispensation of conscience ended with the
Flood. However people continued to be morally responsible to God as He added
further revelation of Himself and His will in succeeding ages (cf. Acts 14:14-16;
Romans 2:15; 2 Corinthians 4:2).
Eve did not die at once physically, but she did die at once spiritually. She
experienced alienation in her relationship with God. Death means separation in the
Bible, never annihilation. Sin always results in alienation: theologically (between
God and man), sociologically (between man and man), psychologically (between
man and himself), and ecologically (between man and nature). We might also add,
sexually (between men and women) and maritally (between husbands and wives).
Three kinds of death appear in Scripture: physical-separation of the body and soul
(the material and immaterial parts of the person), spiritual-separation of the person
and God, and eternal-permanent separation of the person and God.
The Apostle Paul wrote that Eve was deceived ( 1 Timothy 2:14). This does not
mean that women are by nature more easily subject to deception than men.
"There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the woman was inferior to the man in
any way or more susceptible to temptation than he was." [Note: Susan Foh, Women
and the Word of God, p63.]
"The tempter addresses himself to the woman, probably not because she is more
open to temptation and prone to sin, for that is hardly the conception of the Old
Testament elsewhere. The reason may have lain in this, that the woman had not
personally received the prohibition from God, as Adam had." [Note: Gerhardus
Vos, Biblical Theology, p45.]
179

180. She may have received God"s word through Adam. Perhaps Satan appealed to Eve
because she was not only under God"s authority but also under her husband"s
authority and, therefore, more inclined to think God was withholding something
from her.
"It is interesting to observe that when this sin is referred to throughout Scripture, it
is not referred to as the sin of Eve-but rather as the sin of Adam! The phrase in
Genesis 3:6, "with her," seems to suggest that Adam was at Eve"s side when she
was tempted by Satan. As God"s theocratic administrator, and as the appointed
head of the family, it was Adam"s responsibility to safeguard Eve and to assure that
she remained in submission to the command of God. But Adam failed in his God-
given responsibility and permitted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit." [Note:
Pentecost, p37.]
Adam, however, was not deceived ( 1 Timothy 2:14). He sinned with his eyes wide
open ( Genesis 3:6 b). Eve"s was a sin of initiative whereas Adam"s was one of
acquiescence. [Note: Hamilton, p191.] Too much aggressiveness by a woman and too
much passivity by a man still are tendencies of the respective sexes. Death "passed
unto all men" ( Romans 5:12) when Adam sinned because Adam, not Eve, was the
head of the human race under God"s administration (cf. Genesis 3:18-23). [Note:
See Jimmy A. Milliken, "The Origin of Death," Mid-American Theological
Journal7:2 (Winter1983):17-22.]
Some commentators have interpreted eating the forbidden fruit as a euphemism for
having sexual intercourse. [Note: E.g, E. A. Speiser, Genesis , p26.] They say that the
original sin was a sexual sin. However the text makes such an interpretation
impossible. Eve sinned first ( Genesis 3:6), she sinned alone ( Genesis 3:6), and God
had previously approved sex ( Genesis 1:28).
"Adam and Eve"s nakedness ( Genesis 2:25) does not idealize nudity but shows why
human beings must wear clothes. With the Fall came a tragic loss of innocence
(together with resulting shame). When people"s minds are enlightened by the
gospel, they understand their moral frailty and practice customs of dress that shield
them against sexual temptation." [Note: Waltke, Genesis , p103.]
180

181. The timeless lesson of these verses is that victory over temptation to violate God"s
good will depends on a thorough knowledge of God"s word and unwavering
confidence in God"s goodness. As Israel faced temptations to depart from God"s
revealed will from the pagans she encountered, this record would have provided a
resource for remaining faithful, as it does for us today. Often these temptations
attract because they promise superior blessing and fulfillment, even divinity.
Therefore, knowing God"s word is extremely important (cf. Deuteronomy 6:5-9;
Deuteronomy 6:13-25; Psalm 119:9-16). Satan tempted Jesus similarly to the way he
tempted Eve. However, Jesus overcame victoriously by accurately using the word of
God to remain faithful to the will of God. True wisdom comes by obeying, not
disobeying, God"s word.
PETT, "Verse 7
‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked,
and they joined fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.’
What a dreadful moment. Having eaten they suddenly became aware of their
puniness, and their inadequacy, and that they could no longer face God because
they were defiled. ‘They knew that they were naked’. It was true that they had
indeed received a form of knowledge, but it was a knowledge of what they had lost,
a knowledge that they could no longer be His representatives, a knowledge that they
no longer enjoyed the approval of God, a knowledge that they lay bare before Him,
a knowledge that they could no longer face Him. They had become aware that they
had forfeited their position totally, aware that all that awaited them was death.
Their response to their nakedness is not said to have had anything to do with sexual
awareness, and the fig leaves were not said to be placed delicately over their private
parts. Rather what they wanted to do was to hide themselves, to cover themselves
totally, for they were afraid of God. ‘They joined fig leaves together’. They had
never had clothes and now they had to make a pathetic attempt to find something
which would cover them. They could not, of course, sew. All they could do was take
the feeble fig leaves and try somehow to join them together into coverings,
something for which the fig leaves were really not suitable.
181

182. What a pass this couple have now come to. From proudly walking with God and
having dominion over their world, they have come to scrabbling around trying
pathetically to tie fig leaves together to make some kind of covering so that they
could hide themselves from God. Truly they have received knowledge, the
knowledge of what good was, and what evil is, the knowledge of the consequences of
sin and disobedience. And what has it produced? Panic and fear.
The idea of nakedness here is that of inadequacy before God, of being seen for what
they are. ‘All things are naked and open before the eyes of Him with Whom we have
to do’ (Hebrews 4:13). We can compare with this how Paul does not want to be
found ‘naked’ before God when he goes to meet Him (2 Corinthians 5:3). Nakedness
was now a thing of shame (compare Isaiah 20:2-4; Ezekiel 16:7; Revelation 3:17).
There is no reason at this stage to equate it with sexual awareness. That will come
later.
COKE, "Genesis 3:7. And the eyes of them both were opened, &c.— They found
what the serpent had asserted to be true, Genesis 3:5 but in a manner far different
from expectation. Their eyes were opened, but not to a view of higher happiness:
they were opened only to a sense of their sin, and consequently of their guilty shame.
The phrase of their eyes being opened, in scripture, not only refers to the actual
opening of the eyes, but also to men's observing or knowing any thing of which they
before were ignorant. See Isaiah 42:7 comp. Acts 26:18. The eyes of them both were
opened, i.e.. light and knowledge came into their minds, discovering to them what
they were utter strangers to before. Le Clerc observes, that it is an elegance no less
in the sacred than in profane writings, to make use of the figure, which rhetoricians
call antonaclasis, whereby they continue the same word or phrase which went
before, though in a quite different sense: and for this reason he supposes that Moses
repeats that their eyes were opened, words which the serpent had used before,
though he meant them in a sense quite different from the former.
They knew that they were naked— See note on Acts 26:25. of chap. 2: Shame
followed hard upon sin: without the latter, the former could never have had being in
the human mind. But no sooner were their minds opened to a consciousness of their
guilt, than they felt all that uneasy anxiety which naturally attends this knowledge.
182

183. Though this nakedness more peculiarly concerns the guilt and shame of their minds,
yet as the body is the seat of the mind, and the index of its affections, therefore the
shame is transferred to the body also, which, while the mind was pure, was
unaffected by any natural appearances; but which, as soon as the mind became
sinful and subject to the dominion of criminal affections, gave, by its nakedness, a
continual admonition of guilt; and therefore, no wonder our first parents were
immediately incited to cover it.
They sewed fig-leaves, &c.— This might be rendered, with more propriety, "and
they joined or folded together the leaves or branches of the fig-tree, and made
themselves girdles; ‫חגרת‬ chegoroth." Some think the Indian fig-tree is here meant,
whose leaves are exceedingly large.
WHEDON, " 7. Knew that they were naked — Here is a stinging irony. Literally,
Opened were the eyes of both of them, and they knew that — naked were they!
Their eyes were opened, indeed, as the serpent had predicted, but his word was like
the lying oracles of the heathen world, which contained a delusive double sense.
What were their eyes opened to know? That they were like God? No; but that they
were naked! Here is a standing type of the vanity, vexation, shame, and confusion of
face into which the glowing assurances of the old serpent always lead.
Aprons — Or girdles, of fig leaves, fastened about the hips.
PULPIT, "Gen_3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened. The fatal deed committed, the promised
results ensued, but not the anticipated blessings.
(1) The eyes of their minds were opened to perceive that they were no longer innocent,
and
(2) the eyes of their bodies to behold that they were not precisely as they had been. And
they knew that they were naked.
(1) Spiritually (cf. Exo_32:25; Eze_16:22; Rev_3:17), and
(2) corporeally, having lost that enswathing light of purity which previously engirt their
bodies (vide Gen_2:25). And they sewed. Literally, fastened or tied by twisting. Fig
leaves. Not the pisang tree (Muss Paradisiaca), whose leaves attain the length of twelve
183

184. feet and the breadth of two (Knobel Bohlen); but the common fig tree (
Ficus Carica), which is aboriginal in Western Asia, especially in Persia, Syria, and Asia
Minor (Kalisch, Keil, Macdonald). Together, and made themselves aprons.
Literally, girdles, περιζωμματα (LXX.), i.e. to wrap about their loins. This sense of
shame which caused them to seek a covering for their nudity was not due to any physical
corruption of the body (Baumgarten), but to the consciousness of guilt with which their
souls were laden, and which impelled them to flee from the presence of their offended
Sovereign.
Traditions of the Fall.
I. ORIENTAL.
1. Babylonian. "There is nothing in the Chaldean fragments indicating a belief in the
garden of Eden or the tree of knowledge; there is only an obscure allusion to a thirst for
knowledge having been a cause of man’s fall" … The details of the temptation are lost in
the cuneiform text, which "opens where the gods are cursing the dragon and the Adam
or man for his transgression." … "The dragon, which, in the Chaldean account, leads
man to sin, is the creature of Tiamat, the living principle of the sea and of chaos, and he
is an embodiment of the spirit of chaos or disorder which was opposed to the deities at
the creation of the world." The dragon is in-eluded in the curse for the fall; and the gods
invoke on the human race all the evils which afflict humanity—family quarrels, tyranny,
the anger of the gods, disappointment, famine, useless prayers, trouble of mind and
body, a tendency to sin.
2. Persian. For a time the first pair, Meschia and Mesehiane, were holy and happy, pure
in word and deed, dwelling in a garden wherein was a tree whose fruit conferred life and
immortality; but eventually Ahriman deceived them, and drew them away from Ormuzd.
Emboldened by his success, the enemy again appeared, anti gave them a fruit, of which
they ate, with the result that, of the hundred blessings which they enjoyed, all
disappeared save one. Falling beneath the power of the evil one, they practiced the
mechanical arts, and subsequently built themselves houses and clothed themselves with
skins. Another form of the legend represents Ahriman as a serpent. So close is the
resemblance of this legend to the Scriptural account, that Rawlinson regards it not as a
primitive tradition, but rather as "an infiltration into the Persian system of religious
ideas belonging properly to the Hebrews".
3. Indian. In the Hindoo mythology the king of the evil demons, "the king of the
serpents," is named Naga, the prince of the Nagis or Nacigs, "in which Sanserit
appellation we plainly trace the Hebrew Nachash." In the Vishnu Purana the first beings
created by Brama are represented as endowed with righteousness and perfect faith, as
free from guilt and filled with perfect wisdom, wherewith they contemplated the glory of
Visham, till after a time they are seduced. In the legends of India the triumph of Krishna
over the great serpent Kali Naga, who had poisoned the waters of the river, but who
himself was ultimately destroyed by Krishna trampling on his head, bears a striking
analogy to the Mosaic story (Kitto’s ’Daily Bible Illustrations’).
II. OCCIDENTAL.
1. The story of Pandora. According to Hesiod the first men lived wifeless and ignorant,
but innocent and happy. Prometheus ("Forethought") having stolen fire from heaven,
184

185. taught its use to mankind. To punish the aspiring mortals, Zeus sent among them
Pandora, a beautiful woman, whom he had instructed Hephaestus to make, and
Aphrodite, Athena, and Hermes had endowed with all seductive charms. Epimetheus
("Afterthought"), the brother of Prometheus, to whom she was presented, accepted her,
and made her his wife. Brought into his house, curiosity prevailed on her to lift the lid of
a closed jar in which the elder brother had with prudent foresight shut up all kinds of ills
and diseases. Forthwith they escaped to torment mankind, which they have done ever
since.
2. The apples of the Hesperides. These golden apples, which were under the
guardianship of the nymphs of the West, were closely watched by a terrible dragon
named Laden, on account of an ancient oracle that a son of the deity would at a certain
time arrive, open a way of access thither, and carry them off. Hercules, having inquired
his way to the garden in which they grew, destroyed the monster and fulfilled the oracle.
3. Apollo and the Pythen. "This Python, ancient legends affirm, was a serpent bred out
of the slime that remained after Deucalion’s deluge, and was worshipped as a god at
Delphi. Eminent authorities derive the name of the monster kern a Hebrew root
signifying to deceive." As the bright god of heaven, to whom everything impure and
unholy is hateful, Apollo, four days after his birth, slew this monster with his arrows.
"What shall we say then to these things? This—that the nations embodied in these
traditions their remembrances of paradise, of the fall, and of the promised salvation".
LANGE, " Genesis 3:7-8. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that
they were naked.—In the relation between the antecedent here and what follows there
evidently lies a terrible irony. The promise of Satan becomes half fulfilled, though,
indeed, in a different sense from what they had supposed: Their eyes were opened; they
had attained to a developed self-consciousness. But all that they had reached in the first
place was to become conscious of their nakedness as now an indecent exposure. It is
here in this first irony, as appearing in the divine treatment of the consequences of sin,
that we get a clear view of that ironical aspect in the divine penal righteousness which
shows itself in the Scripture, and in the whole history of the world (see Psalm 2:4; Acts
4:24; Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p469). Knobel would really regard the new knowledge as a
pure step of progress. “As a consequence of the enjoyment they knew their nakedness,
whereas before, like unconscious, unembarrassed children, they had no thought of their
nakedness, or of their personal contrasts. At once did they perceive that to go naked was
no longer proper for them. They had attained, in consequence, to a moral insight. Shame
entered into men in near cotemporaneity with their knowledge of right and wrong, good
and evil; it belongs to the very beginning of moral cognition and development. This
shame, in its lowest degree, limits itself to the covering of the sexual nakedness.” The
question here, however, is not respecting a moral reform, but a religious deterioration.
The reflection upon their nakedness and its unseemliness becomes, in the light of the
symbolical representation, necessarily known as the first form of the entering
consciousness of guilt. They have lost the unconscious dominion of the spirit over the
bodily and sensuous appearance, and henceforth there enters into the conscience the
world-historical strife between the spirit and the flesh—a strife whose prime cause lies in
the fact that the spirit came out of the communion of the spirit of God, whose form
consists in the fact that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and whose effect (the feeling
185

186. of hateful nakedness) Isaiah, indeed, attended by a reaction of the shame-feeling, but
which can only manifest itself in the effort to cover, in the most scanty way, the
nakedness revealed. In this part of the body the feeling of nakedness manifests itself as a
sense of exposure that needs covering, not because that fruit poisoned the fountain of
human life, or, by means of an innate property, immediately effected a corruption of the
body, so far as propagation is concerned (Von Hoffmann, Baumgarten), nor because, in
consequence of the fall, a physical change had taken place; but simply because, in the
taking away by sin of the normal relation between the soul and the body, the body ceases
to be any longer a pure instrument of the spirit which is united to God. “This part of the
body is called ‫ָה‬‫ו‬ ְ‫ר‬ֶ‫ﬠ‬ (e. g, Genesis 9:22) and ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׂ‬ָ‫בּ‬ (e. g, Leviticus 9:2; comp. Exodus 28:42),
because nakedness and flesh, which shame bids men cover, culminate in them.” Delitzsch. In
what follows, wherein he says that here the contrast between the spiritual and the natural, having
lost its point of unity, is of the sharpest kind, and that the beastlike in the human appearance
appears here most bestial, Delitzsch is approaching again the theosophic mode of view; although
it is true that Prayer of Manasseh, from his demoniacal striving after something too great for him,
falls back into a beastly laxity of behavior, which, however, even here shame contends against,
and seeks to veil. As the death of Prayer of Manasseh, in its historical aspect, stands in counter-
relation to the human generations in their historical aspect, so it would seem that whilst the first
presentiment of death, in the first human consciousness of guilt, must give a shock to men, there
would also be, in connection with this foreboding of death, another presentiment of a call to
sexual propagation; but along with this, and in order to this, there would be a feeling which
would seek to veil it, with its acts and organs, as by a sacred law. This modesty, or bashfulness,
of Prayer of Manasseh, however, relates not merely to natural generation, but also to the spiritual
and the churchly; as though all origin demanded its covering—its creative night. The
commendation of the first growths of intelligence in a man’s soul produces a feeling of blushing
diffidence, and Song of Solomon, too, the churchly birth hath its reverent and modest veiling.
When, therefore, along with the presentiment of death, and of the generic or sexual destiny
(which, nevertheless, we cannot make independent of man’s historical death), there comes in the
feeling of shame in the first men, so also, as a symbolic expression therefor, there enters into
them, along with the guilt, an inner death, and the sense of the want of renovation. For the
refutation of Knobel’s view, that by the fig-tree here is not meant the usual fig-tree, but the plant
named pisang, or banana, see Delitzsch and Keil. See also more particularly, respecting the tree
in question, Knobel and Delitzsch.—And they heard the voice.—Knobel, Keil, and Delitzsch
explain the word ‫קוֹל‬ here, not of the voice of the Lord, but of the sound or rustling noise made by
the Deity as he walked; and they compare it with Leviticus 26:33; Numbers 16:34; 2 Samuel
5:24. By such an interpretation is the symbolical element left entirely out of view. For beings in
their condition, this sound of God walking must evidently have become a voice; but besides this
it is said, farther on, that God called to Adam. At all events, the voice here becomes first a call.
“In the cool of the day, that Isaiah, towards evening, when a cooling breeze is wont to arise.”
Keil. To this we may add: and when also there comes to man a more quiet and contemplative
frame of soul. So Delitzsch remarks very aptly: “God appears, because at that time men are in a
state most susceptible of serious impressions.[FN15] Every one experiences, even to this day, the
truth of what is narrated. In the evening the dissipating impressions of the day become weaker,
there is stillness in the soul; more than at other times do we feel left to ourselves, and then, too,
there awake in us the sentiments of sadness, of longing, of insulation, and of the love of home.
Thus with our first parents; when evening comes, the first intoxication of the satanic delusion
subsides, stillness reigns within; they feel themselves isolated from the communion of God,
parted from their original home, whilst the darkness, as it comes rushing in upon them, makes
them feel that their inner light has gone out.” Farther on Delitzsch maintains that God appeared
to man as one man appears to another, though this had not been the original mode of the divine
186

187. converse with him. The theophanies had their beginning first after the fall; and according to his
explanation, “God now for the first time holds converse with men in an outward manner,
corresponding to their materialization and alienated state.” On the other hand, Keil maintains,
“that God held converse with the first men in a visible form, as a father and educator of his
children, and that this was the original mode of the divine Revelation, not coming in for the first
time after the fall.” In neither can we suppose that there is taught a twofold incarnation of God,
first in Paradise, and then in Christ. In like manner, too, must we regard the question here as
unanswered, in what respect the theophanies (which were mediated in all cases through vision-
seeing states of soul) are to be distinguished from real outward appearances in human form.
Hofmann would complete the knowledge of Paradise, by taking as the appointed mode of
Revelation -God’s appearance to them as soaring on the cherubim. Delitzsch, moreover, informs
us (after Hofmann, perhaps) that God, at this time, did not come down from heaven, since he yet
dwelt upon the earth. More worthy of our confidence is the language of Keil: “Men have
separated themselves from God, but God cannot and will not give them up.”—And Adam and his
wife hid themselves.—Clearly an expression of guilt-consciousness, as also, an indication, at the
same time, of the fall into sin, and of the decline into a state of corruption. The particular
characteristics are these: consciousness of their transgression, of its effect, of their spiritual and
bodily nakedness, of their separation from God—of a feeling of distrustful, selfish, and servile
fear, in the presence of God, and of the loss of their spiritual purity, as originating in their guilt,
together with the false notion that they can hide themselves from God. Moreover, the regular
consistency which appears in this progress of sin must not be overlooked. Through this status
corruptionis, the first common act of sin passes over into a second. Taken symbolically, this is
the history of every individual fall into sin. “They hid themselves through modesty,” says
Knobel. With all this, there is presented in the flight of the sinner from God a feeling of
exculpation; yet still, again, it is attainted with self-deception, with a want of truth and
humility.—Amongst the trees.—In the deepest density and darkness of the garden, which now
becomes an emblem of the world, and of that worldly enjoyment in which the sinner seeks to
hide himself.
BI, "The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked
The dawn of guilt
I. A CONSCIOUS LOSS OF RECTITUDE. Moral nudity (Rev_3:17).
1. They deeply felt it.
2. They sought to conceal it.
II. AN ALARMING DREAD OF GOD.
1. This was unnatural.
2. Irrational.
3. Fruitless. God found Adam out.
III. A MISERABLE SUBTERFUGE FOR SIN. The transferring of our own blame to
others has ever marked the history of sin. Some plead circumstance, some their
organization, and some the conduct of others. (Homilist.)
187

188. The fruits of the temptation
I. They suffered together. The immediate effects of their act of disobedience were of a
sense of shame—“the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were
naked” (Gen_3:7); and a dread of judgment—“Adam and his wife hid themselves,”
through fear, as Adam afterwards admits—“I was afraid” (Gen_3:8; Gen_3:10). They
were ashamed, then, and they were afraid. This was the fulfilment of the threatening—
“Thou shalt surely die—dying, thou shalt die.” There was present death felt, and future
death feared. And as shame and fear drive them away from God, so, when they are
brought into His presence, the same feelings still prevail, and prompt the last desperate
expedient, of deceit or guile, which marks the extent of their subjection to bondage, the
bondage of corruption. They do not deny, but they palliate, and extenuate, their sin. The
attempt to excuse their sin only proves how helplessly they are debased by it, as the
slaves of a hard master, who, having them now at a disadvantage, through their
forfeiture of the free favour of God, presses unrelentingly upon them, and compels them
to be as false and as unscrupulous as himself. Shame, therefore, fear, and falsehood, are
the bitter fruits of sin. Guilt is felt; death is dreaded; guile is practised. The
consciousness of crime begets terror; for “the wicked flee when no one pursueth.” How
degrading is the bondage of sin! How entirely does it destroy all truth in the inward
parts! The sinner, once yielding to the tempter, is at his mercy, and having lost his hold
of the truth of God, he is but too glad, for his relief from despair, to believe and to plead
the lies of the devil.
II. God, however, has a better way. He has thoughts of love towards the guilty parents of
our race. For the sentence which He goes on to pronounce, when He has called them
before Him, is not such as they might have expected. It is not retributive, but remedial,
and in all its parts it is fitted exactly to meet their case.
1. In the first place, their complaint against the serpent is instantly attended to. He is
judged and condemned.
2. Having disposed of the serpent, the sentence proceeds, secondly, to deal with his
victims more directly, and announces both to the woman and to the man a period of
forbearance and long suffering on the part of God. Their fear is, in so far, postponed.
The woman is still to bear children, the man is still to find food. But there are these
four tokens of the doom they feared still abiding on them:
(1) The woman’s pain in child-bearing;
(2) Her subjection to the man;
(3) The man’s toil and trouble in finding food;
(4) His liability to the corruption of death.
III. And now, Satan being put aside, who, as the father of lies, prompted guile, and
death being postponed, so as to give hope instead of fear, the sentence goes on to
provide for the removal of the shame which sin had caused: “Unto Adam also and to his
wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen_3:21). (R. S.
Candlish, D. D.)
Observations
188

189. I. MAN CAN DISCERN NOTHING BUT WHAT AND WHEN, AND HOW FAR GOD IS
PLEASED TO DISCOVER IT UNTO HIM.
II. IT IS A GREAT FOLLY IN MEN NOT TO FORESEE EVIL BEFORE IT BE TOO LATE
TO HELP IT. Wise men beforehand see a plague and prevent it Pro_22:3), and hearken
for time to come (Isa_42:23), and indeed for this special end was wisdom given, that
men having their eyes in their head (Ecclesiastes it. 14) they might foresee both good and
evil to come, that they might lay hold on the one while it may be had, and avoid and
prevent the other before it comes. As for after-wisdom, it is of no use but to increase our
misery, by looking back upon our misery when it is too late to help it.
III. SATAN NEVER DISCOVERS ANYTHING UNTO US, BUT TO DO MISCHIEF. Thus
he shows us the baits of sin to allure us; as he did to our Saviour Christ the glory of all
the kingdoms of the earth, to entice Him to fall down and worship him (Mat_4:8). Thus
he discovers the means of affecting what our inordinate lusts move us unto, to encourage
us to sin, as by Jonadab he showed Ammon the means how he might satisfy his lust
upon his sister Tamar (2Sa_13:5), and by Jezebel to Ahab the means of getting Naboth’s
vineyard (1Ki_21:7), and if he shows the foulness of sin, after it is acted, it is to drive
men, if possibly he can, into despair, when the case is desperate.
IV. EVEN THOSE WHICH DISCOVER NOT BEFOREHAND THE EVILS WHICH THE
ERRORS OF THEIR WAYS LEAD THEM INTO, YET THEY SHALL SEE IN THE END,
AND FEEL TOO THE MISERY INTO WHICH THEY BRING THEM.
V. SIN IS ABLE TO MAKE THE MOST EXCELLENT AND GLORIOUS OF GOD’S
CREATURES VILE AND SHAMEFUL.
1. It defaces the image of God in them, which especially consists in righteousness
(Eph_4:24), which sin perverts (Job_33:27).
2. It separates a man from God (as all sin doth, Isa_59:2) who is our Isa_60:19; Isa_
28:5).
3. It disorders all the faculties of the soul, and parts of the body, and consequently all
the motions and actions that flow from them, and subjects us to our own base lusts
and vile affections, to do things that are not comely (Rom_1:4; Rom_1:26; Rom_
1:28).
VI. MEN ARE MORE APT TO BE SENSIBLE OF, AND TO BE MORE AFFECTED
WITH THE OUTWARD EVILS THAT SIN BRINGS UPON THEM, THAN WITH THE
SIN THAT CAUSETH THEM.
VII. GARMENTS ARE BUT THE COVERS OF OUR SHAME.
1. The first occasion of the use of clothing was to cover our shame.
2. The materials of it are things much baser than ourselves, in just estimation.
3. The apparel at the least doth but grace the body, but adorns not the soul at all,
which is the only part wherein man is truly honourable.
4. And the outward person they commend also, only to men of vain minds, but to no
wise or sober man.
5. And withal, do more discover the vanity of our minds than they cover the shame
of our bodies.
189

190. VIII. MOST OF OUR NECESSITIES ARE BROUGHT UPON US BY SIN.
IX. WHEN MEN ARE ONCE FALLEN OFF FROM GOD, THEIR NATURE THEREBY
CORRUPTED, CARRIES THEM STRONGLY FORWARDS TO SEEK HELP FROM THE
CREATURE.
1. They Ere wholly carnal and sensual in their dispositions, and therefore easily
carried after sensual and carnal things.
2. They cannot but be enemies to God, from whom they are driven away by the
guiltiness of their own consciences, as having no cause to depend on Him whose
yoke they have cast off, and therefore have ground to expect no help from Him, to
whom they resolve to do no service.
3. And they are by the just judgment of God delivered over to abase themselves to
vile things far below them.. selves, because they have not advanced God, nor glorified
Him as God, as they ought.
X. SIN BESETS MEN AND MAKES THEM FOOLS.
XI. ALL THE CARE THAT MEN TAKE, IS USUALLY RATHER TO HIDE THEIR SIN
THAN TO TAKE IT AWAY.
XII. ALL SATAN’S FAIR PROMISE, PROVE IN THE EVENT NOTHING ELSE BUT
LIES AND MERE DELUSIONS. (J. White, M. A.)
Sin known by its fruit
The real nature of sin, its disgrace and misery and ruin, are never fully known till it has
been committed. The tempter veils it in a false and delusive garb, which can never be
entirely stripped off but by actual experience. As a matter of assurance, Adam and Eve
knew beforehand the miserable consequences of their breach of the Divine command:
“In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” They could, therefore, have
no possible reason to doubt on this point; the terrible result lay open before them;
perhaps revealed in many more particulars than are recorded, for the history of this
eventful period is exceedingly short; yet still nothing was known, or could be known, of
the awful reality, till it was felt in the stricken heart, till the accursed step had been
taken, and the wretched working stood confessed in all the blight and agony. And in
similar ways he continues to deceive mankind: every temptation to evil is an instrument
in his hand, promising by its appearance, or else in our imagination, some pleasure or
some gain: this is the whisper of the same great adversary of souls, this a reflection of his
deceitful image. Let us now seek, in the spirit of humility, to learn and apply the moral
lesson of the text; which teaches us the direful consequences of sin, the evils with which
it makes us acquainted, as the foretaste and assurance of the dreadful end to which it
infallibly leads. It was not till the commission of their sin, but it was instantly after, that
the eyes of our parents were opened; that the evils of guilt and disobedience flashed
upon them in all their terribleness and extent. Their conscience was immediately
smitten: new thoughts entered their minds, new and painful feelings arose instantly in
their bosom: there was in them a sense of disgrace and degradation; love and confidence
were gone, and shame had taken possession, and fear and trembling. We must all have
felt, on manifold occasions, the sudden and painful effects of sin; the sharp convictions,
the uneasiness and wretchedness, and not seldom the injury thereby inflicted upon us;
190

191. the disgrace attending it when brought to light; our altered position in the esteem of
men, nay, even in our own esteem. How often has the fairest character been blasted by
only one transgression! and the humbled offender suddenly brought to perceive the
truth of all the denunciations and threatenings against sin; what would he not give to
retrace that one step, to recall that one word, to undo that one miserable deed? How sad
and complete was his folly! How could he have been thus deceived and betrayed? What
shame, what indignation, what grief, what abasement, what violent self-accusation, yea,
what astonishment is raised within him! That he, a man of reason, a man of faith, a man
of religious profession, one of the people of God, should have flung such discredit upon
the whole cause, should have so sinned against the majesty and holiness, the goodness
and long suffering of the Lord; should have admitted such corruption into that body
which Christ has redeemed, which was made one with Christ, should thus have
disordered and dishonoured and endangered his soul. I say, how many a servant of God
has been distressed by such feelings and sentiments; sometimes hurried into
wretchedness, lowered to the dust! I speak not of the hardened and abandoned sinner: of
those whose consciences are, as the apostle describes it, “seared with a hot iron”: when
the mind and affections have grown long familiar with vice and iniquity, and have
become inured to its effects, we must expect the feeling to be blunted, the moral eye to
be judicially closed: the Spirit of God, which keeps alive the conscience, withdraws from
the bosom of the determined offender, leaves it ordinarily incapable of emotion: I say
ordinarily, because there are seasons, when even the vilest transgressors are suddenly
roused and awakened to a sense of guilt and ruin; led, like the prodigal, to look back
upon the happiness they have lost; and mourn, after a godly sort, over their evil and
perishing condition. But this is a conviction not to be trusted to, often appearing too
late: bringing disturbance and distress, but no comfort, no living hope of salvation. How
blessed are they, whose conscience is quickly moved and opened to the perception of
evil: there is a hope of their speedy recovery; no one, who is truly alive to the
wretchedness of sin, can be content to abide in it: it is every way hateful and distressful,
as well as dangerous, to the soul that is humbled under a sense of it: and the
consciousness and sorrow and vexation of spirit frequently, as in the case of our first
parents, follow the offence in rapid succession, and the heart is overwhelmed. (J. Slade,
M. A.)
Sad results of the Fall
The Fall of man was most disastrous in its results to our entire being. “In the day that
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” was no idle threat; for Adam did die the
moment that he transgressed the command—he died the great spiritual death by which
all his spiritual powers became then and evermore, until God should restore them,
absolutely dead. I said all the spiritual powers, and if I divide them after the analogy of
the senses of the body, my meaning will be still more clear. Through the Fall, the
spiritual taste of man became perverted, so that he puts bitter for sweet and sweet for
bitter; he chooses the poison of hell and loathes the bread of heaven; he licks the dust of
the serpent and rejects the food of angels. The spiritual hearing became grievously
injured, for man naturally no longer hears God’s Word, but stops his ears at his Maker’s
voice. Let the gospel minister charm never so wisely, yet is the unconverted soul like the
deaf adder, which hears not the charmer’s voice. The spiritual feeling, by virtue of our
depravity, is fearfully deadened. That which would once have filled the man with alarm
and terror no longer excites emotion. Whether the thunders of Sinai or the turtle notes
191

192. of Calvary claim his attention, man is resolutely deaf to both. Even the spiritual smell
with which man should discern between that which is pure and holy and that which is
unsavoury to the Most High has become defiled, and now man’s spiritual nostril, while
unrenewed, derives no enjoyment from the sweet savour which is in Jesus Christ, but
seeks after the putrid joys of sin. As with other senses, so is it with man’s sight. He is so
spiritually blind, that things most plain and clear he cannot and will not see. The
understanding, which is the soul’s eye, is covered with scales of ignorance, and when
these are removed by the finger of instruction, the visual orb is still so affected that it
only sees men as trees walking. Our condition is thus most terrible, but at the same time
it affords ample room for a display of the splendours of Divine grace. Dear friends, we
are naturally so entirely ruined, that if saved the whole work must be of God, and the
whole glory must crown the head of the Triune Jehovah. (C. H.Spurgeon.)
The effects of the Fall
I. The effects of the Fall may be arranged under three divisions: the loss of God’s special
gifts; the corruption of man’s own nature; and his new position of guiltiness in the sight
of God. And for our present purpose it will be most convenient to consider these now
under two heads—the internal, which will cover the first and second; and the external,
which corresponds to the third.
1. Viewed internally then, the effects of the Fall must be regarded as two fold. The
one was negative—the immediate loss of that original righteousness which we have
learnt to connect immediately with God’s supernatural gift of grace. The other was
positive—the wound, which struck instantly to the very heart of man’s nature,
carried poison along with it, which tainted all that nature with immediate
corruption. The will had rebelled, therefore the channel of God’s grace was closed. So
much was negative. But within that cast off and isolated will there lurked a prolific
power of fatal mischief, which immediately burst forth into positive evil. Hence
sprung at once that “concupiscence and lust” which “hath of itself the nature of sin”;
hence “the flesh” learnt immediately to lust against “the spirit”; hence came “the sin”
that reigns in our mortal bodies; hence that other “law in our members,” which wars
against the law of our minds.
2. But all this evil was man’s own work. It was man himself who closed the door of
grace. It was man himself who severed his will from his only safeguard, by
withdrawing it from dependence upon God. It was man himself who thus introduced
rebellion into his nature, who caused this outburst of trouble and confusion in his
heart. We must look to another quarter for the penalty which God imposed. And this
is the external aspect, which, as I have said, demands a separate consideration. Man
no sooner fell than he recognized the immediate certainty of punishment, and
fruitlessly strove to conceal himself from the vengeance of his offended Creator. So
weak and worthless was his new-found knowledge. It told him how he might hide his
shame on earth; it could not aid him when he wished to escape the wrath of God.
God’s sentence may be briefly said to involve three different judgments; the first to
toil and sorrow; the second to exile; and the third, which completes them, to death.
II. Let us pass then to that closing portion of our subject—the extension of the sin of
Adam to ourselves, in connection with the doctrine of the Atonement of our Lord.
(Archdeacon Hannah.)
192

193. Lessons
1. Yielding to Satan and suffering in evil are the twins of the same day.
2. Man and woman are equal in vengeance as well as sin.
3. Sin blinds to good, but opens mind and sight to experience evil.
4. Sin makes men very knowing in misery; wise to see their fall from heaven to hell.
5. Sin strips stark naked of spiritual and bodily good, and makes sensible of nothing
but shame.
6. Sin is ashamed of itself, and seeks a covering.
7. Sin is very foolish in patching a veil or covering to hide from God—Leaves (Gen_
3:7).
8. The voice of God pursueth sinners after guilt; sometimes inward and outward.
9. God hath His fit time to visit sinners.
10. God walks sometimes in wind and storms to find out the guilty.
11. Conscience hears and trembles at God’s voice pursuing.
12. The face of the Lord God, which is life to His, is terrible to the guilty.
13. Sin persuades souls as if it were possible to hide from God.
14. All carnal shifts will sin make to shun God’s sight; if leaves do not, then trees
must closet them (Gen_3:8). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Opened eyes
What an opening of the eyes was this, my brethren! What disclosures followed! How
much is contained in these few words, “The eyes of them both were opened”! Various are
the circumstances under which men may open their eyes. After a dark, dreary, stormy
night, the eyes may be opened to behold the dawn of a fine day, and the heart may be
gladdened by the bright rays of the sun gilding the chambers of the east and restoring
warmth and comfort to all around. After a night of pain and weariness on a bed of
sickness, the eyes of the sufferer from a gentle slumber may be opened to a sense of relief
at the return of light with respite from suffering. After a tedious and dangerous sea
voyage, the eyes may be opened some morning to behold with joy the desired port at
hand. Under these and a thousand such-like circumstances the eyes of a man may be
opened with emotions of various kinds; but no case that we can imagine can be a parallel
with the one now before us—even the condition of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden,
immediately after their fatal disobedience, when, yielding to the wiles of Satan, they ate
of the forbidden fruit, and proved the truth of the Divine warning and declaration. The
eyes of them both were opened to see the snare which had been artfully spread for them,
and in which they had been caught; and what did they see? They saw misery before
them; horror and dismay attended the sight, and their discovery was accompanied with
the most galling bitterness. For all men are naturally more ashamed of being detected in
193

194. sin than of committing it; and more desirous of keeping up a good opinion of themselves
than of obtaining pardon from God, though they can hide nothing from Him, and can
neither elude His justice nor recover His favour by any device or contrivance of their
own. What a discovery must Adam and Eve have made when their eyes were opened!
How appalling the conviction of their condition! They were fallen, degraded creatures;
no longer holy, pure, innocent, perfect, but unholy, defiled, guilty, depraved. They
recognized sin in themselves, they felt it: and although they vainly attempted to excuse
it, yet they denied it not. They were fallen beings; guilt lay upon them, the anger of God
pressed hard on them; their expectations were disappointed; instead of delicious
enjoyment, they had bitterness to reward their pains; and although natural death did not
instantly take place, the prospect of it was set before them, hung over them in suspense,
and spiritual death was theirs. In this sad state we are all born, children of wrath, slaves
of Satan, enemies to God, and by nature we are not sensible of it. Adam and Eve felt their
change instantly; they had known innocence and happiness; they perceived at once the
difference occasioned by guilt and misery. But we by nature are not sensible of our guilt
and danger; our eyes are not open to behold our wretchedness: and hence we are not
disposed to flee to that Refuge promised to Adam, and fulfilled and set before us in
Christ Jesus. Like the church of the Laodiceans, we are disposed to say, “I am rich, and
increased with goods, and have need of nothing.” Our eyes must be opened to a sense of
our danger and guilt; we must see spiritual things in a spiritual light; and then we shall
not only see our guilt and danger, but the mercy, goodness, and love of God in stretching
out an arm of salvation, and raising up a Saviour in the person of Jesus Christ. Having
drawn your attention to man’s wretchedness, and the cause of it, I must now invite you
to consider the remedy provided for it, and freely set before us in the gospel. This St.
Paul sets forth very forcibly (Rom_5:1-21): “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”;
“therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even
so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One
shall many be made righteous. Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might
abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned
unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus
Christ our Lord.” The “Son of God was manifested that He might destroy the works of
the devil.” (T. R. Redwar.)
The covering of fig leaves
This one act, this one feeling, was, above all things, expressive of the fall of the whole
condition of man as he now is; it is the sense of something within which we wish to hide.
For it has been said that there is no man who would not rather die than that all which he
knows of himself should be known to the world. It is the want of a covering which we so
deeply and thoroughly feel. Our souls must needs dwell apart, isolated in this their own
consciousness of ill. So that when we turn for sympathy to each other, yet language
conceals as much as it expresses; and when we turn to God, our prayers immediately
take the form of confession, though it be but to confess what we know that He knows;
yet it is expressive of a burden which we feel, and which we most of all wish to get rid of;
and in turning to Him our feeling is, “Thou art a place to hide me in”: “Thou shalt hide
me by Thine own Presence.” “Hide me,”—but from what? Not from other men only, but
from ourselves. And what are the pursuits of busy life, but to hide from ourselves this
194

195. our internal want and shame? “Thou sayest I am rich, and knowest not that thou art
miserable, and blind, and naked.” And what is the great dread of death? It is chiefly
connected with this divesting and stripping off of all disguises, and going naked into the
land of spirits. “For in this, our earthly house, we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed
upon”; “if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this
tabernacle do groan, being burdened.” Hence the glory of the redeemed is to be
“clothed”—to be “clothed in white raiment before the throne,” and to “walk with Christ
in white.” The law of nature has become hallowed into the law of grace. “Blessed is he
that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked.” Our great care is that we
be not “found naked.” The judgment and condemnation is, “Thy nakedness shall be
uncovered.” Further, another expression here in the text is remarkable and emphatic—
“made for themselves”; “made for themselves,” in distinction from the covering of God.
It is fruitless, and worse, to strive to hide ourselves from ourselves and God. “Woe unto
him, saith the Lord, that cover with a covering, but not of My spirit.” It is in this our
great want He has visited us: “When thou wast under the fig tree I saw thee”; under the
sense of sin I succoured thee, and “thou shalt see greater things than these.” His comings
to us are called Epiphanies and Manifestations, as dissipating all vain disguises of the
soul. It is said, “He will destroy the face of the covering east over all people, and the veil
that is spread over all nations.” He unclothes us, that we may be clothed upon by
Himself, “that mortality might be swallowed up of life.” (I. Williams, B. D.)
The terrible disease introduced by the Fall
Sin had, like a snake from hell, crossed over and darkened human nature. A disease had
appeared on earth of the most frightful and inveterate kind, moral in its nature, destined
to be universal in its prevalence, deep seated in its roots, varied in its aspects, hereditary
in its descent, defying all cures save one, and issuing where that one cure was not sought
for or applied—in everlasting death.
1. The disease was a moral disease. This grand disease of sin combines all the evil
qualities of bodily distempers in a figurative yet real form—the continual fretting
heat of fever, the loathsomeness of smallpox, the fierce torments of inflammation,
and the lingering decay of consumption, and infects with something akin to these
diseases, not the material, but the immaterial part, and turns not the body but the
soul into such a mass of malady that from the “crown of the head to the sole of the
foot there is no soundness in us; nothing but wounds and bruises and putrefying
sores.”
2. Again, the disease introduced by the sin of Adam is universal in its ravages. It has
infected not only all Adam’s sons and daughters, but all of them in almost every
moment of their existence. Their very dreams are infected with this distemper. The
boa constrictor binds only the outer part of the body of its victim, although he binds
it all; but the serpent of sin has seized on and knitted together individual man—body,
soul, and spirit—and even collective man, into a knot of selfish, malignant, mortal
distemperatures. The entire being is encrusted with this leprosy.
3. Again, the disease introduced by man’s first disobedience is deep seated in its
roots. It is in the very centre of the system, and infects all the springs of life. It makes
us cold, and dead, and languid, in the pursuit of the things that are good. It, in fine,
pollutes the fountain of the heart, and turns it into a “cistern for foul toads,” instead
195

196. of being a sweet and salubrious source of living waters.
4. Again, this disease is a hereditary disease. It is within us as early as existence; it
descends from parent to child more faithfully than the family features, or
disposition, or intellect. As the tree in the seed, so lies the future iniquity of the man
in the child, and in this sense “the boy is father of the man.” And even as letters are
sometimes traced in milk on white paper, and are only legible when placed before the
fire, so the evil principles in man’s heart are often not disclosed till they are exposed
to the flame of temptation, and then they come forth in black prominency and
terrible distinctness.
5. Again, this is a disease which assumes various forms and aspects. Its varieties are
as numerous as the varieties of man and of sinner. Each particular sin is a new
species of this disorder. It has one aspect in the ambitious man who sacrifices
millions in his thirst for renown. It has another in the petty tyrant of a village or
factory. It has one aspect in the openly profane, and another in the hypocrite and
secret sinner.
6. Again, this is a disease which defies all human means of cure. Many attempts,
indeed, have been made to check its ravages and abate its power. Empires
innumerable have stood up, each with his several nostrum in his hand as an infallible
remedy for the evil; all differing from each other as to the nature of the grand
specific, but all agreeing in this, that they offer a cure apart from the help of God.
When we think of the enormous number of remedies which have been proposed, and
are still being proposed, to effect the cure of the world, we seem standing in an
immense laboratory, where, however, there are more labels than medicines; where
even the medicines are, in general, exploded or powerless, and where we miss the
true and sovereign remedy, the “Balm of Gilead.” Yes, that bloody Balm, and balmy
Blood, as it was in the beginning, two thousand years ago, is still the one thing that
can effectually mitigate the evil of the disease of sin, as well as the only remedy that
has the authoritative stamp of God.
7. We remark, again, that this disease, if not cured, will terminate in everlasting
death and destruction from the presence of the Lord. And what a termination this
must be! If men are at all moved by regarding this world as a vast bed of disease, they
must surely be moved immensely more when they look to the next as a vast bed of
death. (G. Gilfillan.)
Open eyes
Some time ago passengers in the streets of Paris were attracted to the figure of a woman
on the parapet of a roof in that city. She had fallen asleep in the afternoon, and under the
influence of somnambulism had stepped out of an open window on to the edge of the
house. There she was walking to and fro to the horror of the gazers below, who expected
every moment to witness a false step and terrible fall. They dared not shout, lest by
awakening her inopportunely they should be only hastening on the inevitable calamity.
But this came soon enough; for moving, as somnambulists do, with eyes open, the
reflection of a lamp lit in an opposite window by an artisan engaged in some mechanical
operation, all unconscious of what was going on outside, aroused her from sleep. The
moment her eyes were opened to discover the perilous position in which she had placed
herself, she tottered, fell, and was dashed below. Such is the sleep of sin; it places the
196

197. soul on the precipice of peril, and when the spell is broken it leaves the sinner to fall
headlong into the gulf of woe. (W. Adamson.)
Men covering their sins with specious pretences reproved
As when Adam had tasted of the forbidden fruit, he espied his own nakedness, poverty,
and how that he was miserably fallen, for remedy whereof he went about to hide it with
fig leaves, and so shroud himself amongst the trees of the garden, so it is that too, too
many of Adam’s sons now living go about to cloak their sins with the fig leaves of their
foolish inventions, and to hide their treacherous designs in the thicket of their wicked
imaginations, covering their vices with the cloak of virtue. And hence it comes to pass
that murder is accounted manhood; pride looked on as decency; covetousness as
frugality; drunkenness as good fellowship, etc. (J. Spencer.)
Opened eyes
Wonderful in its depth of meaning is this expression, “the eyes of them both were
opened”! They saw before; no new organs of vision were created; yet they saw what they
had never seen, as we ourselves have done. Temptation blinds us, guilt opens our eyes;
temptation is night, guilt is morning. In guilt we see ourselves, we see our hideousness,
we see our baseness: we see hell! “Their eyes were opened,” and they saw that their
character was gone! You can throw away a character in one act, as you throw away a
stone. Can you go after it and recover it? Never! You may get something back by
penitence and strife, but not the holy thing exactly as it was. A stone that is thrown along
the road you may recover, but a stone thrown at night time into the sea who can get back
again! (J. Parker, D. D.)
Clothes
“They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.” And this we have been
doing ever since! We try to replace nature by art. When we have lost the garment sent
from heaven we try to replace it with one woven from earth. But our deformity shows
through the finest robe! The robe may be ample, brilliant, luxurious, but the cripple
shows through its gorgeous folds. Ever since this fig-leaf sewing, life has become a
question of clothes. (J. Parker, D. D.)
A sense of shame is not natural to man
A sense of shame either in regard to soul or body is not natural. It does not belong to the
unfallen. It is the fruit of sin. The sinner’s first feeling is, “I am not fit for God, or man, or
angels to look upon.” Hence the essence of confession is, being ashamed of ourselves.
We are made to feel two things; first, a sense of condemnation; and secondly, a sense of
shame; we are unfit to receive God’s favour, and unfit to appear in His presence. Hence
Job said, “I am vile”; and hence Ezra said, “I am ashamed, and blush to lift up my face to
Thee, my God” (Ezr_9:6). Hence also Jeremiah describes the stout-hearted Jews, “They
were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush” Jer_6:15). Hence Solomon’s reference
197

198. to the “impudent face” of the strange woman (Pro_7:13), and Jeremiah’s description of
Israel, “Thou hadst a whore’s forehead, thou refusest to be ashamed” Jer_3:3). It was
the shame of our sin that Christ bore upon the cross; and therefore it is said of Him that
He “despised the shame.” It was laid upon Him, and He shrank not from it. He felt it, yet
He hid not His face from it. He was the well-beloved of the Father, yet He hung upon the
tree as one unfit for God to look upon; fit only to be cast out from His presence. He took
our place of shame that we might be permitted to take His place of honour. In giving
credit to God’s record concerning Him we are identified with Him as our representative;
our shame passes over to Him, and His glory becomes ours forever. It was this sense of
shame that led Adam and Eve to have recourse to fig leaves for a covering. What is it but
this same consciousness of shame that leads men to resort to ornaments? These are
intended by them to compensate for the shame or the deformity under which men are
lying. They feel that shame belongs to them; nay, confusion of face. They feel that they
are not now “perfect in beauty,” as once they were. Hence they resort to ornament in
order to make up for this. They deck themselves with jewels that their deformity may be
turned into beauty. But there is danger here—danger against which the apostle warns us,
specially the female sex (1Pe_3:3-4). There is nothing, indeed, innately sinful in the gold,
or the silver, or the gems which have been wrought by the skill of men into such forms of
brightness. But in our present state they do not suit us. They are unmeet for sinners.
They speak of pride, and they also minister to pride. They are for the kingdom, not for
the desert. They are for the city of the glorified, not for the tent of the stranger. They will
come in due time, and they will be brilliant enough to compensate for the shame of
earth. But we cannot be trusted with them now. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of
the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in
the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord
God among the trees of the garden.
BARNES, "Gen_3:8-9
The voice, we conceive, is the thunder of the approach of God and his call to Adam.
The hiding is another token of the childlike simplicity of the parents of our race under
the shame and fear of guilt. The question, “Where art thou?” implies that the Lord was
aware of their endeavor to hide themselves from him.
198

199. CLARKE, "The voice of the Lord - The voice is properly used here, for as God is
an infinite Spirit, and cannot be confined to any form, so he can have no personal
appearance. It is very likely that God used to converse with them in the garden, and that
the usual time was the decline of the day, ‫היום‬ ‫לרוח‬ leruach haiyom, in the evening
breeze; and probably this was the time that our first parents employed in the more
solemn acts of their religious worship, at which God was ever present. The time for this
solemn worship is again come, and God is in his place; but Adam and Eve have sinned,
and therefore, instead of being found in the place of worship, are hidden among the
trees! Reader, how often has this been thy case!
GILL, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God,.... Which they had heard
before, and knew, though perhaps now in another tone, and very terrible, which before
was mild and gentle, pleasant and delightful: some by it understand a clap of thunder,
sometimes called the voice of the Lord, Psa_29:3 and the rather because mention is
made afterwards of a wind; but rather the voice of the Son of God, the eternal Word, is
here meant, who appeared in an human form, as a pledge of his future incarnation, and
that not only as a Judge, to arraign, examine, and condemn the parties concerned in this
act of disobedience to God, but as a Saviour of men, to whom, as such, he made himself
known, as the event shows, and therefore they had no reason to entertain such terrible
apprehensions of him, as to flee from him; and so the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan
paraphrase it, "the voice of the Word of the Lord God", the essential Word of God then
with him, and since made flesh, and dwelt among men as the Saviour of them; and to
him agrees what follows:
walking in the garden in the cool of the day; or "at the wind of the day" (q); of
"that day" in which man was created and fell, as some conclude from hence; in the
evening, at sun setting; for very often when the sun sets a wind rises, at least a gentle
breeze; and this might bring the sound of the voice, and of the steps of this glorious
Person, the sooner to the ears of Adam and his wife, which gave them notice of his near
approach, and caused them to hasten their flight: some render it emphatically, "at the
wind of that day" (r); as if it was a violent wind which arose at that time, as a sign and
testimony of the indignation of God, as the sound of a violent wind was a testimony of
the coming of the Spirit of God, Act_2:2.
and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God,
amongst the trees of the garden; conscious of their guilt, and vainly imagining they
could flee from his presence, which is everywhere, and hide themselves from his sight,
before whom every creature is manifest, be it where it will; and very foolishly fancying,
that the thick trees and bushes in the garden would be a screen and shelter for them: and
sad shifts do wretched mortals make to secure themselves from the wrath of God, who
are ignorant of the justifying righteousness and atoning sacrifice of the Son of God: it is
in the singular number in the original text, "in the midst of the tree of the garden" (s);
which some understand of the fig tree, whose leaves they covered themselves with, and
under the shade of which they hid themselves; and particularly of the Indian fig tree,
199

200. which is so large, that it is said that fifty horsemen may shade themselves at noon day
under it; nay, some say four hundred (t); but tree may be put for trees, the singular for
the plural.
HENRY, "2. Fear seized them immediately upon their eating the forbidden fruit,
Gen_3:8. Observe here, (1.) What was the cause and occasion of their fear: They heard
the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. It was the
approach of the Judge that put them into a fright; and yet he came in such a manner as
made it formidable only to guilty consciences. It is supposed that he came in a human
shape, and that he who judged the world now was the same that shall judge the world at
the last day, even that man whom God has ordained. He appeared to them now (it
should seem) in no other similitude than that in which they had seen him when he put
them into paradise; for he came to convince and humble them, not to amaze and terrify
them. He came into the garden, not descending immediately from heaven in their view,
as afterwards on mount Sinai (making either thick darkness his pavilion or the flaming
fire his chariot), but he came into the garden, as one that was still willing to be familiar
with them. He came walking, not running, not riding upon the wings of the wind, but
walking deliberately, as one slow to anger, teaching us, when we are ever so much
provoked, not to be hot nor hasty, but to speak and act considerately and not rashly. He
came in the cool of the day, not in the night, when all fears are doubly fearful, nor in the
heat of day, for he came not in the heat of his anger. Fury is not in him, Isa_27:4. Nor
did he come suddenly upon them; but they heard his voice at some distance, giving them
notice of his coming, and probably it was a still small voice, like that in which he came to
enquire after Elijah. Some think they heard him discoursing with himself concerning the
sin of Adam, and the judgment now to be passed upon him, perhaps as he did
concerning Israel, Hos_11:8, Hos_11:9. How shall I give thee up? Or, rather, they heard
him calling for them, and coming towards them. (2.) What was the effect and evidence of
their fear: They hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God - a sad change! Before
they had sinned, if they had heard the voice of the Lord God coming towards them, they
would have run to meet him, and with a humble joy welcomed his gracious visits. But,
now that it was otherwise, God had become a terror to them, and then no marvel that
they had become a terror to themselves, and were full of confusion. Their own
consciences accused them, and set their sin before them in its proper colours. Their fig-
leaves failed them, and would do them no service. God had come forth against them as
an enemy, and the whole creation was at war with them; and as yet they knew not of any
mediator between them and an angry God, so that nothing remained but a certain fearful
looking for of judgment. In this fright they hid themselves among the bushes; having
offended, they fled for the same. Knowing themselves guilty, they durst not stand a trial,
but absconded, and fled from justice. See here, [1.] The falsehood of the tempter, and the
frauds and fallacies of his temptations. He promised them they should be safe, but now
they cannot so much as think themselves so; he said they should not die, and yet now
they are forced to fly or their lives; he promised them they should be advanced, but they
see themselves abased - never did they seem so little as now; he promised them they
should be knowing, but they see themselves at a loss, and know not so much as where to
hide themselves; he promised them they should be as gods, great, and bold, and daring,
but they are as criminals discovered, trembling, pale, and anxious to escape: they would
not be subjects, and so they are prisoners. [2.] The folly of sinners, to think it either
possible or desirable to hide themselves from God: can they conceal themselves from the
200

201. Father of lights? Psa_139:7, etc.; Jer_23:24. Will they withdraw themselves from the
fountain of life, who alone can give help and happiness? Jon_2:8. [3.] The fear that
attends sin. All that amazing fear of God's appearances, the accusations of conscience,
the approaches of trouble, the assaults of inferior creatures, and the arrests of death,
which is common among men, is the effect of sin. Adam and Eve, who were partners in
the sin, were sharers in the shame and fear that attended it; and though hand joined in
hand (hands so lately joined in marriage), yet could they not animate nor fortify one
another: miserable comforters they had become to each other!
JAMISON, "they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden —
The divine Being appeared in the same manner as formerly - uttering the well-known
tones of kindness, walking in some visible form (not running hastily, as one impelled by
the influence of angry feelings). How beautifully expressive are these words of the
familiar and condescending manner in which He had hitherto held intercourse with the
first pair.
in the cool of the day — literally, “the breeze of the day,” the evening.
hid themselves amongst the trees of the garden — Shame, remorse, fear - a
sense of guilt - feelings to which they had hitherto been strangers disordered their minds
and led them to shun Him whose approach they used to welcome. How foolish to think
of eluding His notice (Psa_139:1-12).
PULPIT, "Gen_3:8
And they heard the voice of the Lord God. Either
(1) the noise of his footsteps (cf. Le Gen_26:33; Num_16:34; 2Sa_5:24; Knobel,
Delitzsch, Keil, Kalisch, Macdonald); or
(2) the thunder that accompanied his approach (cf. Exo_9:23; Job_37:4, Job_37:5;
Psa_29:3, Psa_29:9; Murphy, Bush); or
(3) the sound of his voice (Calvin, Lange, Wordsworth); or
(4) probably all four. Walking in the garden. If the voice, then increasing in intensity
(cf. Exo_19:19; Bush); if Jehovah, which is better, then "wandering or walking about in a
circle" within the garden bounds (Macdonald). In the cool (literally, the wind) of the
day. The morning breeze (Calvin); the evening breeze (Kalisch, Macdonald); τοΜ
δειλινομν (LXX.); auram post meridiem (Vulgate); cf. hōm ha’ yōm, "the heat of the
day" (Gen_18:1). And Adam and his wife hid themselves. Not in humility, as
unworthy to come into God’s presence (Irenaeus); or in amazement, as not knowing
which way to turn; or through modesty, (Knobel Bohlen); but from a sense of guilt.
From the presence of the Lord. From which it is apparent they expected a Visible
manifestation.
SBC, " That which strikes us first of all is, that Adam represents the average sinner. A
man may do worse than Adam. Many men have done and do worse than hide themselves
from God after outraging Him by sin. Adam’s conduct proves that the sense of God’s
presence, awfulness, greatness, was still intact in his soul.
201

202. II. "They hid themselves." It was not the result of a consultation; it was an instinct. Two
motives would concurrently have determined the action of Adam. (1) Fear. God’s
greatness was now the measure of the terror of the creature who had dared to disobey
Him. (2) Shame. Adam had felt a fear of God in his unfallen life which differed from the
cowering fear of his guilty conscience much as a healthy circulation of the blood might
differ from the pulse of fever. But shame was an absolutely new thing, unlike any other
capacity or experience in himself with which our first father had been previously
acquainted. As the greatness of God was the measure of Adam’s fear, so his own lost
greatness was the measure of Adam’s shame.
III. "Amongst the trees of the garden." The trees beneath the shade of which the human
soul seeks refuge from its God are: (1) pleasure; (2) occupation; (3) moral rationalism.
IV. We have no difficulty in characterising this act of Adam as foolish and irrational. It
was so: (1) because it was to attempt the impossible; and (2) because it was to fly from
the one hope and opening for restoration and safety.
H. P. Liddon, Cambridge Lent Sermons, 1864, p. 23.
References: Gen_3:8.—H. Hayman, Rugby School Chapel, p. 159; W. Meller, Village
Homilies, p. 212; G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, p. 1; H. Macmillan, The
Olive Leaf, p. 241; C. Kingsley, Gospel of the Pentateuch, p. 41; Spurgeon, Evening
by Evening, p. 184; J. H. Blunt, Miscellaneous Sermons by Clergymen of the Church
of England, p. 93; B. Waugh, Sunday Magazine (1887), pp. 138, 209; G. Calthrop,
Pulpit Recollections, p. 16.
Genesis 3:8-9
As the account of Eve’s temptation and fall truly represents the course of corruption and
sin, so the behaviour of our first parents afterwards answers exactly to the feelings and
conduct of those who have forfeited their innocence and permitted the devil to seduce
them into actual sin. Shame makes the sinner shrink and draw back, and not endure to
have his thoughts and doings watched by any eye whatever. As often as he sins wilfully,
he must secretly wish there were no God to see him, and he will be tempted to do all he
can to forget God, and so hide himself for a time from His presence.
I. Any one sin, wilfully indulged, leads to profaneness and unbelief, and tends to blot the
very thought of God out of our hearts.
II. Much in the same way are backsliding Christians led to invent or accept notions of
God and His judgment, as though He in His mercy permitted them to be hidden and
covered, when in truth they cannot be so.
III. The same temper naturally leads us to be more or less false towards men also, trying
to seem better than we are; delighting to be praised, though we know how little we
deserve it. Among particular sins it would seem that two especially dispose the heart
towards this kind of falsehood: (1) sensuality; (2) dishonesty.
IV. When any Christian person has fallen into sin and seeks to hide himself from the
presence of the Lord, God is generally so merciful that He will not suffer that man to be
at ease and forget Him. He calls him out of his hiding-place, as He called Adam from
202

203. among the trees. No man is more busy in ruining himself, and hiding from the face of his
Maker, than He, our gracious Saviour, is watchful to awaken and save him.
Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. viii., p. 34.
CALVIN, "8.And they heard the voice of the Lord God. As soon as the voice of God
sounds, Adam and Eve perceive that the leaves by which they thought themselves
well protected are of no avail. Moses here relates nothing which does not remain in
human nature, and may be clearly discerned at the present day. The difference
between good and evil is engraven on the hearts of all, as Paul teaches, (Romans
2:15;) but all bury the disgrace of their vices under flimsy leaves till God, by his
voice, strikes inwardly their consciences. Hence, after God had shaken them out of
their torpor, their alarmed consciences compelled them to hear his voice. Moreover,
what Jerome translates, ‘at the breeze after midday,’ (180) is, in the Hebrew, ‘at the
wind of the day;’ (181) the Greeks, omitting the word ‘wind,’ have put ‘at the
evening.’ (182) Thus the opinion has prevailed, that Adam, having sinned about
noon, was called to judgment about sunset. But I rather incline to a different
conjecture, namely, that being covered with their garment, they passed the night in
silence and quiet, the darkness aiding their hypocrisy; then, about sunrise, being
again thoroughly awakened, they recollected themselves. We know that at the rising
of the sun the air is naturally excited; together, then, with this gentle breeze, God
appeared; but Moses would improperly have called the evening air that of the day.
Others take the word as describing the southern part or region; and certainly ‫רוח‬
(ruach) sometimes among the Hebrews signifies one or another region of the world.
(183) Others think that the time is here specified as one least exposed to terrors, for
in the clear light there is the greater security; and thus, they conceive, is fulfilled
what the Scripture declares that they who have accusing consciences are always
anxious and disquieted, even without any danger. To this point they refer what is
added respecting the wind, as if Adam was terrified at the sound of a falling leaf.
But what I have advanced is more true and simple, that what was hid under the
darkness of the night was detected at the rising of the sun. Yet I do not doubt that
some notable symbol of the presence of God was in that gentle breeze; for although
(as I have lately said) the rising sun is wont daily to stir up some breath of air, this is
not opposed to the supposition that God gave some extraordinary sign of his
approach, to arouse the consciences of Adam and his wife. For, since he is in himself
incomprehensible, he assumes, when he wishes to manifest himself to men, those
marks by which he may be known. David calls the winds the messengers of God, on
the wings of which he rides, or rather flies, with incredible velocity. (Psalms 104:3.)
But, as often as he sees good, he uses the winds, as well as other created things,
beyond the order of nature, according to his own will. Therefore, Moses, in here
203

204. mentioning the wind, intimates (according to my judgment) that some unwonted
and remarkable symbol of the Divine presence was put forth which should
vehemently affect the minds of our first parents. This resource, namely, that of
fleeing from God’s presence, was nothing better than the former; since God, with
his voice alone, soon brings back the fugitives. It is. written,
‘Whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I traverse the sea, if I take wings and
ascend above the clouds, if I descend into the profound abyss, thou, Lord, wilt be
everywhere,’
(Psalms 139:7.)
This we all confess to be true; yet we do not, in the meantime, cease to snatch at vain
subterfuges; and we fancy that shadows of any kind will prove a most excellent
defense. Nor is it to be here omitted, that he, who had found a few leaves to be
unavailing, fled to whole trees; for so we are accustomed, when shut out from
frivolous cavils, to frame new excuses, which may hide us as under a denser shade.
When Moses says that Adam and his wife hid themselves ‘in the midst of the tree
(184) of Paradise,’ I understand that the singular member is put for the plural; as if
he had said, among the trees.
COKE, "Genesis 3:8. And they heard, &c.— This may be rendered, and they heard
the sound of the Lord God proceeding or coming into the garden, at the decline, or
in the cool of the day, whether morning or evening. The word, which our translators
render voice, ‫קול‬ koll, denotes any sort of sound; and the root of that word, which
we render walking, denotes local motion, going, in any way, or manner. The word
‫קול‬ koll, sound, is applied to two appearances of the Deity: one mentioned, 1 Kings
19:12. After the fire a still small sound; and in Ezekiel 1:24. The sound of great
waters, as the sound of the Almighty; the sound of speech, as the sound of an host.
Now it is observable, that, in these two passages, the presence of the Lord is
described, 1st, in the still small sound; and, 2nd, in the loud and lofty sound as of
waters, an host, &c. whence we may be led to conclude, that nothing certain can be
determined respecting the sort of sound which was, to Adam in paradise, the index
of Jehovah's presence. It was a sound, it is evident, well known to Adam; and a
sound, without all doubt, sufficiently declarative of the divine greatness and glory:
but most probable, in the time of their innocence, rather gentle than tremendous. To
sinners the voice of the Lord is thunder; to his saints, it is the still small voice of
204

205. peace and love.
Many writers have supposed, that it was the second Divine Person, the eternal
ΛΟΓΟΣ, who here particularly appeared to Adam; and many have written much
concerning the manner of the divine appearance. The sentiment is very pleasing,
and has much probability in it. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan paraphrase
this passage thus, They heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God, probably, the
essential Word of God, who was since made flesh, and dwelt among men. If also, as
many have supposed, he appeared to Adam in a human form, as a pledge of his
incarnation in the fulness of time, then he might be literally said to come walking in
the garden in the cool of the day, or at the wind of the day, during the evening-
breeze; and that wind might bring the sound of the voice and of the steps of this
glorious Person the sooner to the ears of Adam and his wife, which gave them notice
of his near approach, and caused them to hasten their flight.
And Adam and his wife hid themselves, &c.— Shame was the first fruit of their sin:
another, and one which always attends guilt more or less is here mentioned; namely,
a desire to flee from his presence, which to man, in his state of purity, must have
been the highest joy. Such are the natural effects of sin, which also makes men
foolish as well as full of conscious guilt; for who can fly from his presence, who
discerneth the very secrets of the heart? yet, like the first fallen pair, all sinners seek
to the same vain and idle resource. They are ashamed, and would therefore hide
themselves from Him whose eyes are as a flame of fire!
WHEDON, " 8. Heard the voice of the Lord — Some interpreters understand this
voice to have been the sound or noise made by the approach of Jehovah. Comp.
“sound of a going” in 2 Samuel 5:24. But the two following verses imply that it was
the voice of Jehovah calling, rather than the noise of his movement, that is here
intended. Both ideas, however, may be combined, for the anthropomorphism here is
a notable feature of the description. The voice that called was the well-known voice
of One who had spoken to them before, and who now came walking to and fro in the
garden as aforetime, but his voice now inspired fear rather than delight.
In the cool of the day — Literally, at the wind of the day. That is, at the time of the
205

206. evening breeze. It was the closing day of Adam’s Eden life, and, as Delitzsch has
observed, that hour is adapted to weaken the dissipating impressions and
excitements of the day, and beget a stillness in the soul. Then arise in man’s heart
the sentiments of sadness and loneliness, of longing, and of the love of home. “Thus
with our first parents: when evening comes, the first intoxication of the Satanic
delusion subsides, stillness reigns within; they feel themselves isolated from the
communion of God, parted from their original home, while the darkness, as it comes
rushing in upon them, makes them feel that their inner light has gone out.”
Hid themselves — This action was on their part a confession of conscious guilt and
shame.
PETT, "Verse 8
Genesis 3:8 a
‘And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the
evening breeze (ruach - literally “‘in the wind of the day”)’.
It may well be that they had communed with God each evening, and that the sound
in the trees had indicated to them His presence. It would have brought to them the
thrill and joy of worship. But now the overtones are different. Now the sound is to
them the approach of a vengeful God which is made known to them by the sound of
the wind in the trees, and the would be filled with terror. Compare 2 Samuel 5:24
where God is known by ‘the sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees’. (See
also 2 Samuel 22:11, ‘he was seen upon the wings of the wind’; Job 38:1, ‘the Lord
answered Job out of the whirlwind’; Psalms 18:10, ‘he came swiftly on the wings of
the wind’; also Psalms 104:3; Ezekiel 1:4; John 3:8; Acts 2:2). This is no stroll. To
their guilty consciences it is the sound of the approach of God to tackle them over
what they have done.
Genesis 3:8 b
206

207. ‘And the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among
the trees of the garden.’
Like the scrabbling together of coverings from fig leaves, this was another desperate
and foolish attempt to hide from the all-seeing eyes of God. They were almost frozen
with fear. They sought out the darkest place they could find among the trees of the
garden, the trees which God had provided as a blessing and which had now become
their only hope of hiding from Him. Possibly they hoped that if they could not be
seen God would pass them by. How foolish we are when we think that we can hide
anything from God or avoid facing up to Him.
NISBET, "CONCEALMENT FROM GOD IMPOSSIBLE
‘Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the
trees of the garden.’
Genesis 3:8
I. That which strikes us first of all is, that Adam represents the average sinner.—A
man may do worse than Adam. Many men have done and do worse than hide
themselves from God after outraging Him by sin. Adam’s conduct proves that the
sense of God’s presence, awfulness, greatness, was still intact in his soul.
II. ‘They hid themselves.’—It was not the result of a consultation: it was an instinct.
Two motives would concurrently have determined the action of Adam. (1) Fear.
God’s greatness was now the measure of the terror of the creature who had dared to
disobey Him. (2) Shame. Adam had felt a fear of God in his unfallen life which
differed from the cowering fear of his guilty conscience much as a healthy
circulation of the blood might differ from the pulse of fever. But shame was an
absolutely new thing, unlike any other capacity or experience in himself with which
207

208. our first father had been previously acquainted. As the greatness of God was the
measure of Adam’s fear, so his own lost greatness was the measure of Adam’s
shame.
III. ‘Amongst the trees of the garden.’—The trees beneath the shade of which the
human soul seeks refuge from its God are: (1) pleasure; (2) occupation; (3) moral
rationalism.
IV. We have no difficulty in characterising this act of Adam as foolish and
irrational. It was so: (1) because it was to attempt the impossible; and (2) because it
was to fly from the one hope and opening for restoration and safety.
Canon Liddon.
Illustration
(1) ‘The soul has many hiding-places. There are: (1) The hiding-place of self-
complacent propriety; (2) the hiding-place of the reasoner; (3) the hiding-place of
theological dogmas. But the true hiding-place for the soul is Jesus.’
(2) ‘The disturbed relation with God, which is presented in the highly symbolical
form fitting for early ages, is as true and impressive for the twentieth century as for
them. Sin broke familiar communion with God, turned Him into a ‘fear and a
dread,’ and sent the guilty pair into ambush. Is not that deeply and perpetually
true? The sun seen through mists becomes a lurid ball of scowling fire. The impulse
is to hide from God, or to get rid of thoughts of Him. And when He is felt to be near,
it is as a questioner, bringing sin to mind. The shuffling excuses, which venture even
to throw the blame of sin on God (“the woman whom Thou gavest me”), or which
try to palliate it as a mistake (‘the serpent beguiled me’), have to come at last,
however reluctantly, to confess that ‘I’ did the sin. Each has to say, “I did eat.” So
shall we all have to do.’
208

209. (3) ‘Hideous feeling! There is no pain so horrible as that of wanting to hide from the
eyes of those we love or respect. Who has not compressed immeasurable agony into
a few such moments, when trying to avoid detection? I know quite well how Adam
and Eve felt,—don’t you? But what must it be to live in such a state perpetually?
Think of the men who are trying each day of life to “hide” from the eyes of their
wives and their children; of the criminals who are trying to “hide” from the police;
of the embezzlers who are trying to “hide” from their employers! A lifetime of
happiness can never quite compensate for a day of such shame. But how beautiful to
live an open life,—to live so that the sudden discovery that the eyes of the world
were on you should not cause you a quiver!’
BI, "They heard the voice of the Lord God
God’s voice in nature
Whether their ears as well as their hearts heard God’s voice does not much matter.
It would have mattered if their ears and not their hearts had heard. They doubtless often
heard Him in the evening hour—the twilight which all the faiths of all cultivated nations
have chosen as their special season of devotion. When they heard, and when men now
hear God’s voice in garden, meadow, wood, of what does it tell?
I. OF GOD’S PRESENCE. Nature is a kingdom, in which the King resides as well as
reigns: a house in which the Father dwells as well as which He supports.
II. OF GOD’S POWER AND WISDOM.
III. OF GOD’S BOUNTY AND LOVE. Profusion of life.
IV. OF MAN’S MORTALITY. Nature is a sepulchre as well as a shrine.
V. OF MAN’S RETRIBUTION FOR BROKEN LAW. (Urijah R. Thomas.)
Observations
I. IF MEN WILL NOT DRAW NEAR UNTO GOD, YET HE WILL FIND THEM OUT IN
THEIR SINS, AND BRING THEM INTO JUDGMENT BEFORE HIM. Let all those that
have sinned come and prepare to meet their God (Amo_4:12), who can neither be
blinded not escaped, nor resisted, that they may take hold of His strength to make peace
with Him, considering—
1. That it is more credit to come in voluntarily than to be drawn in by force.
2. A readier way to obtain pardon, as Benhadad’s lords found by experience (1Ki_
20:32), and David much more in submitting unto Psa_32:5).
3. If we come not in voluntarily, God will bring us in by force, which will be worse for
us every way.
II. GOD, WHO HATH ALL THE WRONG WHEN HE IS PROVOKED BY OUR SINS, IS
209

210. THE FIRST THAT SEEKS TO MAKE PEACE WITH US.
1. He allures us by His mercies, as He promised to deal with His people Hos_
2:14-15).
2. By the inward and secret persuasions of His Spirit, in giving them hearts to return
(Zec_12:12).
3. By the effectual ministry of the gospel, wherein He doth not only offer unto us, but
persuade and beseech us to embrace those terms of peace which He offers, as the
apostle speaks (2Co_5:20).
The reason is—
1. Necessity, seeing we cannot turn our hearts unto Him unless He draws Joh_6:44),
which moves the Church to pray, “Turn us, and weshall be turned” (Jer_31:18).
2. The fitness of this way, to advance the free mercy of God the more, that all men’s
boasting may be taken away (Eph_2:8-9), and that he that rejoiceth may rejoice in
God alone (1Co_1:31), who, as He loves us first, so He seeks us first (Isa_61:1), and
recovers us oftwhen we go astray.
III. GOD, WHEN HE DEALS WITH MEN, DELIGHTS TO BE HEARKENED UNTO
WITH REVERENCE AND FEAR.
IV. GOD, IN REPRESENTING HIS MAJESTY TO MEN, SO DEALS WITH THEM
THAT HE MAY HUMBLE BUT NOT CONFOUND THEM.
1. In dispensing His Word by the ministry of men (and not of angels, whose presence
might affright us), and that, too, in such a manner, that whereas it is in itself like a
hammer (Jer_23:29), mighty inoperation through God, sharper than any two-edged
sword (2Co_10:5), able, if it were set on by the strength of His hand, to break the
heart in pieces, yet is so tempered in the dispensation thereof, by men like unto
ourselves, and therefore sensible by experience of human infirmities, that it only
pricks the heart (Act_2:27), but cuts it not in pieces.
2. In the terrors of conscience, which being in themselves unsupportable Pro_18:14),
yet are so moderated unto us, that though we be perplexed, we are not in despair
(2Co_4:8), burned but yet not consumed, like Moses’ bush (Exo_2:2), walking safely
in the flames of fire with the three children (Dan_3:25).
3. In afflictions, which God lays on us in such a measure proportioned to our
strength (1Co_10:13) that they only purge us, but do not destroy us (Isa_27:8-9).
V. GOD MANY TIMES CALLS MEN TO ACCOUNT, AND PROCEEDS IN JUDGMENT
AGAINST THEM IN THE MIDST OF THEIR DELIGHTS.
VI. IT IS VERY NEEDFUL TO OBSERVE A FIT SEASON IN DEALING WITH
OFFENDERS AFTER THEY HAVE SINNED. VII. THE PRESENCE OF GOD IS
TERRIBLE TO A SINNER.
1. Behold, then, the miserable condition into which sin hath brought us, which hath
changed our greatest desire (Psa_42:2), and joy (16:11), and content (17:15), into the
greatest terror, especially unto the wicked, who neither can fly from God’s presence
(139:7) nor endure His revenging hand.
2. Behold the comfort of a good conscience, wherein we may behold the face of God
210

211. with comfort and confidence (1Jn_3:21); but not in ourselves, but in the name of
Jesus Christ, who hath by His mediation established with us a covenant of peace
between God and us (Rom_5:1) and purchased unto us access with boldness to the
throne of grace Heb_4:16), so that we can not only rejoice at present in God’s
presence with us in His ordinances, but withal love and long for His appearance,
when He shall come in His glory (2Ti_4:8; Rev_22:20).
VIII. WHEN MEN ARE ONCE FALLEN AWAY FROM GOD, THEY ARE LEFT TO
MISERABLE AND UNPROFITABLE SHIFTS.
1. It cannot be otherwise when men are once gone away from God, in whom only is
true comfort and safety, and His name a strong tower, which they that run unto are
safe, and from whom is the efficacy of all means, which without Him can do neither
good nor evil.
2. God, in His just judgment, when men honour Him not as God, deprives them of
that wisdom.
IX. MEN ARE NATURALLY APT TO FLY FROM THE MEANS OF THEIR OWN GOOD.
The reason is—
1. Men’s ignorance of spiritual things, wherein their true good consists.
2. The wisdom of the flesh being enmity against God: as many as are of the flesh
must needs hate Him, and therefore cannot submit unto Him.
3. The ways of attaining true good are by denial of one’s self and all the lusts of the
flesh, which is impossible for any man to do, remaining in his natural condition.
X. THE TERRORS OF GOD SHALL FIRST OR LAST SHAKE THE HEARTS OF ALL
THOSE THAT DO MOST SLIGHT HIS JUDGMENTS. Indeed, unless God should in this
manner deal with the wicked of the world, He should—
1. Suffer His honour to be trampled under foot, and His authority and power
despised.
2. Harden the hearts of wicked men in mischief (Ecc_8:11).
3. There is no fitter judgment, nor more proportionable to the sin, than to punish
security and contempt with fear and terror.
XI. A GUILTY CONSCIENCE IS FILLED WITH TERRORS UPON EVERY OCCASION.
XII. WHATSOEVER WE TRULY FEAR WE CANNOT BUT ENDEAVOUR TO FLY
FROM AND AVOID.
XIII. THERE IS A WONDERFUL PRONENESS IN THE HEARTS OF MEN TO
CONCEIVE OF GOD AS THEY DO OF A MORTAL MAN. (J. White, M. A.)
God’s call to Adam
Our text suggests—
I. MAN’S DEPARTURE FROM GOD. Adam was in a state of—
1. Alienation from God.
211

212. 2. Fear of Him.
3. Delusion about Him.
4. Danger.
II. GOD’S CONCERN ABOUT MAN’S DEPARTURE. God is concerned about man’s
departure from Him, because it involves—
1. Evil; and He is “of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.”
2. Suffering; and He “is love.”
III. GOD’S PERSONAL DEALING WITH THE WANDERER. (H. J. Martyn.)
The garden of the Lord concealing the Lord of the garden
The garden of the Lord concealed from Adam and Eve the Lord of the garden. God did
not turn Adam out of paradise till Adam had turned God out. It is a long lesson to learn
to be able to keep the garden of the Lord, and the Lord of the garden both. Adam’s
felicities were of an innocent nature, to be sure. There is no blessing so blessed that the
unilluminated side of it will not fall off and darken down into a curse. All the planets that
dance even about the sun are black on their off side. The better a thing is, the more harm
it is capable of doing. The very results yielded by Christianity, in the shape of
respectability, and wealth, and power, and culture, and elegant refinements, come in to
obscure the root itself out from which they are sprung. It is like a tree shaded and
hindered by its own verdure. It is like the sun waking up the mists in the morning; its
beams, like so many nimble fingers, weaving a veil to hang across the face of the sun, till
it defeats its brightness by its own shining. We become indifferent to the cause in our
engrossment with its effects, and the old fact becomes true again, that the garden of the
Lord conceals from us the Lord of the garden.
1. One of the trees behind which the face of the Lord becomes hidden from us is the
tree of knowledge. We shall mention only two or three of these briefly; but there is
propriety in mentioning that first. It is the first historic instance wherein a good
thing demonstrated its capacity for mischief. The tree was of God’s planting, to be
sure, and knowledge is no doubt good; but from the first the devil has been a learned
devil, and has posed as the patron of erudition. That “knowledge puffeth up” was
known by Satan before it was stated by Paul. Consciousness of knowledge is more
stultifying than ignorance, and is essentially atheistic; atheistic in this sense: that it
converts present cognitions into a barrier that blocks the entrance of the heavenly
light and thwarts the Holy Ghost. The tree grew in God’s garden; so our schools have
been planted and fostered by the Christian Church. Still, the multitudinousness of
books, ideas, theories, and philosophies, out into which the schools have blossomed,
tends to work that intellectual complacency, and that conceit of knowledge, which
blurs every heavenly vision, discredits the wisdom that is from above, and routs the
Redeemer. “Not many wise men after the flesh are called.” One single electric light
out here on Madison Square extinguishes the stars, and the shining of the low-lying
moon snuffs out all the constellations of the firmament. The garden of the Lord
grows up at length into such prodigality of leaf and flower as to conceal the Lord of
the garden.
2. Another tree behind which the face of the Lord becomes hidden from us is that of
212

213. affluence. The tree of wealth, verily, like the tree of knowledge, has its best rooting in
the soil of paradise. We should no sooner think of speaking a disparaging word of
money than we should of knowledge. But as knowledge trails behind it its shadow (as
we have seen), so money is regularly attended by its shadow. Money is just as holy a
thing in one way as wisdom is in another. But it makes not the slightest difference
how holy a thing is, if, like Adam, the Lord is on one side of it and you are on the
other. And the more this consciousness of money is developed, the more truly the
man becomes encased in a little world that is all his own, and the more impervious to
any influences that bear upon him from without. The verdure becomes so thick that
the sky gets rubbed out, and the tree so broad and massive that the Lord God shrinks
into invisibility behind it.
3. I mention only one other tree in God’s garden, and that is the tree of
respectability. More evidently, perhaps, than either of the others, it is the outcome of
heavenly soil. The devil of decency is more incorrigible than the devil of dirt. (C. H.
Parkhurst, D. D.)
No hiding from God
It was said of the Roman empire under the Caesars that the whole world was only one
great prison for Caesar, for if any man offended the emperor it was impossible for him to
escape. If he crossed the Alps, could not Caesar find him out in Gaul? If he sought to
hide himself in the Indies, even the swarthy monarchs there knew the power of the
Roman arms, so that they could give no shelter to a man who had incurred imperial
vengeance. And yet, perhaps, a fugitive from Rome might have prolonged his miserable
life by hiding in the dens and caves of the earth. But, O sinner, there is no hiding from
God. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Sinner shuns God
A burglar, not long ago, rifled an unoccupied dwelling by the seaside. He ransacked the
rooms, and heaped his plunder in the parlour. There were evidences that here he sat
down to rest. On a bracket in the corner stood a marble bust of Guido’s “Ecce Homo”—
Christ crowned with thorns. The guilty man had taken it in his hands and examined it. It
bore the marks of his fingers; but he replaced it with its face turned to the wall, as if he
would not have even the sightless eyes of the marble Saviour look upon his deeds of
infamy. So the first act of the first sinner was to hide himself at the sound of God’s voice.
(Professor Phelps.)
A bad conscience embitters comforts
There is no friend so good as a good conscience. There is no foe so ill as a bad
conscience. It makes us either kings or slaves. A man that hath a good conscience, it
raiseth his heart in a princely manner above all things in the world. A man that hath a
bad conscience, though he be a monarch, it makes him a slave. A bad conscience
embitters all things in the world to him, though they be never so comfortable in
themselves. What is so comfortable as the presence of God? What is so comfortable as
213

214. the light? Yet a bad conscience, that will not be ruled, it hates the light, and hates the
presence of God, as we see Adam, when he had sinned, he fled from God (Gen_3:8). A
bad conscience cannot joy in the midst of joy. It is like a gouty foot, or a gouty toe,
covered with a velvet shoe. Alas! what doth ease it? What doth glorious apparel ease the
diseased body? Nothing at all. The ill is within. There the arrow sticks. (R. Sibbes.)
The sinner afraid of God
I once met a little boy in Wales, crying bitterly at his father’s door, afraid to go in. I asked
him what was the matter. He told me that his mother had sent him out clean in the
morning, but that he had got into the water, and made his clothes dirty. So he feared to
go in, because his father would punish him. We have soiled our characters by sin, and
therefore is it that we fear death—dread the meeting with our Father. (Thomas Jones.)
An ill conscience
An ill conscience is no comfortable companion to carry with thee. An ill conscience is
like a thorn in the flesh. A thorn in the hedge may scratch you as you pass by it, but a
thorn in the flesh rankles with you wherever you go; and the conscience, the ill
conscience, the conscience that is ill at ease, it makes you ill at ease. You cannot have
peace so long as you have an evil conscience, so long as there is that continual monition
flashing across your mind: Judgment cometh, death cometh—am I ready? Many a time,
when you go to your worldly scenes of pleasure, this conscience, like the finger writing
on the wall of the palace of the king of Babylon, alarms and frightens you. You tell
nobody about it. Strange thoughts strike across your mind. You have no rest. Can a man
rest on a pillow of thorns? Can a man rest with the heartache? Can a man rest with his
soul disturbed with the horrors of guilt? I tell thee there is no rest to thee till thou
comest to Christ. He alone can calm a conscience. (S. Coley.)
A troubled conscience
As the stag which the huntsman has hit flies through bush and brake, over stock and
stone, thereby exhausting his strength, but not expelling the deadly bullet from his body,
so does experience show that they who have troubled consciences run from place to
place, but carry with them wherever they go their dangerous wounds. (Gotthold.)
The voice of God
The voice of God was heard, it seems, before anything was seen; and as He appears to
have acted towards man in His usual way, and as though He knew of nothing that had
taken place till He had it from his own mouth, we may consider this as the voice of
kindness, such, whatever it was, as he had used to hear beforetime, and on the first
sound of which he and his companion had been used to draw near, as sheep at the voice
of the shepherd, or as children at the voice of a father. The voice of one whom we love
conveys life to our hearts; but, alas, it is not so now! Not only does conscious guilt make
them afraid, but contrariety of heart to a holy God renders them averse to drawing near
214

215. to Him. The kindest language to one who is become an enemy will work in a wrong way.
“Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of
uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord.” Instead of
coming at His call as usual, “they hide themselves from His presence among the trees of
the garden.” Great is the cowardice which attaches to guilt. It flies from God, and from
all approaches to Him in prayer or praise; yea, from the very thoughts of Him, and of
death and judgment when they must appear before Him. But wherefore flee to the trees
of the garden? Can they screen them from the eyes of Him with whom they have to do?
Alas, they could not hide themselves and their nakedness from their own eyes; how,
then, should they elude discovery before an omniscient God! (Gotthold.)
Suppose (what is not to be supposed) that they could have run from God, yet this would
not do, unless they could have run from themselves too, for the wounded deer, whither
ever he runs, carries with him the fatal arrow sticking fast in his sides. The guilt of their
souls and the terror of their consciences went along with them, whither ever they went.
So would only have been like the angled and entangled fish with the hook of the
fisherman, that may indeed swim away all the length of the line, but the hook in her
mouth hales her back again; so God summons in sinful man: Adam, where art thou?
(Gen_3:9). (C. Ness.)
The cool of the day
Evening
I. THE PRIVILEGES OF EVENING.
1. Evening has calmness.
2. Evening has leisure.
3. Evening is social.
II. THE DUTIES OF EVENING.
1. It is a season for review.
2. It is a season for settlement.
3. It is a season for preparation.
III. THE TEACHING OF EVENING. A type of the close of life. Night is death, and the
morrow the day which will break beyond the grave. (Homilist.)
God appearing, in the wind
It was “in the wind of the day” that Jehovah was heard. Meaning thereby, either at the
time that the breeze was blowing, or in the breeze; or, more probably, both. It is
generally in connection with the wind, or whirlwind, that Jehovah is said to appear Eze_
1:4). In 2Sa_22:11 we read, “He was seen upon the wings of the wind”; in Psa_18:10 we
read, “He did fly upon the wings of the wind”; in Psa_104:3 we read, “Who walketh upon
the wings of the wind.” In these passages we note the difference of expression, yet the
215

216. identity of the general idea—He was seen upon the wind; He did fly upon the wind; He
did walk upon the wind; which last is the very expression in the passage before us. (H.
Bonar, D. D.)
Evening the time for reflection
“The cool of the day,” which to God was the season for visiting His creatures, may, as it
respects man, denote a season of reflection. We may sin in the daytime; but God will call
us to account at night. Many a one has done that in the heat and bustle of the day which
has afforded bitter reflection in the cool of the evening; and such in many instances has
proved the evening of life. (A. Fuller.)
9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are
you?”
GILL, "And the Lord God called unto Adam,.... The Jerusalem Targum is, the
Word of the Lord God, the second Person in the Trinity; and this is the voice he is said to
have heard before:
and said unto him, where art thou? which is said, not as ignorant of the place
where he was, nor of what he had done, nor of the circumstances he was in, or of the
answers he would make; but rather it shows all the reverse, that he knew where he was,
what he had done, and in what condition he was, and therefore it was in vain to seek to
hide himself: or as pitying his case, saying, "alas for thee" (u), as some render the words,
into what a miserable plight hast thou brought thyself, by listening to the tempter, and
disobeying thy God! thou that wast the favourite of heaven, the chief of the creatures, the
inhabitant of Eden, possessed of all desirable bliss and happiness, but now in the most
wretched and forlorn condition imaginable; or as upbraiding him with his sin and folly;
that he who had been so highly favoured by him, as to be made after his image and
likeness, to have all creatures at his command, and the most delightful spot in all the
globe to dwell in, and a grant to eat of what fruit he would, save one, and who was
indulged with intercourse with his God, and with the holy angels, should act such an
ungrateful part as to rebel against him, break his laws, and trample upon his legislative
authority, and bid, as it were, defiance to him: or else as the Saviour, looking up his
straying sheep, and lost creature, man: or rather as a summons to appear before him, the
Judge of all, and answer for his conduct; it was in vain for him to secrete himself, he
216

217. must and should appear; the force of which words he felt, and therefore was obliged to
surrender himself, as appears from what follows.
K&D 9-13, "The man could not hide himself from God. “Jehovah God called unto
Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” Not that He was ignorant of his hiding-
place, but to bring him to a confession of his sin. And when Adam said that he had
hidden himself through fear of his nakedness, and thus sought to hide the sin behind its
consequences, his disobedience behind the feeling of shame; this is not to be regarded as
a sign of peculiar obduracy, but easily admits of a psychological explanation, viz., that at
the time he actually thought more of his nakedness and shame than of his transgression
of the divine command, and his consciousness of the effects of his sin was keener than
his sense of the sin itself. To awaken the latter God said, “Who told thee that thou wast
naked?” and asked him whether he had broken His command. He could not deny that he
had, but sought to excuse himself by saying, that the woman whom God gave to be with
him had given him of the tree. When the woman was questioned, she pleaded as her
excuse, that the serpent had beguiled her (or rather deceived her, ἐξαπάτησεν, 2Co_
11:3). In offering these excuses, neither of them denied the fact. But the fault in both
was, that they did not at once smite upon their breasts. “It is so still; the sinner first of all
endeavours to throw the blame upon others as tempters, and then upon circumstances
which God has ordained.”
PULPIT, "Gen_3:9, Gen_3:10
And the Lord God called unto Adam. Adam’s absence was a clear proof that
something was wrong. Hitherto he had always welcomed the Divine approach. And
said unto him, Where art thou? Not as if ignorant of Adam’s hiding-place, but to
bring him to confession (cf. Gen_4:9). And I was afraid, because I was naked.
Attributing his fear to the wrong cause—the voice of God or his insufficient clothing; a
sign of special obduracy (Calvin), which, however, admits of a psychological explanation,
viz; that" his consciousness of the effects of sin was keener than his sense of the sin
itself" (Keil), "although all that he says is purely involuntary self-accusation" (Delitzsch),
and "the first instance of that mingling and confusion of Bin and punishment which is
the peculiar characteristic of our redemption-needing humanity" (Lange). And I hid
myself.
HENRY, "We have here the arraignment of these deserters before the righteous
Judge of heaven and earth, who, though he is not tied to observe formalities, yet
proceeds against them with all possible fairness, that he may be justified when he
speaks. Observe here,
I. The startling question with which God pursued Adam and arrested him: Where art
thou? Not as if God did not know where he was; but thus he would enter the process
against him. “Come, where is this foolish man?” Some make it a bemoaning question:
“Poor Adam, what has become of thee?” “Alas for thee!” (so some read it) “How art thou
fallen, Lucifer, son of the morning! Thou that wast my friend and favourite, whom I had
done so much for, and would have done so much more for; hast thou now forsaken me,
and ruined thyself? Has it come to this?” It is rather an upbraiding question, in order to
his conviction and humiliation: Where art thou? Not, In what place? but, In what
217

218. condition? “Is this all thou hast gotten by eating forbidden fruit? Thou that wouldest vie
with me, dost thou now fly from me?” Note, 1. Those who by sin have gone astray from
God should seriously consider where they are; they are afar off from all good, in the
midst of their enemies, in bondage to Satan, and in the high road to utter ruin. This
enquiry after Adam may be looked upon as a gracious pursuit, in kindness to him, and in
order to his recovery. If God had not called to him, to reclaim him, his condition would
have been as desperate as that of fallen angels; this lost sheep would have wandered
endlessly, if the good Shepherd had not sought after him, to bring him back, and, in
order to that, reminded him where he was, where he should not be, and where he could
not be either happy or easy. Note, 2. If sinners will but consider where they are, they will
not rest till they return to God.
CALVIN, "9.And the Lord God called unto Adam. They had been already smitten
by the voice of God, but they lay confounded under the trees, until another voice
more effectually penetrated their minds. Moses says that Adam was called by the
Lord. Had he not been called before? The former, however, was a confused sound,
which had no sufficient force to press upon the conscience. Therefore God now
approaches nearer, and from the tangled thicket of trees (185) draws him, however
unwilling and resisting, forth into the midst. In the same manner we also are
alarmed at the voice of God, as soon as his law sounds in our ears; but presently we
snatch at shadows, until he, calling upon us more vehemently, compels us to come
forward, arraigned at his tribunal. Paul calls this the life of the Law, (186) when it
slays us by charging us with our sins. For as long as we are pleased with ourselves,
and are inflated with a false notion that we are alive, the law is dead to us, because
we blunt its point by our hardness; but when it pierces us more sharply, we are
driven into new terrors.
COFFMAN, ""And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where
art thou?"
This is one of the great questions of the Bible, "Adam, where art thou?" It is
connected schematically with another great question that occurs at the beginning of
the N.T., where it is stated that the wise men came, saying, "Where is he, that is
born king of the Jews?" (Matthew 2:2) Thus, the O.T. begins with God seeking
man; and the N.T. begins with man seeking God. Without the initiative of the
Father apparent here, man's condition would have been utterly without hope, but
God still loved him, despite his sin, and would set in motion the train of events that
would eventually lead to his redemption, provided only that man would consent to
218

219. be redeemed and comply with the conditions under which God would bring it about.
This verse begins the arraignment of the sinful partners before the holy God whose
law they had violated.
LANGE, " Genesis 3:9-19. Where art thou?—Knobel: “Jehovah must now call for
Prayer of Manasseh, who, at other times, was ever there.” Delitzsch: “It is clear,
that not for his own sake does God direct this inquiring call to Prayer of Manasseh,
but only for man’s sake. God does in truth seek them, not because they are gone
from his knowledge, but because they are lost from his communion.” It is a
consequence of the very being of God as a person, if he would not violently surprise
man with his omnipresence and his omniscience, that he should freely assume the
form of seeking him, that Isaiah, of drawing nigh unto him gradually, in a way of
mercy; since man must seek and find Him. The Good Shepherd seeks and finds the
lost sheep; the sinner must seek and find God; the relation must be an ethical
covenant relation. Delitzsch says farther: “This word, ‫ֶכָּה‬‫יּ‬ ַ‫א‬ (where art thou?) echoes
through the whole human world, and in each individual man.” That Isaiah, in a
symbolical sense, the passage denotes every case of a sinner seeking his divine home.
Delitzsch: “The heathen world feeling after God (ψηλαφᾶν, Acts 17:27) is the
consequence of this evening call, ‫ה‬ ְ‫ֶכּ‬‫יּ‬ ַ‫,א‬ and of the longing for home that is thereby
evoked.—I heard thy voice in the garden.—Knobel: “His slight covering is sufficient
as against the familiar wife, but not as against the high and far-seeing Lord of the
Garden.” (!) The question may be asked, why God called to Adam, though Eve had
been first in sin? Without doubt is Eve included in the more universal significance
of the word Adam (man), yet still the call is directed to the individual Adam. In a
certain sense, however, is this Adam, as the household lord of the wife, answerable
for her step, notwithstanding that he himself is ensnared with her. The ethical
arraignment for the complaint against the wife proceeds through Adam. But thus
appears also here the additional indication that Adam is denoted as the first author
of the hiding, as Eve was first in the sin itself. According to the mere laws of
modesty (Knobel) the wife should rather have appeared in the foreground here.
According to Keil, “when Adam says that he hid himself for fear, on account of his
nakedness (thereby seeking to hide his sin behind its consequences, and his
disobedience behind his feeling of shame), it is not a sign of special obduracy, but
may easily be taken psychologically; as that, in fact, the feeling of nakedness and
shame were sooner present to his consciousness than the transgression of the divine
command, and that he felt the consequences of sin more than he recognized the sin
itself.” Delitzsch would amend this by adding: “although all that he says is purely
involuntary self-accusation.” It is to be observed that here appears the first mingling
219

220. and confusion of sin and of evil, that Isaiah, that punishment of sin ordained of God,
and which is the peculiar characteristic of our redemption-needing humanity.
CONSTABLE, "Verses 9-13
God"s confrontation of the sinners3:9-13
This section begins to relate the effects of the Fall. We now see the God who was
creator and benefactor in chapters1,2as judge (cf. Genesis 1:3-4). He first
interrogated the offenders to obtain a confession, then announced new conditions
for life, and finally provided for the sinners graciously. The sinners" responsibility
was to confess their sins and to accept and trust in God"s provision for them (cf. 1
John 1:9).
Note that God took the initiative in seeking out the sinners to Revelation -establish a
relationship with them. Evidence of God"s love is His unwillingness to abandon
those He loved even when they failed to do His will. His approach was tender as well
as gracious ( Genesis 3:9; Genesis 3:11; Genesis 3:13).
"In . . . spite of the apparent similarity in expression to pagan religions the
anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament reveal all the more remarkably a sharply
contrasting concept of deity." [Note: Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Anthropomorphism in
Ancient Religions," Bibliotheca Sacra125:497 (January-March1968):29.]
The text records several effects of the Fall on Adam and Eve.
1. They felt guilt and shame ( Genesis 3:7)
2. They tried to change these conditions by their own efforts ( Genesis 3:7).
220

221. 3. They fled from God"s presence out of fear of Him ( Genesis 3:8; Genesis 3:10).
4. They tried to blame their sin on another rather than confessing personal
responsibility ( Genesis 3:12-13).
The fact that Adam viewed God"s good gift to him, Eve, as the source of his trouble
shows how far he fell ( Genesis 3:12). He virtually accused God of causing him to fall
by giving him what he now regarded as a bad gift.
BI 9-12, "Where art thou?
God’s question
I. The speaker is God; the person spoken to is the representative of us all.
II. The call is—
1. Individual.
2. Universal.
III. God calls in three ways.
1. In conscience.
2. In providence.
3. In revelation.
IV. His call is—
1. To attention.
2. To recognition of God’s being.
3. To reflection on our own place and position.
V. It is a call which each must answer for himself, and which each ought to answer
without delay. (Dean Vaughan.)
An important question
Here God asks an important question: “Where art thou?”
1. Where are you?—are you in God’s family or out of it? When you are baptized, you
are put into God’s family upon certain conditions—that you will do certain things;
and it depends upon you how you live, because if you do not love God you cannot be
God’s child.
2. Supposing you are one of God’s children, “Where art thou?”—near to thy Father or
far from Him?—because some children are nearer to their fathers than others. Mary
and Martha were sisters, and they were both Christians, but one was much nearer to
221

222. Christ than the other. Mary sat at Jesus’ feet, Martha was “troubled about many
things.” If we delight to tell Jesus everything, than we shall be near God.
3. Are you in the sunshine or the shade? If you follow Christ you will always be in the
sunshine, because He is the Sun.
4. Are you in the path of duty? Are you where you ought to be? The path of duty is a
narrow path sometimes a steep path. God could say to many of us, as He said to
Elijah, “What doest thou here?”—thou art out of the path of duty.
5. How have you progressed? The surest way to know that we get on is to be very
humble. When the wheat is ripe it hangs down; the full ears hang the lowest. (J.
Vaughan, M. A.)
The first question in the Bible
This is the first question in the Bible. It was addressed by God to the first man, and
likewise to you.
I. THAT GOD THINKS ABOUT YOU. A watchmaker sells the watches which he has
made, and thinks no more of them. The same with a ship builder and his ships, a
shepherd and his sheep. Some say that as these men have acted, so does God. He has
made you, but He never thinks about you. This is an error. The text proves that He
thought of Adam, and there are many things which show that He thinks of you. A
mother thinks of her children, and causes the gas to be lighted for them when the
shadows of the evening have come. For the same reason God sends forth the sun every
morning. As He thinks about you, so you ought to think about Him; in the morning
when you awake, often during the day, and always before you sleep.
II. THAT GOD SPEAKS TO YOU. He spoke to Adam. In what manner? Not like the
severe slave holder, the stern master, the passionate father; but like a loving mother to
her children. He addresses you also, though not exactly in the same way. Men have many
methods by which they communicate their thoughts to one another. The telegraph;
letters; signs; the living voice. As it is with men in this respect so with the Lord. He
speaks to you in nature, in events great and small. By conscience, parents, teachers,
ministers. Sometimes thoughts come into your minds directly from God. Think of the
honour thus put on you. The Queen speaking to that little boy. This is nothing when
compared with the great God speaking to the same boy.
III. THAT GOD KNOWS WHEN YOU ARE NOT IN YOUR RIGHT PLACE. More than
all, Calvary. The Divine Father is there to meet you and save you. Have you never been
there?
IV. THAT GOD WISHES YOU TO TELL HIM WHY YOU ARE NOT IN YOUR RIGHT
PLACE. As He dealt with Adam, so He deals with you. To Him you are responsible for all
your actions as well as your words. (A. McAuslane, D. D.)
The position of man as a sinner
I. A CHANGE IN MAN’S MORAL POSITION.
222

223. 1. His one sin brought guilt upon his conscience, and anarchy into his heart.
2. This developed itself in a dread of God.
(1) This dread of God accounts for all malignant theologies.
(2) For atheistic speculations.
(3) For the prevalence of depravity.
(4) For the absence of a hearty enjoyment of life.
(5) For the little religious interest men feel in the works of nature.
II. A DIVINE INTEREST IN MAN, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS ALTERED POSITION.
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF MAN FEELING HIS MORAL POSITION. (Homilist.)
Where art thou?
1. The Christian ought always to be at his proper and assigned work. God fails not to
mark every dereliction, to note every hour, every gift and power not given to the
work of salvation.
2. The Christian ought ever to be in his proper place. He has his own place in the
family circle, in the Church of Christ, in every sphere of Christian duty and
enterprise, and in the world of guilt, misery, and ignorance around him.
3. The Christian ought ever to be in a state of mind to seek the Divine blessing. Sin
cherished, Or duty neglected, not only loses us the favour of God, but what is, if
possible, worse still, robs us of the disposition to desire or seek it.
4. The Christian ought ever to be where he can meet God in judgment without fear.
I. THE SINNER.
1. In his sins.
2. In the pathway of eternal ruin.
3. In a state of awful condemnation.
4. In a land of darkness and gloom.
5. Ever under God’s immediate eye.
6. In the hands of an angry God. (W. B. Sprague, D. D.)
The voice of God
I. THE VOICE HERE WAS DOUBTLESS AN AUDIBLE VOICE. And God has yet His
voice. He can speak by awful providences; He can speak by terrific judgments; or He can
speak by the “still, small voice” of love.
II. THE VOICE OF GOD IS ALWAYS A TERRIFIC VOICE TO THE SOUL THAT IS OUT
OF CHRIST. The voice of God is the voice of a holy God—the voice of a just God—the
voice of a faithful God. And how can an unpardoned, unjustified, and unsanctified soul
223

224. hear that voice and not tremble?
III. HOW IS IT, THEN, THAT THE BELIEVER IN CHRIST JESUS CAN LISTEN TO
THOSE WORDS, “WHERE ART THOU?” AND CAN HEAR THEM IN PEACE? What
answer does he give? “Where art thou?”—In Christ. In Christ? Then “there is no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit.” (J. H. Evans, M. A.)
Observations
I. TERRORS MAY PREPARE A MAN’S HEART, BUT IT IS ONLY THE WORD OF GOD
THAT INFORMS AND SUBDUES IT.
1. That this is God’s ordinance, wherein He hath both discovered His will unto us,
and annexed unto it the power of His Spirit, to subdue every thought in us to the
obedience of Jesus Christ.
2. That it is the only means to bring unto God His due honour, by bearing witness to
His truth in His promises, and to His righteousness in His laws, and to His authority
in submitting to His directions.
II. THE WAY TO GET OUR HEARTS AFFECTED WITH WHAT WE HEAR, IS TO
APPREHEND OURSELVES TO BE SPOKEN UNTO IN PARTICULAR.
1. Because self-love is so rooted in us, that we slight and make little account of those
things in which ourselves have not a peculiar interest.
2. Because it much advanceth God’s honour (1Co_14:25), when by such particular
discoveries and directions it is made manifest unto us that God oversees all our ways,
and takes care of our estates in particular, which cannot but work in us both fear,
and care, and confidence,
III. THOSE WHO ENDEAVOUR TO FLY FROM GOD, YET CAN BY NO MEANS SHIFT
THEMSELVES OUT OF HIS PRESENCE. Let it then be every man’s care and wisdom to
take hold of God’s strength, to make peace with Him, as Himself adviseth us (Isa_27:5),
seeing He cannot be—
1. Resisted (Isa_27:4).
2. Nor escaped (Jer_25:35).
3. Nor entreated (1Sa_2:25).
4. Nor endured (Isa_33:14).
IV. GOD LOVES A FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIN FROM
HIS CHILDREN, WHEN THEY HAVE TRESPASSED AGAINST HIM.
1. Because it brings God most honour, when we clear Him, and take the blame unto
ourselves (See Jos_7:19), whereby every mouth is stopped, and His ways
acknowledged, and His judgments to be just, in visiting men’s transgressions upon
them; and His mercies infinite, in sparing men upon their repentance.
2. It most justifies ourselves, when we condemn our own ways and actions 2Co_
7:11), and are grieved in our own hearts, and ashamed of our folly, in the errors of
224

225. our ways.
V. GOD IS FULL OF MILDNESS AND GENTLENESS IN HIS DEALING WITH
OFFENDERS, EVEN IN THEIR GREATEST TRANSGRESSIONS.
1. To clear Himself, that the whole world may acknowledge, that He afflicts not
willingly (Lam_3:33)..
2. Because the sin itself is burthen some and bitter enough to a tender conscience, so
that there needs no mixture with it of gall and wormwood.
VI. THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSIDERATION OF ONE’S ILL CONDITION IS AN
EFFECTUAL MEANS TO BRING HIM ON TO TRUE REPENTANCE. VII. ALL THOSE
THAT DESIRE TO GET OUT OF THEIR MISERY MUST SERIOUSLY CONSIDER
WITH THEMSELVES WHAT WAS THE MEANS THAT BROUGHT THEM INTO IT.
1. There can be no means of removing evil but by taking away the cause of it, neither
is there any means to take that away till it be known.
2. Besides, God can no way gain so much honour, as when men, by searching out the
cause of the evils that befall them, find and acknowledge that their destruction is
from themselves (Hos_13:9). Hence it is that the Lord oftentimes makes the
judgment which He inflicts to point it out, either by the kind of the judgment, or by
some circumstance of the time, place, instrument, or the like, by the observation
whereof the evil itself that brought that judgment on us may be made manifest,
especially if we take with us for the discovery thereof the light of God’s Word. (J.
White, M. A.)
Lessons
1. Jehovah may suffer sinners to abuse His goodness, but He will call them to
judgment.
2. The eternal God only, who is the cause of every creature, who hath made, and
knows man, He will be Judge.
3. Adam and all his sons shall be made to judge themselves by the Lord.
4. God is not ignorant of the lurking places of sinners (Psa_139:1-24).
5. God’s inquiries are invincible criminations on sinners.
6. He that hides, cannot hide, and he that flieth, cannot fly from God.
7. Foolish sinners think themselves safe in hiding and flying from God, but God
teacheth it must be by coming to Him.
8. Sin deals falsely in its speaking to the inquisition of God.
9. It is sin alone that makes God’s voice so terrible, which sinners would conceal.
10. Sinners pretend their fear rather than their guilt to drive them from God.
11. Sinners pretend their punishment, rather than their crime, to cause them hide.
12. Sin makes souls naked, and yet souls cover sin.
13. How hard it is to bring a soul to the true acknowledgment of sin! (G. Hughes, B.
225

226. D.)
God’s first words to the first sinner -
1. Mark the alienation of heart which sin causes in the sinner. Adam ought to have
sought out his Maker. He should have gone through the garden crying for his God,
“My God, my God, I have sinned against Thee. Where art Thou?” But instead thereof,
Adam flies from God. The sinner comes not to God; God comes to him. It is not “My
God, where art Thou?” but the first cry is the voice of grace, “Sinner, where art
thou?” God comes to man; man seeks not his God.
2. And while the text manifestly teaches us the alienation of the human heart from
God, so that man shuns his Maker and does not desire fellowship with Him, it
reveals also the folly which sin has caused. How we repeat the folly of our first parent
every day when we seek to hide sin from conscience, and then think it is hidden from
God; when we are more afraid of the gaze of man than of the searchings of the
Eternal One, when because the sin is secret, and has not entrenched upon the laws
and customs of society, we make no conscience of it, but go to our beds with the
black mark still upon us, being satisfied because man does not see it, that therefore
God does not perceive it.
3. But now, the Lord Himself comes forth to Adam, and note how He comes. He
comes walking. He was in no haste to smite the offender, not flying upon wings of
wind, not hurrying with His fiery sword unsheathed, but walking in the garden. “In
the cool of the day”—not in the dead of night, when the natural gloom of darkness
might have increased the terrors of the criminal; not in the heat of the day, lest he
should imagine that God came in the heat of passion; not in the early morning, as if
in haste to slay, but at the close of the day, for God is long suffering, slow to anger,
and of great mercy; but in the cool of the evening, when the sun was setting upon
Eden’s last day of glory, when the dews began to weep for man’s misery, when the
gentle winds with breath of mercy breathed upon the hot cheek of fear; when earth
was silent that man might meditate, and when heaven was lighting her evening
lamps, that man might have hope in darkness; then, and not till then, forth came the
offended Father.
I. We believe that the inquiry of God was intended in an AROUSING SENSE—“Adam,
where art thou?” Sin stultifies the conscience, it drugs the mind,so that after sin man is
not so capable of understanding his danger as he would have been without it. One of the
first works of grace in a man is to put aside this sleep, to startle him from his lethargy, to
make him open his eyes and discover his danger. “Adam, where art thou?” Lost, lost to
thy God, lost to happiness, lost to peace, lost in time, lost in eternity. Sinner, “Where art
thou?” Shall I tell thee? Thou art in a condition in which thy very conscience condemns
thee. How many there are of you who have never repented of sin, have never believed in
Christ? I ask you, is your conscience easy?—is it always easy? Are there not some times
when the thunderer will be heard? Thy conscience telleth thee thou art wrong—O how
wrong, then, must thou be! But man, dost thou not know thou art a stranger from thy
God? You eat, you drink, you are satisfied; the world is enough for you: its transient
pleasures satisfy your spirit. If you saw God here, you would flee from Him; you are an
enemy to Him. Oh! is this the right case for a creature to be in? Let the question come to
thee—“Where art thou?:” Must not that creature be in a very pitiable position who is
226

227. afraid of his Creator? You are in the position of the courtier at the feast of Dionysius,
with the sword over your head suspended by a single hair. Condemned already! “God is
angry with the wicked every day.” “If he turn not, He will whet His sword: He hath bent
His bow and made it ready.” “Where art thou?” Thy life is frail; nothing can be more
weak. A spider’s line is a cable compared with the thread of thy life. Dreams are
substantial masonry compared with the bubble structure of thy being. Thou art here and
thou art gone. Thou sittest here today; ere another week is past thou mayest be howling
in another world. Oh, where art thou, man? Unpardoned, and yet a dying man!
Condemned yet going carelessly towards destruction! Covered with sin, yet speeding to
thy Judge’s dread tribunal!
II. Now, secondly, the question was meant to CONVINCE OF SIN, and so to lead to a
confession. Had Adam’s heart been in a right state, he would have made a full confession
of his sinfulness. “Where art thou?” Let us hear the voice of God saying that to us, if
today we are out of God and out of Christ.
III. We may regard this text as the VOICE OF GOD BEMOANING MAN’S LOST
ESTATE.
IV. But now I must turn to a fourth way in which no doubt this verse was intended. It is
an arousing voice, a convincing voice, a bemoaning voice; but, in the fourth place, it is a
SEEKING VOICE. “Adam, where art thou?” I am come to find thee, wherever thou
mayest be. I will look for thee, till the eyes of My pity see thee, I will follow thee till the
hand of My mercy reaches thee; and I will still hold thee till I bring thee back to myself,
and reconcile thee to My heart.
V. And now, lastly, we feel sure that this text may be used, and must be used, in another
sense. To those who reject the text, as a voice of arousing and conviction, to those who
despise it as the voice of mercy bemoaning them, or as the voice of goodness seeking
them, it comes in another way; it is the voice of JUSTICE SUMMONING THEM. Adam
had fled, but God must have him come to His bar. “Where art thou, Adam? Come hither,
man, come hither; I must judge thee, sin cannot go unpunished.” (C. H.Spurgeon.)
I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself
The sad effects of yielding to temptation
I. THAT A YIELDING TO TEMPTATION IS GENERALLY FOLLOWED BY A SAD
CONSCIOUSNESS OF PHYSICAL DESTITUTION.
II. THAT A YIELDING TO TEMPTATION IS GENERALLY FOLLOWED BY A
GRIEVOUS WANDERING FROM GOD.
1. After yielding to temptation, men often wander from God by neglecting
(1) Prayer.
(2) God’s Word.
2. By increasing profanity of life.
III. THAT A YIELDING TO TEMPTATION IS GENERALLY FOLLOWED BY SELF-
VINDICATION.
227

228. 1. We endeavour to vindicate ourselves by blaming others. This course of conduct is
(1) ungrateful;
(2) ungenerous;
(3) unavailing.
2. By blaming our circumstances.
IV. THAT IN YIELDING TO TEMPTATION WE NEVER REALIZE THE ALLURING
PROMISES OF THE DEVIL.
1. Satan promised that Adam and Eve should become wise, whereas they became
naked.
2. Satan promised that Adam and Eve should become gods, whereas they fled from
God. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
The wanderer from God
I. WHERE IS MAN?
1. Distant from God.
2. In terror of God.
3. In delusion about God.
4. In danger from God.
II. GOD’S CONCERN FOR HIM.
1. His condition involves evil—God is holy.
2. His condition involves suffering—God is love.
III. GOD’S DEALINGS WITH HIM.
1. In the aggregate—“Adam,” the genius.
2. Personally. “Where art thou?” (W. Wythe.)
The dawn of guilt
I. A CONSCIOUS LOSS OF RECTITUDE. They were “naked.” It is moral nudity—nudity
of soul—of which they are conscious. The sinful soul is represented as naked (Rev_3:17).
Righteousness is spoken of as a garment (Isa_61:3). The redeemed are clothed with
white raiment. There are two things concerning the loss of rectitude worthy of notice.
1. They deeply felt it. Some are destitute of moral righteousness, and do not feel it.
2. They sought to conceal it. Men seek to hide their sins—in religious professions,
ceremonies, and the display of outward morality.
II. AN ALARMING DREAD OF GOD. They endeavour, like Jonah, to flee from the
presence of the Lord.
1. This was unnatural. The soul was made to live in close communion with God. All
228

229. its aspirations and faculties show this.
2. This was irrational. There is no way of fleeing from omnipresence. Sin blinds the
reason of men.
3. This was fruitless. God found Adam out. God’s voice will reach the sinner into
whatever depths of solitude he may pass.
III. A MISERABLE SUBTERFUGE FOR SIN. “The woman,” etc. And the woman said,
“The serpent beguiled me,” etc. What prevarication you have here! Each transferred the
sinful act to the wrong cause. It is the essential characteristic of moral mind that it is the
cause of its own actions. Each must have felt that the act was the act of self. (Homilist.)
I. THE SENSE OF GUILT BY WHICH THEY WERE OPPRESSED.
Sad results of disobedience
1. There were circumstances which aggravated their guilt—they knew God—His
fellowship—were perfectly holy—happy—knew the obligations—knew the
consequences of life and death.
2. They felt their guilt aggravated by these circumstances. Their consciences were
not hardened. Their present feelings and condition were a contrast with the past. In
these circumstances they fled. They knew of no redemption, and could make no
atonement.
II. THE MELANCHOLY CHANGE OF CHARACTER WHICH HAD RESULTED FROM
THEIR FALL.
1. Our moral attainments are indicated by our views of God—progressive. The pure
in heart see God. Our first parents fell in their conceptions of God—omnipresence.
“Whither shall I go?” etc. This ignorance of God increased in the world with the
increase of sin Rom_1:21-32). This ignorance of God is still exemplified. “The fool
hath said in his heart, there is no God.” He may worship outwardly; and there are
gradations of the foolish—some shut God within religious ordinances—some exclude
Him.
III. THAT THEY HAD LOST THEIR COMMUNION WITH GOD.
1. One barrier interposed was guilt.
2. Another barrier was moral pollution. (James Stewart.)
Hiding after sin
I. ADAM REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE SINNER. A man may do worse than Adam—
hide from God after outraging Him by sin. Sense of God’s presence, awfulness,
greatness, still intact in soul.
II. THEY HID THEMSELVES. An instinct; not the result of a consultation. Two
motives:
1. Fear.
229

230. 2. Shame. The greatness of God was the measure of Adam’s fear; his own lost
greatness was the measure of his shame.
III. AMONGST THE TREES OF THE GARDEN.
1. Pleasure.
2. Occupation.
3. Moral rationalism.
IV. ADAM’S CONDUCT WAS FOOLISH AND IRRATIONAL.
1. Attempting the impossible.
2. Flying from the one hope and opening for restoration and safety. (Canon Liddon.)
Hiding from God
As the account of Eve’s temptation and fall truly represents the course of corruption and
sin, so the behaviour of our first parents afterwards answers exactly to the feelings and
conduct of those who have forfeited their innocence and permitted the devil to seduce
them into actual sin.
I. Any one sin, wilfully indulged, leads to profaneness and unbelief, and tends to blot the
very thought of God out of our hearts.
II. Much in the same way are backsliding Christians led to invent or accept notions of
God and His judgment, as though He in His mercy permitted them to be hidden and
covered, when in truth they cannot be so.
III. The same temper naturally leads us to be more or less false towards men also, trying
to seem better than we are; delighting to be praised, though we know how little we
deserve it. Among particular sins it would seem that two especially dispose the heart
towards this kind of falsehood;
(1) sensuality;
(2) dishonesty.
IV. When any Christian person has fallen into sin and seeks to hide himself from the
presence of the Lord, God is generally so merciful that He will not suffer that man to be
at ease and forget Him. He calls him out of his hiding place, as He called Adam from
among the trees. No man is more busy in ruining himself, and hiding from the face of his
Maker, than He, our gracious Saviour, is watchful to awaken and save him. (Plain
Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times. ”)
Two kinds of retreats
I. THE SINNER’S RETREAT.
1. Complete thoughtlessness.
2. The occupations of life.
230

231. 3. The moralities of life.
4. The forms and observances of religion.
II. THE SAINT’S RETREAT. “I flee unto Thee to hide me”—
(1) from the terrors of the law;
(2) from the hostility and hatred of men;
(3) from the trials and calamities of life;
(4) from the fear and tyranny of death. (A. Raleigh, D. D.)
Hiding places
I. Note here the anticipative sentence of the human conscience pronouncing doom on
itself. The guilty rebel hides from the Divine Presence.
II. The inexorable call which brings him immediately into the Divine Presence.
III. The bringing to light of the hidden things of darkness. The soul has many hiding
places. There are—
(1) The hiding place of self-complacent propriety;
(2) the hiding place of the reasoner;
(3) the hiding place of theological dogmas. But the true hiding place for the soul
is Jesus. (W. Hay Aitken, M. A.)
The unconscious confession
I. ADAM’S HASTE TO MAKE EXCUSE WAY A PROOF OF HIS GUILT. The
consciousness of evil leads to self-condemnation.
II. ADAM’S CONFESSION OF FEAR PROVED HIS GUILT. If a child dreads its parent,
either the child or the parent must be wrong.
III. ADAM’S MORBID MORAL SENSITIVENESS PROVED HIS GUILT. The worst kind
of indelicacy is in being shocked at what is natural and proper. Conclusion:
1. Sin cannot escape from God.
2. Sin cannot stand before God.
3. Sin may find compassion from God. (A. J. Morris.)
Observations
I. ALL MEN MUST APPEAR BEFORE GOD, AND ANSWER ALL THAT THEY ARE
CHARGED WITHAL, WHEN HE COMES TO JUDGMENT.
1. That God by His power can enforce and draw all men before Him, and to confess
Him too, no man can deny (Rom_14:11).
231

232. 2. Besides, it is fit that God should do it, for the clearing of His justice, both in
rewarding His own and punishing the wicked and ungodly, when every man’s work is
manifest, and it appears that every man receives according to his deeds (Rom_2:8).
Of this truth there can be no clearer evidence than the observation of that judgment
which passeth upon every man in the private consistory of his own conscience, from
which none can fly nor silence his own thoughts, bearing witness for him, or against
him, no, not those which have no knowledge of God or His law Rom_2:15).
II. ALL MEN BY NATURE ARE APT TO COLOUR AND CONCEAL ALL THAT THEY
CAN AND THAT EVEN FROM GOD HIMSELF.
1. Because all men desire to justify themselves, and are by nature liars Rom_3:4),
and therefore easily fall into that evil to which their nature inclines them.
2. The want of the full apprehension of God’s Providence.
III. ONE SIN COMMONLY DRAWS ON ANOTHER.
1. Any sin committed weakens the heart, and consequently leaves it the more unable
to withstand a second assault—as a castle is the more easily taken when the breach is
once made.
2. And sins are usually fastened one to another, like the links of a chain; so that he
who takes hold of one of them necessarily draws on all the rest.
3. And God in justice may punish one sin with another, and to that end both
withdraw His restraining grace from wicked men, that being delivered over to the
lusts of their own hearts they may run on to all excess of riot, that they may fill up the
measure of their sin, that God’s wrath may come upon them to the uttermost, and
many times for a while withholds the power of His sanctifying grace from His own
children.
IV. GOD’S WORD IS TERRIBLE TO A GUILTY CONSCIENCE.
V. IT IS A HARD MATTER TO BRING MEN TO CONFESS ANY MORE THAN IS
EVIDENT IN ITSELF.
VI. MEN MAY BE BROUGHT MORE EASILY TO ACKNOWLEDGE ANYTHING THAN
THEIR SIN.
VII. NO MEANS CAN WORK ANY FARTHER THAN THEY ARE ACTED AND
CARRIED ON BY GOD HIMSELF. (J. White, M. A.)
Conscience
I. In briefly adverting then to the fact THAT IT IS THE VOICE OF THE LORD WHICH
AWAKENS CONVICTION, LET US ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN EXACTLY WHAT IS
INTENDED BY SUCH AN EXPRESSION. In the case of Adam it was, of course, the
direct and audible voice of the Lord whereby he was aroused. There is no doubt that that
voice had struck home to his conscience long before it fell upon his ear—as is prevent by
his sense of nakedness, which he pleaded as an excuse for his concealment; but that
conviction of sin which drove him to the shade of the foliage immediately after he had
eaten the fruit, and before the Lord called him from his hiding place, was but the echo of
the Almighty’s previous warning, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
232

233. die.” If it was the voice of God which awakened conviction in Adam, how does He make
that voice heard by us? Is there not a steady monitor within us, and which at times the
most hardened of us cannot stifle—which is constantly telling us, “thou shalt surely
die”—which is ever reminding us that God’s law requires perfection, absolute and
unblemished purity, without which we cannot enter into His rest—which also shows us
our own hearts, and forces us to bear them to the standard of God’s law (a light in which
we see in every part of ourselves the elements of eternal perdition and utter ruin)—which
proclaims death to us at every step—which haunts our rest, disturbs our thoughts,
distracts our minds, and terrifies our souls with the unceasing warning, “thou shalt
surely die”?
II. THE EFFECT PRODUCED BY THE VOICE—FEAR. “I heard Thy voice in the garden,
and I was afraid.” There are two kinds of fear—the one generally termed reverence, or, as
it is scripturally called, “godly fear,”—the other dread, or terror, induced by fear of
punishment The former always results from a suitable attitude before God in the
contemplation of His majesty and power, and forms one of the most indispensable and
becoming attributes in the character of the true disciple of God. The latter is an infallible
indication of the absence of the Spirit from the heart, and of the consciousness of guilt
without the wish for, or hope of, a remedy. It was this fear which engendered the slavish
obedience of the Israelites, and induced that dogged and sullen compliance with the
law’s demands which characterized the spirit in which their services were rendered. A
fear which urges nothing more than a bare fulfilment of a demand from a sense of
coercion and compulsion, cannot fail to beget a spirit of enmity against its object. Hence
it is that our churches are filled with unwilling worshippers, and the altar of Jehovah is
insulted with constrained oblations.
III. The next consideration suggested by the text was, THE MISERABLE AND
HUMILIATING SENSE AWAKENED BY THE CONVICTION OF SIN—NAKEDNESS. It
is a feeling which manifests itself under three aspects—bringing with it a sense of
ignorance, of a want of righteousness, and of impurity. We may be extensively versed in
what this world calls knowledge—may be widely acquainted with the works of
philosophers and poets,and may even be deeply read in the Oracles of God; able to
descant with subtilty and power upon the doctrines of revealed truth; but no sooner does
the abiding conviction of sin break in upon us, than these attributes, upon which we
once rested a hope of preference before our less favoured brethren, become only as so
many scorpions to sting us with the reproach of baying abused them, and leave us under
a sense of ignorance even in the possession of the gifts of knowledge. But it is not only
upon such as these that the sense of ignorance accompanies the voice of conviction. It
creeps over those who, without worldly as well as spiritual knowledge of any kind, have
never felt their ignorance before. There are many who, while they are of the night and
know nothing, think there is nothing which their own strength is not sufficient to
perform, and that there is no degree of excellence to which they cannot of their own
power attain. When conscience speaks to such as these, the helplessness which they feel
partakes largely of this sense of ignorance. They look back upon that career of self-
sufficiency during which they have been arrested, like awakened sleepers upon the
visions of a dream; and yet, amidst the realities to which they have been aroused, they
feel a need; but know not where to turn for help. Our helplessness under conviction of
sin is increased by a feeling of our want of righteousness being super-added to this sense
of ignorance. Self-dependence is the invariable accompaniment of an ungodly life.
Ungodliness itself consists chiefly, if not entirely, in a want of faith in Christ; and if this
want of faith in Him exists, our trust must be reposed elsewhere; we either consider
233

234. ourselves too pure to need a Saviour, or else we trust in future virtue to redeem past
transgression. When the floods of conviction all at once break down the sandy barriers of
self-trust behind which we have sought to screen ourselves, one of the principal
elements in the sense of helplessness resulting from it is a void within ourselves which
we find widening more and more as conviction becomes the stronger. It brings with it,
too, in an equal degree, a feeling of impurity. Before conviction has firmly fastened hold
upon the mind; when, as it were, its first strivings for audience are all that can be
experienced, it is apt to be checked by the trite expedient of comparing our own
godliness with that of others. But such specious delusions are all overthrown when
conscience has us completely in its chains. It leads us to measure ourselves, not by a
relative standard, or by the contrast we present to our brethren around us; but by the
contrast we present to the requirements of that law which demands perfect purity; a
purity to which we feel we can never attain, and a law whereby we know we shall be
ultimately judged. We look within, and see ourselves stained with every sin which that
law condemns, and we feel that the very lightest of our transgressions is sufficient to
crush us beneath its curse. It is in vain that we make future resolves. But, terrible as the
situation of a mind thus disturbed may seem, it is in a far more enviable condition than
that which is reposing in the lap of sin, and saying, “Peace, peace, when God has not
spoken peace.”
IV. But it will be necessary now to glance at the next head of discourse, namely, THE
VAIN EXPEDIENT FOR ESCAPE MENTIONED IN THE TEXT. “I heard Thy voice in
the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” This attempt at
personal concealment on the part of our first parents, furnishes a striking example of the
deceitfulness of sin. The supposition that the mere shade of the leaves could conceal
them from the eye of God would have appeared to their reason, while unwarped by sin
and shame, as preposterous and absurd; but now that the taint of guilt was on their
souls they were ready to believe in the efficacy of any miserable subterfuge to cheat the
omniscience of the Almighty. In like manner does sin lead its victims now from one
degree of dissimulation to another, commending the mask of hypocrisy in its most
attractive forms, and deluding the sinner into every species of sophistry, from which the
purer mind would instinctively recoil. A more rigid observance of Divine ordinances is
often resolved upon as a means of propitiating the monitions of the conscience. A mare
serious and attentive demeanour is likewise assumed. A closer vigil kept upon the words
and actions. And determinations are made to conform more literally to the demands of
the Divine law. Such resolves in themselves are admirable, and, inasmuch as they
evidence a dissatisfaction with present godliness, are highly commendable. But in what
spirit and for what reason are these reforms undertaken? Is it a glowing desire for the
promotion of the glory of God; a zeal for the advancement of His kingdom; and an
anxiety for the spread of His cause which animates us? Are these high resolves prompted
by an indignant sense of our ingratitude to a merciful and beneficent Creator, and a
childlike desire to return to Him from whom we have departed? No, my friends. It is
from no contrition for past unthankfulness towards the giver of every good and perfect
gift that these resolves are made; but their fulfilment is set about from a sullen and
constrained sense of compulsion to satisfy the exorbitant demands of a hard taskmaster
whose laws we hate, and whose sway we would fain be freed from; they are undertaken
in our own strength, and prompted by a slavish fear of death. We have before seen that
this servile dread, though productive of great apparent submission and obedience,
generates enmity instead of love in the heart. It is only the light of revelation which can
dispel that enmity, and shed abroad that love in the soul. (A. Mursell.)
234

235. Hidings
I. Let us contemplate THE SINNER “HIDING HIMSELF.” For is not this flight and
concealment of Adam among the trees of the garden like a symbolical representation of
what sinners have been doing ever since?—have they not all been endeavouring to escape
from God, and to lead a separated and independent life? They have been fleeing from
Divine Presence, and hiding themselves amid any trees that would keep that Presence far
enough away.
1. One of the most common retreats of the sinner is that of complete
thoughtlessness. What countless thousands of human beings have fled to this
retreat; and how easily and naturally does a man take part and place with “all the
nations that forget God!” We have said complete thoughtlessness; but it is not
complete. If it were, there would be no conscious hiding, no more flight; the forest
would then be so deep and dense that no Divine voice would be heard at all, and no
Divine visitation of any kind felt or feared. But it is not so. Now and again a gleam of
light will come piercing through. Now and again a voice from the Unseen Presence
will summon the fugitive back.
2. The occupations of life furnish another retreat for man when fleeing from God.
Man works that he may be hidden. He works hard that he may hide himself deep.
The city is a great forest, in which are innumerable fugitives from God, and
sometimes the busiest are fleeing the fastest; the most conspicuous to us may be the
farthest away from Him. Work is right—the allotment of God, the best discipline for
man. Trade is right—thedispenser of comforts and conveniences, the instrument of
progress and civilization; and from these things actual benefits unnumbered do
unceasingly flow; and yet there can be little doubt that the case is as we say. These
right things are used at least for this wrong end—as a screen, a subterfuge, a deep
retreat from the voice and the presence of the Lord.
3. The moralities of life form another retreat for souls hiding from God. Some men
are deeply hidden there, and it is hard to find them; harder still to dislodge them.
This does not appear to be an ignominious retreat; a man seems to retire (if, indeed,
he may be said to retire at all) with honour. Speak to him of spiritual deficiency, he
will answer with unfeigned wonder, “In what?” And if you say again, “In the keeping
of the commandments,” he will give you the answer that has been given thousands
and thousands of times since the young man gave it to Jesus, “All these things have I
kept from my youth up. Not perfectly, not as an angel keeps them, but as well as they
are usually kept among men; and what lack I yet?” So fair is the house in which the
man takes shelter. So green is the leafage of the trees amid which he hides. He does
not profess to be even “afraid,” as Adam was. He hears the Voice, and does not
tremble. Why, then, should it be said that he is hiding? Because in deep truth he is.
He is attending to rules, but not adopting soul principles of life. He is yielding an
outward and mechanical compliance to laws, but be has not the spirit of them in his
heart.
4. The forms and observances of religion constitute sometimes a hiding place for
souls. Men come to God’s house to hide from Him. They put on “the form of
godliness, but deny its power.” They have a name to live, but continue dead. They
seem to draw near, but in reality “are yet a great way off.” They figure to themselves
235

236. an imaginary God, who will be propitiated and pleased by an outward and
mechanical service—by the exterior decencies of the Christian life—when all the
while they are escaping from the true God, whose continual demand is, “My son, give
Me thine heart.” Ah, the deceitfulness of the human heart! that men should come to
God to flee from Him! Yet so it is, and therefore let a man examine himself, whether
he be in the faith or merely in the form; whether he have a good hope through grace,
or a hope that will make him ashamed, whether he be in the very Presence
reconciled, trustful, and loving, or yet estranged, deceiving himself, and fleeing from
the only true Shelter. For we may depend upon it that in all these ways men do fly
from God. And God seeks them, for He knows they are lost. He pursues them, not in
wrath, but in mercy; not to drive them away into distance, condemnation, despair;
but to bring them out from every false refuge and home to Himself, the everlasting
and unchanging shelter of all the good.
II. And many do turn and flee to Him to hide them. Adam is the type of the flying sinner.
David is the type of THE FLEEING SAINT (Psa_143:9). Here we have the very heart and
soul of conversion, “I flee unto Thee.” The man who says this has been turned, or he is
turning.
1. “I flee unto Thee to hide me” from the terrors of the law. He alone can hide us
from these terrors. But He can. In His presence we are lifted, as it were, above the
thunders of the mountain; we see its lightnings play beneath our feet. He who finds
his hiding place with God in Christ does not flee from justice; he goes to meet it. In
God, the saint’s refuge justice also has eternal home; and purity, over which no
shadow can ever pass; and law—everlasting, unchanging law—so that the trusting
soul goes to meet allthese and to be in alliance with all these.
2. “I flee unto Thee to hide me” from the hostility and the hatred of men. This was a
flight that David often took, and, in fact, this is the fleeing mentioned in the text.
“Deliver me, O Lord, from mine enemies. I flee unto Thee to bide me.” Believer, if
you have David’s faith you have David’s Refuge. The Name of the Lord is an high
tower, into which all the righteous run and are safe.
3. “I flee unto Thee to hide me” from the trials and calamities of life. A storm comes
to a ship in mid-voyage. She is driven far out of her course, and is glad at last to find
shelter in some friendly port. But there would soon have been shipwreck in the fair
weather. The sunken rock, the unknown current, the treacherous sand, were just
before the ship. The storm was her salvation. It carried her roughly but safely to the
harbour. And such is affliction to many a soul. It comes to quench the sunshine, to
pour the pitiless rain, to raise the stormy wind and drive the soul away to port and
refuge, away to harbour and home within the circle of Divine tranquillity—in the
deep calm of the everlasting Presence.
4. “I flee unto Thee to hide me” from the fear and from the tyranny of death. This is
the very last flight of the godly soul. It has surmounted or gone through every evil
now but one: “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is Death.” (A. Raleigh, D. D.)
Terrors of conscience, and remedies
There is no cure for the terrors of conscience but from God.
1. Because these fears are seated in the soul, and are awakened there by the voice of
236

237. God. “I heard Thy voice,” said Adam. It is the voice of God in the mind that makes it
so terrified: no created being can strike fear or convey comfort into the conscience.
2. The fears of the mind, being supernatural and spiritual, can admit only of a
spiritual remedy. All outward applications will never cure inward distempers: the
sickness of the mind can only be cured by Him who seeth into it. Jesus only can raise
and comfort those whom the terrors of the Almighty have cast down and dejected.
His peculiar work and office it is to release us from the terrors of conscience. He is
entitled to the merit of doing it; He was made acquainted with fear, with trouble,
with amazement, with agony of mind, that He might merit comfort for us under our
fears. Christ is the end of the law for comfort, by conferring pardon; which pardon
He is more fitted to give by reason of that compassion which is in Him; that pity and
tenderness with which He is moved toward all that are under any kind of want, or
sorrow, or misery. Another way to lessen our fears is to maintain our peace with God
by such a regard to His law as will not suffer us to persevere in any known sin. For
the conscience can never be at rest so long as wilful sin remains in the heart. The
man who is at peace with God “fears no evil tidings,” his “heart is fixed.” I add this
further rule: acquaint thyself much with God, and then thou wilt be less afraid when
He visits Thee. If He be new and strange to thee, every appearance of Him will be
fearful; but if thou art acquainted with Him, thou mayest then be confident. Next to
this, nourish a voluntary religious fear of God in the heart, and that will prevent
those other violent and enforced Years which bring torment. Feared He will be; all
knees must bow to Him, all hearts must yield to Him; therefore a devout fear is the
best way to prevent a slavish dread. The humble spirit that bows itself shall not be
broken. Above all, take care to be of the number of those to whom His promises are
made—that is, the Church. To them it is said, “they shall dwell safely,” and none shall
make them afraid.
1. In much pity and tenderness, like as a father catches up a child that is fallen, yea,
“like as a father pitieth his own children, so is the Lord merciful to them that fear
Him.” He “taketh pleasure in the prosperity of His servants,” and loves to see them
in a comfortable condition. “For a small moment,” saith He, “have I forsaken thee,
but witch great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for
a moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy upon thee, saith the Lord
thy Redeemer.”
2. They are assured also of His care over them, lest they should be swallowed up and
overwhelmed with grief and fear. Hear His words: “For I will not contend forever,
neither will I be always wrath; for the spirit should fail before Me and the souls
which I have made. I will restore comforts to him and to his mourners.” God brings
His servants seasonably out of their distresses; because in them they are unfit and
unable for any service. I have now only to observe that all these things are
contrariwise with the wicked. No relief in their extremity, but fear and anguish. (W.
Jones, M. A.)
Divine vision
Adam forgot that God could see him anywhere. Dr. Nettleton used to tell a little
anecdote, beautifully illustrating that the same truth which overwhelms the sinner’s
heart with fear, may fill the renewed soul with joy. A mother instructing her little girl,
237

238. about four years of age, succeeded, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, in fastening upon her
mind this truth, “Thou God seest me!” She now felt that she “had to do” with that Being
“unto whose eyes all things are naked,” and she shrank in terror. For days she was in
deep distress; she wept and sobbed, and would not be comforted. “God sees me, God
sees me!” was her constant wail. At length one day, after spending some time in prayer,
she bounded into her mother’s room, and with a heavenly smile lighting up her tears,
exclaimed, “Oh, mother, God sees me, God sees me!” Her ecstasy was now as great as
her anguish had been. For days her soul had groaned under the thought, “God sees me;
He sees my wicked heart, my sinful life, my hatred to Him and to His holy law”: and the
fear of a judgment to come would fill her soul with agony. But now a pardoning God had
been revealed to her, and her soul exclaimed exultingly, “God sees me, takes pity on me,
will guide and guard me.” (W. Adamson.)
Afraid of God
So there is a consistency in sin: they who hid themselves from one another hid
themselves from the presence of the Lord. Sin is the only separating power. Goodness
loves the light. Innocence is as a bird that follows the bidding of the sun. When your
little child runs away from you, either you are an unlovely parent or the child has been
doing wrong. Adam was afraid of the Lord (Gen_3:10). Afraid of Him who had made the
beautiful garden, the majestic river, the sun, and the moon and the stars! How
unnatural! Instead of running to the Lord, and crying mightily to Him in pain and agony
of soul, he shrunk away into shady places, and trembled in fear and shame. We do the
same thing today. We flee from God. Having done some deed of wrong, we do not throw
ourselves in utter humiliation before the Lord, crying for His mercy, and promising
better life; we stand behind a tree, thinking He will pass by without seeing us. This sin
makes a fool of a man as well as a criminal—it makes him ridiculous as well as guilty. It
makes its own judgment day. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Who told thee that thou wast naked?—
The moral sense
What is significant, as I think, in the Bible narrative, is that the moment when man hears
the voice of God in the garden is the moment when he feels himself estranged from Him;
he is not happy in the presence of his Maker; he shrinks from Him, and seeks any
covering, however feeble, to hide him from his God. And he who looks across the page of
history, and seeks to read the secret of the human soul, will find everywhere, I think, this
same contrariety between man’s duty and his desire, the same consciousness that he has
not performed the work God has given him to do. For what can be told as a truer truth of
the human story, than that man has high desires and cannot attain to them; that he is
living between two worlds, and is often false to what he knows to be most Divine in
himself; or, in a word, that he has tasted of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and yet
that between him and the tree of life stands a flaming sword which turns every way?
I. THE HUMAN CONFESSION. It is not a little strange, upon the face of it, that man,
who is the lord of the physical world, or counts himself so, should be visited by a
haunting sense of failure. Why should he be ashamed of himself? Why conceive a Power
needing propitiation? Why waste his time in penitence for sin? What is sacrifice—that
238

239. venerable institution—but an expression of the discordance between man and his
environment? We know we are sinners; we cannot escape the chiding of conscience.
II. THE DIVINE INTERROGATION. Whence comes, then, this sense of sin, this longing
for holiness? It is a testimony to the Divinity of our human nature. If the prisoner sighs
for liberty and flight in the prison, the reason is that the prison is not his home. If the
exile gazes with yearning eyes upon the waste of waters which parts him from his native
land, the reason is that his heart is there beyond the seas. And if the human heart here in
the body sighs and yearns for a perfectness of love and a joy Divine, the reason is, it is
the heir of immortality. (J. E. C. Welldon, M. A.)
God’s question
“Who told thee that thou wast naked?” or how is it that this nakedness is now a cause of
shame to thee? Wast thou not clothed with innocence, with light, and with glory? Didst
thou not bear the image of thy God, in whom thou gloriedst? Didst thou not rejoice in all
the faculties which He had given thee? Why, then, art thou despoiled, covered with
shame, and miserable? Hast thou sullied the garment of innocence and purity which I
bestowed upon thee? Hast thou lost the crown with which I adorned thy brow? Who,
then, hath reduced thee to this state? “Who told thee that thou wast naked?” Adam is
confounded and speechless before his Judge. It is necessary, then, to deepen the
conviction which he feels in his troubled conscience. It is necessary to give him a nearer
view of the evil which he has committed, by putting to him a still more home question. It
is necessary to set full before his eyes the mirror of the Divine law. “Hast thou eaten of
the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” My brethren, what
instructive lessons does this simple question contain! Let us pause here for a moment,
and direct our thoughts to this important subject. And, first, remark that God, in order
that “He might be justified even when He condemned,” with a condescension which was
intended to redound to His own glory, pronounces no curse, nor even a sentence of
condemnation upon man, until He has first convicted him in his own conscience. But
this condescension of the Lord towards man was also intended to subserve the
happiness of the creature, by leading him to repentance, and, through repentance, unto
salvation. The Lord, by the question which He puts to Adam, confronts him with His
holy law. Man, the sinner, will then no longer be able to withhold the confession of his
guilt, under the plea of ignorance. “I commanded thee,” saith his Judge, “thou knewest
thy duty, the full extent of thy responsibility, even the tremendous sanction of the law
and the penalty of its violation.” If, then, Adam perish, it is his own fault. But the
Almighty, in reminding man in so solemn a manner of the command which He had given
him, designed not merely to lead him to confess that he had sinned knowingly and
willingly, and that he had made no account of his awful responsibility, but also to show
him the real nature of his sin. “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee
that thou shouldest not eat?” I gave thee a command, hast thou violated it? This is sin—
the violation of the law of God, disobedience, rebellion. That sin would have been the
same, in point of nature, whatever had been the object of the command. For us, as well
as for Adam, for every responsible being, sin is simply that which is opposed to the
Divine law. (L. Bonnet.)
239

240. Hast thou eaten of the tree?—
Observation
I. MAN’S FROWARDNESS CANNOT OVERCOME GOD’S LOVE AND PATIENCE.
II. GOD CAN EASILY, WITHOUT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, CONVINCE MEN BY
THEMSELVES.
III. GOD SEES US EVEN WHEN WE SEE NOT HIM, AND TAKES NOTICE OF ALL
OUR WAYS, AND OBSERVES THEM. Let all men walk as in God’s presence, always
beholding Him that is invisible (Heb_11:27), as sitting in His throne of majesty and
power, and observing the ways of men with those eyes which are purer then to behold
evil. This is indeed the only way—
1. To give unto God the honour due to His glorious attributes.
2. To keep our hearts low that we may walk humbly with our God, as we are required
(Mic_6:8).
3. To make us watchful in all our ways, that we may do nothing that may provoke the
eyes of His glory (see Exo_23:21).
4. To encourage us in well-doing, when we know we walk in the sight of our Master,
who both approves us, and will reward us, when our ways please Him (Psa_18:24),
and takes notice of a cup of cold water bestowed in His name upon any of His
children (Mat_10:42), or the least faithful service performed by a servant to his
Master Eph_6:6), and will defend and stand by us while we do Him service (Exo_
23:22-23).
IV. GOD ACCEPTS OF NO CONFESSION TILL MEN SEE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE
SIN OF THEIR ACTIONS, AND THAT TOO AS IT IS SIN.
1. Because without such a confession, God hath neither the honour of His justice in
punishing sin (wherefore Joshua requires Achan to confess his sin, that he might
give glory to God, Jos_7:19), as David doth Psa_51:4), nor of His mercy in pardoning
it.
2. We cannot otherwise be in any state of security after we have sinned, but by suing
out our pardon; which if He should grant, without our condemning and abhorring of
our own evil ways, it would neither further our own reformation, nor justify God in
pardoning such sins, as we have neither acknowledged, nor grieved for at all.
V. MEN MUST BE DEALT WITHAL IN PLAIN TERMS BEFORE THEY WILL BE
BROUGHT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND BE MADE SENSIBLE OF THEIR SINS.
1. Because the heart is never affected with sin till it be represented unto them in full
proportion, but it may appear shameful and odious.
2. Because all men being by nature lovers of themselves, do all that they may to
maintain their own innocency, and therefore endeavour what they can to hide sin
from their own eyes, as well as from other men, as being unwilling to look upon their
own shame.
VI. WHOSOEVER WILL CONVINCE A MAN OF SIN MUST CHARGE HIM
PARTICULARLY WITH THE VERY ACT IN WHICH HE HATH SINNED. VII. IN
SINFUL ACTS OUR HEARTS OUGHT ONLY TO BE FIXED UPON OUR OWN
240

241. ACTIONS, AND NOT UPON OTHER MEN’S SOLICITATIONS AND PROVOCATIONS
THEREUNTO.
1. Because of the proneness of our own hearts to shift off the evil of our actions from
ourselves, if possibly we can.
2. And while we do this, we harden our own hearts, and make them insensible of our
sins, which affect us not, when we think the evil proceeds not from ourselves, but
charge it upon other men that provoke us.
3. Other men’s provocations cannot excuse us, seeing it is the consent of our own
hearts and nothing else that makes it a sin.
VIII. THE BREACH OF GOD’S COMMANDMENT IS THAT WHICH MAKES ANY ACT
OF OURS A SIN.
1. Disobedience is not only an injury to God, but an injury to Him in the highest
degree, wherein His authority is rejected, His wisdom slighted, His holiness
despised, and His providence, and power, and justice, both in rewarding and
punishing not regarded.
2. Disobedience knows no bounds, no more than waters do that have broken down
their banks. (J. White, M. A.)
She gave me of the tree and I did eat.
Adam’s mean excuse
1. Adam, we find, was not content to be in the image of God. He and his wife wanted
to be as gods, knowing good and evil. He wanted to be independent, and show that
he knew what was good for him: he ate the fruit which he was forbidden to eat, partly
because it was fair and well-tasted, but still more to show his own independence.
When he heard the voice of the Lord, when he was called out, and forced to answer
for himself, he began to make pitiful excuses. He had not a word to say for himself.
He threw the blame on his wife. It was all the woman’s fault—indeed, it was God’s
fault. “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I
did eat.”
2. What Adam did once we have done a hundred times, and the mean excuse which
Adam made but once we make again and again. But the Lord has patience with us, as
He had with Adam, and does not take us at our word. He knows our frame and
remembers that we are but dust. He sends us out into the world, as He sent Adam, to
learn experience by hard lessons, to eat our bread in the sweat of our brow till we
have found out our own weakness and ignorance, and have learned that we cannot
stand alone, that pride and self-dependence will only lead us to guilt and misery and
shame and meanness; that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be
saved from them, but only the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (C. Kingsley, M. A.)
A tardy and reluctant confession
Here is, it is true, a confession of his sin. It comes out at last, I did eat; but with what a
circuitous, extenuating preamble, a preamble which makes bad worse. The first word is,
241

242. “the woman,” aye the woman; it was not my fault, but hers. The woman whom “Thou
gavest to be with me”—It was not me; it was Thou Thyself! If thou had’st not given me
this woman to be with me, I should have continued obedient. Nay, and as if he suspected
that the Almighty did not notice his plea sufficiently, he repeats it emphatically: “She
gave me, and I did eat!” Such a confession was infinitely worse than none. Yet such is the
spirit of fallen man to this day. It was not me . . . it was my wife, or my husband, or my
acquaintance, that persuaded me; or it was my situation in life, in which Thou didst
place me! Thus “the foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart fretteth against
the Lord.” It is worthy of notice, that God makes no answer to these perverse excuses.
They were unworthy of an answer. The Lord proceeds, like an aggrieved friend who
would not multiply words: “I see how it is; stand aside!” (A. Fuller.)
Observations
I. NO MAN CAN BEAR OUT SIN BEFORE GOD, HOWSOEVER HE MAY FOR
AWHILE OUT-FACE IT BEFORE MEN.
II. WHEN MEN’S SINS ARE SO MANIFEST THAT THEY CANNOT DENY THEM,
THEY WILL YET LABOUR BY EXCUSES, TO EXTENUATE THEM WHAT THEY MAY.
III. A MAN, IN THIS STATE OF CORRUPTION, RESPECTS NONE BUT HIMSELF,
AND CARES NOT ON WHOM HE LAYS THE BURTHEN, SO HE MAY EASE
HIMSELF.
IV. SEDUCERS ARE JUSTLY CHARGEABLE WITH ALL THE SINS COMMITTED BY
THOSE THAT ARE SEDUCED BY THEM. Beware, then, of that dangerous employment,
to become a solicitor, or factor in sin, and tremble at the very motion of it, and avoid
carefully the society of such agents—
1. Who carry the mark and character of Satan, who is styled by the name of the
tempter, and is the father of all that walk in that waver seducing.
2. Show themselves much more dangerous enemies to mankind than murderers,
who destroy only the body, whereas these lay wait for the soul Pro_22:25).
3. Proclaim war against God, whom they fight against, not only by their own sins,
but much more, by making a party against Him, by drawing as many as they can
procure, to be companions with them in their evils.
4. And therefore are above others, children of wrath, reserved unto them by the just
judgment of God, in a double proportion, according to the measure of their sins
acted by themselves, and furthered in other men by their procurement.
V. IT IS USUAL WITH MEN, WHEN THEMSELVES HAVE COMMITTED THE SIN,
TO LAY THE BLAME OF IT IN PART EVEN UPON GOD HIMSELF.
VI. IT IS A USUAL PRACTICE WITH MANY MEN TO CAST GOD’S BLESSINGS IN
HIS TEETH WITH DISCONTENT.
1. Because, many times, common blessings suit not with men’s private ends and
desires, so that we judge many things, which are blessings in themselves, to be
crosses unto us.
2. Because our unthankful hearts, being not satisfied in all that they inordinately
242

243. desire, scorn that which they have as a trifle, because it answers not to the full of
what is desired.
VII. MEN MAY EASILY BY THEIR OWN FOLLY TURN THE MEANS ORDAINED BY
GOD FOR THEIR GOOD INTO SNARES FOR THEIR DESTRUCTION. Let it warn every
one of us to use all the helps and blessings which we receive from God with fear and
trembling.
1. Purging our own hearts carefully, for to those which are defiled nothing is pure
(Tit_1:15).
2. Sanctifying unto ourselves the blessings themselves, by the word and prayer (1Ti_
4:5).
3. Using all things according to the rule laid down to us in the Word, and referring
them to the end for which He gives them, His own glory, and the furthering of our
sanctification, that He may bless us in those things, the fruit whereof returns unto
Himself at last.
VIII. IT IS VERY DANGEROUS TO EMBRACE ANY MOTION PRESENTED UNTO US
WITHOUT EXAMINING THE WARRANT AND GROUND OF IT. (J. White, M. A.)
Adam’s admission, not confession
He makes no direct and honest answer to God in freely confessing that he had eaten; yet
he cannot deny the deed, and therefore, in the very act of admitting (not confessing), he
casts the blame upon the woman—nay, upon God, for giving him such a tempter. Here
let us mark such truths as these.
1. The difference between admitting sin and confessing it. Adam admits it—slowly
and sullenly—but he does not confess it. He is confronted witha Being in whose
presence it would be vain to deny what he had done; but he will go no father than he
can help. He will tacitly concede when concession is extorted from him, but he will
make no frank acknowledgment. It is so with the sinner still. He does precisely what
Adam did; no more, till the Holy Spirit lays His hand upon his conscience and
touches all the springs of his being. Up till that time he may utter extorted and
reluctant concessions, but he will not confess sin. He will not deal frankly with God.
2. The artfulness of an unhumbled sinner. Even while admitting sin, he shakes
himself free from blame; nay, he thrusts forward the name of another, even before
the admission comes forth, as if to neutralize it before it is made. How artful! yet how
common still! Ah! where do we find honest, unreserved acknowledgment of sin?
Nowhere, save in connection with pardon.
3. The self-justifying pride of the sinner. He admits as much of his guilt as cannot be
denied, and then takes credit to himself for what he has done. He is resolved to take
no more blame than he can help. Even in the blame that he takes, he finds not only
an extenuation, but a virtue, a merit; for he fled because it was not seemly for him to
stand before God naked! Nay, even in so much of the blame as he takes, he must
divide it with another, thus leaving on himself but little guilt and some considerable
degree of merit. Had it not been for another, he would not have had to admit even
the small measure of blame that he does!
243

244. 4. The hardened selfishness of the sinner. He accuses others to screen himself. He
does not hesitate to inculpate the dearest; he spares not the wife of his bosom.
Rather than bear the blame, he will fling it anywhere, whoever may suffer. And all
this in a moment! How instantaneous are the results of sin!
5. The sinner’s blasphemy and ingratitude to God. “The woman whom Thou gavest
me,” said Adam. God’s love in giving him a helpmeet is overlooked, and the gift itself
is mocked at.
6. The sinner’s attempt to smooth over his deed. “The woman gave me the fruit, and
I ate of it; that was all. Giving, receiving, and eating a little fruit; that was all! What
more simple, natural, innocent? How could I do otherwise?” Thus he glosses over the
sin. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
Excuses
“Say not thou,” says the son of Sirach, “it is through the Lord that I fell away; for thou
oughtest not to do the things that He hateth. Say not thou, He hath caused me to err.”
This is just what Adam and Eve did say. When accused of disobedience they retorted,
and dared to blame God for their sin. “If only Thou hadst given me a wife proof against
temptation,” says Adam. “If only the serpent had never been created,” says Eve. Very
similar are most of the excuses we make. We blame the gifts that God gives us rather
than ourselves, and turn that free will which would make us only a little lower than the
angels if rightly used into a “heritage of woe.” A man has a bad temper, is careless about
his home, and is led to eat the forbidden fruit of unlawful pleasures. When his
conscience asks him, “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou
shouldest not eat?” he answers, “It’s all my wife’s fault. She provokes my temper by her
extravagance, carelessness, and fondness for staying away from home. She does not
make my home home-like, so I am driven to solace myself with unlawful pleasures.”
“The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”
And wives are not less ready to make the conduct of husbands an excuse for a low tone of
thought and religion. They ask how it is possible for them to retain their youthful desire
of serving Christ when their husbands make home wretched and sneer at everything
high and holy. “Easy it is for others to be good, but for myself I find that a wife cannot be
better than her husband will allow her to be.” How often is ill health pleaded as an
excuse for bad temper and selfishness! If we are rich, we allow ourselves to be idle and
luxurious. If poor, we think that while it is easy to be good on ten thousand a year, it is
impossible for us to resist the temptations of poverty. Is a man without self-restraint and
self-control? He thinks it enough to say that his passions are very strong. In the time of
joy and prosperity we are careless and thoughtless. When sorrow comes to us, we
become hard and unbelieving, and we think that the joy and the sorrow should quite
excuse us. Again, evil-doers say that no man could do otherwise were he in their
position, that there is no living at their trade honestly, that their health requires this and
that indulgence, that nobody could be religious in the house in which they live, and so
on. If God wanted us to fight the good fight of faith in other places and under other
circumstances, He would move us; but He wishes us to begin the battle where we are,
and not elsewhere. There subdue everything that stands in conflict with the law of
conscience, and the law of love, and the law of purity, and the law of truth. Begin the
fight wherever God sounds the trumpet, and He will give you grace, that as your day is,
so your strength shall be. As long as people say, “I cannot help it,” they will not help it;
244

245. but if they will only try their best they will be able to say, “I can do all things through
Christ who strengtheneth me.” On comparing the excuses which we modern sinners
make with those attributed in the text to the first sinners, Adam and Eve, we find one
circumstance characterizing them both. We, as well as they, virtually say, that only for
difficulty and temptation we would be very good. And yet how absurd it would be to give
a Victoria Cross for bravery in the absence of the enemy. We would all laugh if we heard
a man greatly praised for being honest and sober when in prison, because we would
know that it was impossible for him to be anything else. It is just because the Christian
life is not an easy thing that at our baptism we are signed with the sign of the Cross, in
token that we shall have to fight manfully under His banner against sin, the world, and
the devil. (E. J. Hardy, M. A.)
Adam’s vain excuse for his sin
We have here the antiquity of apologies: we find them almost as ancient as the world
itself. For no sooner had Adam sinned, but he runneth behind the bush.
I. First, we will anatomize and dissect this excuse of Adam’s.
II. Next we will look into ourselves; take some notice of our own hearts, and of those
excuses which we commonly frame.
III. And then, to make an exact anatomy lecture, we will lay open the danger of the
disease, that we may learn to avoid what was fatal to our parents,, and, though we sin
with Adam, yet not with Adam to excuse our sin. Of these in their order.
I. “And the man said, The woman,” etc. I told you this was no answer, but an excuse; for
indeed an excuse is no answer. An answer must be fitted to the question which is asked;
but this is quite beside it. The question here is, “Hast thou eaten of the forbidden tree?”
The answer is wide from the purpose, an accusation of the woman, yea, of God Himself:
“The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” “I
have eaten,” by itself, had been a wise answer; but it is, “I did eat,” but “the woman gave
it,” a confession with an extenuation; and such a confession is far worse than a flat
denial. His apology upbraideth him, and he condemneth himself with his excuse.
1. For, first, Mulier dedit, “The woman gave it me,” weigh it as we please, is an
aggravation of his sin. We may measure sin by the temptation: it is always the
greatest when the temptation is least. A great sin it would have been to have eaten of
the forbidden fruit though an angel had given it: what is it, then, when it is the
woman that giveth it? What a shame do we count it for a man of perfect limbs to be
beaten by a cripple! for a son of Anak to be chased by a grasshopper! (Num_13:33);
for Xerxes’ army, which drank up the sea, to be beaten out of Greece by three
hundred Spartans! Certainly he deserveth not power who betrayeth it to weakness.
“The woman gave it me,” then, was a deep aggravation of the man’s transgression.
2. Again: It is but, “The woman gave it.” And a gift, as we commonly say, may be
either taken or refused; and so it is in our power whether it shall be a gift or no. Had
the man been unwilling to have received, the woman could have given him nothing.
“The gods themselves have not strength enough to strive against necessity”; but he is
weaker than a man who yieldeth where there is no necessity. “The woman gave it
me,” then, is but a weak apology.
245

246. 3. Further yet: What was the gift? Was it of so rich a value as to countervail the loss
of paradise? No; it was “the fruit of the tree.” We call it “an apple”: some would have
it to be an Indian fig. The Holy Ghost vouchsafeth not once to name it, or to tell us
what it was. Whatever it was, it was but fruit, and of that tree of which man was
forbidden to eat upon penalty of death (Gen_2:17). “An evil bargain is an eyesore,
because it always upbraideth him with folly who made it.” And such a bargain here
had our first father made. He had bought gravel for bread, wind for treasure, “hope
for a certainty,” a lie for truth, an apple for paradise. The woman, the gift, the gift of
an apple—these are brought in for an excuse, but are indeed a libel.
4. Further still: To aggrandize Adam’s fault, consider how the reason of his excuse
doth render it most unreasonable. Why doth he make so busy a defence? Why doth
he shift all the blame from himself upon the woman? Here was no just detestation of
the offence, but only fear of punishment.
5. In the last place: That which maketh his apology worse than a lie, and rendereth
his excuse inexcusable, is, that he removeth the fault from the woman on God
Himself. Not the woman alone is brought in, but “The woman whom Thou gavest
me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Which indeed is a plain sophism: that is
made “a cause which is not a cause,” but an occasion only. It is a common axiom,
“That which produceth the cause, produceth also the effect of that cause”; and it is
true in causes and effects essentially co-ordinate. But here it is not so. God, indeed,
gave Adam the woman; but He gave him not the woman to give him the apple. “He
gave her for a companion, not for a tempter”; and He gave her not to do that which
He had so plainly forbidden.
II. And now I wish that the leaves of those trees among which Adam hid himself had
cast their shadow only upon him. But we may say, as St. Ambrose doth of the story of
Naboth and Ahab, “This history of Adam is as ancient as the world; but is fresh in
practice, and still revived by the sons of Adam.” We may therefore be as bold to discover
our own nakedness as we have been to pluck our first father from behind the bush. We
have all sinned “after the similitude of Adam’s transgression,” and we are as ready to
excuse sin as to commit it. Do we only excuse our sin? No; many times we defend it by
the gospel, and even sanctify it by the doctrine of Christ Himself. Superstition we
commend for reverence, profaneness for Christian liberty, indiscretion for zeal, will
worship for obedience. To come close home therefore, we will stay a little, and draw the
parallel, and show the similitude that is betwixt Adam and his sons. We shall still find a
Mulier dedit to be our plea as well as his. Some “woman,” something weaker than
ourselves, overthroweth us, and then is taken in for an excuse. “We all favour ourselves,
and our vices too; and what we do willingly we account as done out of necessity of
nature.” If we taste the forbidden fruit, we are ready to say, “The woman gave it us.”
Again: it is some gift, some proffer, that prevaileth with it, something “pleasant to the
eye,” something that flattereth the body and tickleth the fancy, something that
insinuateth itself through our senses, and so by degrees worketh upward, and at last
gaineth power over that which should “command”—our reason and understanding.
Whatsoever it is, it is but a gift, and may be refused. Further: As it is something
presented in the manner of a gift which overcometh us, so commonly it is but an apple;
something that cannot make us better, but may make us worse; something offered to our
hope, which we should fear; something that cannot be a gift till we have sold ourselves,
nor be dear to us till we are vile and base to ourselves; at the best but a gilded
temptation; an apple with an inscription, with an Eritis sicut dii, upon it; with some
246

247. promise, some show, and but a show and glimpse, of some great blessing; but earthy and
fading, yet varnished with some resemblance of heaven and eternity. Lastly. The Tu
dedisti will come in too. For, be it the world, God created it; be it wealth, He openeth His
hand and giveth it; be it honour, He raiseth the poor out of the dust; be it our flesh, He
fashioneth it; be it our soul, He breathed it into us; be it our understanding, it is a spark
of His Divinity; be it our will, He gave it us; be it our affections, they are the impressions
of His hand. But, be it our infirmities, we are too ready to say that that is a woman too of
God’s making. But God never gave it. For, suppose the flesh be weak, yet the spirit is
strong. “If the spirit be stronger than the flesh,” saith Tertullian, “it is our fault if the
weaker side prevail.” And therefore let us not flatter ourselves, saith he, because we read
in Scripture that “the flesh is weak”; for we read also that “the spirit is ready” (Mat_
26:41); “that we might know that we are to obey, not the flesh, but the spirit.”
III. And thus ye see what a near resemblance and likeness there is between Adam and
his posterity; that we are so like him in this art of apologizing that we cannot easily tell
whether had most skill to paint sin with an excuse, the father or the children. Adam
behind the bush, Adam with a Mulier dedit, is a fair picture of every sinner; but it is not
easy to say that it doth fully express him. But now, to draw towards a conclusion, that we
may learn “to cast off the old man,” and to avoid that danger that was fatal to him, we
must remember that we are not only of the first Adam, but also of the second; not only
“of the earth, earthy,” but also of “the Lord from heaven: and as we have borne the image
of the earthy, so we must also bear the image of the heavenly” (1Co_15:47-49). We must
remember that we are born with Christ, that we are baptized and buried with Christ, and
that we must rise with Christ; that the woman was given to be in subjection, the flesh to
be subdued by us, and the world to be trodden under our feet; that we must not count
these as enforcements and allurements before sin, lest we take them up as excuses after
sin; that we must not yield to them as stronger than ourselves, that we may not need to
run and shelter ourselves under them in time of trouble.
1. To conclude: my advice shall be—First, that of Arsenius the hermit: “Command
Eve, and beware of the serpent, and thou shalt be safe; but, if thou wilt be out of the
reach of danger, do not so much as look towards the forbidden tree.”
2. But, if thou hast sinned, if thou hast tasted of the forbidden fruit, if thou hast
meddled with the accursed thing, then, as Joshua speaketh to Achan, “My son, give, I
pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto Him” (Jos_
7:19). Run not behind the bush, study not apologies; make not the woman, who
should help thee to stand, an excuse of thy fall; nor think that paint nor curtains can
hide thy sin from Him whose “eyes are ten thousand times brighter than the sun”
(Sir_23:19), and in whose bosom thou art, even when thou runnest into the thicket
of excuses. No; “Give glory to God,” that God may seal a pardon to thee. Open thy sin
by confession to God, and the mercy of God will hide it: condemn it, and judge
thyself for it; and thy excuse is made, thou shalt never be judged for it by the Lord:
lay it open before the Lord, and He will blot it out forever. (A. Farindon, D. D.)
The resistance of temptation
You will observe how in this expression Adam directs attention to Eve as the more guilty
of the two; as, if it had not been for her, had she not pressed and persuaded him to eat,
that awful and fatal fruit would have remained untouched; as if she, the first to disobey,
247

248. had urged him on, she leading, and he only following; she daring to pluck, to eat, and to
give, and he only consenting to receive what she had taken. And no doubt he stated the
case as it really was; the guilt did not begin with him; Eve led the way; her foot first
crossed the forbidden line. But the question for us to consider is this: Did this defence,
strictly true as it was, and in some sort placing with justice the greater blame on her, free
him from condemnation in God’s sight? Nay, however it was that he came to sin, sin was
condemned in him; the sentence was passed, in all its awfulness, that he should die;
there was no lesser death, no milder punishment decreed against him. When Eve
enticed, it was his part to have withstood, to have resisted all the beguiling words; it was
his to have refused the fruit, to have held back his hand, to have kept his hold of the
commandments of God; concession to her was sin; and whether or not the greater blame
was his, there was blame enough to bring down upon himself the awful vengeance of the
Lord, and the awful decree of death. And should we not dwell upon this point, and see
how, when Adam pleaded his wife’s first step in sin as the cause and excuse for his, God’s
wrath fell upon him as well as her? For in this, as in all former times, men often weave
the same flimsy web of self-defence, and think to screen themselves behind others who
have led them into sin, to lighten their load of iniquity, and to blunt the sharper edge of
the sword of punishment. The young, when pursuing youthful sins, point to the young
already before them on the same sinful course, saying, “See you not that it was always so,
that I am but as the young have ever been, that I am only doing what has been done by
those before me?” The middle-aged, busied with the world, and in their worldly dealings
showing a sharp, a grasping, an unscrupulous spirit, wanting in all that is generous,
simple, and high-minded, point to what they call “the ways of the world,” shelter
themselves behind the customs of the age, the habits of other men, the examples that are
around them, saying that others gave them of this low standard of morals, these sharp
ways of dealing, these lax principles, and they did eat; that they did not of themselves
begin thus to deal, thus to push their way; that they even wish things were different, but
that they found the world a pushing world, and that they only followed in the train,
doing what others did, and following in the lead. But what is the use of such defences of
ourselves? How will this bear the light? How do we clear ourselves by such means as
this? If it be sin to tempt, it is also sin to yield; if it be sin to give of forbidden fruit, it is
also sin to take; if it be sin to Suggest evil counsel, it is also sin to follow it. It is this very
point that the ease of Adam urges on us all. It may be our part to hear evil counsel, to
have evil friends, to live in an atmosphere of evil principles, to be offered in some form
other forbidden fruit, to see others eating of it themselves; but are we at once to be led by
the evil friend, to act on the evil advice, to imbibe the evil principles, to yield to the evil
ways which others tread? Nay, we are called to the very opposite course; we are called to
resist evil, to quit ourselves like men, to endure temptation, to drive off tempters, to bear
witness to our Saviour, to confess Him in the world by opposing the spirit of the world.
Yes, this often is our part, and to this we are called by God, to bear witness to the truth,
to be surrounded by tempters and temptations, wrong views, wrong ways of going on,
wrong habits, unchristian conduct, unchristian patterns, and, amid all this darkness of
the world, to see by faith the true and narrow way, not to be beguiled, but to steer our
vessel straight. We each, in one sense, stand alone. Every man has his own appointed
course, to which the Spirit leads him on; from which, if he would be saved, he must not
swerve to the right hand or to the left, whatever influences may be at work on either side.
(Bishop Armstrong.)
248

249. False excuses for sin
The first thing which strikes us, on the perusal of this passage, is the extreme readiness
and proneness of man to urge an excuse for sin, and to shift the blame from himself
upon some other person or thing. One of the commonest grounds on which men rest
their apology for irreligion and laxity is a defective education. They were not trained in
youth to the way wherein they should go; parents did not teach it, did not walk in the
way before them. Others, again, are thinking to throw the fault of their disobedience or
their sinful habits upon the circumstances in which they are placed, upon their
profession or trade, upon the maxims and habits of society, upon the companions with
whom they must associate. And it is undeniable that many strong temptations are thus
presented. But this can by no means justify a yielding to sin. Not a few there are who
account for the frequency of their offences from an untowardness of disposition and
temper, from the violence of passion, or from bodily infirmities; and there are
allowances to be made on these grounds; but no free pardon, no license hereby for sin.
(J. Slade, M. A.)
Man’s readiness to invent excuse for sin
A traveller in Venezuela illustrators the readiness of men to lay their faults on the
locality, or on anything rather than on themselves, by the story of a hard drinker who
came home one night in such a condition that he could not for some time find his
hammock. When this feat was accomplished, he tried in vain to get off his big riding
boots. After many fruitless efforts, he lay down in his hammock, and soliloquized aloud,
“Well, I have travelled all the world over; I lived five years in Cuba, four in Jamaica, five
in Brazil; I have travelled through Spain and Portugal, and been in Africa, but I never yet
was in such an abominable country as this, where a man is obliged to go to bed with his
boots on.” Commonly enough are we told by evil-doers in excuse for their sins that no
man could do otherwise were he in their position; that there is no living at their trade
honestly; that in such a street shops must be open on a Sunday; that their health
required an excursion to Brighton on the Sabbath because their labours were so severe;
and so on, all to the same effect, and about as truthful as the soliloquy of the drunkard of
Venezuela. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I
was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
BARNES, "Gen_3:10-12
Adam confesses that he was afraid of God, because he was naked. There is an
249

250. instinctive hiding of his thoughts from God in this very speech. The nakedness is
mentioned, but not the disobedience from which the sense of it arose. To the direct
interrogatory of the Almighty, he confesses who made him acquainted with his
nakedness and the fact of his having eaten of the forbidden fruit: “The woman” gave me
of the tree, and “I did eat.”
CLARKE, "I was afraid, because I was naked - See the immediate
consequences of sin. 1. Shame, because of the ingratitude marked in the rebellion, and
because that in aiming to be like God they were now sunk into a state of the greatest
wretchedness. 2. Fear, because they saw they had been deceived by Satan, and were
exposed to that death and punishment from which he had promised them an exemption.
How worthy is it of remark that this cause continues to produce the very same effects!
Shame and fear were the first fruits of sin, and fruits which it has invariably produced,
from the first transgression to the present time.
GILL, "And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden,.... The voice of thy Word, as
the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan: this was not the true cause of his hiding himself;
he had heard his voice in the garden before, when it did not strike him with terror, but
gave him pleasure:
and I was afraid, because I was naked. This also was not the true reason; he was
naked from his creation as to his body, and it caused no shame in him, nor any dread to
appear before God; he conceals the true cause, which was sin, that made the nakedness
of his body shameful, and had stripped his soul of its native clothing, purity and
holiness; and therefore it was, he could not appear before a pure and holy Being:
and I hid myself; among the trees of the garden, and his wife also; or therefore (w)
"hid myself"; through fear of God, his wrath and displeasure, which he had justly
incurred by his disobedience, and because of his sin which had made his soul naked,
though he was not as yet ingenuous enough to confess it.
HENRY, "II. The trembling answer which Adam gave to this question: I heard thy
voice in the garden, and I was afraid, Gen_3:10. He does not own his guilt, and yet in
effect confesses it by owning his shame and fear; but it is the common fault and folly of
those that have done an ill thing, when they are questioned about it, to acknowledge no
more than what is so manifest that they cannot deny it. Adam was afraid, because he was
naked; not only unarmed, and therefore afraid to contend with God, but unclothed, and
therefore afraid so much as to appear before him. We have reason to be afraid of
approaching to God if we be not clothed and fenced with the righteousness of Christ, for
nothing but this will be armour of proof and cover the shame of our nakedness. Let us
therefore put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and then draw near with humble boldness.
JAMISON, "Gen_3:10-13. The examination.
250

251. afraid, because ... naked — apparently, a confession - the language of sorrow; but
it was evasive - no signs of true humility and penitence - each tries to throw the blame on
another.
SBC, "How deep are the lessons involved in the story of the fall, and how little are they
affected by any of the numerous criticisms to which it has given rise! The lessons to be
here learnt are moral, not ethnological; spiritual, not scientific. For even if the facts be
not literal, they remain divinely and unalterably true. The history is no dead letter, but a
living symbol; it contains the very essence and principle of the whole matter, and he who
would have a thorough insight into the origin of sin may learn more from these few and
simple verses than from all else that the united energy of mankind has ever discovered
on the subject with which they deal.
I. The first lesson from the story of the fall is the necessity for constant watchfulness.
None, not even the oldest warrior, can ever in this world lay aside one piece of his
panoply; for our warfare is a warfare in which there is no discharge. At the door of your
hearts, no less than at that of the first murderer, sin is crouching like some wild beast of
prey; but "subject unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
II. Beware of underrating the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Echo not the scornful and
faithless question, "Yea, hath God said?" Woe be to the man who dares to exalt his petty
impotence against the divine majesty of the moral law! To violate it is a peril, to deny it a
blasphemy which brings its own crushing Nemesis behind.
III. Beware of the theory that sin indeed may be sinful, but that no strict notice will be
taken, no stern account exacted for the sins of your youth; beware of the wicked and
perilous theory that you can sow your wild oats now. Reverence yourselves in
reverencing the high and merciful commands of God. You are called by this high calling
to be holy and pure.
F. W. Farrar, The Fall of Man and other Sermons, p. I
Genesis 3:10
(with Psa_143:9).
I. Consider, first, the sinner hiding himself. Some common retreats of the sinner are: (1)
complete thoughtlessness; (2) the occupations of life; (3) the moralities of life; (4) the
forms and observances of religion.
II. Adam is the type of the fleeing sinner. David is the type of the fleeing saint: "I flee
unto Thee to hide me," (1) from the terrors of the law; (2) from the hostility and the
hatred of men; (3) from the trials and calamities of life; (4) from the fear and the tyranny
of death.
A. Raleigh, Quiet Resting-places, p. 235.
Reference: Gen_3:11.—J. Purchas, Miscellaneous Sermons by Clergymen of the
Church of England, p. 25.
251

252. CALVIN, "10.And he said, I heard thy voice. Although this seems to be the
confession of a dejected and humbled man, it will nevertheless soon appear that he
was not yet properly subdued, nor led to repentance. He imputes his fear to the
voice of God, and to his own nakedness, as, if he had never before heard God
speaking without being alarmed, and had not been even sweetly exhilarated by his
speech. His excessive stupidity appears in this, that he fails to recognize the cause of
shame in his sin; he, therefore, shows that he does not yet so feel his punishment, as
to confess his fault. In the meantime, he proves what I said before to be true, that
original sin does not reside in one part of the body only, but holds its dominion over
the whole man, and so occupies every part of the soul, that none remains in its
integrity; for, notwithstanding his fig-leaves, he still dreads the presence of God.
COFFMAN, ""And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid
because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee thou wast
naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest
not eat?"
There was no way for Adam to hide his sinful condition from God. The mention of
his nakedness and his hiding laid bare his ugly secret. It should never be supposed
that Adam's actions were in any manner a surprise to God. Even before the
foundation of the world, and long before Adam and Eve had been created and
placed in Eden, God had anticipated their sin and had formulated the remedy for
their transgression (1 Corinthians 2:8). God went straight to the heart of the
problem and asked Adam if he had eaten of the forbidden fruit.
NISBET, "COWARDICE AND CANT
‘I heard Thy voice … and I was afraid.’
Genesis 3:10
252

253. I. ‘I heard Thy voice … and I was afraid.’ The words are Adam’s words, spoken
after that first sin, which we are told about in to-day’s first morning lesson. Was
Adam a coward when he uttered them?
Yes, he was—a conscience-made coward, like many a one after him. He is a coward
after his sin, not before it; in his rebellion against God, and not in His service. And
the same thing has been true in the case of thousands of His children. For fear is the
unhappy firstborn of sin. It is not religion that makes man a coward, but the want of
it. We do wrong, and then ‘conscience doth make cowards of us all.’
But while in Adam’s mouth the words of the text are the words of a coward, in
themselves they are not, by any means, necessarily so. They might well be, under
different conditions, as, doubtless, they have often been, the words of the bravest,
truest spirits breathing. For, over and over again, absolute fearlessness is found to
go hand in hand with, even as it is the direct outcome of fear—the only fear which
has no trace of shame in it; holy fear, the fear of God—the fear of sin!
‘He feared man so little because he feared God so much,’ was once said of a great
Indian statesman. Who could desire a better epitaph—a nobler record of a finished
life? It describes a man who stands a head and shoulders above the common run of
men—a man in a generation, perhaps. One who has confidence in himself, and
inspires confidence in others. One who would regard an invitation to do wrong as an
insult, so jealous is he of the honour of God. Who, in answer to the seemingly bold,
but really uneasy taunt of the scoffer, ‘What! you’re afraid, are you?’ looks his
accuser in the face, and answers, ‘Yes; I am afraid. I am not afraid of you, or of any
man living, but I am afraid of God, and afraid to do what He forbids’?
If a man is truly religious, he is, he must be, above all things a fearless man. And yet
many a man—many a young man especially—shrinks from being marked down
‘religious,’ because he imagines that religion is not manly enough for him; because
some have told him, and he has believed it, that it is all cant and cowardice.
253

254. Now let us say a word about cant.
‘I hate cant,’ a man says, and thinks that he has, therefore, given a very good reason
for despising religion. Now the sentiment he expresses is a very good one, as far as it
goes. Every honest man should, and does hate cant. But what is cant? Let us see.
Literally, cant is whining—practically, it is unreality. Well, there is religious cant—
and this is of two kinds.
II. Some people make religion, and a stock of religious phrases, a cloak for their evil
lives. This is cant, and of a very bad kind.
Others, again, who are very far from being hypocrites, uncharitably condemn, nay,
anathematise, innocent amusements, and many things, which though innocent in
themselves, are abused by many. Of course, we can make anything sinful; but to
condemn cards and theatres, for instance, as in themselves works of the devil, is to
give, not the enemies of religion alone, good reason for identifying religion with
cant.
But now, do people ever stop to consider that there is at least as much cant outside
of religion as ever was found within it? And the very people who cry out against
religious cant make a very liberal use of cant of their own. It reminds one of the old
story that tells how the philosopher Diogenes paid a visit to a brother philosopher,
Plato, and finding the other amid luxurious carpets, and other comforts, entered his
room with the remark, ‘I trample upon the ostentation of Plato.’ ‘Yes,’ answered
Plato, ‘with an ostentation of your own.’
Now the man who speaks of sin as ‘seeing life,’ ‘enjoying life,’ ‘being a bit fast,’ and
so on, is canting, and in a very mischievous way.
Not only is the religious man a braver man than the godless, but he needs to be. His
254

255. is the harder life. God, the angels, God’s people, do not at least jeer the wicked man,
subject him to petty annoyances, make his life a burden to him, but the religious
man must stand out against all these patiently.
—Rev. J. B. C. Murphy.
PETT, "Verse 10
‘And he said, “I heard the sound of your presence in the garden, and I was afraid
because I was naked, and I hid myself .” ’
How quickly the man gives himself away. The futile coverings that they had made
had proved useless, as do all man’s attempts to make himself acceptable to God.
(‘Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags’ declares the prophet in Isaiah 64:6) Now he
has to recognise the folly of his ways. ‘I was afraid because I was naked’. The
knowledge of God’s presence had intensified his sense of shame. Now he knew
himself for what he now was, and it caused him to give himself away completely.
‘And I hid myself ’. The frank admission that alone could give him hope. He does
not try to brazen it out before God. He admits his unworthiness, his shame, that he
is not fit to meet God.
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were
naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I
commanded you not to eat from?”
GILL, "And he said,.... The Lord God, or the Word of the Lord:
255

256. who told thee that thou wast naked? or showed it to thee; by what means hast thou
got knowledge of it? what hast thou done that thou perceivest it, so as to cause shame
and fear? man was made naked, and so he continued, and he must be sensible of it, but it
gave him no uneasiness, because he was without shame on account of it; so that it was as
if it was not, and he was regardless of it, as if he was not naked; but now, having sinned,
he could not look upon his nakedness without blushing, and sin being what had
produced this sensation, he was afraid to appear before God, against whom he had
sinned; though he did not choose to acknowledge it, only alleges his outward nakedness,
without confessing the inward nakedness of his soul, and being humbled for that as he
ought to have been; and in order to bring him to this, is this question and the following
put unto him:
hast thou eaten of the tree, wherever I commanded thee that thou shouldest
not eat? The Lord knew he had; but he puts this question to bring him to a confession
of it, as well as to aggravate his crime; that it was a violation of a precept of his, who had
been so kind and bountiful to him, who had crowned him with glory and honour, and set
him over the works of his hands, and had put all creatures under his feet, and had
allowed him to eat of every tree in the garden but one; there was but one tree restrained
from him, but one command he gave him, and this he broke; sin is a transgression of the
law, 1Jo_3:4. And in this light it is here put to bring Adam under a conviction, and to a
confession of it; though he made it in a very lame manner, having covered it as long as
he could; being found he excuses it, as loath to bear the blame and scandal of it. See
Job_31:33.
PULPIT, "Gen_3:11, Gen_3:12
And he said. "To reprove the sottishness of Adam" (Calvin); "to awaken in him a sense
of sin" (Keil). Who told thee that thou wast naked? Delitzsch finds in ‫י‬ ִ‫מ‬ an
indication that a personal power was the prime cause of man’s disobedience; but, as
Lange rightly observes, it is the occasion not of sin, but of the consciousness of
nakedness that is here inquired after. Hast thou eaten of the tree (at once pointing
Adam to the true cause of his nakedness, and intimating the Divine cognizance of his
transgression) whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? "Added
to remove the pretext of ignorance" (Calvin), and also to aggravate the guilt of his
offence, as having been done in direct violation of the Divine prohibition. The question
was fitted to carry conviction to Adam’s conscience, and halt the instantaneous effect of
eliciting a confession, though neither a frank one nor a generous. And the man said
(beginning with apology and ending with confession, thus reversing the natural order,
and practically rolling back the blame on God), The woman whom thou gavest to
be with me (accusing the gift and the Giver in one), she gave me of the tree. Cf. with
the cold and unfeeling terms in which Adam speaks of Eve the similar language in Gen_
37:32; Luk_15:30; Joh_9:12. "Without natural affection" is one of the bitter fruits of sin
(cf. Rom_1:31). Equally with the blasphemy, ingratitude, unkindness, and meanness of
this excuse, its frivolity is apparent; as if, though Eve gave, that was any reason why
Adam should have eaten. And I did eat. Reluctantly elicited, the confession of his sin is
very mildly stated. "A cold expression, manifesting neither any grief nor shame at so foul
an act, but rather a desire to cover his sin" (White).
256

257. HENRY 11-13, "We have here the offenders found guilty by their own confession,
and yet endeavouring to excuse and extenuate their fault. They could not confess and
justify what they had done, but they confess and palliate it. Observe,
I. How their confession was extorted from them. God put it to the man: Who told thee
that thou wast naked? Gen_3:11. “How camest thou to be sensible of thy nakedness as
thy shame?” Hast thou eaten of the forbidden tree? Note, Though God knows all our
sins, yet he will know them from us, and requires from us an ingenuous confession of
them; not that he may be informed, but that we may be humbled. In this examination,
God reminds him of the command he had given him: “I commanded thee not to eat of it,
I thy Maker, I thy Master, I thy benefactor; I commanded thee to the contrary.” Sin
appears most plain and most sinful in the glass of the commandment, therefore God
here sets it before Adam; and in it we should see our faces. The question put to the
woman was, What is this that thou hast done? Gen_3:13. “Wilt thou also own thy fault,
and make confession of it? And wilt thou see what an evil thing it was?” Note, It
concerns those who have eaten forbidden fruit themselves, and especially those who
have enticed others to eat it likewise, seriously to consider what they have done. In
eating forbidden fruit, we have offended a great and gracious God, broken a just and
righteous law, violated a sacred and most solemn covenant, and wronged our own
precious souls by forfeiting God's favour and exposing ourselves to his wrath and curse:
in enticing others to eat of it, we do the devil's work, make ourselves guilty of other
men's sins, and accessory to their ruin. What is this that we have done?
II. How their crime was extenuated by them in their confession. It was to no purpose
to plead not guilty. The show of their countenances testified against them; therefore they
become their own accusers: “I did eat,” says the man, “And so did I,” says the woman;
for when God judges he will overcome. But these do not look like penitent confessions;
for instead of aggravating the sin, and taking shame to themselves, they excuse the sin,
and lay the shame and blame on others. 1. Adam lays all the blame upon his wife. “She
gave me of the tree, and pressed me to eat of it, which I did, only to oblige her” - a
frivolous excuse. He ought to have taught her, not to have been taught by her; and it was
no hard matter to determine which of the two he must be ruled by, his God or his wife.
Learn, hence, never to be brought to sin by that which will not bring us off in the
judgment; let not that bear us up in the commission which will not bear us out in the
trial; let us therefore never be overcome by importunity to act against our consciences,
nor ever displease God, to please the best friend we have in the world. But this is not the
worst of it. He not only lays the blame upon his wife, but expresses it so as tacitly to
reflect on God himself: “It is the woman whom thou gavest me, and gavest to be with me
as my companion, my guide, and my acquaintance; she gave me of the tree, else I had
not eaten of it.” Thus he insinuates that God was accessory to his sin: he gave him the
woman, and she gave him the fruit; so that he seemed to have it at but one remove from
God's own hand. Note, There is a strange proneness in those that are tempted to say that
they are tempted of God, as if our abusing God's gifts would excuse our violation of
God's laws. God gives us riches, honours, and relations, that we may serve him
cheerfully in the enjoyment of them; but, if we take occasion from them to sin against
him, instead of blaming Providence for putting us into such a condition, we must blame
ourselves for perverting the gracious designs of Providence therein. 2. Eve lays all the
blame upon the serpent: The serpent beguiled me. Sin is a brat that nobody is willing to
own, a sign that it is a scandalous thing. Those that are willing enough to take the
257

258. pleasure and profit of sin are backward enough to take the blame and shame of it. “The
serpent, that subtle creature of thy making, which thou didst permit to come into
paradise to us, he beguiled me,” or made me to err; for our sins are our errors. Learn
hence, (1.) That Satan's temptations are all beguilings, his arguments are all fallacies, his
allurements are all cheats; when he speaks fair, believe him not. Sin deceives us, and, by
deceiving, cheats us. It is by the deceitfulness of sin that the heart is hardened. See
Rom_7:11; Heb_3:13. (2.) That though Satan's subtlety drew us into sin, yet it will not
justify us in sin: though he is the tempter, we are the sinners; and indeed it is our own
lust that draws us aside and entices us, Jam_1:14. Let it not therefore lessen our sorrow
and humiliation for sin that we are beguiled into it; but rather let it increase our self-
indignation that we should suffer ourselves to be beguiled by a known cheat and a sworn
enemy. Well, this is all the prisoners at the bar have to say why sentence should not be
passed and execution awarded, according to law; and this all is next to nothing, in some
respects worse than nothing.
JAMISON, "
CALVIN, "11.Who told thee that thou wast naked ? An indirect reprimand to
reprove the sottishness of Adam in not perceiving his fault in his punishment, as if it
had been said, not simply that Adam was afraid at the voice of God, but that the
voice of his judge was formidable to him because he was a sinner. Also, that not his
nakedness, but the turpitude of the vice by which he had defiled himself, was the
cause of fear; and certainly he was guilty of intolerable impiety against God in
seeking the origin of evil in nature. Not that he would accuse God in express terms;
but deploring his own misery, and dissembling the fact that he was himself the
author of it, he malignantly transfers to God the charge which he ought to have
brought against himself. What the Vulgate translates, ‘Unless it be that thou hast
eaten of the tree,’ (187) is rather an interrogation. (188) God asks, in the language of
doubt, not as if he were searching into some disputable matter, but for the purpose
of piercing more acutely the stupid man, who, laboring under fatal disease, is yet
unconscious of his malady; just as a sick man, who complains that he is burning, yet
thinks not of fever. Let us, however remember that we shall profit nothing by any
prevarications but that God will always bind us by a most just accusation in the sin
of Adam. The clause, “whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat,” is
added to remove the pretext of ignorance. For God intimates that Adam was
admonished in time; and that he fell from no other cause than this, that he
knowingly and voluntarily brought destruction upon himself. Again, the atrocious
nature of sin is marked in this transgression and rebellion; for, as nothing is more
acceptable to God than obedience, so nothing is more intolerable than when men,
having spurned his commandments, obey Satan and their own lust.
258

259. SIMEON 11-13, "EXCUSES MADE BY OUR FIRST PARENTS, AFTER THEIR
FALL
Genesis 3:11-13. Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou
shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,
she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman,
What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me,
and I did eat.
THE immediate effects of sin are not easily discovered by us at this time: for if we
look for them in ourselves, our partiality and self-love conceal them from us; and if
we look for them in others, the universal prevalence of those effects prevents us
from ascribing them to their proper cause. To see them in their true colours, we
should be able to contrast the habits of some person during a state of innocence with
those which he manifests after the commission of sin. Doubtless there are glaring
instances of iniquity, from the investigation of which we may gather instruction: but
we shall make our observations to the greatest advantage, if we examine the records
respecting the conduct of our first parents after their unhappy fall. The accounts
given of them are not indeed very full and circumstantial; yet the narration, brief as
it is, is sufficient to elucidate the immediate influence of sin upon the mind, as well
as its remoter consequences in the destruction of the soul. There are two things in
particular which we shall be led to notice from the words before us;
I. The way in which men betray their consciousness of guilt—
Mark the conduct of our first parents. While they were innocent, they were
strangers either to shame or fear: but instantly after their transgression, they made
coverings for themselves of fig-leaves, and fled from the presence of their God. Here
we may behold ourselves as in a glass: they have set a pattern to us which all their
posterity have followed: however men may affect to be innocent, they all be-tray
their consciousness of guilt in these two things;
259

260. 1. They conceal themselves from themselves, and from each other—
[Knowing that their hearts are depraved, and that, if narrowly inspected, they
would exhibit a most disgusting appearance, men will not turn their eyes inwards.
They will not examine the motives and principles of their actions: they cast a veil
over the workings of pride and ambition, of envy and malice, of falsehood and
covetousness, of carnality and selfishness: and then, because they see no evil in their
actions, they hastily conclude there is none. And so successful are they in hiding
from themselves their own deformity, that when all around them are even amazed at
the impropriety of their conduct, they take credit to themselves for virtuous
principles and laudable deportment.
If we should attempt to open their eyes, and to set before them their own picture,
they would not even look at it, but would be offended with our fidelity, and
condemn us as destitute of either charity or candour.
Now, would men act in this manner if they had not a secret consciousness that all
was not right within? Would they not rather be glad of any assistance whereby they
might discover any latent evil; or, at least, be glad to “come to the light, that their
deeds might be made manifest that they were wrought in God?”
There is the still greater anxiety in men to hide their shame from each other. The
whole intercourse of mankind with each other is one continued system of
concealment. All endeavour to impose on others, by assuming the appearances of
virtue; but no one will give credit to his neighbour for being as guiltless in his heart
as he seems to be in his conduct. A thorough knowledge of a person whose principles
have been tried, will indeed gain our confidence: but who has so good an opinion of
human nature in general as to commit his wife or daughter to the hands of a perfect
stranger; or to give him unlimited access to all his treasures; or even to take his
word, where he can as easily obtain a legal security? But, if men were not conscious
of depravity within themselves, why should they be so suspicious of others? The fact
is, they know themselves to have many corrupt propensities; and justly concluding
that human nature is the same in all, they feel the necessity of withholding
confidence where they have not been warranted by experience to place it.]
260

261. 2. They shun, rather than desire, the presence of their God—
[God comes to all of us in his word, and speaks to us in the language of love and
mercy: He bids us to draw nigh to Him, and to enjoy “fellowship with him, and with
his Son, Jesus Christ.” But are these employments suited to the taste of all? or do
the habits of the generality evince any regard for these inestimable privileges? Nay,
if we endeavour to set God before them, and to make known to them his will, do
they consider us as their friends and benefactors? They may bear with us, indeed, in
the exercise of our public ministry: but will they be pleased, if we come home to
their houses, and labour to bring them, as it were, into the presence of their God?
Will they not be ready to say to us, as the demoniac did to Christ, “Art thou come
hither to torment us before the time;” or, like the Jews of old, “Prophesy unto us
smooth things, prophesy deceits; make the Holy One of Israel to cease from before
us?”
Now would this be the conduct of men, if they were not conscious of much guilt
within? Would a man who had just received gold from the mint, be afraid of having
it tried by a touchstone? or one who was perfectly innocent of a crime, be afraid of
being interrogated in relation to it? Would not rather the knowledge of God be
desirable to one who had no wish but to perform his will? Would he not account it
his highest happiness to gain an increasing acquaintance with his Saviour, and a
more entire conformity to his image?]
When the guilt of men can no longer be concealed, they have many refuges of lies to
which they flee; to expose which, we shall shew,
II. The way in which they endeavour to palliate and excuse it—
Our first parents confessed indeed their transgression, but in a way which clearly
shewed, that they were not humbled for it. Thus, when we cannot deny our guilt,
261

262. 1. We cast it upon others—
[Doubtless we all are accessory to the production of much guilt in others: and it is
well to take shame to ourselves in that view. But to take occasion from this to excuse
our own wickedness, is only to add sin to sin. Yet who does not betake himself to this
refuge? Mark persons in the early stage of life; they will deny their faults as long as
there remains for them any hope of concealment; and, when they are clearly
detected, they will do their utmost to shift the blame off from themselves: according
to the nature of the crime alleged, they will impute it to accident, or inadvertence, or
mistake, or, like our first parents, to the instigation and example of their
accomplices. What is the disposition which shews itself in persons of riper years,
when they are called to account for any evil that they have committed, or when their
angry passions have involved them in dispute and quarrel: is it not the endeavour of
each to criminate the other, in hopes thereby to exculpate himself? Or when no
particular ill-will is exercised towards others, is not the same system prevalent; and
do not men justify their own conduct from the habits and examples of those around
them? But what folly is this! Did the Serpent compel Eve to eat the fruit? or was
Adam necessitated to follow her example? They were free agents in what they did:
and they should have rejected with abhorrence the first proposals of sin, however
specious they might be, and by whomsoever they might be made. And in the same
manner, it is no excuse to us that the ways of iniquity are crowded; for we are to
withstand the solicitations that would allure us from God, and stem the torrent that
would drive us from him.]
2. We cast it even upon God himself—
[There is peculiar force in those words of Adam, “The woman whom thou gavest to
be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat:” it is no less than a reflection
upon God himself for giving him the woman; and a casting of the blame upon him
as accessory at least to his fall, if not also as the original cause of it. It is thus also
that we account for our transgressions from the peculiar circumstances in which we
are placed, and thus ascribe them rather to the dispensations of Providence, than to
our own willful depravity. One is poor, and therefore has not leisure to consult the
welfare of his soul; or is under the authority of others, and cannot serve God
262

263. without subjecting himself to their displeasure. Another is rich, and cannot deviate
so far from the habits of the world, as to conform to the precise rules which God has
prescribed. In this manner, persons endeavour to persuade themselves that a life of
entire devotedness to God is incompatible with their worldly duties; and that their
deviations or defects are rather their misfortune than their fault. Some indeed will
be yet more bold in accusing God; and, when condemned for giving the rein to their
appetites, will say, ‘Why did God give me these passions? I cannot act otherwise
than I do.’
How far these excuses will avail in the day of judgment, it becomes every one to
consider with fear and trembling. They may stifle the accusations of a guilty
conscience now; but there is not a man in the universe so stupid as seriously to
believe that his conscience will acquit him at the tribunal of his God.]
We shall conclude with an address,
1. To those who are unhumbled for their sins—
[Some are so impious, that “they declare their sin as Sodom: the very shew of their
countenance witnesses against them.” To such persons we say with the prophet,
“Woe unto them [Note: Isaiah 3:9.] !” Nor can we deliver any milder message to
those who “cover their transgressions, as Adam, and hide their iniquity in their
bosom [Note: Job 31:33]:” for God’s word to them is plain; “He that covereth his
sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
[Note: Proverbs 28:13.] ” It is absolutely indispensable that we humble ourselves
before God, and that we repent in dust and ashes. God has noted our transgressions,
whether we have observed them or not: for “there is no darkness nor shadow of
death where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves [Note: Job 34:22.].” God is
extremely earnest in endeavouring to impress this thought upon our minds [Note:
Isaiah 29:15 with Amos 9:2-3.]. It is equally certain that we cannot impose upon him
by any vain excuses. The day is coming, when he will not only ask in general, “Hast
thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” but
will interrogate us, as he did Eve, with holy indignation, saying, “What is this that
thou hast done?” Art thou aware of its malignity? art thou prepared to meet the
263

264. consequences? O let us, every one of us, humble ourselves before him, while yet the
effects of his displeasure may be averted from us: but if yet we remain impenitent
and stout-hearted, a sudden and irremediable destruction shall come upon us [Note:
Proverbs 29:1.].]
2. To those whose hearts are beginning to relent—
[Do not think that a small and transient humiliation is sufficient. If you could weep
“rivers of tears,” it would be no more than the occasion calls for. You may perhaps
comfort yourselves with the thought of not having committed many or great
offences: but consider what it was that brought guilt and ruin upon the whole race
of mankind; it was not many offences, but one; nor was it what would appear to us a
very heinous sin, but only the violation of a positive precept, the eating of a
forbidden fruit: reflect on this, and you will derive little consolation from the
thought that you are not so bad as others. But, whether your sins have been more or
less heinous, there is one Refuge, and only one, to which you must flee for safety.
The refuge provided for our first parents was, “The seed of the woman, who was in
due time to bruise the serpent’s head.” The same is provided for you. Jesus was
born into the world for this very end: He has made a full atonement for your sin:
and if “only you acknowledge your transgressions,” and believe in him, they shall be
“remembered against you no more for ever.”]
LANGE, "Genesis 3:11. Who told thee that thou wast naked?—Knobel: “From this
behavior Jehovah recognised at once what had happened.” Hardly can any such
anthropomorphism be found in the sense of the text. Keil says better: “It is for the
sake of awaking this recognition of sin that God speaks.” The question, however,
concerns not merely the means by which the recognition of sin may be brought out,
but in a special manner the methods through which its confession may be educed. So
also Delitzsch. “His explanation, however, of the interrogative ‫מי‬ as indicating that a
personal power was the final original cause of the change that had passed upon
Prayer of Manasseh,” is far beyond the mark. For it is not the occasion of sin that is
referred to here, but the occasion of the consciousness of nakedness. This, however,
comes not from without, but from within. There lies, moreover, in the question that
immediately follows: Hast thou eaten of the tree? the explanation of the meaning of
the first.
264

265. PETT, "Verse 11
‘And he (God) said, “Who has made you aware that you were naked? Have you
eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” ’
The man, of course, had always known that he was physically naked, but that had
been unimportant. This question goes deeper. There is something in the man that
has filled him with conscious shame, that has made him afraid to be looked at by
God. The man is ashamed of his inner nakedness, which reveals him as one who has
failed God, as one who has rebelled against God, as one who has weakly given way
to the one for whom he was held responsible.
God is aware of what the man means, He knows that there is only one thing that
could have filled him with this sense of shame and He determines to pin him down
and to make him admit the whole truth. ‘Have you eaten of the tree of which I
commanded you not to eat?’ If there is to be a remedy the lesson must first be
brought fully home.
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with
me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I
ate it.”
265

266. CLARKE, "And the man said, etc. - We have here some farther proofs of the
fallen state of man, and that the consequences of that state extend to his remotest
posterity. 1. On the question, Hast thou eaten of the tree? Adam is obliged to
acknowledge his transgression; but he does this in such a way as to shift off the blame
from himself, and lay it upon God and upon the woman! This woman whom Thou didst
give to be with me, ‫עמדי‬ immadi, to be my companion, (for so the word is repeatedly
used), she gave me, and I did eat. I have no farther blame in this transgression; I did not
pluck the fruit; she took it and gave it to me. 2. When the woman is questioned she lays
the blame upon God and the serpent, (nachash). The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Thou didst make him much wiser than thou didst make me, and therefore my simplicity
and ignorance were overcome by his superior wisdom and subtlety; I can have no fault
here, the fault is his, and his who made him so wise and me so ignorant. Thus we find
that, while the eyes of their body were opened to see their degraded state, the eyes of
their understanding were closed, so that they could not see the sinfulness of sin; and at
the same time their hearts were hardened through its deceitfulness. In this also their
posterity copy their example. How few ingenuously confess their own sin! They see not
their guilt. They are continually making excuses for their crimes; the strength and
subtlety of the tempter, the natural weakness of their own minds, the unfavorable
circumstances in which they were placed, etc., etc., are all pleaded as excuses for their
sins, and thus the possibility of repentance is precluded; for till a man take his sin to
himself, till he acknowledge that he alone is guilty, he cannot be humbled, and
consequently cannot be saved. Reader, till thou accuse thyself, and thyself only, and feel
that thou alone art responsible for all thy iniquities, there is no hope of thy salvation.
GILL, "And the man said,.... Not being able any longer to conceal the truth, though
he shifts off the blame as much as possible from himself:
the woman whom thou gavest to be with me: to be his wife and his companion, to
be an help meet unto him, and share with him in the blessings of paradise, to assist in
civil and domestic affairs, and join with him in acts of religion and devotion:
she gave me of the tree, and I did eat; she first ate of it herself, through the
solicitations of the serpent, and then she persuaded me to eat of it; and accordingly I did,
I own it. By this answer Adam endeavours to cast the blame partly upon his wife, and
partly upon God; though in what he said he told the truth, and what was matter of fact,
yet it carries this innuendo, that if it had not been for his wife he had never ate of it,
which was a foolish excuse; for he, being her head and husband, should have taught her
better, and been more careful to have prevented her eating of this fruit, and should have
dissuaded her from it, and have reproved her for it, instead of following her example,
and taking it from her hands: and more than this he tacitly reflects upon God, that he
had given him a woman, who, instead of being an help meet to him, had helped to ruin
him; and that if he had not given him this woman, he had never done what he had: but at
this rate a man may find fault with God for the greatest blessings and mercies of life
bestowed on him, which are abused by him, and so aggravate his condemnation.
266

267. JAMISON, "The woman ... gave me — He blames God [Calvin]. As the woman
had been given him for his companion and help, he had eaten of the tree from love to
her; and perceiving she was ruined, was determined not to survive her [M’Knight].
SBC, "I. Adam, we find, was not content to be in the image of God. He and his wife
wanted to be as gods, knowing good and evil. He wanted to be independent, and show
that he knew what was good for him: he ate the fruit which he was forbidden to eat,
partly because it was fair and well-tasted, but still more to show his own independence.
When he heard the voice of the Lord, when he was called out, and forced to answer for
himself, he began to make pitiful excuses. He had not a word to say for himself. He
threw the blame on his wife. It was all the woman’s fault,—indeed, it was God’s fault.
"The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
II. What Adam did once we have done a hundred times, and the mean excuse which
Adam made but once we make again and again. But the Lord has patience with us, as He
had with Adam, and does not take us at our word. He knows our frame and remembers
that we are but dust. He sends us out into the world, as He sent Adam, to learn
experience by hard lessons, to eat our bread in the sweat of our brow till we have found
out our own weakness and ignorance, and have learned that we cannot stand alone, that
pride and self-dependence will only lead us to guilt and misery and shame and
meanness; that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved from
them, but only the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
C. Kingsley, The Good News of God, p. 347.
CALVIN, "12.The woman whom thou gavest to be with me. The boldness of Adam
now more clearly betrays itself; for, so far from being subdued, he breaks forth into
coarser blasphemy. He had before been tacitly expostulating with God; now he
begins openly to contend with him, and triumphs as one who has broken through all
barriers. Whence we perceive what a refractory and indomitable creature man
began to be when he became alienated from God; for a lively picture of corrupt
nature is presented to us in Adam from the moment of his revolt.
‘Every one,’ says James, ‘is tempted by his own concupiscence,’ (James 1:14;)
and even Adam, not otherwise than knowingly and willingly, had set himself, as a
rebel, against God. Yet, just as if conscious of no evil, he puts his wife as the guilty
party in his place. ‘Therefore I have eaten,’ he says, ‘because she gave.’ And not
content with this, he brings, at the same time, an accusation against God; objecting
that the wife, who had brought ruin upon him, had been given by God. We also,
trained in the same school of original sin, are too ready to resort to subterfuges of
the same kind; but to no purpose; for howsoever incitements and instigations from
other quarters may impel us, yet the unbelief which seduces us from obedience to
267

268. God is within us; the pride is within which brings forth contempt.
COFFMAN, ""And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she
gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
Adam's response was weak and insufficient. He did not confess his sin, except in a
most reluctant and inadequate manner, and he coupled it with a flimsy excuse to the
effect that maybe God Himself was to blame, for He had given to Adam the woman
who had given the fruit of the tree, so what else was there for Adam to do but to eat!
COKE, "Genesis 3:12. The woman thou gavest me, &.— Here observe again
another evil fruit of sin: what sad disturbance and overthrow it makes in the once
calm, even, and innocent mind! With disingenuous ingratitude Adam attempts to
throw all the guilt of his offence even upon his Divine Benefactor, by taxing his best
gift, the woman, with being the cause of it—THIS woman, whom THOU gavest to
be with me. Instead of acknowledging, with an ingenuous shame, his deep and
almost inexcusable violation of his Creator's law; instead of imploring pardon for so
aggravated a crime, he craftily transfers it all to Him, who had given him so
mischievous a gift as the woman, to seduce and betray him. And let us ask, are not
the effects of sin still and always found the same?
Let it be just remarked, that the same disposition is notorious in Eve also, who takes
no shame to herself, but transfers it all to the serpent, Genesis 3:13. How few freely
and ingenuously confers their guilt without seeking every idle palliation of vain self-
love!
LANGE, "Genesis 3:12. And the man said, the woman whom thou gavest.—An
acknowledgment of sin by Adam, but not true and sincere. The guilt proper is rolled
upon the woman, and indirectly upon God himself; in which, however, there is
naturally expressed a general exculpation, only God is put forward as the occasion
of the calamity that has arisen. The loss of love that comes out in this interposing of
the wife Isaiah, moreover, particularly denoted in this, that he grudges to call her
Eva, or my wife (see this form of grudging, Genesis 37:32; Job 3:20, where he says
268

269. he[FN16] instead of God; Luke 15:30; this thy son, John 9:12; where is he? namely,
Jesus, etc.). “That woman by my side, she who was given to me by God as a trusty
counsellor, she gave me the fruit;” in this form, again, is Eve in part excused by an
imputation to God.
PETT, "Verse 12
‘And the man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit
from the tree, and I ate.” ’
What an accurate picture of a man suffused in guilt. He seeks to place the blame
anywhere but on himself. ‘The woman --’. She is the one who is to blame. She gave it
to me. ‘Whom you gave to be with me.’ It was really your fault, God, it was you who
gave her to me. ‘She gave me fruit from the tree.’ What else could I do? It would not
have been nice to refuse. ‘And I ate.’ In the end he has to admit a tiny bit of blame
for himself.
So it is clear that the real culprits are the woman, and to some extent God. The fact,
of course, was that the man himself was largely to blame. He was not deceived. He
had been appointed by God and told that the fruit of the tree was banned. The tree
was holy to the Lord. Had he stood firm, how the course of history would have
changed. But he was deliberately disobedient. Possibly his only real excuse was that
the woman was very beautiful and persuasive. But like the woman, he should have
run away with his fingers in his ears.
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What
269

270. is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I
ate.”
BARNES, "Gen_3:13
The woman makes a similar confession and a similar indication of the source of her
temptation. She has now found out that the serpent “beguiled her.” The result has not
corresponded to the benefit she was led to anticipate.
There seems not to be any disingenuousness in either case. Sin does not take full
possession of the will all at once. It is a slow poison. It has a growth. It requires time and
frequent repetition to sink from a state of purity into a habit of inveterate sin. While it is
insensibly gathering strength and subjugating the will, the original integrity of the moral
nature manifests a long but fading vitality. The same line of things does not always
occupy the attention. When the chain of events linked with the act of sin does not force
the attention of the mind, and constrain the will to act a selfish part, another train of
things comes before the mind, finds the will unaffected by personal considerations, and
therefore ready to take its direction from the reason. Hence, the consciousness of a fallen
soul has its lucid intervals, in which the conscience gives a verdict and guides the will.
But these intervals become less frequent and less decisive as the entanglements of ever-
multiplying sinful acts wind round the soul and aggravate its bondage and its blindness.
GILL, "And the Lord God said unto the woman,.... Who was first in the
transgression, and drew her husband into it, and upon whom he seemingly casts the
blame of his eating the forbidden fruit:
what is this that thou hast done? dost thou know how great an offence thou hast
committed in breaking a command of mine, and how aggravated it is when thou hadst
leave to eat of every other tree? what could move thee to do this? by what means hast
thou been brought into it, and not only hast done it thyself, but drawn thine husband
into it, to the ruin of you both, and of all your posterity? so heinous is the sin thou hast
been guilty of:
and the woman said, the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat; that is, a spirit in
the serpent, which she took for a good one, but proved a bad one, with lying words and
deceitful language imposed upon her, told her that the fruit forbidden was very good
food, and very useful to improve knowledge; even to such a degree as to make men like
God; and this God knew, and therefore out of envy and ill will to them forbid the eating
of it; nor need they fear his menaces, for they might depend upon it they should never
die; and thus he caused her to err from the truth, and to believe a lie; and by giving heed
to the seducing spirit she was prevailed upon to eat of the fruit of the tree, which was
forbidden, and which she owns; and it is an ingenuous confession that she makes as to
270

271. the matter of fact; but yet, like her husband, and as learning it from him, she endeavours
to shift off the blame from herself, and lay it on the serpent.
JAMISON, "beguiled — cajoled by flattering lies. This sin of the first pair was
heinous and aggravated - it was not simply eating an apple, but a love of self, dishonor to
God, ingratitude to a benefactor, disobedience to the best of Masters - a preference of the
creature to the Creator.
PULPIT, "Gen_3:13
And the Lord said unto the woman—without noticing the excuses, but simply
accepting the admission, and passing on, "following up the transgression, even to the
root—not the psychological merely, but the historical (Lange): What is this that thou
hast done? Or, "Why hast thou done this?" (LXX; Vulgate, Luther, De Wette). "But the
Hebrew phrase has more vehemence; it is the language of one who wonders as at
something prodigious, and ought rather to be rendered, ’ How hast thou done this?’"
(Calvin). And the woman said (following the example of her guilty, husband, omitting
any notice of her sin in tempting Adam, and transferring the blame of her own
disobedience to the reptile), The serpent beguiled me. Literally, caused me to forget,
hence beguiled, from ‫ה‬ ָ‫ָשׁ‬‫נ‬, to forget a thing (Lam_3:17), or person; or, caused me to go
astray, from ‫א‬ ָ‫ָשׁ‬‫נ‬ (unused in Kal), kindred to ‫ה‬ ָ‫ָשׁ‬‫כ‬, perhaps to err, to go astray (Gesenius,
Furst); ἠπατημσε (LXX.), ἐξαπαμτησεν (2Co_11:3). And I did eat. "A forced
confession, but no appearance of contrition. ’It’s true I did eat, but it was not my fault’"
(Hughes).
SBC, "The record before us is the history of the first sin. It needed no revelation to tell
us that sin is, that mankind is sinful. Without, within, around, and inside us, is the fact,
the experience, the evidence, the presence of sin. It is sin which makes life troublous and
gives death its sting. The revelation of the fall tells of an entrance, of an inburst of evil
into a world all good, into a being created upright,—tells, therefore, of a nature capable
of purity, of an enemy that may be expelled, and of a holiness possible because natural.
From man’s fall we infer a fall earlier yet and more mysterious. Once sin was not; and
when it entered man’s world it entered under an influence independent, not inherent.
II. The first sin is also the specimen sin. It is in this sense, too, the original sin, that all
other sins are copies of it. Unbelief first, then disobedience; then corruption, then self-
excusing; then the curse and the expulsion,—turn the page and you shall find a murder!
III. The original sin is also the infectious sin. The New Testament derives this doctrine
from the history, that there is a taint or corruption in the race by reason of the fall; that
it is not only a following of Adam by the deliberate independent choice of each one of us
which is the true account of our sinning; but this rather,—an influence and infection of
evil, derived and inherited by us from all that ancestry of the transgressor. Not one man
of all the progeny of Adam has drawn his first breath or his latest in an atmosphere pure
and salubrious. Before, behind him, around and above, there has been the heritage of
weakness, the presence and pressure of an influence in large part evil. Fallen sons of a
fallen forefather, God must send down His hand from above if we are to be rescued ever
out of these deep, these turbid waters.
271

272. C. J. Vaughan, Half-hours in the Temple Churchy p. 55 (also Good Words, 1870, p. 331).
References: Gen_3:13.—J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 1st series, p. 32; J. H. Newman,
Oxford University Sermons, p. 136; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xviii., p. 83.
CALVIN, "13.And the Lord God said unto the woman. God contends no further
with the man, nor was it necessary; for he aggravates rather than diminishes his
crime, first by a frivolous defense, then by an impious disparagement of God, in
short, though he rages he is yet held convicted. The Judge now turns to the woman,
that the cause of both being heard, he may at length pronounce sentence. The old
interpreter thus renders God’s address: ‘Why hast thou done this?’ (189) But the
Hebrew phrase has more vehemence; for it is the language of one who wonders as at
something prodigious. It ought therefore rather to be rendered, ‘How hast thou
done this?’ (190) as if he had said, ‘How was it possible that thou shouldst bring thy
mind to be so perverse a counsellor to thy husband?’
The serpent beguiled me. Eve ought to have been confounded at the portentous
wickedness concerning which she was admonished. Yet she is not struck dumb, but,
after the example of her husband, transfers the charge to another; by laying the
blame on the serpent, she foolishly, indeed, and impiously, thinks herself absolved.
For her answer comes at length to this: ‘I received from the serpent what thou hadst
forbidden; the serpent, therefore, was the impostor.’ But who compelled Eve to
listen to his fallacies, and even to place confidence in them more readily than in the
word of God? Lastly, how did she admit them, but by throwing open and betraying
that door of access which God had sufficiently fortified? But the fruit of original sin
everywhere presents itself; being blind in its own hypocrisy, it would gladly render
God mute and speechless. And whence arise daily so many murmurs, but because
God does not hold his peace whenever we choose to blind ourselves?
COFFMAN, ""And Jehovah God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast
done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."
"What is this that thou hast done? ..." The meaning of this is: "How could you have
done such a thing!" It is the same expression used by the pagan sailors who
reproached Jonah with the words, "What is this that thou hast done?" (Jonah 1:10).
As Whitelaw pointed out, "It is the language of one who wonders as at something
prodigious."[16] In Eve's reply, there is the same fault that marred the response of
Adam - no admission of sin, no asking of pardon, no expression of regret or sorrow,
272

273. but merely a weak maneuver to place the blame upon the serpent who had
"beguiled" her!
NISBET, "THE EXCUSE OF THE TEMPTED
‘And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the
woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.’
Genesis 3:13
I. The record before us is the History of the First Sin.—It needed no revelation to
tell us that sin is, that mankind is sinful. Without, within, around, and inside us, is
the fact, the experience, the evidence, the presence of sin. It is sin which makes life
troublous and gives death its sting. The revelation of the Fall tells of an entrance, of
an inburst of evil into a world all good, into a being created upright—tells,
therefore, of a nature capable of purity, of an enemy that may be expelled, and of a
holiness possible because natural. From man’s fall we infer a fall earlier yet and
more mysterious. Once sin was not; and when it entered man’s world it entered
under an influence independent, not inherent.
II. The First Sin is also the Specimen Sin.—It is in this sense, too, the original sin,
that all other sins are copies of it. Unbelief first, then disobedience; then corruption,
then self-excusing; then the curse and the expulsion—turn the page and you shall
find a murder!
III. The Original Sin is also the Infectious Sin.—The New Testament derives this
doctrine from the history, that there is a taint or corruption in the race by reason of
the Fall; that it is not only a following of Adam by the deliberate independent choice
of each one of us which is the true account of our sinning; but this rather—an
influence and infection of evil, derived and inherited by us from all that ancestry of
the transgressor. Not one man of all the progeny of Adam has drawn his first breath
or his latest in an atmosphere pure and salubrious. Before, behind him, around and
273

274. above, there has been the heritage of weakness, the presence and pressure of an
influence in large part evil. Fallen sons of a fallen forefather, God must send down
His hand from above if we are to be rescued ever out of these deep, these turbid
waters.
Dean Vaughan.
Illustration
(1) ‘It is pitiful to read in the narrative how, when asked regarding their sin, the
man sought to put the blame on the woman. “The woman whom Thou gavest to be
with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” That is often the way—when a man
has done wrong he blames somebody else. A drunkard said it was his wife’s fault,
for she was not sociable at home and he went out evenings to find somebody to talk
with. A young man fell into sin and said it was the fault of his companions who had
tempted him. No doubt a share of guilt lies on the tempter of innocence and
inexperience. Yet temptation does not excuse sin. We should learn that no sin of
others in tempting us will ever excuse our sin. No one can compel us to do wrong.’
(2) ‘At once upon the dark cloud breaks the light. No sooner had man fallen than
God’s thought of redemption appears. “It shall bruise thy head.” This fifteenth
verse is called the protevangelium, the first promise of a Saviour. It is very dim and
indistinct, a mere glimmering of light on the edge of the darkness. But it was a
gospel of hope to our first parents in their sorrow and shame. We understand now
its full meaning. It is a star-word as it shines here. A star is but a dim point of light
as we see it in the heavens, but we know it is a vast world or centre of a system of
worlds. This promise hides in its far-awayness all the glory of the after-revealings of
the Messiah. As we read on in the Old Testament we continually find new
unfoldings, fuller revealings, until by and by we have the promise fulfilled in the
coming of Jesus Christ.’
PETT, "Verse 13
274

275. Genesis 3:13 a
‘Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” ’
Only God really knew the answer to that question as He looked down the suffering
of the ages, and saw finally the suffering of His own Son. He knew what she had
done. But, although the woman may have been aware of some of the consequences
for herself, she could have no idea what she had done. Sin is like that. It reaches
further than we can ever know.
Genesis 3:13 b
‘And the woman said, “The snake beguiled me, and I ate”.’
She did not blame God. It was the snake’s fault. She admitted she had been
deceived, but it was only because he was so beguiling. She could not accept that she
was really to blame. But earlier she had told the snake quite clearly what the
position was. She too was without excuse. And in the end she admits ‘I ate’.
“The snake beguiled me.” How feeble her excuse is. Here is this subordinate
creature and yet she puts the blame on him. She is not yet aware of the power
behind the snake.
It is now noteworthy that God does not question the snake. This is not an omission.
God is well aware that the snake cannot speak. And indeed the writer wants us to
know that God knows that the snake is not really to blame. There is another, who is
yet nameless, who must bear the blame, and it is to him that the sentence on the
snake is really addressed.
BI 13-21, "What is this that thou hast done?
The general results of the Fall
275

276. I. ETERNAL ENMITY BETWEEN SATAN AND HUMANITY (Gen_3:14).
1. This curse was uttered in reference to Satan.
2. This address is different from that made to Adam and Eve.
3. There was to commence a severe enmity and conflict between Satan and the
human race.
(1) This enmity has existed from the early ages of the world’s history.
(2) This enmity is seeking the destruction of the higher interests of man.
(3) This enmity is inspired by the most diabolical passion.
(4) This enmity, while it will inflict injury, is subject to the ultimate conquest of
man.
II. THE SORROW AND SUBJECTION OF FEMALE LIFE.
1. The sorrow of woman consequent upon the Fall.
2. The subjection of woman consequent upon the Fall.
3. The subjection of woman consequent upon the Fall gives no countenance to the
degrading manner in which she is treated in heathen countries.
III. THE ANXIOUS TOIL OF MAN, AND THE COMPARATIVE UNPRODUCTIVENESS
OF HIS LABOUR.
1. The anxious and painful toil of man consequent upon the Fall.
2. The comparative unproductiveness of the soil consequent upon the Fall.
3. The sad departure of man from the earth by death consequent upon the Fall.
IV. THE GRAND AND MERCIFUL INTERPOSITION OF JESUS CHRIST WAS
RENDERED NECESSARY BY THE FALL. Lessons:
1. The terrible influences of sin upon an individual life.
2. The influences of sin upon the great communities of the world.
3. The severe devastation of sin.
4. The love of God the great healing influence of the world’s sorrow.
5. How benignantly God blends hope with penalty. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
The first sin
I. THE RECORD BEFORE US IS THE HISTORY OF THE FIRST SIN. It needed no
revelation to tell us that sin is, that mankind is sinful. Without, within, around, and
inside us, is the fact, the experience, the evidence, the presence of sin. It is sin which
makes life troublous and gives death its sting. The revelation of the Fall tells of an
entrance, of an inburst of evil into a world all good, into a being created upright—tells,
therefore, of a nature capable of purity, of an enemy that may be expelled, and of a
holiness possible because natural. From man’s fall we infer a fall earlier yet and more
mysterious. Once sin was not; and when it entered man’s world it entered under an
276

277. influence independent, not inherent.
II. THE FIRST SIN IS ALSO THE SPECIMEN SIN. It is in this sense, too, the original
sin, that all other sins are copies of it. Unbelief first, then disobedience; then corruption,
then self-excusing; then the curse and the expulsion. Turn the page, and you shall find a
murder!
III. THE ORIGINAL SIN IS ALSO THE INFECTIOUS SIN. Not one man of all the
progeny of Adam has drawn his first breath or his latest in an atmosphere pure and
salubrious. Before, behind, around, and above there has been the heritage of weakness,
the presence and pressure of an influence in large part evil. Fallen sons of a fallen
forefather, God must send down His hand from above if we are to be rescued ever out of
these deep, these turbid waters. (Dean Vaughan.)
The moral and renal results of the Fall
I. ITS MORAL RESULTS.
1. Separation from nature (Gen_3:7). Things naturally innocent and pure become
tainted by sin. The worst misery a man can bring on himself by sin is that those
things which to pure minds bring nothing but enjoyment are turned for him into fuel
for evil lusts and passions, and light the flames of hell within his soul.
2. Separation from God (Gen_3:8). Let the sceptic enjoy his merriment. To us there
is something most touching in the statement that to our first parents in the most
hallowed hour of the whole day the voice of God seemed like the thundering of the
Divine anger. A child might interpret that rightly to himself. When he has done
wrong he is afraid, he dares not hear a sound; a common noise, in the trembling
insecurity in which he lives, seems to him God’s voice of thunder. To the apostles the
earthquake at Philippi was a promise of release from prison; to the sinful jailer, a
thing of judgment and wrath—“Sirs, what shall I do to be saved?”
3. Selfishness (Gen_3:12-13). The culprits are occupied entirely with their own
hearts; each denies the guilt which belongs to each; each throws the blame upon the
other. The agriculturist distinguishes between two sorts of roots—those which go
deep down into the ground without dividing, and those which divide off into endless
fibrils and shoots. Selfishness is like the latter kind; it is the great root of sin from
which others branch out—falsehood, cowardice, etc.
II. THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES.
1. Those inflicted on the man.
(1) The ground was cursed for his sake (Gen_3:18-19).
(2) Death.
2. Those inflicted on the woman. In sorrow she was to bring forth children, and her
desire was to be to her husband, and he was to rule over her. This penalty of
suffering for others, which is the very triumph of the Cross, know we not its
blessing? Know we not that in proportion as we suffer for one another we love that
other; that in proportion as the mother suffers for her child, she is repaid by that
love? Know we not that that subjection which man calls curtailment of liberty is in
fact a granting of liberty, of that gospel liberty which is born of obedience to a rule
277

278. which men venerate and love? (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)
Lessons of the Fall
1. It is profoundly significant that this narrative traces the first sin to an external
tempter. Evil does not spring spontaneously in the unfallen heart. Sin is not, as some
would have it, a necessary step in man’s development, nor does it spring from his
own nature; it is an importation.
2. Whatever more may be taught by the serpent form of the tempter, we may safely
regard it as a kind of parable of the nature of evil. The reptile is a symbol both of
temptation and of sin. Its colours, sometimes brilliant, but always weird; its lithe,
insinuating motions; its slimy track, its sudden spring; its sting so slender, and
leaving so minute a puncture, but so deadly; its poison, which kills, not by hideous
laceration, as in a lion’s rending, but by passing the fatal drop into the very life
blood—all these points have their parallels in the sinuous approaches, the horrid
fascinations, the unnoticed wounds, and the fatal poison of sin. If we turn to the
story, we find that it falls into three parts.
I. THE SUBTLE APPROACHES OF TEMPTATION. Notice that we have here, however,
a picture of the way in which a pure nature was led away. The way taken with one which
has already fallen may be much shorter. There is no need for elaborate and gradual
approaches then, but it is often enough to show the bait, and the sinful heart dashes at it.
Here more caution has to be used.
1. First comes an apparently innocent question, “Is it so that God has said, Ye shall
not eat?” The tempter might as well have asked whether the sun shone at midday. To
cloud the clear light of duty with the mists of doubt is the beginning of falling. A sin
which springs with a rush and a roar is less dangerous than one which slides in
scarcely noticed. When the restrictions of law begin to look harsh, and we begin to
ask ourselves, “Is it really the case that we are debarred from all these things over the
hedge there?” the wedge has been driven a good way in. Beware of tampering with
the plain restrictions of recognized duty, and of thinking that doubt may be
admissible as to them.
2. The next speech of the tempter dares more. Questioning gives place to assertion.
There is a fiat lie, which the tempter knows to be a lie, to begin with. There is a truth
in the statement that their eyes will be opened to know good and evil, though the
knowledge will not be, as he would have Eve believe, a blessing, but a misery. So his
very truth is more a lie than a truth. And there is a third lie, worse than all, in
painting the perfect love of God, which delights most in making men like Himself, as
grudging them a joy, and keeping it for Himself. In all these points we have here a
picture of sin’s approaches to the yielding will. Strange that tricks so old, and so
often found out, should yet have power to deceive us to our ruin. But so it is, and
thousands of young men and women today are listening to these old threadbare lies
as if they were glorious new truths, fit to be the pole stars of life!
II. THE FATAL DEED. The overwhelming rush of appetite, which blinds to every
consideration but present gratification of the senses, is wonderfully set forth in the brief
narrative of the sin. The motives are put at full length. The tree was “good for food”; that
is one sense satisfied. It was “pleasant to the eyes”; that is another. If we retain the
278

279. translation of the Authorized and Revised Versions, it was “to be desired to make one
wise”; that appealed to a more subtle wish. But the confluent of all these streams made
such a current as swept the feeble will clean away; and blind, dazed, deafened by the
rush of the stream, Eve was carried over the falls, as a man might be over Niagara. This
is the terrible experience of everyone who has yielded to temptation. For a moment all
consequences are forgotten, all obligations silenced, every restraint snapped like rotten
ropes. No matter what God has said, no matter what mischief will come, no matter for
conscience or reason; let them all go! The tyrannous craving which has got astride of the
man urges him on blindly. All it cares for is its own satisfaction. What of remorse or
misery may come after are nothing to it.
III. THE TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES. These are two fold:
(1) The appointment of toil as the law of life;
(2) the sentence of physical death.
1. The change on the physical world which followed on man’s sin is a distinct
doctrine of both Old and New Testaments, and is closely connected with the
prophecies of the future in both. Here it comes into view only as involving the
necessity of a life of toilsome conflict with the sterile and weed-bearing soil. The
simple life of the husbandman alone is contemplated here, but the law laid down is
wide as the world.
2. The sentence of death is repeated in unambiguous terms. Physical death, and
nothing else, is meant by the words. Observe the significant silence as to what is to
become of the other part of man. The words distinctly refer to Gen_2:7, but nothing
is said now as to the living soul. The curse of death is markedly limited to the body.
The very silence is a veiled hint of immortality.
(1) Learn that physical death is the outcome of sin. No doubt animal life tends to
death; but it does not follow that, if man had been sinless, the tendency would
have been suffered to fulfil itself. However that may be, the whole of what we
know as death, which has far more in it of pain and terror than the mere physical
process, is plainly the result of sin.
(2) Learn, too, the analogy between the death of the body and the condition of
the spirit which is given up to sin. Death is a parable—a picture in the material
world of what sin does to the soul. Separation from
God is death. When He withdraws His hand from the body it dies; when the soul
withdraws itself from Him it dies.
3. Finally, the temptation in the garden reminds us of the temptation in the
wilderness. Christ had a sorer temptation than Adam. The one needed nothing; the
other was hungered. The one had nothing of terror or pain hanging over him, which
he would escape by yielding; the other had His choice between winning His kingdom
by the cross, and getting rule by the easy path of taking evil for His good. The one
fell, and, as the most godless scientists are now preaching, necessarily transmitted a
depraved nature to his descendants. The other stood, conquered, and gives of His
spirit to all who trust Him. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
279

280. Observations
I. NO ACTOR IN ANY SIN CAN ESCAPE GOD’S DISCOVERY.
1. He is able to search into the deepest secrets, seeing all things are naked in His
sight (Heb_4:13).
2. It concerns Him to do it, that the Judge of all the world may appear and be known
to do right, to which purpose He must necessarily have a distinct knowledge, both of
the offenders and of the quality and measure of their offences, that everyone’s
judgment may be proportioned in number, weight, and measure, according to their
deeds.
II. MEN’S SINS MUST AND SHALL BE SO FAR MANIFESTED AS MAY CONDUCE TO
THE ADVANCING OF GOD’S GLORY. Let it be our care—
1. To take heed of dishonouring God by committing of any sin.
2. If by human infirmity we fall into any sin by which the name of God may be
blasphemed or the honour of it impaired, let us endeavour to take off the dishonour
done to Him by laying all the shame upon ourselves.
III. A GOOD MAN’S HEART OUGHT TO BE DEEPLY AND TENDERLY AFFECTED
WITH THE SENSE OF HIS OWN SIN. Such a manner of the affecting of the heart by the
sense of sin—
1. Brings much honour to God.
2. Proclaims our own innocence (2Co_7:11).
3. Moves God to compassion towards us (Joe_2:17).
4. Furthers our reformation.
5. Makes us more watchful over our ways for time to come.
IV. THE SEDUCING, ESPECIALLY OF ONE’S NEAREST FRIENDS, IS A FOUL, AND
SHOULD BE AN HEART-BREAKING SIN.
V. SIN AND THE ENTICEMENTS THEREUNTO ARE DANGEROUS DECEITS AND
SO WILL PROVE TO BE AT THE LAST. Now this deceit of sin is two fold. First, in
proposing evil under the name of good, calling light darkness and darkness light (Isa_
5:20), or at least the shadows of good, instead ofthat which is really and truly good, like
the passing of gilded brass for perfect gold. Secondly, in proposing unto us a reward in
an evil way, which we shall never find (see Pro_1:13; Pro_1:18), as they are justly
accounted deceivers who promise men largely that which they never make good in
performance. (J. White, M. A.)
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because
you have done this,
280

281. “Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
BARNES, "Gen_3:14-15
Here begins the judgment. Sentence is pronounced upon the serpent in the presence,
no doubt, of the man and woman. The serpent is not examined, first, because it is a
mute, unreasoning animal in itself, and therefore incapable of judicial examination, and
it was the serpent only that was palpable to the senses of our first parents in the
temptation; and, secondly, because the true tempter was not a new, but an old offender.
This sentence has a literal application to the serpent. The curse (Gen_9:25, see the
note) of the serpent lies in a more groveling nature than that of the other land animals.
This appears in its going on its belly and eating the dust. Other animals have at least feet
to elevate them above the dust; the serpent tribe does not have even feet. Other animals
elevate the head in their natural position above the soil: the serpent lays its head
naturally on the sod, and therefore may be said to eat the dust, as the wounded warrior
bites the dust in death. The earthworm is probably included in the description here
given of the serpent group. It goes upon its belly, and actually does eat the dust. Eating
the dust, like feeding upon ashes, is an expression for signal defeat in every aim. The
enmity, the mode of its display, and the issue are also singularly characteristic of the
literal serpent.
It is the custom of Scripture jurisprudence to visit brute animals with certain judicial
consequences of injuries they have been instrumental in doing to man, especially if this
has arisen through the design or neglect of the owner, or other responsible agent Gen_
9:5; Exo_21:28-36. In the present case the injury done was of a moral, not a physical
nature. Hence, the penalty consists in a curse; that is, a state of greater degradation
below man than the other land animals. The serpent in the extraordinary event here
recorded exercised the powers of human speech and reasoning. And it is natural to
suppose that these exhibitions of intelligence were accompanied with an attitude and a
gesture above its natural rank in the scale of creation. The effect of the judicial sentence
would be to remand it to its original groveling condition, and give rise to that enmity
which was to end in its destruction by man.
281

282. However, since an evil spirit must have employed the serpent, since the animal whose
organs and instincts were most adapted to its purpose, and has accordingly derived its
name from it as presenting the animal type most analogous to its own spiritual nature,
so the whole of this sentence has its higher application to the real tempter. “Upon thy
belly shalt thou go.” This is expressive of the lowest stage of degradation to which a
spiritual creature can be sunk. “Dust shalt thou eat.” This is indicative of disappointment
in all the aims of being. “I will put enmity.” This is still more strictly applicable to the
spiritual enemy of mankind. It intimates a hereditary feud between their respective
races, which is to terminate, after some temporary suffering on the part of the woman’s
seed, in the destruction of the serpent’s power against man. The spiritual agent in the
temptation of man cannot have literally any seed. But the seed of the serpent is that
portion of the human family that continues to be his moral offspring, and follows the
first transgression without repentance or refuge in the mercy of God. The seed of the
woman, on the other hand, must denote the remnant who are born from above, and
hence, turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.
Let us now mark the lessons conveyed in the sentence of the serpent to our first
parents, who were listening and looking on. First. The serpent is styled a mere brute
animal. All, then, that seemed to indicate reason as inherent in its nature or acquired by
some strange event in its history is thus at once contradicted. Second. It is declared to be
lower than any of the other land animals; as being destitute of any members
corresponding to feet or hands. Third. It is not interrogated as a rational and
accountable being, but treated as a mere dumb brute. Fourth. It is degraded from the
airs and attitudes which may have been assumed, when it was possessed by a serpent-
like evil spirit, and falls back without a struggle to that place of debasement in the animal
kingdom for which it was designed. Fifth. It is fated to be disappointed in its aims at
usurpation. It shall bite the dust. Sixth. it is doomed to ultimate and utter defeat in its
hostile assaults upon the seed of the woman.
All this must have made a deep impression on our first parents. But two things must
have struck them with special force. First, it was now evident how vain and hollow were
its pretensions to superior wisdom, and how miserably deluded they had been when they
listened to its false insinuations. If, indeed, they had possessed maturity of reflection,
and taken time to apply it, they would have been strangely bewildered with the whole
scene, now that it was past. How the serpent, from the brute instinct it displayed to
Adam when he named the animals, suddenly rose to the temporary exercise of reason
and speech, and as suddenly relapsed into its former bestiality, is, to the mere observer
of nature, an inexplicable phenomenon. But to Adam, who had as yet too limited an
experience to distinguish between natural and preternatural events, and too little
development of the reflective power to detect the inconsistency in the appearance of
things, the sole object of attention was the shameless presumption of the serpent, and
the overwhelming retribution which had fallen upon it; and, consequently, the
deplorable folly and wickedness of having been misguided by its suggestions.
A second thing, however, was still more striking to the mind of man in the sentence of
the serpent; namely, the enmity that was to be put between the serpent and the woman.
Up to a certain point there had been concord and alliance between these two parties.
But, on the very opening of the heavenly court, we learn that the friendly connection had
been broken. For the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” This
expression indicates that the woman was no longer at one with the serpent. She was now
sensible that its part had been that, not of friendship, but of guile, and therefore of the
deepest and darkest hostility. When God, therefore, said, “I will put enmity between thee
282

283. and the woman,” this revulsion of feeling on her part, in which Adam no doubt joined,
was acknowledged and approved. Enmity with the enemy of God indicated a return to
friendship with God, and presupposed incipient feelings of repentance toward him, and
reviving confidence in his word. The perpetuation of this enmity is here affirmed, in
regard not only to the woman, but to her seed. This prospect of seed, and of a godly seed,
at enmity with evil, became a fountain of hope to our first parents, and confirmed every
feeling of returning reverence for God which was beginning to spring up in their breast.
The word heard from the mouth of God begat faith in their hearts, and we shall find that
this faith was not slow to manifest itself in acts.
We cannot pass over this part of the sentence without noticing the expression, “the
seed of the woman.” Does it not mean, in the first instance, the whole human race? Was
not this race at enmity with the serpent? And though that part only of the seed of the
woman which eventually shared in her present feelings could be said to be at enmity
with the serpent spirit, yet, if all had gone well in Adam’s family, might not the whole
race have been at enmity with the spirit of disobedience? Was not the avenue to mercy
here hinted at as wide as the offer of any other time? And was not this universality of
invitation at some time to have a response in the human family? Does not the language
of the passage constrain us to look forward to the time when the great mass, or the
whole of the human race then alive on the earth, will have actually turned from the
power of Satan unto God? This could not be seen by Adam. But was it not the plain
import of the language, that, unless there was some new revolt after the present
reconciliation, the whole race would, even from this new beginning, be at enmity with
the spirit of evil? Such was the dread lesson of experience with which Adam now entered
upon the career of life, that it was to be expected he would warn his children against
departing from the living God, with a clearness and earnestness which would be both
understood and felt.
Still further, do we not pass from the general to the particular in the sentence, “He
shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel?” Is not the seed of the woman here
individualized and matched in deadly conflict with the individual tempter? Does not this
phraseology point to some pre-eminent descendant of the woman, who is, with the
bruising of his lower nature in the encounter, to gain a signal and final victory over the
adversary of man? There is some reason to believe from the expression, “I have gotten a
man from the Lord” Gen_4:1, that Eve herself had caught a glimpse of this meaning,
though she applied it to the wrong party. The Vulgate also, in what was probably the
genuine reading, “ipse” (he himself) points to the same meaning. The reading “ipsa” (she
herself) is inconsistent with the gender of the Hebrew verb, and with that of the
corresponding pronoun in the second clause (his), and is therefore clearly an error of the
transcriber.
Lastly, the retributive character of the divine administration is remarkably illustrated
in the phrase. The serpent, in a wily but dastardly spirit, makes the weaker sex the object
of his attack. It is the seed of the woman especially that is to bruise his head. It is
singular to find that this simple phrase, coming in naturally and incidentally in a
sentence uttered four thousand years, and penned at least fifteen hundred years, before
the Christian era, describes exactly and literally Him who was made of woman without
the intervention of man, that He might destroy the works of the devil. This clause in the
sentence of the tempter is the first dawn of hope for the human family after the fall. We
cannot tell whether to admire more the simplicity of its terms, the breadth and
comprehensiveness of its meaning, or the minuteness of its application to the far-distant
event which it mainly contemplates.
283

284. The doom here pronounced upon the tempter must be regarded as special and
secondary. It refers to the malignant attack upon man, and foretells what will be the
issue of this attempt to spread disaffection among the intelligent creation. And it is
pronounced without any examination of the offender, or investigation of his motives. If
this had been the first offence against the majesty of heaven, we humbly conceive a
solemn precognition of the case would have taken place, and a penalty would have been
adjudicated adequate to the magnitude of the crime and analagous to the punishment of
death in the case of man. The primary act of defiance and apostasy from the Creator
must have been perpetrated without a tempter, and was, therefore, incomparably more
heinous than the secondary act of yielding to temptation. Whether the presence of the
tempter on earth intimates that it was the place of his abode in a state of innocence, or
that he visited it because he had heard of the creation of man, or that he was there from
some altogether
CLARKE, "And the Lord God said unto the serpent - The tempter is not asked
why he deceived the woman; he cannot roll the blame on any other; self-tempted he fell,
and it is natural for him, such is his enmity, to deceive and destroy all he can. His fault
admits of no excuse, and therefore God begins to pronounce sentence on him first. And
here we must consider a twofold sentence, one on Satan and the other on the agent he
employed. The nachash, whom I suppose to have been at the head of all the inferior
animals, and in a sort of society and intimacy with man, is to be greatly degraded,
entirely banished from human society, and deprived of the gift of speech. Cursed art
thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field - thou shalt be considered the
most contemptible of animals; upon thy belly shalt thou go - thou shalt no longer walk
erect, but mark the ground equally with thy hands and feet; and dust shalt thou eat -
though formerly possessed of the faculty to distinguish, choose, and cleanse thy food,
thou shalt feed henceforth like the most stupid and abject quadruped, all the days of thy
life - through all the innumerable generations of thy species. God saw meet to manifest
his displeasure against the agent employed in this melancholy business; and perhaps
this is founded on the part which the intelligent and subtle nachash took in the seduction
of our first parents. We see that he was capable of it, and have some reason to believe
that he became a willing instrument.
GILL, "And the Lord God said unto the serpent,.... And to the devil in it; for what
follows may be applied to both; literally to the serpent, and mystically to Satan; both are
punished, and that very justly, the serpent in being the instrument Satan made use of,
and is cursed for his sake, as the earth for man's; and the punishing the instrument as
well as the principal, the more discovers God's detestation of the act for which they are
punished, as appears in other instances, Exo_21:28. Nor could it have been agreeable to
the justice of God, to punish the instrument and let the principal go free; and therefore
the following sentence must be considered as respecting them both: and it must be
observed, that no pains is taken to convince Satan of his sin, or any time spent in
reasoning and debating with him about it, he being an hardened apostate spirit, and
doomed to everlasting destruction, and without any hope of mercy and forgiveness; but
284

285. to show the divine resentment of his crime, the following things are said:
because thou hast done this; beguiled the woman, and drawn her in to eat of the
forbidden fruit:
thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; the serpent
is the most hateful of all creatures, and especially the most detestable to men, and Satan
is accursed of God, banished from the divine presence, is laid up in chains of darkness,
and reserved for the judgment of the great day, and consigned to everlasting wrath and
ruin, signified by everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
upon thy belly shalt thou go, or "breast", as Aben Ezra, and others; Jarchi thinks it
had feet before, but were cut off on this account, and so became a reptile, as some
serpents now have feet like geese, as Pliny (x) relates; or it might go in a more erect
posture on its hinder feet, as the basilisk, which is one kind of serpent, now does; and if
it was a flying one, bright and shining in the air, now it should lose all its glory, and
grovel in the dust, and with pain, or at least with difficulty, creep along on its breast and
belly; and this, as it respects the punishment of the devil, may signify, that he being cast
down from the realms of bliss and glory, shall never be able to rise more, and regain his
former place and dignity:
And dust shall thou eat all the days of thy life; meaning not that particular
serpent, and as long as that should live, but all of the same kind, as long as there were
any in the world, even to the end of it: it is probable, that when the serpent moved in a
more erect posture, it lived on herbs and plants as other creatures; but when it was
obliged to go upon its belly or breast, it licked up the dust of the earth, and which it
could not well avoid in eating whatsoever food it did; and some serpents are said to live
upon it. This is applicable to Satan, designs the mean and abject condition in which he
is, and the sordid food he lives upon; no more on angels' food and joys of heaven, but on
the base, mean, earthly, and impure lusts of men; and this will be his case, condition,
and circumstances, for ever.
HENRY 14-15, "The prisoners being found guilty by their own confession, besides
the personal and infallible knowledge of the Judge, and nothing material being offered in
arrest of judgment, God immediately proceeds to pass sentence; and, in these verses, he
begins (where the sin began) with the serpent. God did not examine the serpent, nor ask
him what he had done nor why he did it; but immediately sentenced him, 1. Because he
was already convicted of rebellion against God, and his malice and wickedness were
notorious, not found by secret search, but openly avowed and declared as Sodom's. 2.
Because he was to be for ever excluded from all hope of pardon; and why should any
thing be said to convince and humble him who was to find no place for repentance? His
wound was not searched, because it was not to be cured. Some think the condition of the
fallen angels was not declared desperate and helpless, until now that they had seduced
man into the rebellion.
I. The sentence passed upon the tempter may be considered as lighting upon the
serpent, the brute-creature which Satan made use of which was, as the rest, made for the
service of man, but was now abused to his hurt. Therefore, to testify a displeasure
285

286. against sin, and a jealousy for the injured honour of Adam and Eve, God fastens a curse
and reproach upon the serpent, and makes it to groan, being burdened. See Rom_8:20.
The devil's instruments must share in the devil's punishments. Thus the bodies of the
wicked, though only instruments of unrighteousness, shall partake of everlasting
torments with the soul, the principal agent. Even the ox that killed a man must be
stoned, Exo_21:28, Exo_21:29. See here how God hates sin, and especially how much
displeased he is with those who entice others into sin. It is a perpetual brand upon
Jeroboam's name that he made Israel to sin. Now, 1. The serpent is here laid under the
curse of God: Thou art cursed above all cattle. Even the creeping things, when God
made them, were blessed of him (Gen_1:22), but sin turned the blessing into a curse.
The serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field (Gen_3:1), and here, cursed
above every beast of the field. Unsanctified subtlety often proves a great curse to a man;
and the more crafty men are to do evil the more mischief they do, and, consequently,
they shall receive the greater damnation. Subtle tempters are the most accursed
creatures under the sun. 2. He is here laid under man's reproach and enmity. (1.) He is
to be for ever looked upon as a vile and despicable creature, and a proper object of scorn
and contempt: “Upon thy belly thou shalt go, no longer upon feet, or half erect, but thou
shalt crawl along, thy belly cleaving to the earth,” an expression of a very abject
miserable condition, Psa_44:25; “and thou shalt not avoid eating dust with thy meat.”
His crime was that he tempted Eve to eat that which she should not; his punishment was
that he was necessitated to eat that which he would not: Dust thou shalt eat. This
denotes not only a base and despicable condition, but a mean and pitiful spirit; it is said
of those whose courage has departed from them that they lick the dust like a serpent,
Mic_7:17. How sad it is that the serpent's curse should be the covetous worldling's
choice, whose character it is that he pants after the dust of the earth! Amo_2:7. These
choose their own delusions, and so shall their doom be. (2.) He is to be for ever looked
upon as a venomous noxious creature, and a proper object of hatred and detestation: I
will put enmity between thee and the woman. The inferior creatures being made for
man, it was a curse upon any of them to be turned against man and man against them;
and this is part of the serpent's curse. The serpent is hurtful to man, and often bruises
his heel, because it can reach no higher; nay, notice is taken of his biting the horses'
heels, Gen_49:17. But man is victorious over the serpent, and bruises his head, that is,
gives him a mortal wound, aiming to destroy the whole generation of vipers. It is the
effect of this curse upon the serpent that, though that creature is subtle and very
dangerous, yet it prevails not (as it would if God gave it commission) to the destruction
of mankind. This sentence pronounced upon the serpent is much fortified by that
promise of God to his people, Thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder (Psa_91:13),
and that of Christ to his disciples, They shall take up serpents (Mar_16:18), witness
Paul, who was unhurt by the viper that fastened upon his hand. Observe here, The
serpent and the woman had just now been very familiar and friendly in discourse about
the forbidden fruit, and a wonderful agreement there was between them; but here they
are irreconcilably set at variance. Note, Sinful friendships justly end in mortal feuds:
those that unite in wickedness will not unite long.
II. This sentence may be considered as levelled at the devil, who only made use of the
serpent as his vehicle in this appearance, but was himself the principal agent. He that
spoke through the serpent's mouth is here struck at through the serpent's side, and is
principally intended in the sentence, which, like the pillar of cloud and fire, has a dark
side towards the devil and a bright side towards our first parents and their seed. Great
things are contained in these words.
286

287. 1. A perpetual reproach is here fastened upon that great enemy both to God and man.
Under the cover of the serpent, he is here sentenced to be, (1.) Degraded and accursed of
God. It is supposed that the sin which turned angels into devils was pride, which is here
justly punished by a great variety of mortifications couched under the mean
circumstances of a serpent crawling on his belly and licking the dust. How art thou
fallen, O Lucifer! He that would be above God, and would head a rebellion against him,
is justly exposed here to contempt and lies to be trodden on; a man's pride will bring him
low, and God will humble those that will not humble themselves. (2.) Detested and
abhorred of all mankind. Even those that are really seduced into his interest yet profess a
hatred and abhorrence of him; and all that are born of God make it their constant care to
keep themselves, that this wicked one touch them not, 1Jo_5:18. He is here condemned
to a state of war and irreconcilable enmity. (3.) Destroyed and ruined at last by the great
Redeemer, signified by the breaking of his head. His subtle politics shall all be baffled,
his usurped power shall be entirely crushed, and he shall be for ever a captive to the
injured honour of divine sovereignty. By being told of this now he was tormented before
the time.
2. A perpetual quarrel is here commenced between the kingdom of God and the
kingdom of the devil among men; war is proclaimed between the seed of the woman and
the seed of the serpent. That war in heaven between Michael and the dragon began now,
Rev_12:7. It is the fruit of this enmity, (1.) That there is a continual conflict between
grace and corruption in the hearts of God's people. Satan, by their corruptions, assaults
them, buffets them, sifts them, and seeks to devour them; they, by the exercise of their
graces, resist him, wrestle with him, quench his fiery darts, force him to flee from them.
Heaven and hell can never be reconciled, nor light and darkness; no more can Satan and
a sanctified soul, for these are contrary the one to the other. (2.) That there is likewise a
continual struggle between the wicked and the godly in this world. Those that love God
account those their enemies that hate him, Psa_139:21, Psa_139:22. And all the rage and
malice of persecutors against the people of God are the fruit of this enmity, which will
continue while there is a godly man on this side heaven, and a wicked man on this side
hell. Marvel not therefore if the world hate you, 1Jo_3:13.
3. A gracious promise is here made of Christ, as the deliverer of fallen man from the
power of Satan. Though what was said was addressed to the serpent, yet it was said in
the hearing of our first parents, who, doubtless, took the hints of grace here given them,
and saw a door of hope opened to them, else the following sentence upon themselves
would have overwhelmed them. Here was the dawning of the gospel day. No sooner was
the wound given than the remedy was provided and revealed. Here, in the head of the
book, as the word is (Heb_10:7), in the beginning of the Bible, it is written of Christ, that
he should do the will of God. By faith in this promise, we have reason to think, our first
parents, and the patriarchs before the flood, were justified and saved and to this
promise, and the benefit of it, instantly serving God day and night, they hoped to come.
Notice is here given them of three things concerning Christ: - (1.) His incarnation, that
he should be the seed of the woman, the seed of that woman; therefore his genealogy
(Lu. 3) goes so high as to show him to be the son of Adam, but God does the woman the
honour to call him rather her seed, because she it was whom the devil had beguiled, and
on whom Adam had laid the blame; herein God magnifies his grace, in that, though the
woman was first in the transgression, yet she shall be saved by child-bearing (as some
read it), that is, by the promised seed who shall descend from her, 1Ti_2:15. He was
likewise to be the seed of a woman only, of a virgin, that he might not be tainted with the
corruption of our nature; he was sent forth, made of a woman (Gal_4:4), that this
287

288. promise might be fulfilled. It is a great encouragement to sinners that their Saviour is
the seed of the woman, bone of our bone, Heb_2:11, Heb_2:14. Man is therefore sinful
and unclean, because he is born of a woman (Job_25:4), and therefore his days are full
of trouble, Job_14:1. But the seed of the woman was made sin and a curse for us, so
saving us from both. (2.) His sufferings and death, pointed at in Satan's bruising his
heel, that is, his human nature. Satan tempted Christ in the wilderness, to draw him into
sin; and some think it was Satan that terrified Christ in his agony, to drive him to
despair. It was the devil that put it into the heart of Judas to betray Christ, of Peter to
deny him, of the chief priests to prosecute him, of the false witnesses to accuse him, and
of Pilate to condemn him, aiming in all this, by destroying the Saviour, to ruin the
salvation; but, on the contrary, it was by death that Christ destroyed him that had the
power of death, Heb_2:14. Christ's heel was bruised when his feet were pierced and
nailed to the cross, and Christ's sufferings are continued in the sufferings of the saints
for his name. The devil tempts them, casts them into prison, persecutes and slays them,
and so bruises the heel of Christ, who is afflicted in their afflictions. But, while the heel is
bruised on earth, it is well that the head is safe in heaven. (3.) His victory over Satan
thereby. Satan had now trampled upon the woman, and insulted over her; but the seed
of the woman should be raised up in the fulness of time to avenge her quarrel, and to
trample upon him, to spoil him, to lead him captive, and to triumph over him, Col_2:15.
He shall bruise his head, that is, he shall destroy all his politics and all his powers, and
give a total overthrow to his kingdom and interest. Christ baffled Satan's temptations,
rescued souls out of his hands, cast him out of the bodies of people, dispossessed the
strong man armed, and divided his spoil: by his death, he gave a fatal and incurable blow
to the devil's kingdom, a wound to the head of this beast, that can never be healed. As his
gospel gets ground, Satan falls (Luk_10:18) and is bound, Rev_20:2. By his grace, he
treads Satan under his people's feet (Rom_16:20) and will shortly cast him into the lake
of fire, Rev_20:10. And the devil's perpetual overthrow will be the complete and
everlasting joy and glory of the chosen remnant.
JAMISON, "Gen_3:14-24. The sentence.
And the Lord God said unto the serpent — The Judge pronounces a doom: first,
on the material serpent, which is cursed above all creatures. From being a model of grace
and elegance in form, it has become the type of all that is odious, disgusting, and low [Le
Clerc, Rosenmuller]; or the curse has converted its natural condition into a punishment;
it is now branded with infamy and avoided with horror; next, on the spiritual serpent,
the seducer. Already fallen, he was to be still more degraded and his power wholly
destroyed by the offspring of those he had deceived.
K&D, "The sentence follows the examination, and is pronounced first of all upon the
serpent as the tempter: “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed before all cattle,
and before every beast of the field.” ‫ן‬ ִ‫,מ‬ literally out of the beasts, separate from them
(Deu_14:2; Jdg_5:24), is not a comparative signifying more than, nor does it mean by;
for the curse did not proceed from the beasts, but from God, and was not pronounced
upon all the beasts, but upon the serpent alone. The κτίσις, it is true, including the whole
animal creation, has been “made subject to vanity” and “the bondage of corruption,” in
consequence of the sin of man (Rom_8:20-21); yet this subjection is not to be regarded
288

289. as the effect of the curse, which was pronounced upon the serpent, having fallen upon
the whole animal world, but as the consequence of death passing from man into the rest
of the creation, and thoroughly pervading the whole. The creation was drawn into the
fall of man, and compelled to share its consequences, because the whole of the irrational
creation was made for man, and made subject to him as its head; consequently the
ground was cursed for man's sake, but not the animal world for the serpent's sake, or
even along with the serpent. The curse fell upon the serpent for having tempted the
woman, according to the same law by which not only a beast which had injured a man
was ordered to be put to death (Gen_9:5; Exo_21:28-29), but any beast which had been
the instrument of an unnatural crime was to be slain along with the man (Lev_
20:15-16); not as though the beast were an accountable creature, but in consequence of
its having been made subject to man, not to injure his body or his life, or to be the
instrument of his sin, but to subserve the great purpose of his life. “Just as a loving
father,” as Chrysostom says, “when punishing the murderer of his son, might snap in
two the sword or dagger with which the murder had been committed.” The proof,
therefore, that the serpent was merely the instrument of an evil spirit, does not lie in the
punishment itself, but in the manner in which the sentence was pronounced. When God
addressed the animal, and pronounced a curse upon it, this presupposed that the curse
had regard not so much to the irrational beast as to the spiritual tempter, and that the
punishment which fell upon the serpent was merely a symbol of his own. The
punishment of the serpent corresponded to the crime. It had exalted itself above the
man; therefore upon its belly it should go, and dust it should eat all the days of its life. If
these words are not to be robbed of their entire meaning, they cannot be understood in
any other way than as denoting that the form and movements of the serpent were
altered, and that its present repulsive shape is the effect of the curse pronounced upon it,
though we cannot form any accurate idea of its original appearance. Going upon the
belly (= creeping, Lev_11:42) was a mark of the deepest degradation; also the eating of
dust, which is not to be understood as meaning that dust was to be its only food, but that
while crawling in the dust it would also swallow dust (cf. Mic_7:17; Isa_49:23).
Although this punishment fell literally upon the serpent, it also affected the tempter if a
figurative or symbolical sense. He became the object of the utmost contempt and
abhorrence; and the serpent still keeps the revolting image of Satan perpetually before
the eye. This degradation was to be perpetual. “While all the rest of creation shall be
delivered from the fate into which the fall has plunged it, according to Isa_65:25, the
instrument of man's temptation is to remain sentenced to perpetual degradation in
fulfilment of the sentence, 'all the days of thy life.' and thus to prefigure the fate of the
real tempter, for whom there is no deliverance” (Hengstenberg, Christology Gen_1:15). -
The presumption of the tempter was punished with the deepest degradation; and in like
manner his sympathy with the woman was to be turned into eternal hostility (Gen_
3:15). God established perpetual enmity, not only between the serpent and the woman,
but also between the serpent's and the woman's seed, i.e., between the human and the
serpent race. The seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head, and the serpent
crush the heel of the woman's seed. The meaning, terere, conterere, is thoroughly
established by the Chald., Syr., and Rabb. authorities, and we have therefore retained it,
in harmony with the word συντρίβειν in Rom_16:20, and because it accords better and
more easily with all the other passages in which the word occurs, than the rendering
inhiare, to regard with enmity, which is obtained from the combination of ‫שׁוּף‬ with ‫ף‬ ַ‫א‬ָ‫.שׁ‬
The verb is construed with a double accusative, the second giving greater precision to
the first (vid., Ges. §139, note, and Ewald, §281). The same word is used in connection
289

290. with both head and heel, to show that on both sides the intention is to destroy the
opponent; at the same time, the expressions head and heel denote a majus and minus,
or, as Calvin says, superius et inferius. This contrast arises from the nature of the foes.
The serpent can only seize the heel of the man, who walks upright; whereas the man can
crush the head of the serpent, that crawls in the dust. But this difference is itself the
result of the curse pronounced upon the serpent, and its crawling in the dust is a sign
that it will be defeated in its conflict with man. However pernicious may be the bite of a
serpent in the heel when the poison circulates throughout the body (Gen_49:17), it is not
immediately fatal and utterly incurable, like the cursing of a serpent's head.
But even in this sentence there is an unmistakable allusion to the evil and hostile being
concealed behind the serpent. That the human race should triumph over the serpent,
was a necessary consequence of the original subjection of the animals to man. When,
therefore, God not merely confines the serpent within the limits assigned to the animals,
but puts enmity between it and the woman, this in itself points to a higher, spiritual
power, which may oppose and attack the human race through the serpent, but will
eventually be overcome. Observe, too, that although in the first clause the seed of the
serpent is opposed to the seed of the woman, in the second it is not over the seed of the
serpent but over the serpent itself that the victory is said to be gained. It, i.e., the seed of
the woman will crush thy head, and thou (not thy seed) wilt crush its heel. Thus the seed
of the serpent is hidden behind the unity of the serpent, or rather of the foe who,
through the serpent, has done such injury to man. This foe is Satan, who incessantly
opposes the seed of the woman and bruises its heel, but is eventually to be trodden
under its feet. It does not follow from this, however, apart from other considerations,
that by the seed of the woman we are to understand one solitary person, one individual
only. As the woman is the mother of all living (Gen_3:20), her seed, to which the victory
over the serpent and its seed is promised, must be the human race. But if a direct and
exclusive reference to Christ appears to be exegetically untenable, the allusion in the
word to Christ is by no means precluded in consequence. In itself the idea of ‫ע‬ ַ‫ֶר‬‫ז‬, the
seed, is an indefinite one, since the posterity of a man may consist of a whole tribe or of
one son only (Gen_4:25; Gen_21:12-13), and on the other hand, an entire tribe may be
reduced to one single descendant and become extinct in him. The question, therefore,
who is to be understood by the “seed” which is to crush the serpent's head, can only be
answered from the history of the human race. But a point of much greater importance
comes into consideration here. Against the natural serpent the conflict may be carried on
by the whole human race, by all who are born of a woman, but not against Satan. As he is
a fore who can only be met with spiritual weapons, none can encounter him successfully
but such as possess and make use of spiritual arms. Hence the idea of the “seed” is
modified by the nature of the foe. If we look at the natural development of the human
race, Eve bore three sons, but only one of them, viz., Seth, was really the seed by whom
the human family was preserved through the flood and perpetuated in Noah: so, again,
of the three sons of Noah, Shem, the blessed of Jehovah, from whom Abraham
descended, was the only one in whose seed all nations were to be blessed, and that not
through Ishmael, but through Isaac alone. Through these constantly repeated acts of
divine selection, which were not arbitrary exclusions, but were rendered necessary by
differences in the spiritual condition of the individuals concerned, the “seed,” to which
the victory over Satan was promised, was spiritually or ethically determined, and ceased
to be co-extensive with physical descent. This spiritual seed culminated in Christ, in
whom the Adamitic family terminated, henceforward to be renewed by Christ as the
second Adam, and restored by Him to its original exaltation and likeness to God. In this
290

291. sense Christ is the seed of the woman, who tramples Satan under His feet, not as an
individual, but as the head both of the posterity of the woman which kept the promise
and maintained the conflict with the old serpent before His advent, and also of all those
who are gathered out of all nations, are united to Him by faith, and formed into one body
of which He is the head (Rom_16:20). On the other hand, all who have not regarded and
preserved the promise, have fallen into the power of the old serpent, and are to be
regarded as the seed of the serpent, whose head will be trodden under foot (Mat_23:33;
Joh_8:44; 1Jo_3:8). If then the promise culminates in Christ, the fact that the victory
over the serpent is promised to the posterity of the woman, not of the man, acquires this
deeper significance, that as it was through the woman that the craft of the devil brought
sin and death into the world, so it is also through the woman that the grace of God will
give to the fallen human race the conqueror of sin, of death, and of the devil. And even if
the words had reference first of all to the fact that the woman had been led astray by the
serpent, yet in the fact that the destroyer of the serpent was born of a woman (without a
human father) they were fulfilled in a way which showed that the promise must have
proceeded from that Being, who secured its fulfilment not only in its essential force, but
even in its apparently casual form.
PULPIT, "Gen_3:14
Confession having thus been made by both delinquents, and the arch-contriver of the
whole mischief discovered, the Divine Judge proceeds to deliver sentence. And the
Lord God said unto the serpent. Which he does not interrogate as he did the man
and woman, "because
(1) in the animal itself there was no sense of sin, and
(2) to the devil he would hold out no hope of pardon" (Calvin); "because the trial has
now reached the fountain-head of sin, the purely evil purpose (the demoniacal) having
no deeper ground, and requiring no further investigation’’ (Lange). Because thou hast
done this. I.e. beguiled the woman. The incidence of this curse has been explained as—
1. The serpent only (Kalisch).
2. The devil only (Macdonald).
3. Partly on the serpent and partly on Satan (Calvin).
4. Wholly upon both (Murphy, Bush, Candlish).
The difficulties attending these different interpretations have thus been concisely
expressed:—
1. Quidam statuunt maledictioncm latam in serpentem solum, quia hic confertur cum
aliis bestiis, non in diabolum, quid is antea maledictus erat.
2. Alii in diabolum solum, quid brutus serpens non poterat juste puniri.
3. Alii applicant Gen_3:14 ad serpentem, Gen_3:15 in diabolum. At vero tu et te idem
sunt in utroque versu.
4. Alii existimant earn in utrumque latam" (Medus in ’Poll Commentsr.,’ quoted by
291

292. Lange). The fourth opinion seems most accordant with the language of the malediction.
Thou art cursed. The cursing of the irrational creature should occasion no more
difficulty than the cursing of the earth (Gen_3:17), or of the fig tree (Mat_11:21).
Creatures can be cursed or blessed only in accordance with their natures. The reptile,
therefore, being neither a moral nor responsible creature, could not be cursed in the
sense of being made susceptible of misery. But it might be cursed in the sense of being
deteriorated in its nature, and, as it were, consigned to a lower position in the scale of
being. And as the Creator has a perfect right to assign to his creature the specific place it
shall occupy, and function it shall subserve, in creation, the remanding of the reptile to
an inferior position could not justly be construed into a violation of the principles of
right, while it might serve to God’s intelligent creatures as a visible symbol of his
displeasure against sin (cf. Gen_9:5; Exo_21:28-36). Above. Literally, from, i.e.
separate and apart from all cattle (Le Clerc, Von Bohlen, Tuch, Knobel, Keil); and
neither by (Gesenius, De Wette, Baumgarten) nor above (Luther, A.V; Rosenmόller,
Delitzsch), as if the other creatures were either participators in or the instruments of the
serpent’s malediction. All cattle, and above (apart from) every beast of the field.
The words imply the materiality of the reptile and the reality of the curse, so far as it was
concerned. Upon thy belly. ἘπιΜ τῷ στημθει σου καιΜ τῇ κοιλιμᾳ (LXX.); "meaning
with, great pain and, difficulty." As Adam’s labor and Eve’s conception had pain and
sorrow added to them (Gen_3:16, Gen_3:17), so the serpent’s gait" (Ainsworth). Shalt
thou go. "As the worm steals over the earth with its length of body," "as a mean and
despised crawler in the dust," having previously gone erect (Luther), and been possessed
of bone (Josephus), and capable of standing upright and twining itself round the trees
(Lange), or at least having undergone some transformation as to external form
(Delitzsch, Keil); though the language may import nothing more than that whereas the
reptile had exalted itself against man, it was henceforth to be thrust back-into its proper
rank," "recalled from its insolent motions to its accustomed mode of going," and "at the
same time condemned to perpetual infamy" (Calvin). As applied to Satan this part of the
curse proclaimed his further degradation in the scale of being in consequence of having
tempted man. "Than the serpent trailing along the ground, no emblem can more aptly
illustrate the character and condition of the apostate spirit who once occupied a place
among the angels of God, but has been cast down to the earth, preparatory to his deeper
plunge into the fiery lake (Rev_20:10; Macdonald). And dust shalt thou eat, I.e.
mingling dust with all it should eat. "The great scantiness of food on which serpents can
subsist gave rise to the belief entertained by many Eastern nations, and referred to in
several Biblical allusions (Isa_65:25; Mic_7:17)—that they cat dust" (Kalisch). More
probably it originated in a too literal interpretation of the Mosaic narrative. Applied to
the devil, this part of the curse was an additional intimation of his degradation. To "lick
the dust" or "eat the dust" "is equivalent to being reduced to a condition of meanness,
shame, and contempt" (Bush); "is indicative of disappointment in all the aims of being"
(Murphy); "denotes the highest intensity of a moral condition, of which the feelings of
the prodigal (Luk_15:16) may be considered a type’ (Macdonald; cf. Psa_72:9). All the
days of thy life. The degradation should be perpetual as well as complete.
SBC, "Several important difficulties suggest themselves in the text.
I. The scientific difficulty. The serpent really bears no trace of degradation; its structure
is as beautifully adapted to its place in nature as that of the lion or the eagle. Neither can
it be said to eat dust: its food consists of the small animals which are its prey.
II. The moral objection. Why was the serpent punished for what he did not do? Shall
292

293. God visit the craft of the devil on his helpless and unconscious victim?
The answer is, These two objections neutralise each other. If the moralist tells us that
God could not have meant to punish the serpent for what the serpent did not do, the
man of science assures us that in fact He did not punish him. The real severity of the
sentence lighted on the real offender, the devil, while the mere form of it was
accommodated to the apparent structure and habits of the serpent.
III. If it was the tempter that sinned, why did not the Almighty sentence him openly as
the tempter? Because there is a very marked reserve in the Old Testament on the subject
of the personal author of evil. The reason of this is obvious: men were not able to bear
the knowledge of their great spiritual enemy until their Deliverer was at hand. If we
perceive that it was not the will of God at that time to reveal to man the existence of the
evil one, we can readily understand why He permitted him to retain his serpent guise.
R. Winterbotham, Sermons and Expositions, p. 8
CALVIN, "14.And the Lord God said unto the serpent. He does not interrogate the
serpent as he had done the man and the woman; because, in the animal itself there
was no sense of sin, and because, to the devil he would hold out no hope of pardon.
He might truly, by his own authority, have pronounced sentence against Adam and
Eve, though unheard. Why then does he call them to undergo examination, except
that he has a care for their salvation? This doctrine is to be applied to our benefit.
There would be no need of any trial of the cause, or of any solemn form of
judgment, in order to condemn us; wherefore, while God insists upon extorting a
confession from us, he acts rather as a physician than as a judge. There is the same
reason why the Lords before he imposes punishment on man, begins with the
serpent. For corrective punishments (as we shall see) are of a different kind, and are
inflicted with the design of leading us to repentance; but in this there is nothing of
the sort.
It is, however, doubtful to whom the words refer, whether to the serpent or to the
devil. Moses, indeed, says that the serpent was a skillful and cunning animal; yet it
is certain, that, when Satan was devising the destruction of man, the serpent was
guiltless of his fraud and wickedness. Wherefore, many explain this whole passage
allegorically, and plausible are the subtleties which they adduce for this purpose.
But when all things are more accurately weighed, readers endued with sound
judgment will easily perceive that the language is of a mixed character; for God so
addresses the serpent that the last clause belongs to the devil. If it seem to any one
absurd, that the punishment of another’s fraud should be exacted from a brute
animal, the solution is at hand; that, since it had been created for the benefit of man,
there was nothing improper in its being accursed from the moment that it was
293

294. employed for his destruction. And by this act of vengeance God would prove how
highly he estimates the salvation of man; just as if a father should hold the sword in
execration by which his son had been slain. And here we must consider, not only the
kind of authority which God has over his creatures, but also the end for which he
created them, as I have recently said. For the equity of the divine sentence depends
on that order of nature which he has sanctioned; it has, therefore, no affinity
whatever with blind revenge. In this manner the reprobate will be delivered over
into eternal fire with their bodies; which bodies, although they are not self-moved,
are yet the instruments of perpetrating evil. So whatever wickedness a man commits
is ascribed to his hands, and, therefore, they are deemed polluted; while yet they do
not more themselves, except so far as, under the impulse of a depraved affection of
the heart, they carry into execution what has been there conceived. According to this
method of reasoning, the serpent is said to have done what the devil did by its
means. But if God so severely avenged the destruction of man upon a brute animal,
much less did he spare Satan, the author of the whole evil, as will appear more
clearly in the concluding part of the address.
Thou art cursed above all cattle This curse of God has such force against the
serpents as to render it despicable, and scarcely tolerable to heaven and earth,
leading a life exposed to, and replete with, constant terrors. Besides, it is not only
hateful to us, as the chief enemy of the human race, but, being separated also from
other animals, carries on a kind of war with nature; for we see it had before been so
gentle that the woman did not flee from its familiar approach. But what follows has
greater difficulty because that which God denounces as a punishment seems to be
natural; namely, that it should creep upon its belly and eat dust. This objection has
induced certain men of learning and ability to say, that the serpent had been
accustomed to walk with an erect body before it had been abused by Satan. (191)
There will, however, be no absurdity in supposing, that the serpent was again
consigned to that former condition, to which he was already naturally subject. For
thus he, who had exalted himself against the image of God, was to be thrust back
into his proper rank; as if it had been said, ‘Thou, a wretched and filthy animal,
hast dared to rise up against man, whom I appointed to the dominion of the whole
world; as if, truly, thou, who art fixed to the earth, hadst any right to penetrate into
heaven. Therefore, I now throw thee back again to the place whence thou hast
attempted to emerge, that thou mayest learn to be contented with thy lot, and no
more exalt thyself, to man’s reproach and injury.’ In the meanwhile he is recalled
from his insolent motions to his accustomed mode of going, in such a way as to be, at
the same time, condemned to perpetual infamy. To eat dust is the sign of a vile and
294

295. sordid nature. This (in my opinion) is the simple meaning of the passage, which the
testimony of Isaiah also confirms, (Isaiah 65:25;) for while he promises under the
reign of Christ, the complete restoration of a sound and well-constituted nature, he
records, among other things, that dust shall be to the serpent for bread. Wherefore,
it is not necessary to seek for any fresh change in each particular which Moses here
relates.
BENSON, "Genesis 3:14. God said unto the serpent — In passing sentence, God
begins where the sin began, with the serpent, which, although only an irrational
creature, and therefore not subject to a law, nor capable of sin and guilt, yet, being
the instrument of the devil’s wiles and malice, is punished as other beasts have been
when abused by the sin of man, and this partly for the punishment, and partly for
the instruction of man, their lord and governor.
Upon thy belly shalt thou go — And “no longer on thy feet, or half erect,” say Mr.
Henry and Mr. Wesley, (as it is probable this serpent, and others of the same
species, had before done,) “but thou shalt crawl along, thy belly cleaving to the
earth,” the dust of which thou shalt take in with thy food. And thou, and all thy
kind, shall be reckoned most despicable and detestable, (Isaiah 65:25, Micah 7:17,)
and be the constant objects of the hatred of mankind. But this sentence, directed
against the serpent, chiefly respected the infernal spirit that actuated it, and his
curse is intended under that of the serpent, and is expressed in terms which, indeed,
properly and literally agreed to the serpent; but were mystically to be understood as
fulfilled in the devil; who is “cursed above all irrational animals; is left under the
power of invincible folly and malice, and, in disgrace, is depressed below the vilest
beasts, and appointed to unspeakable misery when they are insensible in death.” —
Brown.
COFFMAN, "THE CURSE OF THE SERPENT
"And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art
thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou
go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."
295

296. God tacitly acknowledged the greater blame in the situation as belonging to the
serpent, therefore the curse fell on it immediately. The blameworthiness of the
serpent which appears here requires the understanding, either that the serpent is
truly identified as Satan, or that the curse fell upon Satan's instrument as an
instruction both for Satan and for mankind of the inherent disaster inevitably
associated with Satan's use of anything whatsoever. If the latter is true, it is no
greater a theological problem than Jesus' cursing of the fig tree, or of God's cursing
the ground "for Adam's sake" a few moments later. Henceforth and forever, the
lowly serpent, hated and ruthlessly exterminated by the people of all nations, would
serve as a suitable and "visible symbol of God's displeasure with sin."[17]
This part of the curse apparently fell upon Satan's instrument in the seduction, but
the next part of it fell upon the Evil One himself, a being visible in the terminology
of the famed Lord's Prayer, given upon the authority of Jesus Christ himself.
COKE, "Genesis 3:14. The Lord said unto the serpent, &c.— In this and the
following verses, we have an account of the sentence which the Lord God passed
upon the three delinquents. There is no difficulty in understanding that which was
passed on the man and the woman: but various opinions and conjectures have been
formed respecting that which was passed upon the serpent. According to our
exposition, (see note, Genesis 3:1.) the serpent here before the Lord was a real
serpent, made the agent or instrument of the spiritual and infernal one. We
therefore rationally conclude, that the sentence, like the agent, is two-fold, and
regards at once the visible and invisible serpent. It is plain enough that the first part
of the sentence refers to the natural and visible serpent, and must be applied
metaphorically, if at all, to the invisible deceiver. And it seems equally evident, that
the latter part of the sentence, Genesis 3:15 though in terms applicable to the visible,
yet refers principally to the invisible deceiver, and can be applied only in a low and
less important sense to the natural serpent. Upon this principle we ground our
interpretation; and it must be acknowledged, that, as the agent was twofold, it was
reasonable to expect something of a double nature in the sentence. And it is not at
all to be wondered if it be dark and obscure in a measure, considering all the
circumstances of the case, how little is known by us of diabolical agency, or what
was the consequence to the grand tempter, upon so bold and presumptuous an
offence against God: certain however it is, that an intelligent being and free agent is
296

297. addressed, and therefore more than a mere serpent must be understood.
Thou art cursed above all cattle, &c.— Or, thou art cursed above every animal, and
above every beast of the field. This plainly refers to the natural serpent, whose
poisonous nature renders it the most deadly of all creatures, and, properly speaking,
the most accursed. Upon thy belly shalt thou go; whence commentators have
generally, and, as it seems, justly inferred, that the serpent, before this curse, went
erect, and was as beautiful and pleasing as he is now loathsome and detestable: and
indeed, unless this were the case, it is not easy to see the propriety of this
denunciation: And dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life; that is, as I conceive, in
consequence of thy groveling form, thy food shall always be defiled and mingled
with filth and dust; for I apprehend this to be only a connecting clause with the
prime curse, and, as it were, the immediate consequence of it: Thou shalt go upon
thy belly, and so, shalt eat dust. Dr. Delaney has taken the pains to inform us, that
there are some species of serpents which actually feed upon the dry dusty earth, in
the sandy deserts to which God hath condemned them. And accordingly Diodorus
observes, that the most sandy and barren deserts abounded most with serpents.
Thus we see the curse denounced upon the natural serpent is fulfilled in that
poisonous and deadly nature and groveling form which it bears: a curse which
refers, in my opinion, to the whole serpentine race, which we find verified in them,
hateful and horrid as they are to mankind beyond every creature: a standing proof,
no doubt, of the original transaction in Paradise, where we may reasonably
conclude, before the fall, the serpentine race was neither poisonous nor groveling.
Now, this part of the sentence can be applied to the infernal agent no otherwise than
metaphorically: and, if any thing, it must express his peculiar accursedness, the
virulence of his nature, the vileness of his pursuits, his fall, and still deeper
degradation by this act, and his wretched appetite for destruction and misery,
instead of that angel's food of holiness and happiness upon which he fed in heaven.
See Psalms 72:9. Micah 7:17. Isaiah 65:25. But it may be asked, how it comes to
pass, that the serpent, which was a mere instrument only, is thus degraded and
punished? It was, doubtless, to shew by a lively and lasting emblem God's
indignation against sin, and his value for mankind. And certainly the Deity might,
with propriety, degrade a creature so obnoxious, and diminish its original
perfections, as well as degrade man himself, for the offence to which the serpent was
so instrumental.
CONSTABLE, "Verse 14-15
297

298. Effects on the serpent3:14-15
God"s judgment on each trespasser (the snake, the woman, and the man) involved
both a life function and a relationship. [Note: J. T. Walsh, " Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A
Synchronic Approach," Journal of Biblical Literature96 (1977):168.] In each case
the punishment corresponded to the nature of the crime.
"Curses are uttered against the serpent and the ground, but not against the man
and woman, implying that the blessing has not been utterly lost. It is not until
human murder, a transgression against the imago Dei, that a person (Cain) receives
the divine curse ..." [Note: Mathews, p243.]
1. The snake had been crafty (Heb. "arum), but now it was cursed (Heb. "arur). It
had to move on its belly ( Genesis 3:14). Some commentators take this literally and
conclude that the snake had legs before God cursed it. [Note: E.g, Josephus, 1:1:50.]
Others take it figuratively as a reference to the resultant despised condition of the
snake. [Note: E.g, Leupold, Exposition of Genesis , 1:162; Kidner, p70; Mathews,
p244.]
2. It would eat dust ( Genesis 3:14). Since snakes do not literally feed on dust, many
interpreters take this statement figuratively. Eating dust is an expression used in
other ancient Near Eastern writings to describe the lowest of all forms of life. In the
Bible it also describes humiliation and total defeat (cf. Psalm 44:25; Psalm 72:9;
Isaiah 25:12; Isaiah 49:23; Isaiah 65:25; Micah 7:17).
God revealed later through Isaiah that serpents will eat dust during the Millennium
( Isaiah 65:25). Presently snakes eat plants and animals. Perhaps God will yet fulfill
this part of what He predicted here in Genesis concerning snakes in the millennial
kingdom. This is a literal interpretation. If this is correct, then perhaps we should
also take the former part of the curse literally, namely, that snakes did not travel on
their bellies before the Fall. Alternatively Isaiah may have meant that serpents will
298

299. be harmless after God lifts the curse on creation in the Millennium.
3. There would be antagonism between the serpent and human beings ( Genesis 3:15
a). This obviously exists between snakes and people, but God"s intention in this
verse seems to include the person behind the snake (Satan) as well as, and even more
than, the snake itself.
". . . the seed of the serpent refers to natural humanity whom he has led into
rebellion against God. Humanity is now divided into two communities: the elect,
who love God, and the reprobate, who love self ( John 8:31-32; John 8:44; 1 John
3:8). Each of the characters of Genesis will be either of the seed of the woman that
reproduces her spiritual propensity, or of the seed of the Serpent that reproduces
his unbelief." [Note: Waltke, Genesis , pp93-94. Cf. p46.]
4. Man would eventually destroy the serpent, though the serpent would wound man
( Genesis 3:15 b). This is a prophecy of the victory of the ultimate "Seed" of the
woman (Messiah) over Satan (cf. Revelation 19:1-5; Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:19;
Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8). [Note: See John Sailhamer, "The Messiah and the
Hebrew Bible," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society44:1
(March2001):5-23.] Most interpreters have recognized this verse as the first biblical
promise of the provision of salvation (the protoevangelium or "first gospel"). [Note:
See John C. Jeske, "The Gospel Adam and Eve Heard: Genesis 3:15" Wisconsin
Lutheran Quarterly81:3 (Summer1984):182-84; and Walter C. Kaiser Jeremiah ,
"The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest," Bibliotheca Sacra130:518 (April-
June1973):135-50.] The rest of the book, in fact the whole Old Testament, proceeds
to point ahead to that seed.
"The snake, for the author, is representative of someone or something else. The
snake is represented by his "seed." When that "seed" is crushed, the head of the
snake is crushed. Consequently more is at stake in this brief passage than the reader
is at first aware of. A program is set forth. A plot is established that will take the
author far beyond this or that snake and his "seed." It is what the snake and His
"seed" represent that lies at the center of the author"s focus. With that "one" lies
the "enmity" that must be crushed." [Note: Sailhamer, " Genesis ," p55. See also
299

300. Mathews, pp246-48.]
"The text in context provides an outline that is correct and clear in pattern but not
complete in all details. Numerous questions are left unanswered. When Christ died
on the cross and rose from the dead, the details of the climax were filled in and
specified, but the text does not demand to be reinterpreted. Nor does it demand
interpretation in a way not suggested in context." [Note: Elliott E. Johnson,
"Premillennialism Introduced: Hermeneutics," in A Case for Premillennialism: A
New Consensus, p22. See also Darrell L. Bock, "Interpreting the Bible-How Texts
Speak to Us," in Progressive Dispensationalism, p81; and Wenham, pp80-81.]
God cursed all animals and the whole creation because of the Fall ( Romans 8:20),
but He made the snake the most despicable of all the animals for its part in the Fall.
"Words possess power. God"s words of blessing and of curse are most powerful.
They determine our lives." [Note: Pamela J. Scalise, "The Significance of Curses
and Blessings," Biblical Illustrator13:1 (Fall1986):59.]
Verses 14-21
The judgment of the guilty3:14-21
As the result of man"s disobedience to God, the creation suffered a curse and began
to deteriorate. Evolution teaches that man is improving his condition through self-
effort. The Bible teaches that man is destroying his condition through sin. Having
been thrice blessed by God ( Genesis 1:22; Genesis 1:28; Genesis 2:3) the creation
now experienced a triple curse ( Genesis 3:14; Genesis 3:17; Genesis 4:11).
"In the Bible, to curse means to invoke God"s judgment on someone, usually for
some particular offense." [Note: Wenham, p78.]
300

301. Nevertheless God also began recreation with the promise of the seed, the land, the
dominion, and the rest for trust in His powerful word.
Genesis 3:14-19 reveal the terms of the second major biblical covenant, the Adamic
Covenant. Here God specified the conditions under which fallen man was to live
(until God lifts His curse on creation in the messianic kingdom; Romans 8:21). The
elements of this covenant can be summarized as follows. God cursed the serpent
( Genesis 3:14) but promised a redeemer ( Genesis 3:15). He changed the status of
the woman in three respects: she would experience multiplied conception, sorrow
and pain in motherhood, and continuing headship by the man ( Genesis 3:16). God
also changed Adam and Eve"s light workload in Eden to burdensome labor and
inevitable sorrow because of His curse on the earth ( Genesis 3:17-19). Finally, He
promised certain physical death for Adam and all his descendents ( Genesis 3:19).
WHEDON, " 14. The Lord God said — Now follows the threefold judgment,
pronounced first upon the serpent, next upon the woman, (Genesis 3:16,) and finally
upon man, (17-19.) The malediction against the serpent (Genesis 3:14-15) is itself
threefold. The prime tempter is not asked, What is this thou hast done? for “the
trial had now reached the fountain-head of sin, the purely evil purpose, the
demoniacal, having no deeper ground, and requiring no further investigation.” —
Lange.
Cursed above all cattle — Not that other cattle or beasts were in their measure
cursed, any more than in Genesis 3:1 it is implied that they were subtile. Nor is the
meaning cursed by all cattle, (as Gesenius, Lex., under ‫מן‬ ;) but, cursed from all;
that is, thou only out of all. As the serpent was distinguished from all the beasts on
account of his subtilty, (Genesis 3:1,) so is he doomed to a like distinction in this
condemnation. “The ground was cursed for man’s sake,” says Keil, “but not the
animal world for the serpent’s sake, nor even along with the serpent.”
Upon thy belly shalt thou go — Thou shalt ever be thought of as an abominable
crawler. Comp. Leviticus 11:42. This has been supposed by many to imply that the
shape and movements of the serpent were miraculously changed by this curse. Thus
301

302. Delitzsch: “As its speaking was the first demoniacal miracle, so is this
transformation the first divine.” Some have supposed that originally the serpent
walked erect; others, that it had wings like a cherub, and could fly. All this,
however, is in the realm of conjecture, and not necessarily implied in the words. The
serpent may have crawled and eaten dust before as well as after the curse, but as all
was then very good, no sense of shame, or curse, or humiliation, attached to these
conditions. As the nakedness of the man and the woman excited no thoughts of
shame or improper exposure, so the creeping things of the earth, and the serpent
among them, had no unfavourable associations attached to their bestial shape or
habits. But the serpent’s connexion with man’s sin caused him, as apart from all
other beasts, to have his natural form and locomotion cursed into that which ever
suggests disgust, meanness, and enmity.
Dust shalt thou eat — For being a crawler on the ground and eating its food in the
dirt, the serpent must needs devour much dust along with his food. Hence to “lick
the dust like a serpent” is a proverbial expression. Micah 7:17. “And while all other
creatures shall escape from the doom which has come upon them in consequence of
the fall of man, (Isaiah 65:25,) the serpent, the instrument used in the temptation,
shall, agreeably to the words in the sentence, all the days of thy life, remain
condemned to a perpetual abasement, thus prefiguring the fate of the real tempter,
for whom there is no share in the redemption.” — Hengstenberg.
LANGE, " Genesis 3:14. To the serpent he said, because thou hast done this.—It is
no more said here, wherefore hast thou done this? although the serpent is previously
introduced as speaking, and, therefore, as capable of maintaining conversation.
Therein lies the supposition, that the trial has now reached the fountain-head of sin,
the purely evil purpose (the demoniacal) having no deeper ground, and requiring no
further investigation. Accordingly, there follow now the fatal dooms, according to
the consequences of each particular evil act. The serpent receives his sentence first:
thou art cursed.—The sense of ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ (rendered in the English translation above, or
comparatively) is clearly that of selection: among all cattle, or out of all cattle
(Clericus, Tuch, Knobel). It does not mean, therefore, cursed, that Isaiah, abhorred,
by all cattle (Gesenius, De Wette, et al.) or above all cattle, that Isaiah,
comparatively more cursed (Rosenmüller et al.). The sentence pronounced upon the
serpent proceeds in a threefold gradation. Its explanation brings up, of itself, the
question, whether the whole sentence bears upon the serpent alone, or in connection
with something else, or only in a symbolical sense. Surely the general doom, cursed
302

303. be thou (singular) among all cattle, and among all beasts (corresponding with the
causality: subtle among all beasts, prominently), indicates a symbolical background
of the whole judgment1. Quidam statuunt maledictionem latam in serpentem solum
(quia hic confertur cum aliis bestiis) non in diabolum, quia is antea maledictus erat.
2. Alii in diabolum solum, quia brutus serpens non poterat juste puniri. 3. Alii
applicantv. 14ad serpentem, v.15in diabolum. At vero tu et te idem sunt in utroque
versu. 4. Alii existimant cam in utrumque latam. Quam sententiam verissimam
judico. Medusin Poli Commentar. ad h. l. The inconsistency that arises when we
would understand v 14 of the serpent only, and v15, on the contrary, of Satan, is
very apparent. The various diversities of interpretation are a consequence of a want
of clearness in respect to the fundamental exegetical law, that here an historical
foreground is everywhere connected with a symbolical background. Accordingly,
both the historical and the symbolical go together through all the three dooms
imposed upon the serpent; it is in the third Acts, however (the protevangel, as it is
called), that the symbolical becomes especially prominent, and casts its light over the
whole passage.—First judgment doom: Upon thy belly shalt thou go; that Isaiah, as
the worm steals over the earth with its length of body, “as a mean and despised
crawler in the dust ( Deuteronomy 32:24; Micah 7:17).” It is a fact that the serpent
did not originally have this inferior mode of motion like the worm, and it is this
circumstance partly, and partly the consideration that along with his speaking the
serpent presented to Eve the appearance of a trusty domestic animal, that appears
to have given occasion to the expression: among all cattle, as a complement to which
there is added: among all the beasts of the field. And to this effect is the remark of
Knobel, that “for the time before the curse, the author must have ascribed to the
serpent another kind of movement, and perhaps another form. It is reckoned here
with the ‫בהמה‬ (cattle), v 1 with the ‫השדה‬ ‫חית‬ (or beasts of the field).” In respect to
this, it must be noticed, that there has also been maintained the supposition of his
having before gone erect (Luther, Münster, Fag. Gerhard, Osiander) and been
possessed of bone (Joseph, Ant. i1, 4; Ephraim, Jarchi, Merc.). Delitzsch and Keil,
moreover, favor the view, that the serpent’s form and manner of motion were
wholly transformed (Delitzsch) or changed (Keil). Delitzsch: “As its speaking was
the first demoniacal miracle, so is this transformation the first divine.” Instead of
that, we hold that this exposition only works in favor of the mythical interpretation
(Knobel), since it mistakes the symbolical of the expression; on which, beside, it can
only touch in the phrase to “eat the earth.” According to Delitzsch, “the eating of
dust does not denote the exclusive food of the serpent, but only the involuntary
consequence of its winding in the dust.” Song of Solomon, moreover, the expression,
“On thy belly shalt thou go,” cannot denote that he was deprived of bone and wing,
but only the involuntary consequence of the manifestation of the serpent’s hostile
attitude to men, namely, that it should now wind about timorously upon its belly, or
303

304. go stealing about in the most secret manner; whereas, before this, it could, with
impunity, perform its meanderings before their eyes, yea, even stand upright in
some respects, and twine itself round the trees. The older exegesis had some excuse,
since it did not always know how to separate the conception of a biblical miracle
wrought for judgment, or deliverance, from a magical metamorphosis. The
assumption, however, at the present day, of such a metamorphosis, has to answer
the question, whether through it the conception of a miracle is not changed, as well
as that of nature itself. That, in fact, in consequence of the fall, and of their changed
attitude towards men, the forms of animals can undergo monstrous changes, and
have often been thus changed, though still remaining on the basis of their generic
organization, is shown in the case of dogs who run wild; but the exposition above
mentioned extends itself illimitably beyond any conception of deterioration. As far
as concerns the symbolical side of the first sentence, it is clear that before any wider
relation (to Satan), we must hold to the specific appointment, that the tempting evil
shall no longer meander about the world, bold and free, but, in correspondence with
its earthly meanness, and bestial association, shall wind along the ground in the
most sly, and sneaking, and secret manner, eating the dust of the earth, and feeding
itself upon the coarsest elements of life, or the very mould of death. This sentence,
then, in the next place, avails not only against evil in general, but the Evil One
himself. And therewith is denoted, at the same time, The second doom. Knobel:
“According to the older representations, serpents licked the dust, and enjoyed it as
their food. (Compare Micah 7:17; Isaiah 65:25; Bochart:Hieroz. iii. p245).” Here it
is supposed that Micah and Isaiah have merely taken Genesis too literally; whereas
Knobel interprets: “it is compelled to swallow down the dust as it moves here and
there with its mouth upon the ground.” As the serpent, the allegorical type of the
temptation, is sentenced to have its mouth in the dust, so is the genius of the serpent
condemned to feed on elements which are a coarse prelude, or a nauseous after-
game, of life.—Third doom of the serpent; the Protevangel. The rationalistic
interpretation, which is last defended by Knobel, finds here denoted only the
relation between the serpent-nature and the human race. That Isaiah, Genesis here,
in one of its most ethically significant passages, flattens down into a mere physical
anthropological observation. It is true that the physical here forms the point of
departure. “Enmity shall exist between the serpent and the woman, and between the
descendants of both. Man hates the serpent as a creature in direct contrariety to
himself, persecutes and destroys it.” (To this point the words of Plautus: Mercat.
iv4, 21, aliquem odisse œque atque angues.) It is also hostile to Prayer of Manasseh,
and bites him when uncharmed. In Pliny: Nat. Hist. x96, it is called immitissimum
animalium genus. Compare also Ovid, Metamorph. xii. Genesis 804: calcato
immitior hydro. It appears, as matter of fact, to have been the creature of the
primitive world that was the most absolutely opposed to culture, and which,
304

305. proceeding from the dragons of the earlier earth-periods, found its way through the
last catastrophes into the newly prepared world, or had been organically
metamorphosed—like “the den-inhabiting brood of the old dragons,” which, in a
worse sense than any other beast could have done it, render the earth
uncomfortable, destined as it was to culture; and therefore is it devoted to
destruction in the world into which it had passed over. In connection with this fact,
the thought readily occurs, how very appropriate that the natural relation between
the serpent-brood and the human race, destined ever, and here anew, to the
kingdom of God, should become a symbol of the religious ethical conflict between
the evil and the good, upon earth. In opposition to the rationalistic stands the
orthodox interpretation of our passage, which refers it to Satan on the one side, and
to Christ, the personal Messiah, on the other. According to most of the older
interpreters, the seed of the woman denotes directly the Messiah. (See
Hengstenberg: “Christology of the Old Testament,” I. p21.) In respect to it,
however, the Romish interpreters make a very bold variation. They do this in
correspondence with the translation of the Vulgate: ipsa (instead of ipse) conteret
caput tuum, which is condemned, not only by the Hebrew text, and the Septuagint,
but in the “Quest. Heb.” of Hieronymus, who was himself the author of the Vulgate,
as also by Petrus Chrysologus and Pope Leo the Great (see Calmet’sComm. p120);
whilst Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and others, have ranged themselves
on the side of the Vulgate. Calmet interprets: in eundem sensum (namely, the right
sense of the Hebrew text) reddi potest vulgata; neque aliter B. Virgo conterere valuit
serpentem quam per filium suum Jesum Christum. So also says Von Schrank in his
“Commentary:” in Hebrœo quidem habetur, ille (‫)הוּא‬ conteret caput tuum: ergo
semen mulieris, i.e. Jesus Christus conteret, sed res eodem redit: nam neque
sanctissima Virgo aliter quam partu suo, i.e. in virtute Jesu Christi filii sui, caput
serpentis contrivisse credenda est. Both authors, indeed, gave these wrested
interpretations before the latest Papistical glorification of Mary. In modern times
has the interpretation which refers the seed of the woman to the personal Messiah
been defended by Philippi. In the primary sense, says Delitzsch, it is only promised
that humanity shall win this victory, for ‫הוּא‬ (he) relates back to ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫ע‬ ַ‫ֶר‬‫ז‬ (seed of the
woman); as, however, the seed of the serpent has its unity in Satan, so it may be
fairly conjectured that the conquering party, the seed of the woman, has also a
person for its unity—a conjecture which, as we readily concede to Philippi
(“Treatise concerning the Protevangel in Kliefoth-Meier’s Church Periodical,” 1855,
pp519–548), is the more obvious; since in this second sentence the pronoun ‫הוּא‬ has
for its object not the seed of the serpent, but the serpent, and in it Satan himself. It
Isaiah, however
305

306. an incorrect opinion, that ‫הוּא‬ has immediately, and exclusively, a personal sense,
and that the organic process of the annunciation of redemption demands this. The
conception of ‫הוּא‬ is that of a circle, and Jesus Christ, or, as the Targum says, King
Messiah, is evermore in the course of the redemptive history the prominent centre of
this circle. So Delitzsch says, too, that Christ is essentially meant as the centre of
humanity, or as the head of humanity, especially of the redeemed, as Keil says. We
miss here the distinct exposition, whether the prophecy directly applies to Christ as
a conscious announcement, or only impliedly, in as far as Christ is the kernel and
the star of the woman’s seed. Hengstenberg regards the place as more decidedly
relating to the collective posterity of the woman (“Christology,” i. p22). “Truly hast
thou inflicted a sore wound upon the woman (such would be the import of the words
addressed to the serpent), and thou, with thy fellow-serpents, wilt continue to lie in
ambush for her descendants. Nevertheless, with all thy desire to hurt, wilt thou be
only able to inflict curable wounds upon the human race, whilst, on the other hand,
the posterity of the woman shall at last triumph over thee, and make thee feel thine
utter impotency. This interpretation is found, indeed, in the Targum of Jonathan,
and in the Jerusalem Targum, which, by the seed of the woman, understand the
Jews who in the days of the Messiah shall vanquish Sammael.[FN18] Paul seems to
proceed on this view, Romans 16:20, where the promise is collectively referred to
Christ. More lately has it found an acute advocate in Calvin, and then in Herder.”
As the interpretation of the whole Protevangel is specially conditioned on the choice
of expressions in detail, we apply ourselves to the analysis of the passage. As it is the
third and most important part of the doom, taken collectively, so does it also divide
itself again into three parts, whose point of gravity may also be said to be in three
divisions1. Enmity between thee and the woman.—In place of the false, ungodly,
and Prayer of Manasseh -destroying peace between the serpent and the woman,
must there come in, between them, a good and salutary enmity, established by God.
That the woman may have a special abhorrence of the serpent, after her experience
of the deception which she charges back upon him, and that the falsehood of the
serpent, which had all along before been enmity, should now be unmasked,—this is
the point of departure. But, since this enmity, as occasioned by an ethical event,
must be itself substantially ethical—since the serpent is denoted as permanently
present in his serpent-seed—since, finally, there is mention, at the end, of one head
of the same—so does the whole passage have for its aim the ethical power of
temptation, which must have worked in some way through the physical serpent,
notwithstanding that a being morally evil is characterized, chap. Genesis 3:1, and
throughout the whole process of the temptation. The woman, however, is set in
opposition to the serpent, in the first place, because she has been seduced by him,
306

307. but then, too, in order to set forth more prominently the ethical character of the
human enmity against the serpent. We must take into view here the predominant
susceptibility of the woman, which, in its curiosity, had become a special
susceptibility to temptation, but which now must become a predominant
susceptibility for the divine appointment of enmity between them; add to which
that, in general, man becomes master of evil only through a feminine susceptibility
for the assistance of God2. Between thy seed and her seed.—That Isaiah, the
appointment of this enmity shall work on permanently through the generations that
are to come; the strife shall never cease. And truly, it thus continues as a war
between the serpent-seed in its one totality, and the woman’s seed in its one totality.
And now here the symbolical sense presents itself much stronger; for in all the
occasional conflicts between men and serpents there is no universal and generic war
between both. But this indicates a working of the power of temptation as a unit
against the unitary moral power of the woman’s seed in the conflict. In general, it is
a contrast between the mysterious power of evil from the other world, and the
human race altogether in this. Since, however, men alone can belong to the genuine
seed of the woman, as it carries on the enmity of the woman against the serpent, so it
is clear, that from the opposite direction it must be men that fall in with the society
of the serpent’s seed (that Isaiah, the demons and their powers), or in other words,
become ethically children of the power of temptation3. It shall bruise.—Here now
the question arises: what is the meaning of that enigmatic verb ‫?שׁוּף‬ The Septuagint
translates: αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλὴν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν; the
Vulgate: ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus. The Septuagint is
consistent in having the same expression (τηρήσει-ς) in both cases, but it is the one
which, in view of the Alexandrian spiritualism, is the weakest of them all. The
Vulgate chooses for both members of the sentence interpretations of the same word
that lie too far apart. This is evidently done in order that, on the one side, the ipsa
(the she, or the Virgin in that translation) may exhibit the highest possible degree of
heroism, whilst on the other side, under the protecting veneration of the monastic
theology, she does not suffer the least injury to her heel. The word ‫שׁוּף‬ is interpreted
in various ways: 1. terere, conterere. So the Syriac, the Samaritan, and others (such
as our German and English versions). So also Clericus, Tuch, Baumgarten, Rödiger;
also, with special reference to Romans 16:20, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Keil. In any
case, it would be an epexegetical translation, if we would find the expressions, to
tread with the foot, and to pierce, in one common conception, lying at the ground of
both. Moreover, this same word, as used Psalm 139:11, and Job 9:17, cannot denote
either to tread, or to pierce. Just as little, on the other side, can it mean insidiari, or
inhiare, to assail or pursue in a hostile manner—as Umbreit, Gesenius, and Knobel
explain the word with reference to its supposed affinity with ‫.שׁאף‬ The middle
conception, which suits both places here, and which commends itself as suitable to
307

308. the two parallel passages, Job 9 and Psalm 139, is to lay hold of, seize, hit. Keil:
“The same word is used in relation to the head and the heel, to indicate that the
enmity on both sides is aimed at the destruction of the opponent—for which purpose
by head and heel are expressed majus and minus, or, as Calvin says, superius and
inferius.[FN19] This contra- arises, indeed, out of the very nature of the foes. The
serpent who crawls in the dust, if he would destroy man walking in his uprightness,
can only seize him by the heel; whereas, man can crush his head. But this difference
itself is already a consequence of the curse pronounced upon the serpent, and its
crawling in the dust is a premonition that in the strife with man it must, at last,
succumb. Be it even that the bite of the serpent in the heel is even deadly when its
poison penetrates throughout the whole body ( Genesis 49:17), yet it is not
immediately mortal, nor incurable, like the crushing of the serpent’s head. There
comes also into consideration: 1. The contrast: head and heel. The life, like the
poison, of the serpent, is in its head, and is destroyed with it. The heel of man is the
least vulnerable, whilst it is that part of the body which is the most easily healed2.
The conscious, adaptive aiming of the woman’s seed, the blind, brutal, and ill-
directed assault of the serpent. The seed of the woman seizes the power of evil in its
central life, in its principle; the seed of the serpent attacks the power of good in its
most outward and assailable appearance3. The very moment in which the serpent
bites at the heel of the Prayer of Manasseh, is the one in which the latter brings
down the crushing foot upon its head. It Isaiah, indeed, not without significance,
that the seed of the woman is presented in the singular, and in fact, in the last
decisive moment, set in opposition, not to the seed of the serpent, but to the serpent
himself—as is pointed out by Hengstenberg and others. Here now must we
distinguish between the prophetical and the typical elements of prophecy—as also
the prophecies that are strictly verbal. The prophetic element is present in the
prophet’s consciousness; the typical element is not, although it may be consciously
present to the spirit of revelation that guides him. Our text appears primarily,
indeed, as the immediate speech of God, the all-knowing, who sees beforehand every
thing in the future; but still, the measure of consciousness in our prophecy can
become determinate to us only according to the presumable degree of consciousness
in the author of Genesis, or, still further, in those who actually brought down the
tradition contained in chapter3. In relation, therefore, to this human prophetical
consciousness, and its germinal state of development, must we distinguish between
the conscious prophecy of the word and the unconscious prophecy of the typical
expression. So in Psalm 16. the conscious prophecy says, through my communion
with God I shall possess immeasurable joys of life; the typical expression, however,
is fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ ( Acts 2). So also says the prophet, Isaiah 7 :
the young prophet wife shall, 1. conceive; 2. bear a Song of Solomon, whose name, 3.
with joyful hope they shall call Immanuel. The typical expression, however, is a
308

309. prediction of Christ, the son of the virgin. In this sense, also, does Paul allow himself
to interpret the singular, in thy seed, as a typical prophecy of Christ. And we doubt
not, that here, too, the spirit of the type chose this expression, the seed of the
woman, with an æonian consciousness of its rich significance. If we go back,
however, to the conscious prophecy, so it may be safe to say, that with the humanity
in general, on its light side, there is also placed its core[FN20]—as it is with Judah
( Genesis 49:10), and Israel ( Hosea 11:1). In truth, the core, or heart, is ever
embraced in concrete unity with the hull, but to the biblical view is this gravitation
to the unity peculiar from the very beginning. On the other side, however, according
to the New Testament, and the patristic unveiling of its significance, is the seed of
the woman not exclusively to be referred to the individuality of Christ. Christ, as the
Christ in the universal humanity, is here to be understood; especially in the second
clause, at least, as also, therefore, in the third according to Paul ( Romans 16:20).
There remains, finally, the question how the temptation of the first pair by the
serpent is to be understood. According to Knobel there is found in our passage just
as little reference to the devil as to the Messiah (p48). Consequently would the whole
passage become a mere physical myth. Von Bohlen goes back to the kindred
traditions of the ancients, and finds it of the deepest significance that in the printed
Samaritan text there is ‫שׁ‬ָ‫ָח‬‫כּ‬, liar, instead of ‫,נהש‬ serpent. According to one of the
Indian myths, Krishna, in the form of the sun, contends with the Evil One, in the
form of serpent. In like manner in Egypt, Typhon, whose name is interpreted by
Serpent, persecutes his brother Osiris, or the sun. Hercules possesses himself of the
golden apple of the Hesperides, which the Serpent guarded. According to Bohlen,
however, the nearest source of our narrative, as of Paradise in general, lies in Iran.
Ahriman, according to the Zendavesta, in the form of a serpent brought of his fruits
to men, who were of the pure creation of Ormuzd. And Song of Solomon, according
to him, as also according to Rosenmüller, must the author of our account have had
that as a model before his eyes. And yet, somehow, we know not how he
distinguishes from it the simple sense of the Israelitish narrator. The reference of
Bohlen only shows how our primitive tradition spreads itself in the manifold
adumbrations and transformations of the most varied mythological systems, even as
the like holds true in respect to the cosmogony, the first human pair, Paradise, and
still further on in respect to the flood. In opposition to all this stands the traditional
view of the Church, that under the serpent as instrument and symbol our passage
consciously intends the devil (see Hengstenberg: “Christology,” p5; Delitzsch, p168;
Keil, p51). In respect to this, there is no doubt that in the Holy Scripture there lies
before us a connected line of testimonies whose object is ever the same demoniac
309

310. tempting spirit—a line which, going out from the serpent in the passage before us,
reaches even to the close of the New Testament in the Apocalypse, Genesis 12:3;
Genesis 12:9; Genesis 12:13; Genesis 20:2; Genesis 20:10. The identity is established
by the cited places of the Apocalypse, by 2 Corinthians 11:3 (compare Genesis 3:14)
by the Book of Wisdom of Solomon 2:23; with which again in connection stands
John 8:44; though to this have been objected certain weakening interpretations
(Lücke, and others). It is so also in Romans 16:20. Here is every where evident the
relation of the fall to the serpent according to its symbolical significance. In many
more ways, as in the Book of Wisdom of Solomon 2:24; John 8:44; 2 Corinthians
11:3; Romans 16:20, there appears the identity of the tempting Spirit, which worked
through the serpent, with the figure of the devil as he appears later in the Scripture.
That, indeed, the physical serpent could not have been meant, as the tempter in our
passage, shows itself from the distinct appearance of consciousness in respect to the
great separation between man and the animal world ( Genesis 2:19-20), as it is
rightly presented by Hengstenberg; it also appears from the collective declaration
that every creation of God was good ( Genesis 1), and from the ethical features
which in the third chapter the serpent assumes as a maliciously subtle creature, as
well as from the symbolical background which ever shows itself stronger and
stronger in the primitive condemnation. Next to the identity of the tempting spirit
behind the serpent and Satan, comes now its continuity. Before all, in the Old
Testament. First Stage of the idea: Indication of evil spirits, and of one especially as
an apostate, pre-eminently in Azazel, Leviticus 16:8; in symbols of the Evil One,
Deuteronomy 32:17; in the Schedim (Septuagint, δαιμόνια, properly, master-gods),
and the Seirim, Isaiah 13:21. Second Stage: The appearance of Satan as the foe of
Prayer of Manasseh, as the tempter and accuser, Job 1, 2; 1 Chronicles 21:1. Third
Stage: The designation of Satan as the enemy of God, as the fallen founder of an evil
dominion in opposition to the establishment of the divine kingdom, ZeGen Genesis
3:1; Isaiah 27:1; serpents and dragon-forms as symbols of the reign of Antichrist;
Daniel 7, the beasts out of the sea. The New Testament clearly introduces the
doctrine of Satan with a counterpart of the temptation of Adam in Paradise, when it
represents the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, Matthew 4. After this, in the
perfecting the doctrine of Satan, there Isaiah, first, the mention, Matthew 12:43, of
his connection as chief with the individual evil spirits in the demoniacs. Then, in the
second stage, Satan is especially designated as the foe of man ( John 8:44; Matthew
12:29; Matthew 13:39; Acts 10:38). In the third stage comes forth the finished form
of the doctrine, when Satan is represented as the enemy of God and Christ, and the
prince of the kingdom of darkness, making complete his Revelation, first in secret
influences, then in pseudo-Christian organs, and finally in one Antichristian organ
( John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:9, and the
310

311. Revelation).
A chief question here, however, is this: whether we are to suppose that in the
passage before us there is already indicated a developed consciousness in respect to
the nature of the devil. Since in the Old Testament, the New Testament doctrines
have not yet come to their full development, and since the beginnings of them on the
first pages of Genesis meet us throughout in a very dark, veiled, and germinal form,
so would it be a gross inorganic anomaly, if a developed knowledge of the devil has
to be supposed in this place. Just such an anomaly, however, appears to be assumed
by Delitzsch, along with others, when he says (p168): “The narrator keeps his
position on the outer appearance of the event without lifting the veil from the
substance that lies behind. He may well do this, since even the heathen sages present
an express though deformed notice of the truth; but the author throws a veil over it,
because the unfolding would not have been suitable for those people of his time who
were inclined to a heathenish superstition, and to a heathenish intercourse with the
demon-world (still would there have arisen a superstition from it, even if the
narrator had had the purpose to stand purely by the literal serpent). It is a didactic
aim that determines the narrator to rest satisfied with the objectivity of the outward
event as it becomes perceivable, and to be silent in regard to its remoter ground.” In
maintaining this view, Delitzsch himself refers (p625) to the Church fathers. Keil
presents a more striking ground for this “didactic aim” of silence in respect to
Satan, both here and further on in the Old Testament; “it had respect,” he says, “to
the inclination which men have to roll the guilt from themselves upon the tempting
spirit; it was to allow them no pretext.” We may, however, just as well trust the
spirit of the divine revelation with a didactic aim in relation to the narrator, as the
narrator himself in relation to his readers; and it is in accordance with the divine
mode of instruction, that revelation should unfold itself in exact correspondence
with the human state of development. The assumption of an objective development
of evil in the spirit-world has in it nothing irrational; yet Hengstenberg rightly
remarks: “moreover, the position held by most of those who deem themselves
compelled to regard the book of Job as originating before the captivity, namely, that
the Satan of that book is not the Satan of the later Old Testament books, but rather
a good angel, only clothed with a hateful office, is becoming more and more
acknowledged as correct; so that we may wonder how Beck (Lehrwissenschaft, I.
p249) can be impressed with the supposed fact, and seek to adapt himself to it,
through the assumption that the alienation of a part of the angels from God, and
their kingdom of darkness, develops itself in a progressive unfolding.” Yet clearly is
the commencement of the tempting spirit, Genesis 3:1, devilish enough. Moreover,
311

312. must we distinguish the conception of the development of the demoniacal kingdom,
from that of the development of the demoniacal character. The measure of the
knowledge of demons, or demonology, which distinctly presents itself in our text, is
the recognition of an evil that stands back of the serpent, and of a malicious spirit of
temptation which henceforth ever, more and more, shall become acknowledged as
the crafty, lying foe of man (“and I will put enmity”), but who betrays himself
already as the foe of God and the adversary of his counsels, as connected with the
human race. The more definite unveiling of this last, point, and its wider
consequences, such as a fallen angel-prince of a fallen angel-host, and of a kingdom
of darkness, belong to the later development of the doctrine.
When, finally, the question is asked, in what manner must we think of the working
of this foe of man as taking place through the serpent, we encounter again the
abstract opposition of the pure actuality as against, the supposition of a fact under
the relations of a vision. Next to such views as these: the devil spoke in the phantom
shape of a serpent (Cyril of Alexandria); the devil spoke through the serpent, or
made it speak by a diabolical agency (Delitzsch’s “First Demoniac Miracle”); the
serpent is only an allegory (Grotius: the representation of an old poem); or, an
outward eating by the serpent of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and a
simultaneous whispering by Satan to the soul of Eve, happened together (Clericus,
Hetzel)—next to such as these we place the view that Satan worked through a
sympathetic influence upon the mind of Eve, and thereby made the indeterminate
acts of the serpent to become speaking signs, to such a degree, that, in the excited
visionary temperament of the woman, they became transformed into a dialectical
process of speech and reply.
To conclude, it is especially to be borne in mind, against the assertions of Delitzsch
in respect to the imposition of punishment upon the serpent (p179), that every
application of the idea of punishment to beasts takes away its peculiar conception;
so much Song of Solomon, that, even on the ground of the Old Testament
consciousness, can we boldly affirm that, from the very fact of Jehovah’s
pronouncing a doom upon the serpent, the meaning must be of something more than
a serpent. Rather, may we say, that the future of the serpent-brood is announced in
a way which unmistakably expresses the sentence of the Prayer of Manasseh -hating
spirit in a symbolical form. Indeed, Delitzsch himself says: Not as though beasts
were capable of the imputation; but none the less is there repeated the mention of
the infliction of punishment upon the serpent, and we can, therefore, read: the beast
312

313. that gave itself for this purpose, to lead astray to an ungodly deed him who is called
to be lord of the animal world, and his helpmeet, is also to be punished, though in a
different way. Delitzsch refers to Leviticus 20:15 : “It is truly an Old Testament law,
that contra-natural lust must be punished, not only in Prayer of Manasseh, but also
in the beast with which it is practised; and, in general, the beast is to be punished
through which a man has suffered any harm whatever in body or soul ( Genesis 9:6;
Exodus 21:28; Deuteronomy 13:15; 1 Samuel 15:3).” In the passage from Leviticus,
the killing of the abused beast is denoted by ‫.הרג‬ The notion that in this and the
other places cited the destruction of the beast is ordered for the sake of the Prayer of
Manasseh, or in company with the Prayer of Manasseh, rests upon the idea of the
personal elevation of man above the beast, in accordance with which it is that, in the
symbolical expression, a beast that has killed a man is likewise put to death, and the
beasts of multitudes of men devoted to death are put to death with them. It Isaiah,
moreover, as a symbolical expression of anger and abhorrence, as “when a father
breaks in pieces the sword with which his son has been slain.” The symbolical in
those acts arises out of the contrast between the New Testament and the Old. The
Petrobrusians treated even the sign of the cross as a sign of ignominy, because
Christ had been put to death on the cross. The Christian church, however, has never
acknowledged this view. Moses also, at one time, established a type in the New
Testament sense, in the lifting up of the brazen serpent.
PETT, "Verse 14-15
‘And the Lord God said to the snake, “Because you have done this, cursed are you
beyond all cattle, and beyond all wild animals. On your belly you will go, and dust
will you eat all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the
woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise your head, and you will
bruise his heel.” ’
Did the author really think that the snake had once had legs, which were now
removed? Of course not. Otherwise what about the harmless worm? That too moves
without legs. Rather then he is now turning the snake into a symbol of what would
happen to the one who had used the snake as a tool. We notice here that of all the
culprits it is only the snake which is cursed. If it had only been a misguided
creature, lower than man, this would be inconceivable. It can only be that, at this
stage, for reasons we cannot fathom, the master is seen for the present as out of
313

314. reach. So the curse is pronounced on the tool. (Just as it will be the ground from
which man was taken that will be cursed and not the man).
“Beyond all cattle.” ‘Micol - ‘from all’, therefore as distinctive from, compare
Genesis 3:1 where he was wise beyond all. Because he was wise beyond all he is now
cursed beyond all. The wisdom and the curse belong to another.
The majestic movements of the snake are now depicted in terms which demonstrate
his master’s fate. ‘On your belly you will go, and dust will you eat’. How different
things can look from a different perspective. It is not the snake’s movements that
have changed, it is the interpretation of them. The author knows that the snake does
not actually eat dust. The ‘eating of dust’ is a symbol of defeat and humiliation
(Psalms 72:9; Micah 7:17; Isaiah 47:1; Isaiah 49:23) and crawling on the belly was
widely known as something expected by kings of their humbled foes (see also Psalms
44:25 where it symbolises affliction and oppression).
So from now on the snake will be humbled and defeated. Once he was seen as
moving gracefully along the ground, but now he is seen as ‘crawling on his belly’,
and man will attack the snake wherever he sees it, and the snake will equally
retaliate. But it is the man who, though grievously hurt, will finally come out on top.
And from now on the ‘unseen enemy’ will also attack man, and with the help of God
will be fought against, humiliated and defeated, and be made to crawl and bite the
dust.
The symbolism is significant. Every time man sees a snake he will be reminded of
the subtlety of sin, and how it creeps up and strikes suddenly. He must take as much
care in watching out for sin as he does in watching out for snakes.
‘I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.
He will snap at your head, and you will bruise his heel.’
Man’s future constant battle with snakes, which is a totally new departure in that
314

315. almost perfect world, is also seen as a picture of man’s constant battle with evil, the
evil that will meet him at every turn and constantly snap at his heels. But it is
significant that that battle is seen in terms of final, though hard won, victory for
man, for that is surely what the bruising of the head must signify. The head is the
major part, the heel the tail end. It will be a hard and difficult time but in the end it
is man who will gain the victory. But only God knew Who the Man would be, and
what He would have to go through, to achieve that final victory. Note that the battle
is between snake and man, and the unseen enemy and man. God is sovereign above
it all, until He steps down and becomes man.
The words for ‘snap at’ and ‘bruise’ are only slightly different. The first comes from
a root shuph as a variant of sha’aph, ‘to snap at, snatch’. The other from shuph
(Akkadian sapu) ‘to trample on, bruise’. Thus there is a deliberate play on words.
Are we to see here a reference to the coming of One Who will defeat the Serpent?
The answer is ‘yes’ and ‘no’. What is declared is that man will finally triumph, and
the implication is of triumph over the unseen evil behind the snake. It is only later
that it will become apparent that this must be by some Special Man. But it is implicit
for otherwise why will it take so long? A special, unique man, the seed of Adam,
must be in mind to achieve the final victory. The Serpent will be defeated by the
ultimate Man.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
315

316. and you will strike his heel.”
CLARKE, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman - This has been
generally supposed to apply to a certain enmity subsisting between men and serpents;
but this is rather a fancy than a reality. It is yet to be discovered that the serpentine race
have any peculiar enmity against mankind, nor is there any proof that men hate serpents
more than they do other noxious animals. Men have much more enmity to the common
rat and magpie than they have to all the serpents in the land, because the former destroy
the grain, etc., and serpents in general, far from seeking to do men mischief, flee his
approach, and generally avoid his dwelling. If, however, we take the word nachash to
mean any of the simia or ape species, we find a more consistent meaning, as there is
scarcely an animal in the universe so detested by most women as these are; and indeed
men look on them as continual caricatures of themselves. But we are not to look for
merely literal meanings here: it is evident that Satan, who actuated this creature, is alone
intended in this part of the prophetic declaration. God in his endless mercy has put
enmity between men and him; so that, though all mankind love his service, yet all
invariably hate himself. Were it otherwise, who could be saved? A great point gained
towards the conversion of a sinner is to convince him that it is Satan he has been
serving, that it is to him he has been giving up his soul, body, goods, etc.; he starts with
horror when this conviction fastens on his mind, and shudders at the thought of being in
league with the old murderer. But there is a deeper meaning in the text than even this,
especially in these words, it shall bruise thy head, or rather, ‫הוא‬ hu, He; who? the seed
of the woman; the person is to come by the woman, and by her alone, without the
concurrence of man. Therefore the address is not to Adam and Eve, but to Eve alone;
and it was in consequence of this purpose of God that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin;
this, and this alone, is what is implied in the promise of the seed of the woman bruising
the head of the serpent. Jesus Christ died to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and
to destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. Thus he bruises his head -
destroys his power and lordship over mankind, turning them from the power of Satan
unto God; Act_26:18. And Satan bruises his heel - God so ordered it, that the salvation
of man could only be brought about by the death of Christ; and even the spiritual seed of
our blessed Lord have the heel often bruised, as they suffer persecution, temptation, etc.,
which may be all that is intended by this part of the prophecy.
GILL, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,.... Between whom
there had been so much familiarity, not only while they had the preceding discourse
together, but before; for it is conjectured by some (y), that she took a particular liking to
that creature, and was delighted with it, and laid it perhaps in her bosom, adorned her
neck with its windings, or made it a bracelet for her arms; and being a peculiar favourite,
the devil made choice of it as his instrument to deceive her; but now being beguiled
316

317. hereby, she conceived an antipathy against it, and which is become natural between the
serpent and man; man abhors the sight of a serpent, and the serpent the sight of man;
and the spittle of a man and the gall of a serpent are poison to each other; and this
antipathy is observed to be stronger in the female sex: and this was not only true of the
particular serpent that deceived Eve, and of the particular woman, Eve, deceived by him,
but of every serpent and of every woman in successive ages; and is also true of Satan and
the church of God in all ages, between whom there is an implacable and an irreconcilable
hatred, and a perpetual war:
and between thy seed and her seed; the posterity of Eve, mankind, and the
production of serpents, between whom the antipathy still continues, and mystically the
evil angels and also wicked men called serpents; and a generation of vipers on the one
hand, and the people of God on the other, the seed of the church; the latter of which are
hated and persecuted by the former, and so it has been ever since this affair happened:
and especially by the seed of the woman may be meant the Messiah; the word "seed"
sometimes signifying a single person, Gen_4:25 and particularly Christ, Gal_3:16 and he
may with great propriety be so called, because he was made of a woman and not
begotten by man; and who assumed not an human person, but an human nature, which
is called the "holy thing", and the "seed of Abraham", as here the "seed of the woman", as
well as it expresses the truth of his incarnation and the reality of his being man; and who
as he has been implacably hated by Satan and his angels, and by wicked men, so he has
opposed himself to all them that hate and persecute his people:
it shall bruise thy head; the head of a serpent creeping on the ground is easily
crushed and bruised, of which it is sensible, and therefore it is careful to hide and cover
it. In the mystical sense, "it", or "he, Hu", which is one of the names of God, Psa_102:27
and here of the Messiah, the eminent seed of the woman, should bruise the head of the
old serpent the devil, that is, destroy him and all his principalities and powers, break and
confound all his schemes, and ruin all his works, crush his whole empire, strip him of his
authority and sovereignty, and particularly of his power over death, and his tyranny over
the bodies and souls of men; all which was done by Christ, when he became incarnate
and suffered and died, Heb_2:14.
And thou shall bruise his heel; the heel of a man being what the serpent can most
easily come at, as at the heels of horses which it bites, Gen_49:17 and which agrees with
that insidious creature, as Aristotle (z) describes it: this, as it refers to the devil, may
relate to the persecutions of the members of Christ on earth, instigated by Satan, or to
some slight trouble he should receive from him in the days of his flesh, by his
temptations in the wilderness, and agony with him in the garden; or rather by the heel of
Christ is meant his human nature, which is his inferior and lowest nature, and who was
in it frequently exposed to the insults, temptations, and persecutions of Satan, and was
at last brought to a painful and accursed death; though by dying he got an entire victory
over him and all his enemies, and obtained salvation for his people. The Targums of
Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase this passage of the days of the Messiah, and of
health and salvation in them: what is here delivered out in a way of threatening to the
serpent the devil, carries in it a kind intimation of grace and good will to fallen man, and
laid a foundation for hope of salvation and happiness: reference seems to be had to this
passage in Psa_40:7 "in the volume", in the first roll, εν κεφαλιδι, as in the Greek
version, at the head, in the beginning "of the book, it is written of me, to do thy will, O
317

318. my God."
JAMISON, "thy seed — not only evil spirits, but wicked men.
seed of the woman — the Messiah, or His Church [Calvin, Hengstenberg].
I will put enmity between thee and the woman — God can only be said to do so
by leaving “the serpent and his seed to the influence of their own corruption; and by
those measures which, pursued for the salvation of men, fill Satan and his angels with
envy and rage.”
thou shalt bruise his heel — The serpent wounds the heel that crushes him; and so
Satan would be permitted to afflict the humanity of Christ and bring suffering and
persecution on His people.
it shall bruise thy head — The serpent’s poison is lodged in its head; and a bruise
on that part is fatal. Thus, fatal shall be the stroke which Satan shall receive from Christ,
though it is probable he did not at first understand the nature and extent of his doom.
PULPIT, "Gen_3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman
. Referring—
1. To the fixed and inveterate antipathy between the serpent and the human race (Bush,
Lange); to that alone (Knobel).
2. To the antagonism henceforth to be established between the tempter and mankind
(Murphy); to that alone (Calvin, Bonar, Wordsworth, Macdonald). And between thy
seed and her seed. Here the curse manifestly outgrows the literal serpent, and refers
almost exclusively to the invisible tempter. The hostility commenced between the
woman and her destroyer was to be continued by their descendants—the seed of the
serpent being those of Eve’s posterity who should imbibe the devil’s spirit and obey the
devil’s rule (cf. Mat_23:33; 1Jn_3:10); and the seed of the woman signifying those
whose character and life should be of an opposite description, and in particular the Lord
Jesus Christ, who is styled by preeminence "the Seed" (Gal_3:16, Gal_3:19), and who
came "to destroy the works of the devil" (Heb_2:4; 1Jn_3:8). This we learn from the
words which follow, and which, not obscurely, point to a seed which should be
individual and personal. It—or he; αὐτος (LXX.); not ipsa—shall bruise.
1. Shall crush, trample down—rendering ‫שׁוּף‬ by torero or conterere (Vulgate, Syriac,
Samaritan, Tuch, Baumgarten, Keil, Kalisch).
2. Shall pierce, wound, bite—taking the verb as—‫ף‬ַ‫פ‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ to bite (Furst, Calvin).
3. Shall watch, lie in wait = ‫ף‬ ַ‫א‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ (LXX; τηρημσει—Wordsworth suggests as the correct
reading τερημσει, from τερεμω, perforo, vulnero—Gesenius, Knobel). The word occurs
only in two other places in Scripture—Job_9:17; Psa_139:11—and in the latter of these
the reading is doubtful (cf. Perowne on Psalm in loco). Hence the difficulty of deciding
with absolute certainty between these rival interpretations. Psa_91:13 and Rom_16:20
appear to sanction the first; the second is favored by the application of the same word to
the hostile action of the serpent, which is not treading, but biting; the feebleness of the
318

319. third is its chief objection. Thy head. I.e. the superior part of thee (Calvin), meaning
that the serpent would be completely destroyed, the head of the reptile being that part of
its body in which a wound was most dangerous, and which the creature itself
instinctively protects; or the import of the expression may be, He shall attack thee in a
bold and manly way (T. Lewis). And thou shalt bruise his heel. I.e. the inferior part
(Calvin), implying that in the conflict he would be wounded, but not destroyed; or "the
biting of the heel may denote the mean, insidious character of the devil’s warfare" (T.
Lewis).
CALVIN, "15.I will put enmity. I interpret this simply to mean that there should
always be the hostile strife between the human race and serpents, which is now
apparent; for, by a secret feeling of nature, man abhors them. It is regarded, as
among prodigies, that some men take pleasure in them; and as often as the sight of a
serpent inspires us with horrors the memory of our fall is renewed. With this I
combine in one continued discourse what immediately follows: ‘It shall wound thy
head, and thou shalt wound its heel.’ For he declares that there shall be such hatred
that on both sides they shall be troublesome to each other; the serpent shall be
vexatious towards men, and men shall be intent on the destruction of serpents.
Meanwhile, we see that the Lord acts mercifully in chastising man, whom he does
not suffer Satan to touch except in the heel; while he subjects the head of the serpent
to be wounded by him. For in the terms head and heel there is a distinction between
the superior and the inferior. And thus God leaves some remains of dominion to
man; because he so places the mutual disposition to injure each other, that yet their
condition should not be equal, but man should be superior in the conflict. Jerome, in
turning the first member of the sentence, ‘Thou shalt bruise the head;’ (192) and the
second, “Thou shalt be ensnared in the heel”, (193) does it without reason, for the
same verb is repeated by Moses; the difference is to be noted only in the head and
the heel, as I have just now said. Yet the Hebrew verb whether derived from ‫שוף‬
(shooph,) or from ‫שפה‬ (shapha,) some interpret to bruise or to strike, others to bite
(194) I have, however, no doubt that Moses wished to allude to the name of the
serpent which is called in Hebrew ‫שפיפון‬ (shipiphon,) from ‫שפה‬ (shapha,) or ‫שוף‬
(shooph). (195)
We must now make a transition from the serpent to the author of this mischief
himself; and that not only in the way of comparison, for there truly is a literal
anagogy; (196) because God has not so vented his anger upon the outward
instrument as to spare the devil, with whom lay all the blame. That this may the
more certainly appear to us, it is worth the while first to observe that the Lord
spoke not for the sake of the serpent but of the man; fur what end could it answer to
319

320. thunder against the serpent in unintelligible words? Wherefore respect was had to
men; both that they might be affected with a greater dread of sin, seeing how highly
displeasing it is to God, and that hence they might take consolation for their misery,
because they would perceive that God is still propitious to them. But now it is
obvious to and how slender and insignificant would be the argument for a good
hope, if mention were here made of a serpent only; because nothing would be then
provided for, except the fading and transient life of the body. Men would remain, in
the meanwhile, the slaves of Satan, who would proudly triumph over them, and
trample on their heads. Wherefore, that God might revive the fainting minds of
men, and restore them when oppressed by despair, it became necessary to promise
them, in their posterity victory over Satan, through whose wiles they had been
ruined. This, then, was the only salutary medicine which could recover the lost, and
restore life to the dead. I therefore conclude, that God here chiefly assails Satan
under the name of the serpent, and hurls against him the lightning of his judgment.
This he does for a twofold reason: first, that men may learn to beware of Satan as of
a most deadly enemy; then, that they may contend against him with the assured
confidence of victory.
Now, though all do not dissent in their minds from Satan yea, a great part adhere to
him too familiarly — yet, in reality, Satan is their enemy; nor do even those cease to
dread him whom he soothes by his flatteries; and because he knows that the minds
of men are set against him, he craftily insinuates himself by indirect methods, and
thus deceives them under a disguised form. (197) In short, it is in grafted in us by
nature to flee from Satan as our adversary. And, in order to show that he should be
odious not to one generation only, God expressly says, ‘between thee and the seed of
the woman,’ as widely indeed, as the human race shall be propagated. He mentions
the woman on this account, because, as she had yielded to the subtlety of the devils
and being first deceived, had drawn her husband into the participation of her ruin,
so she had peculiar need of consolation.
It shall bruise (198) This passage affords too clear a proof of the great ignorance,
dullness, and carelessness, which have prevailed among all the learned men of the
Papacy. The feminine gender has crept in instead of the masculine or neuter. There
has been none among them who would consult the Hebrew or Greek codices, or who
would even compare the Latin copies with each other. (199) Therefore, by a
common error, this most corrupt reading has been received. Then, a profane
exposition of it has been invented, by applying to the mother of Christ what is said
320

321. concerning her seed.
There is, indeed no ambiguity in the words here used by Moses; but I do not agree
with others respecting their meaning; for other interpreters take the seed for Christ,
without controversy; as if it were said, that some one would arise from the seed of
the woman who should wound the serpent’s head. Gladly would I give my suffrage
in support of their opinion, but that I regard the word seed as too violently distorted
by them; for who will concede that a collective noun is to be understood of one man
only ? Further, as the perpetuity of the contest is noted, so victory is promised to the
human race through a continual succession of ages. I explain, therefore, the seed to
mean the posterity of the woman generally. But since experience teaches that not all
the sons of Adam by far, arise as conquerors of the devil, we must necessarily come
to one head, that we may find to whom the victory belongs. So Paul, from the seed of
Abraham, leads us to Christ; because many were degenerate sons, and a
considerable part adulterous, through infidelity; whence it follows that the unity of
the body flows from the head. Wherefore, the sense will be (in my judgment) that
the human race, which Satan was endeavoring to oppress, would at length be
victorious. (200) In the meantime, we must keep in mind that method of conquering
which the Scripture describes. Satan has, in all ages, led the sons of men “captive at
his will”, and, to this day, retains his lamentable triumph over them, and for that
reason is called the prince of the world, (John 12:31.) But because one stronger than
he has descended from heaven, who will subdue him, hence it comes to pass that, in
the same manner, the whole Church of God, under its Head, will gloriously exult
over him. To this the declaration of Paul refers,
“The Lord shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,”
(Romans 16:20.)
By which words he signifies that the power of bruising Satan is imparted to faithful
men, and thus the blessing is the common property of the whole Church; but he, at
the same time, admonishes us, that it only has its commencement in this world;
because God crowns none but well-tried wrestlers.
BENSON, "Genesis 3:15. I will put enmity, &c. — The whole race of serpents are, of
321

322. all creatures, the most disagreeable and terrible to mankind, and especially to
women: but the devil, who seduced the woman, and his angels, are here meant, who
are hated and dreaded by all men, even by those that serve them, but more
especially by good men. And between thy seed — All carnal and wicked men, who,
in reference to this text, are called the children and seed of Satan; and her seed —
That is, her offspring, first and principally CHRIST, who, with respect to this
promise, is termed, by way of eminence, her seed, (see Galatians 3:16; Galatians
3:19,) whose alone work it is to bruise the serpent’s head, to destroy the policy and
power of the devil. But also, secondly, all the members of Christ, all believers and
holy men, are here intended, who are the seed of Christ and the implacable enemies
of the devil and his works, and who overcome him by Christ’s merit and power.
It shall bruise thy head — The principal instrument of the serpent’s fury and
mischief, and of his defence; and also the chief seat of his life, which, therefore, men
chiefly strike at, and which, being upon the ground, a man may conveniently tread
upon and crush to pieces. Applied to Satan, this denotes his subtlety and power,
producing death, which Christ, the Seed of the woman, destroys by taking away its
sting, which is sin.
Thou shalt bruise his heel — The part which is most within the serpent’s reach, and
on which, being bruised by it, the serpent is provoked to fix its venomous teeth, but
a part remote from the head and heart, and therefore wounds there, though painful,
are yet not deadly nor dangerous, if they be observed in time. Understood of Christ,
the seed of the woman, his heel means, first, his humanity, whereby he trod upon the
earth, and which the devil, through the instrumentality of wicked men, bruised and
killed; and, secondly, his people, his members, whom Satan, in divers ways, bruises,
vexes, and afflicts while they are on earth, but cannot reach either Christ their head
in heaven, or themselves when they shall be advanced thither. In this verse,
therefore, notice is given of a perpetual quarrel commenced between the kingdom of
God and the kingdom of the devil among men: war is proclaimed between the seed
of the woman and the seed of the serpent, Revelation 12:7. It is the fruit of this
enmity, 1st, That there is a continual conflict between God’s people and him.
Heaven and hell can never be reconciled, no more can Satan and a sanctified soul.
2d, That there is likewise a continual struggle between the wicked and the good.
And all the malice of persecutors against the people of God is the fruit of this
enmity, which will continue while there is a godly man on this side heaven, and a
wicked man on this side hell. But, 3d, A gracious promise also is here made of
322

323. Christ, as the deliverer of fallen man from the power of Satan. By faith in this
promise, our first parents, and the patriarchs before the flood, were justified and
saved; and to this promise, and the benefit of it, instantly serving God day and
night, they hoped to come.
COFFMAN, ""And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Many scholars cannot recognize this as the great Protoevangelium of the O.T.,
which of course, it surely is. Their blindness is due to their failure to recognize that
the key to understanding the O.T. is Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:15,16). The
terminology of this verse is such that it cannot apply to anything in heaven or upon
earth except the long spiritual conflict between Christ and Satan.
"Between thee and the woman ..." Woman here stands for the whole of Adam's
race, a point emphasized a little later in Genesis 3:20, where it is stated that Eve is
the "mother of all living." Enmity indicates the hostility of Satan toward humanity.
God's statement here that he would "put enmity" cannot mean that it did not exist
previously, but that it would be intensified and continued, a fact mentioned in
Revelation 12:12. However, this warfare is more than Satan's campaign to destroy
humanity; it also includes the warfare between:
"Thy seed ..." that is, the followers of Satan, and
"her seed ..." that is the seed of woman. Note the singular here, a ... ," that is the
seed of woman. Note the singular here, a characteristic continued in the pronoun he:
"He shall bruise thy head." Now, the only "seed of woman" ever known upon earth
was and is Jesus Christ our Lord. Paul's statement to the effect that Christ was
"made to be of a woman" (Galatians 4:4) implies not only the virgin birth of Christ
but his pre-existence also.[18]
COKE, "Genesis 3:15. And I will put enmity, &c.— If it be evident, that the former
323

324. part of this sentence principally refers to the natural serpent; it seems no less so,
that the latter part refers principally to the spiritual one. For though it is
undeniable, that there is a natural enmity between the serpentine and the human
race; though, as it is asserted, their juices* are alike destructive to each other: yet it
does not appear worthy the majesty of God, or of the Scripture, and by no means
adequate to the circumstances of our fallen parents, to suppose, that God should
only pronounce a ceaseless enmity between mankind and serpents, and declare, that
men should sometimes bruise their heads, destroy their lives, yet not without harm
to themselves, as the serpents would avenge themselves by bruising their heels. On
this account it will not admit of a doubt, but in these words there is an immediate
reference to that prime source of comfort to fallen man, his redemption and
conquest over Satan and sin, by Jesus Christ, the seed of the woman; peculiarly the
seed of the woman, as being incarnate of a pure virgin. And though it cannot be
asserted, how much of this original promise and prophecy our first parents
understood, yet it is reasonable to believe, that they understood enough to raise their
drooping spirits, and to fix their faith and hope upon their future and promised
Deliverer. We who have lived to see this prophecy fulfilled, have opportunities to
understand it in the clearest manner.
* That prince of Naturalists, the elder Pliny, who, as a heathen, must have been
disinterested, asserts, that if the human spittle do but enter the serpent's mouth, it
presently dies. See Nat. Hist. lib. Genesis 7:2. How true this is, I know not: how
deadly the serpent's poison is to man we all know.
I will put enmity between thee and the woman— By these words is expressed that
enmity and contest which then began (and will only cease, when death is swallowed
up in victory) between Satan and his seed, that is, all wicked angels and wicked men,
and the woman and her seed, that is, Jesus Christ, and all pious and true believers.
It may be observed, that the sacred writer says, I will put enmity between thee and
the WOMAN: not the man, whence one would be led to suppose, that the true seed
of the woman, Jesus Christ, was more immediately referred to. See Matthew 3:7;
Matthew 23:33. 1 John 3:10.
It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel— It, the seed, (Christ, who is
also called the seed of Abraham, see Galatians 3:16.) shall bruise thy head, destroy
thee, and work thy total overthrow. The phrase of bruising the head, expresses the
324

325. total destruction of the serpent, whose life and power, it is known, lie in the head.
And thou shalt bruise his heel, shalt wound and crush his lower and inferior part;
that is, shalt put to death and destroy him in the body, whose divine nature shall
raise him from death, triumphant over Satan and the grave, and leading captivity
captive: for he was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
As the present poisonous, groveling state of the serpentine kind is a proof to us of
the original curse; so the great veneration in which serpents were held among the
heathens, in the idolatrous world, is a great collateral proof of this account: since no
rational solution can be given of the introduction of so extraordinary a worship,
except that which this history affords. It would be long to enumerate the instances of
serpentile worship, which prevailed in all parts of the earth, in AEgypt, Greece,
Italy, America, &c.
"He shall bruise thy head ..." is a promise of ultimate and complete victory over evil
by the Lord Jesus Christ. This, of course, took place on Calvary, where Christ slew
him "that had power of death" (Hebrews 2:14). The Charter of Redemption was
achieved on the Cross, and full rewards of it will be bestowed upon the righteous at
the time of the eternal Judgment.
"Thou shalt bruise his heel ..." is undoubtedly a reference to the Crucifixion. And
one should not be surprised by the fact of so terrible a death being compared to a
mere heel-bruise, because, the comparison is valid when contrasted with the casting
of Satan into the lake of fire.
SUMMARY OF THE PROTOEVANGELIUM
Thus, this 27-word promise of healing for the sins of Adam's race conveyed limited
information, but the significance of it is unlimited. In the light of subsequent events,
it comprises as comprehensive and definite a statement of God's Plan of Redemption
as could have been devised in so few words. Here is a summary of what was
included:
325

326. (1) it outlines the doctrine of the Incarnation;
(2) and of the Virgin Birth;
(3) has a prophecy of the crucifixion; and
(4) of the final overthrow of Satan in hell;
(5) announces the ultimate overthrow of evil;
(6) the long agony of the human race; and
(7) provides a message of hope and salvation for fallen humanity. (See an entire
chapter on this subject in my book, The Mystery of Redemption, pp. 12-21.)
WHEDON, "15. Enmity between thee and the woman — That a sense of enmity
exists between the entire serpent race and mankind is a conspicuous fact, account
for it as we may. But no better reason for it can be given than that presented in this
Scripture, namely, because it was basely associated with man’s original sin.
It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. — It is difficult to ascertain
the precise meaning of the word ‫שׁו‬ , here rendered bruise. It occurs but three times,
namely, here, Job 9:17, and Psalms 139:11. The Septuagint renders it here by ‫,פחסוש‬
to watch for; in Job by ‫,וךפסיגש‬ to rub; in the Psalm by ‫,ךבפבנבפוש‬ to tread upon.
The Vulgate translates it by two different words in this passage, contero, to bruise,
in the first sentence, and insidior, to lie in wait for, in the second, but in Psalms 139
it has conculco, to tread upon. The word evidently denotes some sort of deadly
stroke or wound, and the universal habit of man to seek to wound the serpent’s
head, while the serpent is apt to wound the heel, (comp. Genesis 49:17,) confirms the
326

327. realistic character of this narrative.
But while this Scripture is capable of such a simple and literal interpretation, it has
also its profounder allusions. As the serpent was but the instrument of the devil, the
father of lies, (see note on Genesis 3:1,) so the curse pronounced against the crooked,
crawling beast has a deeper application to Satan and his seed. The base crawling,
the dust-eating, and the heel-biting of serpents symbolize the habits of the old
serpent, the devil. He evermore moves about his demoniacal work in conscious
condemnation, as if in trembling (James 2:19) and in torment.
Matthew 8:29. Like unto the natural enmity existing between the serpent-race and
man is that irrepressible conflict between Satan and the redeemed man. Tayler
Lewis suggests that head and heel in this Scripture may denote the strong contrast
between the methods of contest of these two eternal foes. The seed of the woman
fights in a bold and manly way, and strikes openly at the head. Biting or striking at
the heel, on the contrary, “denotes the mean, insidious character of the devil’s
warfare, not only as carried on by the equivocating appetites, but also as waged by
infidels and self-styled rationalists in all ages, who never meet Christianity in a
frank and manly way.”
But who, in this deeper sense, is that “seed” who shall bruise the serpent’s head?
The masculine pronoun HE ( ‫הוא‬ ) is not without significance. The reading is not
ipsa, she herself, as the Vulgate has it, and which some Romanists understand of the
Virgin Mary; nor it, of the English version, which fails to convey the force of the
Hebrew, ‫הוא‬ . We fully accord with the great body of Christian interpreters who
recognise here the first Messianic prophecy, the protevangelium. But this prophecy,
given in Paradise before the expulsion of the transgressors, should not be explained
exclusively of the personal Messiah. That promised seed comprehends also the
redeemed humanity of which he is Head — that great company who both suffer
with him and with him shall also be glorified. Romans 8:17. The final triumph will
not be won without much bloodshedding and many wounds. The old serpent has
more than once bruised the great Conqueror’s heel, and many of the faithful “have
resisted unto blood, striving against sin.” Hebrews 12:4. So only those who belong to
Christ as their great head and leader, are the seed of promise; all others, though
born of woman, by espousing the serpent’s cause and doing the lusts of the devil
(John 8:44) are of the seed of the serpent, a “generation of vipers,” (Matthew 23:33,)
327

328. whose end is perdition.
“Against the natural serpent,” says Keil, “the conflict may be carried on by the
whole human race — by all who are born of woman — but not against Satan. As he
is a foe who can only be met with spiritual weapons, none can encounter him
successfully but such as possess and make use of spiritual arms. Hence the idea of
the seed is modified by the nature of the foe. If we look at the natural development
of the human race, Eve bore three sons, but only one of them, namely, Seth, was
really the seed by which the human family was preserved through the flood, and
perpetuated in Noah. So, again, of the three sons of Noah, Shem, the blessed of
Jehovah, from whom Abraham descended, was the only one in whose seed all
nations were to be blessed; and that not through Ishmael, but through Isaac alone.
Through these constantly repeated acts of divine selection, which were not arbitrary
exclusions, but were rendered necessary by differences in the spiritual condition of
the individuals concerned, the seed to which the victory over Satan was promised
was determined, and ceased to be co-extensive with physical descent. This spiritual
seed culminated in Christ, in whom the Adamitic family terminated, henceforward
to be renewed by Christ as the Second Adam, and to be restored by him to its
original exaltation and likeness to God.… On the other hand, all who have not
regarded and preserved the promise, have fallen into the power of the old serpent,
and are to be regarded as the seed of the serpent, whose head will be trodden under
foot.” Matthew 23:33; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8. Comp. the conflict between Michael
and his angels, and the dragon and his angels in Revelation 12:7-9.
NISBET, "THE EARLIEST GOSPEL
‘I will put enmity between thee and the woman,’ etc.
Genesis 3:15
I. The first time Prophecy opened her lips, it was to pronounce these words. To our
first parents they were full of hope and consolation. In some mysterious way their
loss was to be repaired; a Deliverer was to be provided. This promise was all their
Bible. What, in truth, is all the rest of Scripture but the development of this great
328

329. primeval promise of a Redeemer?
II. Never for an instant was this tremendous announcement absent from the
recollection of the enemy of our race. Thoroughly versed in Scripture (as the history
of the Temptation proves), he watched with intense anxiety the progress of
prophetic announcement to mankind concerning One that was to come.
III. It is not to be supposed for an instant that Satan understood the mystery of our
Lord’s Incarnation. Caught in the depths of that unimaginable mystery, he did not
know until it was too late that it was Very and Eternal God with whom he had
entered into personal encounter. Repulsed in the wilderness, he was made fully
aware of the personal advent of his great Enemy. At the death of Christ the
kingdom which he had been consolidating for four thousand years was in a single
moment shattered to its base.
IV. The history of the Fall plainly intimates that on the side of the flesh man is most
successfully assaulted by temptation. Four thousand years of warfare have
convinced the enemy of our peace that on this side the citadel is weakest, is most
easily surprised, is most probably captured.
Dean Burgon.
Illustration
(1) ‘Let us make it “war to the knife”! Let us hate evil with a perfect hatred. I will
suggest a little creed for the day: “I hate meanness! I hate impurity! I hate
falsehood! I hate injustice!” I like a good “hater,” but it is sin he must hate. This is
the one pardonable “enmity” of the soul.’
(2) ‘We have here the beginning of Redemption. God said to the serpent, “I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall
329

330. bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” As sometimes in nature we find the
bane and the antidote almost side by side—in Corsica, e.g. the mineral springs of
Orezza are said to be a specific for the malarial fever produced in the plains
below—so in this chapter with its story of defeat, captivity, and ruin, there is the
promise of victory, deliverance, and recovery. The words I have quoted are
sometimes called “the Protevangelium,” or “the Gospel before the Gospel.” They
could not, of course, mean for those who first heard or read them all that they mean
to us who find their complete fulfilment in Christ; yet even from them their deeper
meaning could not have been wholly hidden. When men who felt the misery of sin
and lifted up their hearts to God for deliverance, read the words addressed to the
serpent, “is it reasonable to suppose that such men would take these words in their
literal sense, and satisfy themselves with the assurance that serpents, though
dangerous, should be kept under, and would find in the words no assurance of that
very thing they themselves were all their lifetime striving after, deliverance from the
evil thing which lay at the root of all sin?”’
SIMEON, "THE SEED OF THE WOMAN
Genesis 3:15. I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
THIS was the first promise that was ever given to fallen man. The occasion on
which it was given was this: Satan had beguiled our mother Eve, and, through her,
had prevailed on Adam to transgress: and he had thereby destroyed both them and
all their posterity: for, since they were corrupt, nothing but what was corrupt could
proceed from them. But God, in his abundant mercy, interposed for our fallen race,
who must without such interposition have been involved in all the misery of the
fallen angels. Against Satan he denounced a curse suited to his crime: and at the
same time informed him, that, though for the present he had prevailed over the
woman, a seed should spring from her who should execute on him the vengeance he
deserved, and rescue mankind from the misery he had entailed upon them.
Now, as the oak with all its luxuriant branches is contained in the acorn, so was the
whole of salvation, however copiously unfolded in subsequent revelations,
330

331. comprehended in this one prophecy; which is, in fact, the sum and summary of the
whole Bible. And on this promise all the Saints lived, during the space of 2000 years:
yes, all from Adam to the time of Abraham were encouraged, comforted, and saved
by this promise alone, illustrated as it was by sacrifices appointed by the Lord.
In explaining this prophecy, I shall call your attention to,
I. The person here predicted—
[It was the Lord Jesus Christ; who was in a peculiar way “the seed of the woman:”
for he was formed in the womb simply by the agency of the Holy Ghost, and was
born of a pure virgin altogether without the intervention of man. And this was
necessary: for, had he been born like other men, he would have been in the loins of
Adam, like other men; and therefore would, like them, have been partaker of his
guilt and corruption. But, being the sole and immediate workmanship of God, he
was absolutely perfect, and therefore capable of sustaining the office of a Saviour
for fallen man: whereas, if he had been otherwise formed, he would have needed a
Saviour for himself, and been incapable of effecting salvation for others. Thus you
see, that when it was impossible for man to restore himself to God, God “laid help
for him upon One that was Mighty;” on one who, being God and man in one person,
was able to effect for men all that their necessities required. As man, he could atone
for sin; and as God, he could render that atonement available for all who should
trust in him.]
At the same time that this prophecy announced the Messiah’s advent, it declared,
II. The conflicts he should sustain—
[Between Satan and him, God put an irreconcilable enmity; which, without a
moment’s intermission, has raged, from that very time even to the present hour.
Satan, having, thus introduced sin into the world, instigated every child of Adam to
the commission of it. And how far he prevailed, may be seen in this, that he induced
331

332. the very first-born of man to murder his own righteous brother, for no other reason
than because he was more righteous than himself. At times he had so entirely
reduced the whole race of man to his dominion, that scarcely a righteous man
existed upon earth. And, when God sent prophets to reclaim the world, Satan
stirred up the people of every age and place to destroy them. At last, when the
promised Seed himself came, Satan only exerted himself the more violently against
him, if by any means he might prevail to destroy the Saviour himself. No sooner was
Jesus born into the world, than Satan stimulated Herod to destroy all the males
around Bethlehem from two years old and under, that so it might be impossible for
Jesus to escape. And, when Jesus was entering upon his ministry, he urged him to
cast himself down from a pinnacle of the temple, if peradventure he might thus
induce him, under an idea of trusting in God, to destroy himself. Afterwards he
stirred up Peter to dissuade him from executing the work he had undertaken;
saying, “Master, spare thyself.” When he could not prevail in any of these ways, he
put it into the heart of Judas to betray him, and stirred up all the Priests and Elders
to put him to death. In like manner has this wicked adversary still prosecuted his
malignant work even to the present hour, blinding the eyes of men, and hardening
their hearts, and “leading them captive at his will:” and if any have dared to resist
his will, he has stirred up all his own agents, to persecute them, and to put them to
death.
On the other hand, Christ has also fought against him from the beginning, rescuing
men from his dominion, and “turning millions from darkness unto light, and from
the power of Satan unto God.” In the days of his flesh especially he shewed his
superiority to Satan, by dismissing him from many whom he had possessed, and
constraining him to relinquish the hold which he had gained, both of their bodies
and their souls. And though he seemed himself to sink under Satan’s attacks, yet did
he, in fact, defeat Satan by the very means which that adversary had used for his
destruction: for by death he overcame death, and “him that had the power of death,
that is, the devil [Note: Hebrews 2:14.]:” yes, “on the very cross itself he spoiled all
the principalities and powers of hell, triumphing over them openly in it [Note:
Colossians 2:15.].” And in his ascension, “he led captivity itself captive;” and has
bound all the hosts of hell, “reserving them in chains of darkness unto the judgment
of the great day.” In his people, too, he gets the victory from day to day, enabling
them to resist him manfully, and to trample both Satan and all his hosts under their
feet.
332

333. This conflict is still passing from day to day. The God of this world, and the God of
heaven, are contending for us, and in us [Note: 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians
4:6.]: and as long as the world shall stand, will this contest continue.]
But in our text we are informed, that Jesus will prevail, and enjoy at last,
III. The victory assured to him—
[In the conflict, the Saviour’s “heel is bruised:” but “he bruises the head” of his
great adversary, and breaks his power for evermore. Behold the Saviour on his
throne of glory, far above all the principalities and powers, whether of heaven or
hell! Behold the progress of his Gospel in every age! and see in heaven the
multitudes which no man can number, continually increased by fresh accessions
from every quarter of the globe, from the most blinded votaries of Satan amongst
the Heathen, as well as from his more specious servants amongst ourselves! See the
weakest of the children of men enabled to triumph over him, and, though
persecuted like their divine Master, “made more than conquerors through him that
loved them!” This is going forward amongst ourselves: so that you see the most
devoted vassals of Satan casting off his yoke, and “brought into the liberty of the
sons of God:” and soon shall you behold those whom once he held in the most
miserable bondage, seated upon thrones of glory, and actually sitting in judgment
upon the angels, as assessors with their divine Master [Note: 1 Corinthians 6:2-3.].
Yes: it is but a little time, and the seed of Christ, as well as Christ himself, will be
seated upon thrones of glory; whilst Satan, and his seed, shall be cast into the lake of
fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Such is the prophecy before us: and in this way is it accomplishing yet daily; and
shall be accomplished, till the final destinies of each shall terminate the contest for
evermore.]
Behold then, brethren,
333

334. 1. How marvellous is the grace of God!
[Think under what circumstances he made this promise to man. He had placed our
first parents in Paradise, where there was every thing that could conduce to their
happiness; and he himself visited and communed with them, as a friend. Yet did
they, on the very first temptation, violate his express command: and then, instead of
humbling themselves before him, they fled from him; and, when summoned into his
presence, excused themselves, and even cast the blame of their iniquity on him:—
“The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat: The woman, whom thou gavest to be with
me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” What might we expect now that he
should do unto them? surely, that he should consign them over to the misery they
deserved. But no: unsought and unsolicited, he promised them a Saviour, even his
only dear Son, who should rescue both them and all their believing posterity out of
the hands of their great adversary. Now then, I ask, If God, unsolicited, bestowed
the Saviour himself on these impenitent offenders, will he refuse salvation to any
penitent who calls upon him?— — —Let no sinner in the universe despond: but let
every one see in this prophecy how abundant and inconceivable is the grace of
God — — —]
2. How complete shall be the victory of all who believe in Christ!
[You appear to be in a hopeless condition, because your corruptions are so great
and your enemies so mighty. Go, then, to the cross of Christ, and there see the
Saviour himself hanging, an helpless and inanimate corpse! What hope has he of
victory? Wait a moment, and you will see. Behold him rising from the grave,
ascending to heaven, sending down the Holy Spirit, establishing his kingdom upon
earth, surrounded in heaven by myriads of his redeemed, and sealing up his great
adversary, with his hosts, in the bottomless abyss of hell! See all this; and then know
what shall be the issue of your conflicts. You are fighting with a vanquished enemy:
and it is but a little time, and he, your Almighty Saviour, “will bruise Satan under
your feet,” and will elevate you to thrones of glory, like unto his own. Only follow
him in his conflicts, and you shall be partakers with him in all his victories and
triumphs for evermore.]
334

335. 16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very
severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to
children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
BARNES, "Gen_3:16
The sentence of the woman Gen_3:16 consists of three parts: the former two regard
her as a mother, the last as a wife. Sorrow is to be multiplied in her pregnancy, and is
also to accompany the bearing of children. This sorrow seems to extend to all the
mother’s pains and anxieties concerning her offspring. With what solicitude she would
long for a manifestation of right feeling toward the merciful God in her children, similar
to what she had experienced in her own breast! What unutterable bitterness of spirit
would she feel when the fruits of disobedience would discover themselves in her little
ones, and in some of them, perhaps, gather strength from year to year!
The promise of children is implicitly given in these two clauses. It came out also
incidentally in the sentence of the serpent. What a wonderful conception is here
presented to the minds of the primeval pair! Even to ourselves at this day the subject of
race is involved in a great deal of mystery. We have already noticed the unity of the race
in its head. But the personality and responsibility of individuals involve great and
perplexing difficulties. The descent of a soul from a soul is a secret too deep for our
comprehension. The first man was potentially the race, and, so long as he stands alone,
actually the whole race for the time. His acts, then, are those not merely of the
individual, but of the race. If a single angel were to fall, he falls alone. If the last of a race
were to fall, he would in like manner involve no other in his descent. But if the first of a
race falls, before he has any offspring, the race has fallen. The guilt, the depravity, the
penalty, all belong to the race. This is a great mystery. But it seems to follow inevitably
from the constitution of a race, and it has clear evidences of its truth both in the facts
335

336. and the doctrines of the Bible.
When we come to view the sin of our first parents in this light, it is seen to entail
tremendous consequences to every individual of the race. The single transgression has
involved the guilt, the depravity, and the death, not only of Adam, but of that whole race
which was in him, and thus has changed the whole character and condition of mankind
throughout all time.
In the instructions going before and coming after are found the means of training up
these children for God. The woman has learned that God is not only a righteous judge,
but a forbearing and merciful Father. This was enough for her at present. It enabled her
to enter upon the journey of life with some gleams of hope amidst the sorrows of the
family. And in the experience of life it is amazing what a large proportion of the
agreeable is mingled with the troubles of our fallen race. The forbearance and goodness
of God ought in all reason and conscience to lead us back to a better feeling toward him.
The third part of her sentence refers to her husband - “Thy desire shall be to thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee.” This is evidently a piece of that retributive justice
which meets us constantly in the administration of God. The woman had taken the lead
in the transgression. In the fallen state, she is to be subject to the will of her husband.
“Desire” does not refer to sexual desire in particular. Gen_4:7. It means, in general,
“turn,” determination of the will. “The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy
husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee.” The second clause, according to the
parallel structure of the sentence, is a climax or emphatic reiteration of the first, and
therefore serves to determine its meaning. Under fallen man, woman has been more or
less a slave. In fact, under the rule of selfishness, the weaker must serve the stronger.
Only a spiritual resurrection will restore her to her true place, as the help-meet for man.
CLARKE, "Unto the woman he said - She being second in the transgression is
brought up the second to receive her condemnation, and to hear her punishment: I will
greatly multiply, or multiplying I will multiply; i.e., I will multiply thy sorrows, and
multiply those sorrows by other sorrows, and this during conception and pregnancy, and
particularly so in parturition or child-bearing. And this curse has fallen in a heavier
degree on the woman than on any other female. Nothing is better attested than this, and
yet there is certainly no natural reason why it should be so; it is a part of her
punishment, and a part from which even God’s mercy will not exempt her. It is added
farther, Thy desire shall be to thy husband - thou shalt not be able to shun the great pain
and peril of child-bearing, for thy desire, thy appetite, shall be to thy husband; and he
shall rule over thee, though at their creation both were formed with equal rights, and the
woman had probably as much right to rule as the man; but subjection to the will of her
husband is one part of her curse; and so very capricious is this will often, that a sorer
punishment no human being can well have, to be at all in a state of liberty, and under the
protection of wise and equal laws.
GILL, "Unto the woman he said,.... The woman receives her sentence next to the
serpent, and before the man, because she was first and more deeply in the transgression,
and was the means of drawing her husband into it.
336

337. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, or "thy sorrow of thy
conception" (a), or rather "of thy pregnancy" (b); since not pain but pleasure is perceived
in conception, and besides is a blessing; but this takes in all griefs and sorrows, disorders
and pains, from the time of conception or pregnancy, unto the birth; such as a nausea, a
loathing of food, dizziness, pains in the head and teeth, faintings and swoonings, danger
of miscarriage, and many distresses in such a case; besides the trouble of bearing such a
burden, especially when it grows heavy: and when it is said, "I will greatly multiply", or
"multiplying I will multiply" (c), it not only denotes the certainty of it, but the many and
great sorrows endured, and the frequent repetitions of them, by often conceiving,
bearing, and bringing forth:
in sorrow shall thou bring forth children, sons and daughters, with many severe
pangs and sharp pains, which are so very acute, that great tribulations and afflictions are
often in Scripture set forth by them: and it is remarked by naturalists (d), that women
bring forth their young with more pain than any other creature:
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, which some understand of her desire to the
use of the marriage bed, as Jarchi, and even notwithstanding her sorrows and pains in
child bearing; but rather this is to be understood of her being solely at the will and
pleasure of her husband; that whatever she desired should be referred to him, whether
she should have her desire or not, or the thing she desired; it should be liable to be
controlled by his will, which must determine it, and to which she must be subject, as
follows:
and he shall rule over thee, with less kindness and gentleness, with more rigour and
strictness: it looks as if before the transgression there was a greater equality between the
man and the woman, or man did not exercise the authority over the woman he
afterwards did, or the subjection of her to him was more pleasant and agreeable than
now it would be; and this was her chastisement, because she did not ask advice of her
husband about eating the fruit, but did it of herself, without his will and consent, and
tempted him to do the same.
HENRY, "We have here the sentence passed upon the woman for her sin. Two things
she is condemned to: a state of sorrow, and a state of subjection, proper punishments of
a sin in which she had gratified her pleasure and her pride.
I. She is here put into a state of sorrow, one particular of which only is specified, that
in bringing forth children; but it includes all those impressions of grief and fear which
the mind of that tender sex is most apt to receive, and all the common calamities which
they are liable to. Note, Sin brought sorrow into the world; it was this that made the
world a vale of tears, brought showers of trouble upon our heads, and opened springs of
sorrows in our hearts, and so deluged the world: had we known no guilt, we should have
known no grief. The pains of child-bearing, which are great to a proverb, a scripture
proverb, are the effect of sin; every pang and every groan of the travailing woman speak
aloud the fatal consequences of sin: this comes of eating forbidden fruit. Observe, 1. The
sorrows are here said to be multiplied, greatly multiplied. All the sorrows of this present
time are so; many are the calamities which human life is liable to, of various kinds, and
often repeated, the clouds returning after the rain, and no marvel that our sorrows are
multiplied when our sins are: both are innumerable evils. The sorrows of child-bearing
337

338. are multiplied; for they include, not only the travailing throes, but the indispositions
before (it is sorrow from the conception), and the nursing toils and vexations after; and
after all, if the children prove wicked and foolish, they are, more than ever, the heaviness
of her that bore them. Thus are the sorrows multiplied; as one grief is over, another
succeeds in this world. 2. It is God that multiplies our sorrows: I will do it. God, as a
righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as
they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for
our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by
all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will
abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied.
II. She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was
equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1Ti_2:11,
1Ti_2:12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is
not sui juris - at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num_30:6-8,
where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife.
This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own
husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it
would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom
and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility
and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin
and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted
her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it
ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that
made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer
over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine
sentence.
III. Observe here how mercy is mixed with wrath in this sentence. The woman shall
have sorrow, but it shall be in bringing forth children, and the sorrow shall be forgotten
for joy that a child is born, Joh_16:21. She shall be subject, but it shall be to her own
husband that loves her, not to a stranger, or an enemy: the sentence was not a curse, to
bring her to ruin, but a chastisement, to bring her to repentance. It was well that enmity
was not put between the man and the woman, as there was between the serpent and the
woman.
JAMISON, "unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow —
She was doomed as a wife and mother to suffer pain of body and distress of mind. From
being the help meet of man and the partner of his affections [Gen_2:18, Gen_2:23], her
condition would henceforth be that of humble subjection.
K&D 16-19, "It was not till the prospect of victory had been presented, that a
sentence of punishment was pronounced upon both the man and the woman on account
of their sin. The woman, who had broken the divine command for the sake of earthly
enjoyment, was punished in consequence with the sorrows and pains of pregnancy and
childbirth. “I will greatly multiply (‫ה‬ ָ‫בּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫ה‬ is the inf. abs. for ‫ה‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫,ה‬ which had become
an adverb: vid., Ewald, §240c, as in Gen_16:10 and Gen_22:17) thy sorrow and thy
pregnancy: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” As the increase of conceptions,
338

339. regarded as the fulfilment of the blessing to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen_1:28), could
be no punishment, ֵ‫נ‬ֹ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ה‬ ְ‫ו‬ must be understood as in apposition to ֵ‫נ‬ ‫ב‬ ְ‫צּ‬ ִ‫ע‬ thy sorrow
(i.e., the sorrows peculiar to a woman's life), and indeed (or more especially) thy
pregnancy (i.e., the sorrows attendant upon that condition). The sentence is not
rendered more lucid by the assumption of a hendiadys. “That the woman should bear
children was the original will of God; but it was a punishment that henceforth she was to
bear them in sorrow, i.e., with pains which threatened her own life as well as that of the
child” (Delitzsch). The punishment consisted in an enfeebling of nature, in consequence
of sin, which disturbed the normal relation between body and soul. - The woman had
also broken through her divinely appointed subordination to the man; she had not only
emancipated herself from the man to listen to the serpent, but had led the man into sin.
For that, she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (‫ה‬ ָ‫שׁוּק‬ ְ‫תּ‬ from ‫שׁוּק‬ to
run, to have a violent craving for a thing), and with subjection to the man. “And he shall
rule over thee.” Created for the man, the woman was made subordinate to him from the
very first; but the supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule,
crushing the woman into a slave, which has been the rule in ancient and modern
Heathenism, and even in Mahometanism also-a rule which was first softened by the sin-
destroying grace of the Gospel, and changed into a form more in harmony with the
original relation, viz., that of a rule on the one hand, and subordination on the other,
which have their roots in mutual esteem and love.
Gen_3:17-19
“And unto Adam:” the noun is here used for the first time as a proper name without
the article. In Gen_1:26 and Gen_2:5, Gen_2:20, the noun is appellative, and there are
substantial reasons for the omission of the article. The sentence upon Adam includes a
twofold punishment: first the cursing of the ground, and secondly death, which affects
the woman as well, on account of their common guilt. By listening to his wife, when
deceived by the serpent, Adam had repudiated his superiority to the rest of creation. As a
punishment, therefore, nature would henceforth offer resistance to his will. By breaking
the divine command, he had set himself above his Maker, death would therefore show
him the worthlessness of his own nature. “Cursed be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow
shalt thou eat it (the ground by synecdoche for its produce, as in Isa_1:7) all the days of
thy life: thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the
field.” The curse pronounced on man's account upon the soil created for him, consisted
in the fact, that the earth no longer yielded spontaneously the fruits requisite for his
maintenance, but the man was obliged to force out the necessaries of life by labour and
strenuous exertion. The herb of the field is in contrast with the trees of the garden, and
sorrow with the easy dressing of the garden. We are not to understand, however, that
because man failed to guard the good creation of God from the invasion of the evil one, a
host of demoniacal powers forced their way into the material world to lay it waste and
offer resistance to man; but because man himself had fallen into the power of the evil
one, therefore God cursed the earth, not merely withdrawing the divine powers of life
which pervaded Eden, but changing its relation to man. As Luther says, “primum in eo,
quod illa bona non fert quae tulisset, si homo non esset lapsus, deinde in eo quoque,
quod multa noxia fert quae non tulisset, sicut sunt infelix lolium, steriles avenae,
zizania, urticae, spincae, tribuli, adde venena, noxias bestiolas, et si qua sunt alia hujus
generis.” But the curse reached much further, and the writer has merely noticed the
most obvious aspect.
(Note: Non omnia incommoda enumerat Moses, quibus se homo per peccatum
339

340. implicuit: constat enim ex eodem prodiisse fonte omnes praesentis vitae aerumnas,
quas experientia innumeras esse ostendit. Aëris intemperies, gelu, tonitrua, pluviae
intempestivae, uredo, grandines et quicquid inordinatum est in mundo, peccati sunt
fructus.
Nec alia morborum prima est causa: idque poeticis fabulis celebratum fuit: haud
dubie quod per manus a patribus traditum esset. Unde illud Horatii:
- Post ignem aethera domo
- Subductum, macies et nova febrium
- Terris incubuit cohors:
- Semotique prius tarda necessitas
- Lethi corripuit gradum.
Sed Moses qui brevitati studet, suo more pro communi vulgi captu attingere
contentus fuit quod magis apparuit: ut sub exemplo uno discamus, hominis vitio
inversum fuisse totum naturae ordinem. Calvin.)
The disturbance and distortion of the original harmony of body and soul, which sin
introduced into the nature of man, and by which the flesh gained the mastery over the
spirit, and the body, instead of being more and more transformed into the life of the
spirit, became a prey to death, spread over the whole material world; so that everywhere
on earth there were to be seen wild and rugged wastes, desolation and ruin, death and
corruption, or ματαιότης and φθορά (Rom_8:20-21). Everything injurious to man in the
organic, vegetable and animal creation, is the effect of the curse pronounced upon the
earth for Adam's sin, however little we may be able to explain the manner in which the
curse was carried into effect; since our view of the causal connection between sin and
evil even in human life is very imperfect, and the connection between spirit and matter
in nature generally is altogether unknown. In this causal link between sin and the evils in
the world, the wrath of God on account of sin was revealed; since, as soon as the creation
(πᾶσα ἡ κτίοις, Rom_8:22) had been wrested through man from its vital connection
with its Maker, He gave it up to its own ungodly nature, so that whilst, on the one hand,
it has been abused by man for the gratification of his own sinful lusts and desires, on the
other, it has turned against man, and consequently many things in the world and nature,
which in themselves and without sin would have been good for him, or at all events
harmless, have become poisonous and destructive since his fall. For in the sweat of his
face man is to eat his bread (‫ם‬ ֶ‫ח‬ֶ‫ל‬ the bread-corn which springs from the earth, as in
Job_28:5; Psa_104:14) until he return to the ground. Formed out of the dust, he shall
return to dust again. This was the fulfilment of the threat, “In the day thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die,” which began to take effect immediately after the breach of the
divine command; for not only did man then become mortal, but he also actually came
under the power of death, received into his nature the germ of death, the maturity of
which produced its eventual dissolution into dust. The reason why the life of the man did
not come to an end immediately after the eating of the forbidden fruit, was not that “the
woman had been created between the threat and the fall, and consequently the fountain
of human life had been divided, the life originally concentrated in one Adam shared
between man and woman, by which the destructive influence of the fruit was modified or
weakened.” (v. Hoffmann), but that the mercy and long-suffering of God afforded space
for repentance, and so controlled and ordered the sin of men and the punishment of sin,
as to render them subservient to the accomplishment of His original purpose and the
340

341. glorification of His name.
PULPIT, "Gen_3:16
Unto the woman he said. Passing judgment on her first who had sinned first, but
cursing neither her nor her husband, as "being candidates for restoration" (Tertullian).
The sentence pronounced on Eve was twofold. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception. A hendiadys for "the sorrow of thy conception" (Gesenius, Bush),
though this is not necessary. The womanly and wifely sorrow of Eve was to be
intensified, and in particular the pains of parturition were to be multiplied (cf. Jer_
31:8). The second idea is more fully explained in the next clause. In sorrow shalt thou
bring forth children. Literally, sons, daughters being included. The pains of
childbirth are in Scripture emblematic of the severest anguish both of body and mind
(cf. Psa_48:7; Mic_4:9, Mic_4:10; 1Th_5:3; Joh_16:21; Rev_12:2). The gospel gives a
special promise to mothers (1Ti_2:15). "By bringing forth is also meant bringing up after
the birth, as in Gen_50:23" (Ainsworth). And thy desire shall be to thy husband.
‫ה‬ ָ‫שׁוּק‬ ְ‫,תּ‬ from ‫שׁוּק‬ to run, to have a vehement longing for a thing, may have the same
meaning here as in Son_7:10 (Dathe, Rosenmἀller, Delitzsch, Keil, Bohlen, Kalisch,
Alford); but is better taken as expressive of deferential submissiveness, as in Gen_4:7
(Luther, Calvin, Le Clerc, Lunge, Macdonald, Speaker’s ’Commentary’.) Following the
LXX. (ἀποστροφημ), Murphy explains it as meaning, "The determination of thy will
shall be yielded to thy husband." According to the analogy of the two previous clauses,
the precise import of this is expressed in the next, though by many it is regarded as a
distinct item in the curse (Kalisch, Alford, Clarke, Wordsworth). And he shall rule
over thee. Not merely a prophecy of woman’s subjection, but an investiture of man
with supremacy over the woman; or rather a confirmation and perpetuation of that
authority which had been assigned to the man at the creation. Woman had been given
him as an helpmeet (Gen_2:18), and her relation to the man from the first was
constituted one of dependence. It was the reversal of this Divinely-established order that
had led to the fall (Gen_3:17). Henceforth, therefore, woman was to be relegated to, and
fixed in, her proper sphere of subordination. On account of her subjection to man’s
authority a wife is described as the possessed or subjected one of a lord (Gen_20:3;
Deu_20:1-20:22), and a husband as the lord of a woman (Exo_21:3). Among the
Hebrews the condition of the female sex was one of distinct subordination, though not of
oppression, and certainly not of slavery, as it too often has been in heathen and
Mohammedan countries. Christianity, while placing woman on the same platform with
man as regards the blessings of the gospel (Gal_3:28), explicitly inculcates her
subordination to the man in the relationship of marriage (Eph_5:22; Col_3:18; 1Pe_3:1)
CALVIN, "16.Unto the woman he said. In order that the majesty of the judge may
shine the more brightly, God uses no long disputation; whence also we may perceive
of what avail are all our tergiversations with him. In bringing the serpent forward,
Eve thought she had herself escaped. God, disregarding her cavils, condemns her.
Let the sinner, therefore, when he comes to the bar of God, cease to contend, lest he
should more severely provoke against himself the anger of him whom he has already
too highly offended. We must now consider the kind of punishment imposed upon
341

342. the woman. When he says, ‘I will multiply thy pains,’ he comprises all the trouble
women sustain during pregnancy (201)
It is credible that the woman would have brought forth without pain, or at least
without such great suffering, if she had stood in her original condition; but her
revolt from God subjected her to inconveniences of this kind. The expression, ‘pains
and conception,’ is to be taken by the figure hypallage, (202) for the pains which
they endure in consequence of conception. The second punishment which he exacts
is subjection. For this form of speech, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband,” is of
the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own
command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will;
or as if he had said, ‘Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.’ As it
is declared afterwards, Unto thee shall be his desire, (Genesis 4:7.) Thus the woman,
who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position.
She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and
gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.
BENSON, "Genesis 3:16. We have here the sentence passed on the woman: she is
condemned to a state of sorrow and subjection: proper punishments of a sin in
which she had gratified her pleasure and her pride. I will greatly multiply thy
sorrow — In divers pains and infirmities peculiar to thy sex; and thy conception —
Thou shalt have many, and those oft-times fruitless conceptions and abortive births.
In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children — With more pain than any other
creatures undergo in bringing forth their young: a lasting and terrible proof this
that human nature is in a fallen state! Thy desire shall be to thy husband — That is,
as appears from Genesis 4:7, where the same phrase is used, Thy desires shall be
referred or submitted to thy husband’s will and pleasure, to grant or deny them as
he sees fit. She had eaten of the forbidden fruit, and thereby had committed a great
sin, in compliance with her own desire, without asking her husband’s advice or
consent, as in all reason she ought to have done in so weighty and doubtful a matter,
and therefore she is thus punished. He shall rule over thee — Seeing for want of thy
husband’s rule and guidance thou wast seduced, and didst abuse the power and
influence I gave thee, by drawing thy husband into sin, thou shalt now be brought to
a lower degree; and whereas thou wast made thy husband’s equal, thou shalt
henceforward be his inferior, and he shall rule over thee — As thy lord and
governor.
342

343. COFFMAN, ""Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy
conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee."
"Thy pain and thy conception ..." The frightful pangs of childbirth do not appear in
nature in similar situations in the lower creation, and they are a continual reminder
to all men of the fallen estate of the race. Note also that the "conception" of Eve
would be multiplied. This would appear to have no reference to shortening the
period of gestation, but would seem to apply to the multiplication of human beings
upon the earth, a phenomenon apparently linked to the population explosion of the
present era.
"Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee ..." The meaning of
this can be read in the lowly estate of woman in all nations for thousands of years.
And only in those nations where the Great Deliverer has found a place in men's
hearts is her pitiful condition alleviated. What a brutal and terrible thing it was that
Satan did for Eve.
COKE, "Genesis 3:16. Unto the woman he said, &c.— "Thy sorrow, by thy
conception," says Mr. Locke. This has indeed been fulfilled upon the female sex, as
no females, it is asserted, know so much sorrow, and so much anguish, during the
time of conception, and in the hour of parturition, as those of the human species.
Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee— Whence we may
gather, that woman was thus degraded from that equality with man in which she
was created, and would undoubtedly have continued in a state of innocence and
perfection; for in such a state there seems no imaginable reason, why one sex should
be in subjection to the other: the woman was given at first as a help-meet, as a
proper and equal companion to the man.
WHEDON, "WHEDON, " 16. Unto the woman he said — A fourfold sentence: 1)
multiplied pains of conception and pregnancy; 2) the pangs of childbirth; 3) the
desire of the husband; and 4) the subjection to the authority of the man. Or the
343

344. sentence may be treated as twofold by connecting the first and second together, the
pains of pregnancy and childbirth being naturally associated; and the third and
fourth are, in like manner, closely related in thought. The words thy sorrow and thy
conception are properly regarded by most commentators as a hendiadys, meaning
the sorrow of thy conception. The anxiety and pains of woman in conception,
pregnancy, and childbirth are a most impressive commentary on this Scripture. The
travail of childbirth is frequently alluded to as the image of deepest distress. Isaiah
13:8; Jeremiah 30:6; Micah 4:9.
Thy desire shall be to thy husband — Not sensual desire, though that may be
remotely implied, but that instinctive inclination and tendency of heart which the
female sex has ever shown toward man. The woman seems to have aspired to
headship and leadership, but, being first in transgression, is doomed to be the
“weaker vessel,” instinctively clinging to the man who has lordship over her.
PETT, "Verse 16
‘To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain, especially in childbearing,
in pain you will produce children, and your desire shall be for your husband, and he
will rule over you.” ’
In Genesis 1 the producing of children is a duty, a privilege and a blessing, but now
that duty, privilege and blessing will be accompanied by intense pain. It is in the
mercy of God that, in spite of what she has done, she will still be allowed the
blessing of producing children. It is the punishment of God that this will be achieved
through much pain.
But she will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to. ‘Your desire will be for your
husband and he will rule over you’. She will not be able to avoid her punishment,
for her craving for her husband will ensure that she seeks him out and his authority
over her will guarantee her part in procreation. There is here a clear loss of status.
The man’s authority is now seen as more emphatic and overbearing.
“Your pain, especially in childbearing” is literally ‘your pain and your
344

345. childbearing’. The word for ‘pain’ (atsab) is not the usual one for pain in
childbearing and is used in the next verse for man’s punishment in toil. Thus it
refers to the more general misery of life. Life is to become more miserable. That will,
however, include discomfort in child-bearing. It is significant that, in theory at least,
child-bearing can be without pain. Some even achieve it. Thus prior to this event
that would have been true for Eve. But now the stress and tension produced by sin
will result in agony in child-birth. The word ‘atsab’ is deliberately used because two
of its consonants connect to ‘ets’ (tree), thus indicating pain and suffering arising
from the tree.
LANGE, "Genesis 3:16. Unto the woman he said.—The sentence pronounced upon
the woman contains a painful modification and transformation of the womanly
calling, as farther on the sentence pronounced upon Adam is a similar modification
of the manly, or, we may say generally, of the human calling [since Adam embraces
at once the common human nature]; and Song of Solomon, accordingly, is the
earlier mode of life of the serpent made to become a modification of the sentence
pronounced upon it. What they do according to their nature, that must now bring
upon them the punishments that are in correspondence with their natures. Delitzsch
distinguishes a threefold retribution in the sentence upon the woman. We follow him
therein, only taking the members in a different way. The punishment falls: 1. Upon
the relation of the womanly organism in and for itself; 2. on the relation to her
children; and3. on the relation to her husband1. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow.
The expression ‫והרונך‬ ‫עצבונך‬ is generally taken as a hendyadis. “The frequency of
pregnancy can be no punishment.” The Samaritan translates: The burden that is
connected with pregnancy. And yet we are not justified here in limiting the whole
doom of the womanly distress and sorrow directly to the state of pregnancy. Still it
may be more safe to say with Delitzsch: Thy burden, and especially thy pregnancy
with its burden. The womanly calling is an endless multiplicity of little troubles, and
the womanly destiny is loaded with the most manifold sexual pains. The pains of a
woman with child, Jeremiah 31:8.—2. With sorrow. [Lange translates it, with
difficulty, noth.] We maintain that the translation of ‫עצב‬ by trouble or pain is too
weak. It is the state of birth-travail, which Isaiah, all at the same time, labor, pain,
difficulty, and danger (see Isaiah 13:8; Isaiah 21:3; Hosea 13:13; Micah 4:9; John
16:21), “Gravida et pariens,” says an old proverb, “est sicut œgrota et moriens.”
Delitzsch. The contrast between the lightest ( Exodus 1:19) and the most difficult
births, may help to give us an idea of the contrast between the normal paradisaical
way of birth, and the birth-sorrows that have prevailed in human history; and this
345

346. too without our having to suppose, with Delitzsch, a change in “the physiological
constitution of the woman.” Hence-forth must the woman purchase the gain of
children with the danger of her life,—in a certain degree, with spiritual readiness
for death, and the sacrifice of her life for that end.—3. And thy desire shall be to thy
husband. This sentence obtains its full significance in its embracing that which
follows, and in its contrast to it. It Isaiah, emphatically, that her desire should be to
the man as though she were magically bound to him. ‫ה‬ָ‫שׁוּק‬ ְ‫תּ‬ may denote the longing
of the woman’s dependence upon man. ‫ה‬ָ‫שׁוּק‬ ְ‫תּ‬ comes from ‫,שׁוּק‬ to run, run after,
pursue, want.[FN21] It is further emphatic that the man shall rule over her in a
strong way; and finally that she, in her bound and destined adherence to Prayer of
Manasseh, shall find in him a strong and severe master. The woman had specifically
sinned, “not for the sake of earthly enjoyment merely” (Delitzsch), but in high-flown
aspiring, as though she would emancipate herself from Prayer of Manasseh, get
before him, and take him under her guardianship. Her punishment, therefore, must
consist in this, that she must become subject in the normal line of her sexual being,
her consciousness, adhesiveness, and dependence. “The man can command in a
lordly way, and the wife is inwardly and outwardly compelled to obedience. In
consequence of sin thus arises that subjection of the wife to the husband, bordering
on slavery, that was customary in the old world, as it still is in the East, and which
through the religion of revelation becomes gradually more tolerable, until, at last, in
the increasing worth of the woman, it becomes entirely evened” (Delitzsch). “Among
the Hebrews a wife was bought by the husband (? Genesis 34:12; Exodus 22:16;
Hosea 3:3; Hosea 3:2). and was his possession (female slave, ? Genesis 20:3;
Deuteronomy 22:22). He is called her lord ( Genesis 18:21; Exodus 21:3), and he can
divorce her without much ceremony ( Deuteronomy 24:1). This subordinate and
depressed condition of the wife the author (!) regards as the punishment of sin.”
Knobel.
CONSTABLE, "Effects on women3:16
1. Eve would experience increased pain in bearing children. There evidently would
have been some pain in the process of bearing children before the Fall, but Eve and
her daughters would experience increased pain. The text does not say that God
promised more conception as well as more pain. [Note: Cf. Schaeffer, p93.] "Pain"
and "childbirth" is probably another hendiadys in the Hebrew text meaning
pregnancy pain.
346

347. 2. Women"s desire would be for their husbands. There have been several different
interpretations of what the woman"s "desire" would be.
a. The phrase "your desire will be for your husband" means that a woman"s desire
would be subject to her husband"s desire.
"Her desire, whatever it may be, will not be her own. She cannot do what she
wishes, for her husband rules over her like a despot and whatever she wishes is
subject to his will." [Note: E. J. Young, Genesis 3 , p127. Cf. John Calvin, Genesis ,
p172.]
b. The woman will have a great longing, yearning, and psychological dependence on
her husband.
"This yearning is morbid. It is not merely sexual yearning. It includes the attraction
that woman experiences for man which she cannot root from her nature.
Independent feminists may seek to banish it, but it persists in cropping out." [Note:
Leupold, 1:172. Cf. Gini Andrews, Your Half of the Apple, p51.]
c. The woman will desire to dominate the relationship with her husband. This view
rests on the parallel Hebrew construction in Genesis 4:7. This view seems best to me.
"The "curse" here describes the beginning of the battle of the sexes. After the Fall,
the husband no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. The woman"s
desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship), and he
must master her, if he can. Sin had corrupted both the willing submission of the wife
and the loving headship of the husband. And so the rule of love founded in paradise
is replaced by struggle, tyranny, domination, and manipulation." [Note: Foh, p69.
See also her article, "What is the Woman"s Desire?" Westminster Theological
Journal37:3 (Spring1975):376-383; Mathews, p251; and Waltke, Genesis , p94.]
347

348. d. The woman would continue to desire to have sexual relations with her husband
even though after the Fall she experienced increased pain in childbearing.
"... the woman"s desire for the man and his rule over her are not the punishment
but the conditions in which the woman will suffer punishment.... It may be
concluded that, in spite of the Fall, the woman will have a longing for intimacy with
man involving more than sexual intimacy.... [Note: Irving Busenitz, "Woman"s
Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered," Grace Theological Journal7:2
(Fall1986):203 , 206-8. Cf. Song of Solomon 7:10.]
This view takes this statement of God as a blessing rather than a curse.
NISBET, "SINNERS MUST SUFFER
‘Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception,’
etc.
Genesis 3:16-18
By the Fall sin entered in, and by sin a change passed over the whole world. The
change affected the moral relations of man. In becoming disobedient to God, he lost
all control over himself. While subject to the Divine Will, he wielded absolute power
over his own nature. His passions were then pure ones, held in a bond of unity and
subjection. But when he rebelled, they rebelled too, and warred one against the
other, bringing in turn the will into bondage to them. His will revolted against his
Maker, and it became one with the will of the Evil One; it moved in concert with it,
and became part of the evil which was in the world. Man represented the
antagonistic power which broke the unity of God’s kingdom; his will was
diametrically opposed to that of God. Such is Sin. Our present state in this world,
then, is a fallen one and evil. Now there are two kinds of evil: one is moral, and the
348

349. other is penal. Both imply a chastisement. All the laws of God, in the physical,
moral, and political world, if broken, exact a penalty. But there is a law written in
the hearts of men, and given to the conscience when the penalty is the result of
moral transgression. It was the prospect of these two evils—the outward
chastisement and the inward retribution—which wrung from Cain the confession:
‘My punishment is greater than I can bear.’
Consider the consequences of the Fall from both these standpoints.
I. The moral consequences and chastisement of the Fall.
(a) Man was driven away from the Presence of God; and from two causes, shame
and fear. Ashamed, for they knew that they were naked; afraid, for they feared to
meet their Maker. They had lost ‘that ignorance of innocence which knows nothing
of nakedness.’ That it was the conscience which was really at work is evidenced by
their fear, which impelled them to hide themselves. Man in his innocence knew
nothing of either shame or fear. And this, too, is the peculiar trait of childhood.
Adam was ashamed, but yet he thought more of the consequences of sin than of the
sin itself; more of his nakedness than of having broken the commandment of God.
And so it ever is now; men think more of the pain, the shame, the publicity, the
humiliation induced by sin, than the transgression itself. But an evil conscience still
fears to be alone with God; and, like Adam, the sinner would fain hide himself.
(b) The second moral consequence of the Fall is selfishness. That is the love and
consequent indulgence of self; the liking to have one’s own way for the sake of
having it. It is the root of all personal sin. It is the getting another centre besides the
true one, round which we live and move and have our being. It brings the wills of us
all into collision with the rule and will of the Eternal Good One. It is to revolve
round ourselves, instead of making God the centre of our thoughts, feelings,
opinions, actions, and aspirations. Everywhere there is mutual dependence, mutual
support, and co-operation. ‘No man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself,’
even in the body politic. Where, then, is any place for selfishness in religion? We
cannot keep it to ourselves; our light must shine before men, that they may glorify
the Great Father in Heaven. Christ has given us something outside ourselves to live
349

350. for: the poor, the sick, sinners at home, heathen abroad, and all who need our help
and prayers. Further, as Adam and Eve showed their selfishness by their cowardice
in hiding, and by the severity with which they regarded the sin of the other, while
lenient to their own share in the transgression; so it is still; the sinner first throws
the blame on others as tempters, and then upon circumstances which God has
ordained.
II. The penal consequences or chastisement of the Fall were threefold.
(a) The curse fell upon the ground. By man’s sin came death; death passed from
man into the rest of creation, pervading the whole; and the curse fell on the ground
(Genesis 3:17-18; Romans 8:22).
(b) The second penal consequence was the impossibility of ease; pain to woman, toil
to man, and finally death to both. There was to be no rest for either the weaker or
the stronger, for the tempter or the tempted.
(c) The third penal consequence was the being shut out from the trees of knowledge
and life. After the germ of death had penetrated into man’s nature, through sin, it
was Mercy which prevented his taking of the Tree of Life, and thus living for ever;
the fruit which produced immortality could only do him harm. Immortality in a
state of sin and misery is not that eternal life which God designed for man. Man’s
expulsion from Eden was for his ultimate good; while exposing him to physical
death, it preserved him from eternal or spiritual death. And man, too, was shut out
from the Tree of Knowledge. We all know this by bitter experience. With what
difficulty knowledge of any kind is obtained; what intense application and labour
are required. There is no royal road to learning; we must pay the price—sweat of
brain—if we would unlock its priceless treasures.
III. Lastly, consider the future hopes of the human race. The first ground of hope is
from what we were originally. Man was created in the likeness of God—perfect,
upright, pure, and holy. What we have been, that we shall be. The second ground is
from the evidence we have in our own feelings, that we were born for something
350

351. higher; this world cannot satisfy us. ‘We seek a better country, that is, a heavenly.’
The third ground is from the curse pronounced on evil. A true life fought out in the
spirit of God’s truth shall conquer at last. ‘The Seed of the woman shall bruise the
Serpent’s head.’ The spiritual seed culminated in Christ. But, remember, except we
are in Christ, we are in guilt. ‘We are yet in our sin’; for, ‘as in Adam all die, even
so in Christ shall all be made alive.’
Rev. Morris Fuller.
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to
your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which
I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
BARNES 17-19, "Gen_3:17-19
The keyword in the sentence of the man is the “soil.” The curse (Gen_9:25, see the
note) of the soil is the desire of the fruit trees with which the garden was planted, and of
that spontaneous growth which would have rendered the toil of man unnecessary. The
rank growth of thorns and thistles was also a part of the curse which it occasioned to
man when fallen. His sorrow was to arise from the labor and sweat with which he was to
draw from the ground the means of subsistence. Instead of the spontaneous fruits of the
351

352. garden, the herb of the field, which required diligent cultivation, was henceforth to
constitute a principal part of his support. And he had the dreary prospect before him of
returning at length to the ground whence he was taken. He had an element of dust in
him, and this organic frame was eventually to work out its own decay, when apart from
the tree of life.
It is to be observed that here is the first allusion to that death which was the essential
part of the sentence pronounced on the fallen race. The reasons of this are obvious. The
sentence of death on those who should eat of the forbidden fruit had been already
pronounced, and was well known to our first parents. Death consisted in the privation of
that life which lay in the light of the divine countenance, shining with approving love on
an innocent child, and therefore was begun on the first act of disobedience, in the shame
and fear of a guilty conscience. The few traits of earthly discomfort which the sentences
disclose, are merely the workings of the death here spoken of in the present stage of our
existence. And the execution of the sentence, which comes to view in the following
passage, is the formal accomplishment of the warning given to the transgressor of the
divine will.
In this narrative the language is so simple as to present no critical difficulty. And, on
reviewing the passage, the first thing we have to observe is, that the event here recorded
is a turning-point of transcendent import in the history of man. It is no less than turning
from confidence in God to confidence in his creature when contradicting him, and,
moreover, from obedience to his express and well-remembered command to obedience
to the dictates of misguided self-interest. It is obvious that, to the moral character of the
transaction, it is of no consequence who the third party was who dared to contradict and
malign his Maker. The guilt of man consists simply in disobeying the sole command of
his beneficent Creator. The only mitigating circumstance is the suggestion of evil by an
external party. But the more insignificant the only ostensible source of temptation, the
more inexcusable the guilt of man in giving way to it.
This act altered fundamentally the position and character of man. He thereby
descended from innocence to guilt in point of law, and at the same time from holiness to
sin in point of character. Tremendous was the change, and equally tremendous the
consequence. Death is, like most scriptural terms, a pregnant word, and here to be
understood in the full compass of its meaning. It is the privation, not of existence, as is
often confusedly supposed, but of life, in all its plenitude of meaning. As life includes all
the gratifications of which our human susceptibilities are capable, so death is the
privation of all the sources of human enjoyment, and among them of the physical life
itself, while the craving for ease and the sense of pain retain all their force in the spiritual
part of our nature. These poignant emotions reach their highest pitch of intensity when
they touch the conscience, the tenderest part of our being, and forebode the meeting of
the soul, in its guilty state, with a just and holy God.
This event is real. The narrative expresses in its strongest terms its reality. The event is
one of the two alternatives which must follow from the preceding statements concerning
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and affords an explanation of their nature. It
is no less essential to account for what follows. The problem of the history and condition
of man can only be solved by this primeval fact. Conscience still remains an imperishable
monument, on the one hand, of his having been formed after a perfect model; and, on
the other, of his having fallen from his high estate. And all the facts of his history carry
up his fall as far as the traditions of human memory reach.
And the narrative here is a literal record of the details of this great event. So far as
352

353. regards God and man, the literality has never been questioned by those who
acknowledge the event to be real. Some, however, have taken the serpent to be, not a
literal, but a figurative serpent; not an animal, but a spiritual being. The great dragon,
indeed, is identified with “the ancient serpent called the devil and Satan.” And hence we
know that a being of a higher nature than the mere animal was present and active on this
occasion. And this spiritual being was with great propriety called the serpent, both from
its serpentine qualities and from choosing the serpent as the most suitable mask under
which to tempt our first parents. But we cannot thence infer that a literal serpent was
not employed in the temptation. The serpent is said to be “more subtle than any beast of
the field.” First. The obvious meaning of this is, that it was itself a beast of the field.
Thus, Joseph, whom Israel loved “more than all his children,” was one of his children
Gen_37:8. He that was “higher than any of the people,” was himself one of the people
2Sa_9:2. Second. If the serpent be here figurative, and denote a spirit, the statement
that it was subtle above all the beasts of the field is feeble and inadequate to the
occasion. It is not so, that man is distinguished from the other animals. In much more
forcible language ought the old serpent to be distinguished from the unreasoning brute.
Third. We have seen a meetness in a being of flesh, and that not superior, or even equal
to man, being permitted to be employed as the medium of temptation. Man was thereby
put at no disadvantage. His senses were not confounded by a supersensible
manifestation. His presence of mind was not disturbed by an unusual appearance.
Fourth. The actions ascribed to the tempter agree with the literal serpent. Wounding the
heel, creeping on the belly, and biting the dust, are suitable to a mere animal, and
especially to the serpent. The only exception is the speaking, and, what is implied in this,
the reasoning. These, however, do not disprove the presence of the literal serpent when
accompanied with a plain statement of its presence. They only indicate, and that to more
experienced observers than our first parents, the presence of a lurking spirit, expressing
its thoughts by the organs of the serpent.
It may be thought strange that the presence of this higher being is not explicitly
noticed by the sacred writer. But it is the manner of Scripture not to distinguish and
explain all the realities which it relates, but to describe the obvious phenomena as they
present themselves to the senses; especially when the scope of the narrative does not
require more, and a future revelation or the exercise of a sanctified experience will in due
time bring out their interpretation. Thus, the doings of the magicians in Egypt are not
distinguished from those of Moses by any disparaging epithet Exo_7:10-12. Only those
of Moses are greater, and indicate thereby a higher power. The witch of Endor is
consulted, and Samuel appears; but the narrative is not careful to distinguish then and
there whether by the means of witchcraft or by the very power of God. It was not
necessary for the moral training of our first parents at that early stage of their existence
to know who the real tempter was. It would not have altered the essential nature of the
temptation, of the sentence pronounced on any of the parties, or of the hopes held out to
those who were beguiled.
This brings into view a system of analogy and mutual relation pervading the whole of
Scripture as well as nature, according to which the lower order of things is a natural type
of the higher, and the nearer of the more remote. This law displays itself in the history of
creation, which, in the creative work of the six days, figures to our minds, and, as it were,
lays out in the distance those other antecedent processes of creative power that have
intervened since the first and absolute creation; in the nature of man, which presents on
the surface the animal operations in wonderful harmony with the spiritual functions of
his complex being; in the history of man, where the nearer in history, in prophecy, in
353

354. space, in time, in quality, matter, life, vegetative and animate, shadow forth the more
remote. All these examples of the scriptural method of standing on and starting from the
near to the far are founded upon the simple fact that nature is a rational system of
things, every part of which has its counterpart in every other. Hence, the history of one
thing is, in a certain form, the history of all things of the same kind.
The serpent is of a crafty instinct, and finds, accordingly, its legitimate place at the
lowest step of the animal system. Satan seeks the opportunity of tempting Adam, and, in
the fitness of things, turns to the serpent as the ready medium of his assault upon
human integrity. He was limited to such a medium. He was not permitted to have any
contact with man, except through the senses and in the way of speech. He was also
necessitated to have recourse to the serpent, as the only creature suited to his purpose.
The place of the serpent in the scale of animals was in keeping with the crookedness of
its instinct. It was cursed above all cattle, since it was inferior to them in the lack of those
limbs which serve for rising, moving, and holding; such as legs and arms. This meaning
of cursed is familiar to Scripture. “Cursed is the ground for thy seed” Gen_3:17. It
needed the toil of man to repress thorns and thistles, and cultivate plants more useful
and needful to man. “This people who knoweth not the law are cursed” Joh_7:49. This is
a relative use of the word, by which a thing is said to be cursed in respect of its failing to
serve a particular end. Hence, the serpent’s condition was a fit emblem of the spiritual
serpent’s punishment for its evil doings regarding man.
Through the inscrutable wisdom of the Divine Providence, however, it was not
necessary, or may not have been necessary, to change in the main the state of the natural
serpent or the natural earth in order to carry out the ends of justice. The former
symbolized in a very striking manner the helplessness and disappointment of the enemy
of man. The latter exacted that labor of man which was the just consequence of his
disobedience. This consequence would have been avoided if he had continued to be
entitled to the tree of life, which could no doubt have been propagated beyond its
original bounds. But a change in the moral relation of the heart toward God brings along
with it in the unsearchable ways of divine wisdom a change as great in the bearing of the
events of time on the destiny of man. While the heart is with God, all things work
together for good to us. When the heart is estranged from him, all things as inevitably
work together for evil, without any material alteration in the system of nature.
We may even ascend a step higher into the mysteries of providence; for a disobedient
heart, that forms the undeserving object of the divine compassion, may be for a time the
unconscious slave of a train of circumstances, which is working out its recovery from the
curse as well as the power of sin through the teaching of the Divine Spirit. The series of
events may be the same in which another is floating down the stream of perdition. But to
the former these events are the turning points of a wondrous moral training, which is to
end in reconciliation to God and restoration to his likeness.
A race, in like manner, that has fallen from communion with God, may be the subject
of a purpose of mercy, which works out, in the providence of God, the return of some to
his home and love, and the wandering of others away further and further into the
darkness and misery of enmity with God.
And though this system of things is simple and uniform in the eyes of the only wise
God, yet to human view parts of it appear only as special arrangements and retributions,
exactly meeting the case of man and serving for his moral education. No doubt they are
so. But they are also parts of a constant course of nature, pursued with undeviating
regularity, yet ordered with such infallible wisdom as to accomplish at the same time
354

355. both general and special ends. Hence, without any essential change in the serpent’s
natural instincts, it serves for a striking monument of the defeat and destruction of the
devil and his works. The ground, without any change in its inherent nature, but merely
by the removal, it may be, of the tree of life, is cursed to man, as it demands that toil
which is the mark of a fallen race.
The question of miracles, or special interpositions of the divine will and power which
cross the laws of nature, is not now before us. By the very definition of miracles they
transcend the laws of nature; that is, of that system of events which is known to us by
observation. But it does not follow that they transcend a higher law of the divine plan,
which may, partly by revelation and partly even by a deeper study of ourselves and
things around us, be brought to light. By the investigations of geology we seem
compelled to acknowledge a succession of creations at great intervals of time, as a law of
the divine procedure on our globe. But, thousands of years before geology was
conceived, one such creation, subsequent to the great primal act by which the universe
was called into existence, was made known to us by divine revelation. And beside
periodical miracle, we find recorded in the Book of Revelation a series of miracles, which
were performed in pursuance of the divine purpose of grace toward the fallen race of
man. These are certainly above nature, according to the largest view of it which has ever
been current among our philosophers. But let us not therefore imagine that they are
above reason or grace - above the resources and determinations of the divine mind and
will concerning the development of the universe.
CLARKE, "Unto Adam he said - The man being the last in the transgression is
brought up last to receive his sentence: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of
thy wife - “thou wast not deceived, she only gave and counseled thee to eat; this thou
shouldst have resisted;” and that he did not is the reason of his condemnation. Cursed is
the ground for thy sake - from henceforth its fertility shall be greatly impaired; in sorrow
shalt thou eat of it - be in continual perplexity concerning the seed time and the harvest,
the cold and the heat, the wet and the dry. How often are all the fruits of man’s toll
destroyed by blasting, by mildew, by insects, wet weather, land floods, etc.! Anxiety and
carefulness are the laboring man’s portion.
GILL, "And unto Adam he said,.... Last of all, being the last that sinned, but not to
be excused:
because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife; which was not only
mean but sinful, since it was opposite to the voice of God, which he ought to have
hearkened to God is to be hearkened to and obeyed rather than man, and much rather
than a woman; to regard the persuasion of a woman, and neglect the command of God,
is a great aggravation of such neglect; see Act_4:19.
and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee; saying, thou shall not
eat of it; that is, had eat of the fruit of the tree which God had plainly pointed unto him,
and concerning which he had given a clear and an express command not to eat of it; and
had delivered it to him in the strongest manner, and had most peremptorily and strictly
355

356. enjoined it, adding the threatening of death unto it; so that he could by no means plead
ignorance in himself, or any obscurity in the law, or pretend he did not understand the
sense of the legislator. The righteous sentence therefore follows:
cursed is the ground for thy sake; the whole earth, which was made for man, and
all things in it, of which he had the possession and dominion, and might have enjoyed
the use of everything in it, with comfort and pleasure; that which was man's greatest
earthly blessing is now turned into a curse by sin, which is a proof of the exceeding
sinfulness of it, and its just demerit: so in later instances, a "fruitful land" is turned "into
barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein", Psa_107:34 hence, whenever
there is sterility in a country, a want of provisions, a famine, it should always be imputed
to sin; and this should put us in mind of the sin of the first man, and the consequence of
that:
in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life, meaning that with much toil
and trouble, in manuring and cultivating the earth, he should get his living out of the
produce of it, though with great difficulty; and this would be his case as long as he was in
it.
HENRY 17-19, "We have here the sentence passed upon Adam, which is prefaced
with a recital of his crime: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, Gen_
3:17. He excused the fault, by laying it on his wife: She gave it me. But God does not
admit the excuse. She could but tempt him, she could not force him; though it was her
fault to persuade him to eat, it was his fault to hearken to her. Thus men's frivolous pleas
will, in the day of God's judgment, not only be overruled, but turned against them, and
made the grounds of their sentence. Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee. Observe,
I. God put marks of his displeasure on Adam in three instances: -
1. His habitation is, by this sentence, cursed: Cursed is the ground for thy sake; and
the effect of that curse is, Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee. It is here
intimated that his habitation should be changed; he should no longer dwell in a
distinguished, blessed, paradise, but should be removed to common ground, and that
cursed. The ground, or earth, is here put for the whole visible creation, which, by the sin
of man, is made subject to vanity, the several parts of it being not so serviceable to man's
comfort and happiness as they were designed to be when they were made, and would
have been if he had not sinned. God gave the earth to the children of men, designing it to
be a comfortable dwelling to them. But sin has altered the property of it. It is now cursed
for man's sin; that is, it is a dishonourable habitation, it bespeaks man mean, that his
foundation is in the dust; it is a dry and barren habitation, its spontaneous productions
are now weeds and briers, something nauseous or noxious; what good fruits it produces
must be extorted from it by the ingenuity and industry of man. Fruitfulness was its
blessing, for man's service (Gen_1:11, Gen_1:29), and now barrenness was its curse, for
man's punishment. It is not what it was in the day it was created. Sin turned a fruitful
land into barrenness; and man, having become as the wild ass's colt, has the wild ass's
lot, the wilderness for his habitation, and the barren land his dwelling, Job_39:6; Psa_
68:6. Had not this curse been in part removed, for aught I know, the earth would have
been for ever barren, and never produced any thing but thorns and thistles. The ground
is cursed, that is, doomed to destruction at the end of time, when the earth, and all the
works that are therein, shall be burnt up for the sin of man, the measure of whose
356

357. iniquity will then be full, 2Pe_3:7, 2Pe_3:10. But observe a mixture of mercy in this
sentence. (1.) Adam himself is not cursed, as the serpent was (Gen_3:14), but only the
ground for his sake. God had blessings in him, even the holy seed: Destroy it not, for
that blessing is in it, Isa_65:8. And he had blessings in store for him; therefore he is not
directly and immediately cursed, but, as it were, at second hand. (2.) He is yet above
ground. The earth does not open and swallow him up; only it is not what it was: as he
continues alive, notwithstanding his degeneracy from his primitive purity and rectitude,
so the earth continues to be his habitation, notwithstanding its degeneracy from its
primitive beauty and fruitfulness. (3.) This curse upon the earth, which cut off all
expectations of a happiness in things below, might direct and quicken him to look for
bliss and satisfaction only in things above.
2. His employments and enjoyments are all embittered to him.
(1.) His business shall henceforth become a toil to him, and he shall go on with it in
the sweat of his face, Gen_3:19. His business, before he sinned, was a constant pleasure
to him, the garden was then dressed without any uneasy labour, and kept without any
uneasy care; but now his labour shall be a weariness and shall waste his body; his care
shall be a torment and shall afflict his mind. The curse upon the ground which made it
barren, and produced thorns and thistles, made his employment about it much more
difficult and toilsome. If Adam had not sinned, he had not sweated. Observe here, [1.]
That labour is our duty, which we must faithfully perform; we are bound to work, not as
creatures only, but as criminals; it is part of our sentence, which idleness daringly defies.
[2.] That uneasiness and weariness with labour are our just punishment, which we must
patiently submit to, and not complain of, since they are less than our iniquity deserves.
Let not us, by inordinate care and labour, make our punishment heavier than God has
made it; but rather study to lighten our burden, and wipe off our sweat, by eyeing
Providence in all and expecting rest shortly.
(2.) His food shall henceforth become (in comparison with what it had been)
unpleasant to him. [1.] The matter of his food is changed; he must now eat the herb of
the field, and must no longer be feasted with the delicacies of the garden of Eden. Having
by sin made himself like the beasts that perish, he is justly turned to be a fellow-
commoner with them, and to eat grass as oxen, till he know that the heavens do rule.
[2.] There is a change in the manner of his eating it: In sorrow (Gen_3:17) and in the
sweat of his face (Gen_3:19) he must eat of it. Adam could not but eat in sorrow all the
days of his life, remembering the forbidden fruit he had eaten, and the guilt and shame
he had contracted by it. Observe, First, That human life is exposed to many miseries and
calamities, which very much embitter the poor remains of its pleasures and delights.
Some never eat with pleasure (Job_21:25), through sickness or melancholy; all, even the
best, have cause to eat with sorrow for sin; and all, even the happiest in this world, have
some allays to their joy: troops of diseases, disasters, and deaths, in various shapes,
entered the world with sin, and still ravage it. Secondly, That the righteousness of God is
to be acknowledged in all the sad consequences of sin. Wherefore then should a living
man complain? Yet, in this part of the sentence, there is also a mixture of mercy. He
shall sweat, but his toil shall make his rest the more welcome when he returns to his
earth, as to his bed; he shall grieve, but he shall not starve; he shall have sorrow, but in
that sorrow he shall eat bread, which shall strengthen his heart under his sorrows. He is
not sentenced to eat dust as the serpent, only to eat the herb of the field.
3. His life also is but short. Considering how full of trouble his days are, it is in favour
to him that they are few; yet death being dreadful to nature (yea, even though life be
unpleasant) that concludes the sentence. “Thou shalt return to the ground out of which
357

358. thou wast taken; thy body, that part of thee which was taken out of the ground, shall
return to it again; for dust thou art.” This points either to the first original of his body; it
was made of the dust, nay it was made dust, and was still so; so that there needed no
more than to recall the grant of immortality, and to withdraw the power which was put
forth to support it, and then he would, of course, return to dust. Or to the present
corruption and degeneracy of his mind: Dust thou art, that is, “Thy precious soul is now
lost and buried in the dust of the body and the mire of the flesh; it was made spiritual
and heavenly, but it has become carnal and earthly.” His doom is therefore read: “To
dust thou shalt return. Thy body shall be forsaken by thy soul, and become itself a lump
of dust; and then it shall be lodged in the grave, the proper place for it, and mingle itself
with the dust of the earth,” our dust, Psa_104:29. Earth to earth, dust to dust. Observe
here, (1.) That man is a mean frail creature, little as dust, the small dust of the balance -
light as dust, altogether lighter than vanity - weak as dust, and of no consistency. Our
strength is not the strength of stones; he that made us considers it, and remembers that
we are dust, Psa_103:14. Man is indeed the chief part of the dust of the world (Pro_
8:26), but still he is dust. (2.) That he is a mortal dying creature, and hastening to the
grave. Dust may be raised, for a time, into a little cloud, and may seem considerable
while it is held up by the wind that raised it; but, when the force of that is spent, it falls
again, and returns to the earth out of which it was raised. Such a thing is man; a great
man is but a great mass of dust, and must return to his earth. (3.) That sin brought death
into the world. If Adam had not sinned, he would not have died, Rom_5:12. God
entrusted Adam with a spark of immortality, which he, by a patient continuance in well-
doing, might have blown up into an everlasting flame; but he foolishly blew it out by
wilful sin: and now death is the wages of sin, and sin is the sting of death.
II. We must not go off from this sentence upon our first parents, which we are all so
nearly concerned in, and feel from, to this day, till we have considered two things: -
1. How fitly the sad consequences of sin upon the soul of Adam and his sinful race
were represented and figured out by this sentence, and perhaps were more intended in it
than we are aware of. Though that misery only is mentioned which affected the body, yet
that was a pattern of spiritual miseries, the curse that entered into the soul. (1.) The
pains of a woman in travail represent the terrors and pangs of a guilty conscience,
awakened to a sense of sin; from the conception of lust, these sorrows are greatly
multiplied, and, sooner or later, will come upon the sinner like pain upon a woman in
travail, which cannot be avoided. (2.) The state of subjection to which the woman was
reduced represents that loss of spiritual liberty and freedom of will which is the effect of
sin. The dominion of sin in the soul is compared to that of a husband (Rom_7:1-5), the
sinner's desire is towards it, for he is fond of his slavery, and it rules over him. (3.) The
curse of barrenness which was brought upon the earth, and its produce of briars and
thorns, are a fit representation of the barrenness of a corrupt and sinful soul in that
which is good and its fruitfulness in evil. It is all overgrown with thorns, and nettles
cover the face of it; and therefore it is nigh unto cursing, Heb_6:8. (4.) The toil and
sweat bespeak the difficulty which, through the infirmity of the flesh, man labours
under, in the service of God and the work of religion, so hard has it now become to enter
into the kingdom of heaven. Blessed be God, it is not impossible. (5.) The embittering of
his food to him bespeaks the soul's want of the comfort of God's favour, which is life, and
the bread of life. (6.) The soul, like the body, returns to the dust of this world; its
tendency is that way; it has an earthy taint, Joh_3:31.
2. How admirably the satisfaction our Lord Jesus made by his death and sufferings
answered to the sentence here passed upon our first parents. (1.) Did travailing pains
358

359. come in with sin? We read of the travail of Christ's soul (Isa_53:11); and the pains o
death he was held by are called odinai (Act_2:24), the pains of a woman in travail. (2.)
Did subjection come in with sin? Christ was made under the law, Gal_4:4. (3.) Did the
curse come in with sin? Christ was made a curse for us, died a cursed death, Gal_3:13.
(4.) Did thorns come in with sin? He was crowned with thorns for us. (5.) Did sweat
come in with sin? He for us did sweat as it were great drops of blood. (6.) Did sorrow
come in with sin? He was a man of sorrows, his soul was, in his agony, exceedingly
sorrowful. (7.) Did death come in with sin? He became