Untitled Sermon (3)
At the head of the pronouncement against the serpent is the cause for the ensuing judgment.197 “You have done this” echoes the question God put to the woman (v. 13). There is a clear tie between the serpent’s actions and the punishment that follows. God does not render judgment arbitrarily or capriciously. Moreover, there is a correspondence between the nature of the judgment and the crime committed. As the cleverness of the serpent distinguishes it from the other animals (3:1), the “curse” for that trickery distinguishes the serpent from them as well.
In the stream of the narrative’s focus on blessing, this pronouncement stands out as the first occurrence of divine “curse.” Its root (ʾārar) appears fifty-five times in the Old Testament, predominantly in the Pentateuch with eight occurrences in Genesis.198 It is important particularly to the listed curses and blessings regarding Israel’s covenant (Deut 27–28). “Curse” conveys the idea of imprecation where verbal or written utterances invoke misery against a person or thing. The word ʾālâ (“curse”) commonly is used for such imprecations, whereas ʾārar often indicates a decree or pronouncement against someone by an authority. Only God can actually impose this decree, and thus it supposes, even if spoken by a man, that the power carrying out the malediction can come only from deity (as Noah’s curse, 9:25). “Cursed” (ʾārûr), as found here and in v. 17, is the typical way of introducing a decree of doom (also 4:11; 9:25; cf. 27:29; Deut 27:15–26; 28:16–20).199
The serpent’s punishment has three aspects: (1) consignment to crawling on its belly, (2) the eating of dust “all the days of your life” (v. 14), and (3) its ultimate destruction by the wounded “seed” of the woman (v. 15). Several elements in the oracle echo the temptation (3:1–5). “Cursed” (ʾārûr) is another wordplay on the earlier “crafty” (ʿārûm; cf. 3:1). Both verses describe the serpent’s distinction within the animal world. Ill-use of his shrewdness resulted in divine censure. “Eating” dust reflects Eve’s temptation to “eat” of the tree and the couple’s subsequent fall by eating. Also the retaliation of the woman’s seed over against the viper’s offspring (v. 15) answers the snake’s first triumph. His triumph will not be the last word.
These punishments are related to the snake’s life of humiliation and subjugation in the natural world. God’s condemnation is not directed against the reptile per se but the adversary that it represents. While some Jewish interpreters surmised that the serpent must have originally been four-legged, there is no compelling reason for this conclusion.200 It is enough to describe the present characteristics of the snake, which indicate by themselves the disgrace of the beast. As mentioned earlier (v. 1), the food laws of the Mosaic covenant declare that animals whose locomotion is on the ground are abhorred as unclean and to be avoided (Lev 11:42).201
Eating dust is a common figure for personal humiliation elsewhere in Scripture.202 Moreover, by “dust” there is an anticipation of God’s pronouncement of Adam’s death (3:19). The reptile is responsible for the demise of the man, who returns to the “dust,” and as the serpent’s diet it will be a perpetual reminder of its crime. “All the days of your life” speaks to the ultimate end of the serpent and its offspring. “Your life” (ḥayyêkâ) may be an allusion to the snake’s false promise, “You will surely not die” (v. 4), made to Eve, who ironically is later recognized as the source of “all the living” (ḥay; 3:20). Hence, the snake brought about his own death by his treachery, but ultimately Eve through her seed will outlive her adversary.
3:15 The curse upon the serpent includes its final destruction by the descendant of the woman. This animosity is at the instigation of God. The serpent was instrumental in the undoing of the woman, and in turn the woman will ultimately bring down the serpent through her offspring. At one level the hostility between serpent and woman reflects the universal enmity people have for such reptiles and therefore serves as a prototype. However, this is no etiology designed to explain why man abhors snakes since the verse indicates there is a future history for the serpent and the woman. That future history of antagonism is not delineated here, yet the conclusion of the matter is made explicit: the serpent has a limited life expectancy that will come to a violent end.
“Enmity” has the intensity of hostility experienced among nations in warfare (e.g., Ezek 25:15; 35:5) and the level of animosity that results in murder (e.g., Num 35:21). The language of the passage indicates a life-and-death struggle between combatants. “Crush” and “strike” translate the same Hebrew verb šûp (AV, “bruise”)203 and describe the combatants’ parallel action, but the location of the blow distinguishes the severity and success of the attack. The impact delivered by the offspring of the woman “at the head” is mortal, while the serpent will deliver a blow only “at the heel.” Continuing the imagery of the snake, the strike at the human heel is appropriate for a serpent since it slithers along the ground, while the human foot stomps the head of the vile creature.
“Between you [serpent]” has the singular pronoun (as elsewhere in the verse), meaning that this hostility begins with the beast and the woman as individuals. Yet their experience is shared by their offspring too; the serpent and woman are distinct from their offspring yet also one and the same with them. Here we have the common case where an individual represents many.204 Eve and her adversary are the progenitors of a lifelong struggle that will persist until a climactic moment when the woman’s offspring will achieve the upper hand.
This continuum of experience between parent and offspring is seen by the parallelism of the verse (v. 15b//15c): “between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.”205 Moreover, “offspring” is the rendering of the Hebrew term for “seed” (zeraʿ), which may refer to an individual or to a group. It is ambiguous by itself since it may be singular, referring to a specific child (e.g., 4:25), or a singular collective indicating a plural progeny (e.g., 12:7; Isa 41:8). Modern versions show this by their diverse renderings, proposing singular or plural translations for the following pronouns.206 “Seed” is a resourceful term for speaking of all human history while at the same time permitting a reference to a specific individual descendant. This explains why the individual offspring of the woman (“he,” “his heel”) can be said to do battle with the progenitor serpent (“your head,” “you”) in v. 15d and 15e.
“Seed” (zeraʿ) is a critical term in the whole of Genesis and the Pentateuch. It first occurs in a literal sense in the creation account (1:11–12, 29), but here it is metaphorical and takes on programmatic significance. Of its fifty-nine occurrences in Genesis, the majority are found in the patriarchal narratives (47×), where the focal concern lies with the genealogical lineage of the chosen family.207 The patriarchal accounts explain what is only introduced in 3:15. The creation blessing (1:28), which was jeopardized by the couple’s disobedience, is particularized through the Hebrew fathers, who will be instrumental in its realization. Chapter 3’s oracle implies a hope for the human family that despite their sin there will be a fulfillment of the blessing through progeny as foreseen at creation (1:26–28). This hope for the appointed “seed” is unveiled progressively by the offspring of Eve through Seth (“another seed,” 4:26; his genealogy, 5:1–32), through Noah’s offspring (9:9), and the seed of Abraham first described in 12:7 (with 12:1–3).208 Moreover, this promise points to the Mosaic community, which defined itself as the offspring promised to Abraham (e.g., Exod 32:11–14; Deut 11:8–12).
Also this hostility finds immediate expression between wicked Cain and his brother Abel (4:8). God’s forewarning of Cain that “sin is crouching at your door” (4:7) may be an allusion to the struggle that 3:15 envisions. But the adversary wins the first battle when Cain yields to sin and murders the woman’s seed, Abel. This strife between the elect line and the cursed is again envisioned in Noah’s curse and blessing (9:24–27). It also foreshadows the tension between the patriarchs and the nations as they experience an uneasy coexistence in Canaan and Egypt (e.g., chap. 38). For later Israel this hostility comes to full fury when Egypt instigates a purge of Hebrew children, from which baby Moses is delivered, and climaxes with God’s tenth plague against Pharaoh’s firstborn. It also anticipates Moses’ wars and the hostility Israel faces as it migrates to the land of Canaan.
Christian tradition has referred to 3:15 as the protevangelium since it has been taken as the prototype for the Christian gospel. Historically interpreters have differed about whether “her seed” refers to an individual or is a collective singular indicating all humanity. The LXX version may be the earliest attested interpretation of “seed” as an individual. It translates the Hebrew zeraʿ (“seed”) with the Greek sperma, a neuter noun. The expected antecedent pronoun is “it [auto] will crush your head,” but the Greek has “he” (autos), which suggests that the translators interpreted “seed” as an individual.209 The Targums, Jewish pseudepigrapha, and later rabbinic commentators, however, generally viewed the “seed” as collective for humankind. Christian interpreters showed a mixed opinion.210 Justin and Irenaeus interpreted the woman of 3:15 as the virgin Mary by drawing a parallel with Eve. Greek Fathers, such as Chrysostom, viewed 3:15 as a depiction of the struggle between Satan and humanity. Still others interpreted “seed” as the church. Among the Latin Fathers, Augustine with others allegorized or moralized the verse, indicating a collective use. Others saw in it a specific reference to the virgin birth. This was aided by some Old Latin texts and the Vulgate, which had the feminine pronoun “she [ipsa] shall crush” rather than the masculine. It was Ambrose who first quoted 3:15 as not “her seed” but “the woman’s seed.” Among the Reformers, Luther took “her seed” as reference to both humanity in general and Christ in particular;211 Calvin demurred such a view and applied it as a collective, not to all humanity but rather to the church under the headship of Christ, which would prove victorious (quoting Rom 16:20).212
Our passage provides for this mature reflection that points to Christ as the vindicator of the woman (cp. Rom 16:20). There may be an allusion to our passage in Gal 4:4, which speaks of God’s Son as “born of a woman.”213 Specifically, Paul identified Christ as the “seed” ultimately intended in the promissory blessing to Abraham (Gal 3:16), and Abraham’s believing offspring includes the church (Rom 4:13, 16–18; Gal 3:8). This is further developed in John’s Gospel, where the spiritual dimension is at the forefront. Jesus alluded to our verse when he indicted the Pharisees as children of the “devil” because of their spiritual apostasy (John 8:44), contrary to their claims to be the offspring of righteous Abraham (8:39). John used similar imagery when he contrasted God’s “seed” and those who are “of the devil” (1 John 3:7–10). This is heightened by his appeal to Cain’s murder of righteous Abel as paradigmatic of one “who belonged to the evil one” (3:11–15). Finally, the Apocalypse describes the “red dragon,” who is identified as “that ancient serpent” (Rev 12:9), opposing the believing community (i.e., the woman) and plotting the destruction of her child (i.e., the Messiah). Ultimately, “that ancient serpent” is destroyed by God for its deception of the nations (Rev 20:2, 7–10).
3:16 Unlike the penalties announced against the serpent and the man (i.e., “the ground,” v. 17), there is no occurrence of “curse” related to the woman’s suffering. Moreover, there is no cause specified for her suffering, whereas the serpent is charged with deception (v. 14) and the man with eating disobediently (v. 17). This is due to the woman’s culpability through deception, in contrast with the willful rebellion of the serpent and man; also the oracle has a gentler word for the woman since her punishment entails the salvation of the human couple (v. 15). Whereas the man’s action condemned the human family, Eve will play the critical role in liberating them from sin’s consequences. This is realized in part immediately since the woman gives birth to new life (e.g., 4:1, 25), but v. 15 indicates that the final conflict will also be humanity’s victory by virtue of the woman’s role as childbearer.
Controversial opinion has arisen in recent times regarding the interpretation of the woman’s judgment since contemporary feminism has awakened a reconsideration of women’s roles in the home, society, and the church.214 Whereas traditionally the woman’s submission to her husband was accepted as an ordinance of creation215 that was corrupted by the fall and which can only be restored through the Christian gospel, new voices propose that Eve’s submission was an altogether new state resulting from sin.216 Alternatively, it has been proposed that the submissive role of the woman at 3:16b, whether or not viewed originally as a creation ordinance, is read as a “blessing” that insures that salvation will be accomplished by the seed of the woman.217
Confusion revolves around the extent to which the penalty in 3:14–19 altered the condition of the participants, many reasoning that the serpent’s anatomy was altered and the woman’s position as Adam’s peer changed. There is no anatomical alteration, however, and no change in the essential position of the serpent and the woman; rather there is added the burden of humiliation. The snake remains the crafty beast that he was, but now he is distinguished from the animals in humiliation as well (cp. vv. 1 and 14). Likewise the woman continues her ordained role as childbearer and, as we contended at 2:23, her followship function, but now she will experience “painful labor” in childbirth, and her submission is insured. Also the man carries on his commission to lead in agricultural pursuits, but now his vocation will be marked by strenuous “labor,” and he will return to “dust” in humiliation.
The woman’s penalty impacts her two primary roles: childbearing and her relationship with her husband. It is appropriate punishment since procreation was central to her divine commission and because she had been instrumental in her husband’s ruin (cf. 3:17a). Just as God initiates the enmity between the woman and serpent, he is responsible (“I will greatly increase”) for the pain she will experience in the birth of that “seed,” which will ultimately defeat her archenemy (cf. Gal 4:4; 1 Tim 2:15). The verse consists of two parallel lines (literally): “I will greatly increase your painful labor and your conception”// “in painful labor you will bear sons (v. 16a); and to your husband (will be) your desire”//“and he will rule over you” (v. 16b)
First, her penalty stresses the “painful labor” she must endure in childbirth,218 but the punishment also nurtures hope since it assumes that she will live to bear children.219 As parallel terms ʿiṣṣābôn and ʿeṣeb are rendered “painful-labor,” which reflects the customary meaning of ʿiṣṣābôn, “toil.” It occurs just twice more (v. 17; 5:29) and indicates hard labor. Thus the penalty is the attendant labor or hard work that childbearing will now mean for Eve. This matches the “labor” that Adam will undergo as a consequence of the curse against the ground (3:17). By procreation the blessing for the human couple will be realized, and ironically the blessing is assured in the divine pronouncement of the penalty. By this unexpected twist the vehicle of her vindication (i.e., labor) trumpets her need for the deliverance she bears (cp. 1 Cor 11:12). Painful childbirth signals hope but also serves as a perpetual reminder of sin and the woman’s part in it.
Second, her sin also tainted her relationship with her husband. “Desire” (tĕšûqâ) occurs but twice more (Gen 4:7; Song 7:10 [11]), and its meaning in our passage is highly disputed. It has been explained widely as sexual desire on the basis of Song 7:10 [11] and the reference to childbirth in 3:15. If so, the adversative rendering of the following clause, “yet he will rule” (as NASB, NRSV), would mean that despite her painful experience in childbirth she will still have (sexual) desires for her husband.220 In other words, the promissory blessing of procreation will persist despite any possible reluctance on her part due to the attendant pain of delivery. Others view the woman’s desire as broader, including an emotional or economic reliance on her husband. In other words, she acted independently of her husband in eating the fruit, and the consequent penalty is that she will become dependent on him. Her new desire is to be submissive to the man, and, quite naturally, he will oblige by ruling over her.221 Some have mitigated the idea of penalty by contending that Eve’s submission is a penalty only when her husband takes advantage of his position and mistreats her.222 Others argue that 3:16 is no part of the judgment; it is a description of the inherent consequences of sin wherein the headship of the man has been corrupted by sin.223
Although sexual “desire” conforms to v. 15, better is the explanation suggested by Gen 4:7b, where “desire” and “rule” [māšal] are found again in tandem: “It desires to have you, but you must master [māšal] it.”224 In chap. 4 “sin” is like an animal that when stirred up will assault Cain; it “desires” to overcome Cain, but the challenge God puts to Cain is to exercise “rule” or “mastery” over that unruly desire. If we are to take the lexical and structural similarities as intentional, we must read the verses in concert. This recommends that 3:16b also describes a struggle for mastery between the sexes. The “desire” of the woman is her attempt to control her husband, but she will fail because God has ordained that the man exercise his leadership function. The force of the defeat is obscured somewhat by the rendering “and he will rule”; the conjunction is better understood as “but he will rule.” The directive for “rule” is not given to the man, for that has already been given and is assumed (2:15, 18); rather, the issue of “rule” is found in God’s directive toward the woman, who must succumb by divine edict. Thus the Lord affirms in the oracles of judgment the creation order: the serpent is subjected to the woman, the woman to the man, and all to the Lord. “In those moments of life’s greatest blessing—marriage and children—the woman would serve most clearly the painful consequences of her rebellion from God.”225
What is the nature of the man’s “rule”? “Rule,” as verb or derivative, is found seven additional times in Genesis, where it may indicate governance (1:16 [twice], 18; cf. Ps 136:7–9) and refers to exercising jurisdiction (24:2; 37:8; 45:8, 26). The temperament of “rule” in the Old Testament is dependent on the varying circumstances in which that power is exercised.226 The term is used too broadly to isolate its meaning in 3:16b lexically as either beneficent or tyrannical.227 Human jurisdiction over the lower orders, however, is expressed by the different verb “dominate” (rādâ; 1:28), suggesting that the man does not “rule” his wife in the sense that he subdues the animals. We cannot understand the divine word “he will rule over you” as a command to impose dominance any more than v. 16a is an exhortation for the woman to suffer as much as possible during childbirth. It is a distortion of the passage to find in it justification for male tyranny. On the contrary, ancient Israel provided safeguards for protecting women from unscrupulous men (e.g., Deut 24:1–4), and the New Testament takes steps to restrain domination. Paul admonished men and women to practice mutual submission (Eph 5:22–33) and cautioned husbands to exercise love and protection without harshness (Col 3:19). Because of the threat of harsh dominance, Paul commanded Christian charity toward women in the community of the home and the church.
3:17–18 The final word is directed against the man (vv. 17–19). Adam’s penalty also fit his crime since his appointed role was intimately related to the ground from which he was made and which he was charged to cultivate (2:7, 15). Now the “ground” is decreed under divine “curse” on his account (see 3:14 discussion). The man will suffer (1) lifelong, toilsome labor (vv. 17–18) and finally (2) death, which is described as the reversal of the creation process (v. 19 with 2:7). Although the woman will die too (2:17), the death oracle is not pronounced against her since she is the source of life and therefore living hope for the human couple. It is the man who bears the greater blame for his conduct and is the direct recipient of God’s death sentence.
As in the pronouncement against the serpent (v. 14), God pinpoints the reason for the ensuing penalty (v. 17). Adam listened to his wife and ate of the forbidden fruit. Repeating the original prohibition verbatim, “you must not eat of it” (2:17), reinforces the severity of the crime and reminds him of the dire consequences of his rebellion. Emphasis on the second person “you” and “your” sharpens God’s focus on the man’s individual fault. There is no room for avoidance now; he is caught without a word to say.
Moreover, the punishment reveals that the man’s sin is the cause for the “curse” against the ground, resulting in its harvest of thorns and thistles. Ironically, the ground that was under the man’s care in the garden as his source of joy and life (2:15) becomes the source of pain for the man’s wearisome existence (v. 17). For the woman childbirth was marked with its attendant pain (v. 16), and in the cultivation of the wild and stubborn ground the man will know the toilsome pain of deriving food from the dust. The ground will now be his enemy rather than his servant. The same expression “all the days of your life” occurred in God’s judgment against the serpent, where he will eat “dust” as his punishment (v. 14). This punishment also involves the “dust” of the ground, tying together the two crimes and their consequences.
“Thorns and thistles” become the native product of the land (v. 18), but it was not always so (see 2:5–6 discussion). This new condition of the land, “producing” (ṣmḥ) its yield of thorns, stands in conspicuous contrast to God’s beneficent creative act, where he brought forth (ṣmḥ) a gorgeous and nutritious orchard for the man’s pleasure (2:9). Adam’s sin has spoiled his environment, and it suffers along with him since both are of the “dust.” “You will eat the plants of the field” echoes 2:5 and anticipates his expulsion from the garden (3:23), outside where he must battle the elements as a toiling farmer. Now the conditions of land and life are those we are accustomed to, which at one time did not exist (2:5–7) but have come about by the man’s sin. The passage has brought us full circle from creation’s bliss to sin’s burden. Nevertheless, the sentencing itself contains God’s gracious provision since the man will still derive sustenance from the ground for survival.
Moreover, there remains hope for a final, full liberation for both Adam and the environment that will occur at the glorious consummation of the age. Paul’s commentary on vv. 17–18 in Rom 8:19–22 points to the future hope that the natural (nonrational) creation possesses.228 The world experienced corruption, not of its own choosing but by the condemnation of God for the sin of Adam; however, creation looks to the prospects of redemption that will be realized by it and the saints at the advent of Christ’s glory. Both the creation and the “children of God” groan as with birth pangs (Gen 3:15–16) for the dawning of the new era. Paul’s point was that this very groaning confirms the hope of the children of God for their full future adoption and redemption, which presently is assured by the Spirit.
3:19 Here we come to the last word of judgment. Adam’s toil will be without relief until his final destiny of death. This explains Lamech’s later naming of “Noah,” in whom he expresses hope for relief from the drudgery of working the ground that travails under divine curse (see 5:29; 9:20 discussion). Adam is depicted as a broken farmer whose very meals, which are derived from the grain of his agrarian life, are spoiled by the fatigue of his striving. Like the woman’s painful childbirth, the man’s daily labors with their attendant woes are a perpetual reminder of sin’s rewards.
The chiasmus underscores the linkage between the man’s creation from “dust” (2:7) and the “return” to the man’s beginnings.229
A you return
B to the ground
C since (kî) from it you were taken
C′ for (kî) dust you are
B′ and to dust
A′ you will return
Adam’s death is portrayed by the dreadful wordplay on his creation and essential physical constitution as the “dust” (ʿāpār) of the “ground” (ʾădāmâ) (2:7; Eccl 3:20; Ps 103:14). His “return” will be from whence he came: ʾādām will become once again ʾădāmâ (“ground”). Death is exactly what God had forewarned (2:17) and what the serpent had denied (3:4). Death comes by the reversal (“returns”) of the man’s God-given state, that is, a “living being” (2:7). This reversal is the deterioration of the body that will “return” to the dust from which it was made (cf. Job 10:9; Ps 104:29). The inner elements of the structure are introduced by parallel conjunctions (kî), rendered as causal in most versions (NIV, NASB, NAB, NJPS, NJB), but the second occurrence has sometimes been taken as emphatic, “indeed dust you are” (REB). “Dust you are” always overcomes the progress of medicine and the ingenuity of cosmetology; every opened casket proves it so.
God did not execute the penalty by taking Adam’s life but by banning him from the rejuvenating power of the tree of life (3:22). Though not excommunicated from the divine presence (4:1–2), Adam’s expulsion from the garden sealed his doom and that of all who followed. Resounding evidence of the divine penalty is found in Seth’s genealogy, where Adam’s death is related (5:5) and the unrelenting knell sounded for generation after generation, “and then he died.” Paul’s interpretation of this passage focuses on physical death brought into this world by the first man (Rom 5:12–21; cf. 6:23). Yet those who are living in the sphere of sin are deemed spiritually dead already (Eph 2:1). Unlike Adam, all his generations are born excluded from the garden; only through the last Adam, who insures the “life-giving spirit,” does human mortality take on the garments of immortality (1 Cor 15:35–58).
3:20–21 Following the lengthy pronouncement of judgment, two events signal a continuing hope for the couple—a hope that ironically the ominous verdicts themselves had contained. The first event is Adam’s naming of his wife “Eve” (v. 20), and the second is God’s provision of animal skins for garments (v. 21). The two events indicate that the couple will survive through the gracious intervention of God.
The name ḥawwâ, meaning “living,” is traditionally rendered “Eve,” following the Greek translation Zōē (“Life”; v. 20). Her name occurs sparsely in Scripture (Gen 4:1; 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13; also Tob 8:6). Hebrew ḥawwâ is phonetically related to the word ḥay (“living”); thus by a phonetic play, Adam explains why she is named Eve. She is the “mother of all living,” for all human life will have its source in her body. This assumes a prodigious posterity, and it is a tribute to Adam’s faith in the prospect that God had revealed (vv. 15–16). Adam had learned, albeit through the most calamitous lesson, to accept God’s word in faithful obedience. Another implication of Adam’s naming the woman is his exercise of responsible headship (cf. 2:23). Before and after the fall, the man is exercising the same prerogative of naming. In the former case he is her source of life, and by naming her “woman” (ʾiššâ) he acknowledges her companionship, but here he admits his indebtedness to her for life’s future.
Following Adam’s act of faith, the Lord acts immediately in behalf of the vulnerable couple by providing adequate protection to cover their embarrassment and to preserve them in the new hostile environment to which they will be banished (v. 21; cf. vv. 7, 18, 23). In the same way that the woman’s pain at birth is a reminder of their disobedience, their clothing confirms that they have sinned against God and that no longer can they walk before deity in innocence (2:25). The language of the verse alludes to tabernacle setting and worship. “Garments” (kūttōnet) and “clothed” (lābaš) are reminiscent of the Pentateuch’s description of priestly garments, particularly for Aaron as high priest.230 This is another lexical link with the symbols of the tabernacle, where the priest must be properly clothed before God in the administration of his service (Exod 20:26; 28:42).231 But Aaron’s priestly garb was woven of colored yarn and fine linen, and his sons wore fine linen garments (e.g., Exod 28:4–5; 28:39; 39:27; Lev 16:4), while the garments of Adam and Eve are made of “skin.” In the Mosaic law the skin of an animal offered for sin or guilt atonement was reserved for the officiating priest (Lev 7:8). Here God bestows “garments of skin” upon the guilty in the garden. Although the text does not specify that animals were slain to provide these coverings, it is a fair implication and one that likely would be made in the Mosaic community, where animal sacrifice was pervasive. Since the garden narrative shares in tabernacle imagery, it is not surprising that allusion to animal sacrifice is found in the garden too. Through an oblique reference to animal sacrifice, the garden narrative paints a theological portrait familiar to the recipients of the Sinai revelation who honored the tabernacle as the meeting place with God. Sacrifice renewed and guaranteed that special union of God with his people (e.g., Day of Atonement, Lev 16). This mode of provision then for Adam and Eve affirmed God’s abiding goodwill.
Moreover, that God “made” (ʿāśâ) these garments stands in striking relief to the seventh day, when God ceased from all that he had “made” (ʿāśâ) (2:2–3). “Made” routinely describes God’s creative work, occurring eleven times in 1:1–2:4. God has “made” the woman (2:18) and the animals of the fields (3:1) as acts of creation, but now his action in behalf of the couple is salvific in character. The God of the garden as Creator and Savior mirrors the God of tabernacle sacrifice, whom Israel had come to recognize by the voice of Moses and the prophets.
(5) The Man and Woman Expelled (3:22–24)
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Initially the trees of life and knowledge were presented together (2:9); in this final scene of the garden account they are focal again. The tree of knowledge represented the command of the Lord to be obeyed; and if the human couple chose to comply, the tree of life would have been theirs to enjoy. But now that possibility is rescinded. Disobedience has doomed them to mortality. To carry out the just deserts of their transgression (2:17; 3:19), the man and woman are denied access to the tree of life. The prediction of the serpent had in its twisted way come to pass after all. The couple shared in the divine privilege of knowledge, but the result was not divine stature but rather the opposite—human death. For the second time we overhear an intradivine conversation; it first was heard in the creation of man, “Let us make man in our image” (see 1:26). Now the conversation deliberates upon the cutting off of that creation from the source of rejuvenating life (v. 22). In this latter case the mood of the divine contemplation (cp. 11:6) is not one of fear of usurpation but rather of sympathy for the misery the first couple must endure and an assurance that their pitiful state is not consigned for eternity.
3:22 As with the elaborate proclamation of punishment (vv. 14–19), the banishment of the couple includes an explanation for the course taken by divine decision. The particle hēn, commonly rendered “behold” (AV, NASB) or “see” (NRSV, NAB), is best understood as introducing the logical ground for the expulsion, “Since the man” or “Now that the man” (NJB, NJPS).232 Hence the reason for the penalty takes first place in the verse;233 God does not act ruthlessly and arbitrarily toward his creatures. Transcendent moral imperatives are the basis for his chosen action toward the world. The Lord’s attention in this decree is focused upon the “man,” not the woman, since Adam first received the prohibition and is the responsible party for the sin that requires God’s eviction. Although “the man,” possessing the definite article (hāʾādām), can be taken in its generic sense (“human beings,” GNB), it likely refers to Adam, the person, since the narrative specifies the man’s assignment as caretaker of the garden (2:15).
The new condition of the man “in knowing good from evil” (NJB) is the reason for God’s action against the man. The man has achieved God’s wisdom unlawfully, but he will not escape penalty by seizing the tree of life. Eating of the tree would grant him perpetual life, just as the eating of the prohibited tree granted him knowledge. “Take” and “eat” repeats the language of rebellion when the woman “took” and they “ate” from the tree of knowledge (3:6). Though Eve is “the mother of all living [ḥay],” they lost their opportunity to possess divinity’s “eternal life [ḥay].” Life is a divine gift, but it is tied to the stipulation of obedience. Moses offered the same choice of life or death, obedience or disobedience, to Israel on the shores of Moab (Deut 30:11–20). Obedience meant life and prosperity in Canaan, but defiance guaranteed expulsion. Israel’s parents chose banishment, and Israel itself chose exile.
3:23–24 Eviction for the man also meant he must work the “ground” (v. 23) in order to sustain life. Whereas before he was the cultivator of a specially prepared habitat, now he must develop his own garden by working the ground, which is under divine curse (v. 17). His sentence of death is echoed by “from which he was taken,” reminding the reader of man’s temporality (v. 19). The psalmist spoke of the “dust of death” (22:15; cp. Job 7:21) as his end unless the Lord rescues him. His concluding praise (22:22–31) extols God for deliverance from his distress, but it is left to the Greater Psalmist to sing of his deliverance out of death (cf. Ps 22:1 with Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34).
Adam and Eve’s exile is decisive and definitive. “Banished” (ṣālaḥ) is the same language used of Abraham’s action that “sends away” Ishmael and other possible rivals to Isaac (21:14; 25:6). It is descriptive of the scapegoat that is expelled from the camp of Israel (Lev 16:10). Still stronger is the term “drove” (gāraš) in v. 24, which also describes God’s exile of Cain (4:14) and Sarah’s charge to Abraham to “get rid” of the slave girl Hagar with her son (21:10). It is the language of divorce234 and dispossession (e.g., Exod 33:2; Deut 33:27). Adam and Eve are “out in the cold,” and only by the grace of God does this disowned, homeless pair find refuge.
Our passage continues to share the imagery of Moses’ tabernacle by allusion to the “cherubim” at the “east side” of the garden (v. 24). The “east side” of the garden parallels the easterly direction the tabernacle and temple faced, situated west of the altar. This east-west dichotomy indicates that the garden was located to the west of their first habitat outside Eden, and we are told that Cain went eastward “from the LORD’S presence” (4:16). This directional motif “east” occurs often in Genesis: the expulsion of Cain (4:14), the locale of the Tower of Babel (11:2), and the dismissal of Keturah’s sons by Abraham (25:6).
Another allusion to the “east” signifying withdrawal from God is Lot’s departure from Abraham in 13:8–13, where he chose to settle the rich plain of Jordan, which was like the “garden of the LORD” (13:10), and traveled “east” (13:11).235 Entrance to Eden’s garden was guarded by “cherubim,” who are known from the Old Testament as winged, composite beings associated with the presence of God (e.g., Ps 18:10; Ezek 10).236 Their golden images formed the covering of the sacred ark (Exod 25:18–22; 37:7–9) and decorated the curtains of the holy of holies (Exod 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35). Carved cherubim also adorned Solomon’s temple and dominated the most holy place (1 Kgs 6:23–29; 6:29, 36). Accompanying the cherubim is a “flaming sword flashing back and forth” (cf. Ps 104:4), perhaps indicating the judgment of God (e.g., Deut 32:41–42; Ps 83:14 [15]). The cherubim are “placed” (šākan) at the east entrance to the garden to “guard/care for” (šāmar) it against intruders. What pitiful irony that Adam, who was once put there to “care” (šāmar, 2:15) for it, now is “guarded” from it! “Placed,” from which “tabernacle” (miškan) is derived, frequently depicts the “tabernacling” of God among his people and is used of the erection of the tabernacle in the camp (e.g., Exod 25:8; 29:45; Josh 18:1).
Such imagery effectively depicts the excommunication of the man and woman from the presence of God. Later Israel was all too aware that an audience with God was the exclusive privilege of Aaron’s lineage and only at the invitation of God once a year. Our parents squandered what men and women have longed to regain ever since. However, not all is lost since God initiates for Israel a new way into his presence but at the costly price of innocent blood. In spite of man’s inability to obtain life through the garden’s tree, the tabernacle revealed at Sinai enabled Israel to live with God, though imperfectly. The means and extent of access to God’s presence was altered because of sin, but divine mercy overtook the wayward man and woman. For their future generations provision was afforded through Israel. This all, however, only foreshadowed the perfect and final passage into the presence of God by the very body of Jesus Christ, whose blood cleanses us so that we might know life through his death (Heb 9:6–14). John’s apocalypse alludes to the garden’s tree of life when it speaks of eternal life granted those who persevere in Christ (Rev 2:7). In the new and eternal city of God, the tree of life will perpetually grant its fruit to those who believe (22:2, 14, 19). It is then and only then that Adam and Eve may reach for the fruit and enjoy its abiding nectar.
3. Adam and Eve’s Family Outside the Garden (4:1–26)
Whereas Chaps. 2–3 recount the Life of Adam and Eve inside the garden, Chap. 4 will relate a new episode in the ongoing story of the first couple’s experience—but now outside the garden.237 the abrupt announcement of Cain and Abel’s birth (vv. 1–2) is told so as to show the linkage between Chap. 3’s intimations of continued life and prosperity (3:15–16, 20) and the beginning realization of that hope despite human sin in the garden. Sadly, the optimism of the narrative turns to the sordid account of sin’s continuing encroachment by the murder of Abel at the hands of his elder brother (vv. 3–16). Remarkably, however, the grace of God toward Cain enables Adam’s firstborn to survive and later father an impressive lineage whose members are remembered for notable cultural achievements. Unfortunately these achievements were overshadowed by their wicked accomplishments (vv. 17–24). The “tôlĕdôt of the heavens and earth” (2:4–4:26) concludes on the high note of another evidence of God’s grace toward Adam and Eve. Seth, Adam’s third son, replaces the murdered Abel and heads a new lineage that is remembered as the benchmark for “when men began to call on the name of the LORD” (4:25–26).
Eden held for the man and woman a blissful communion with God without mediation. When life outside the garden is first regarded by the narrative, Cain and Abel are depicted at worship presenting offerings before the lord. This early incident shows what is acceptable worship in the eyes of God. Mosaic custom took the matter of worship seriously, with its emphasis on the time, place, and means; consequently the Cain-Abel narrative held more importance for the ancient reader than it does in the church today, although it was a source of theological reflection in the writings of the new testament.238 The initial question in this chapter is why Abel’s offering was accepted and not Cain’s, but the larger issue is that of what will become of the promised blessing and deliverance (1:26–28; 3:15).
We also learn from this incident in Adam’s early heritage how sin has its sway over the human family as we see its expansion from the autonomous choices of Adam and Eve in the garden to the ruthless fratricide outside Eden. God’s response of “curse” against Cain underscores the accountability of any person who would dare to tamper with the sacredness of human life, which exclusively bears the imago Dei (1:26–27; 9:5–6). The relationship between Cain and brother Abel impacts the relationship Cain has with God: “Gen 4:1–16 makes it clear to sever the tie with one’s sibling is to sever one’s tie with yhwh and the earth.”239 From the genealogy of Cain (4:17–24), Genesis shows that human ruthlessness pervades a culture that lives outside the “presence of the Lord” (4:16).
LITERARY STRUCTURE AND ORIGINS. Structurally the Cain-Abel narrative (4:3–16) is sandwiched between two sections recounting the birth and genealogy of Adam’s eldest, Cain (4:1–2, 17–22). The similarity in the naming formula of v. 17 and vv. 1–2 indicates that the two are interdependent sources. Cain’s genealogy ends in the “song of Lamech” (“song of the sword”), in which Lamech boasts of his infamous career (4:23–24). This is followed by the announcement of Seth’s birth and a brief genealogical statement, concluding the tôlĕdôt section (2:4–4:26) with a note about worship of the lord (4:25–26). Thus the chapter begins and ends with the same subject matter of worship.
Cynicism concerning the literary unity of the chapter has been fueled by the diverse literary genres constituting the chapter (e.g., narrative, genealogy) and by seeming incongruities in the text. For example, Cain is punished as a wanderer in the narrative, but in the genealogy he is portrayed as a city-builder. Similarities in the genealogies of Cain (4:17–22) and Seth (5:1–32), plus the presence of two genealogies for Seth (also 4:25–26), are attributed by critical scholars to two sources (J and P, respectively); these sources are supposedly the garbled accounts of a prior composite or single genealogy. One tradition critic has described chap. 4 as an original myth of primeval setting that was joined by antiquarian stories about nomadic tribes, all placed in a genealogical framework that included the founders of the civilized arts.240 This rewriting of the biblical narrative, however, fails to appreciate the pressing evidence for the original unity of the passage that many recent interpreters have come to recognize. New literary studies and more favorable exegetical treatment of troublesome passages encourage confidence in the integrity of the text.
Some believe that the Cainite genealogy (vv. 1–2, 17–24) and narrative (vv. 3–16) originated from an imaginative tradition of the Kenites (qyny), according to which their eponymous head (from whom the name is derived) was Cain (qyn).241 The Kenites were a desert tribe which inhabited southern Judah (Gen 15:19; 1 Sam 27:10) and were the tribe of Moses’ father-in-law (Judg 4:11). The Kenite connection is based in part on etymological speculation that “Cain” (qyn) is related to the word meaning “smith” in Aramaic and Arabic, observing that his descendant Tubal-Cain founded metallurgy. Also “Kenite” (qyny) and “Kain” (qyn) have parallel meaning in Num 24:21–22 (NASB, NRSV; also Judg 4:11). But other etymologies for “Cain” have been proposed,242 and this uncertainty obstructs the proposal of an original Kenite source. Even if “Cain” were related to the term “smith,” there is no convincing connection between the genealogy of 4:17–24 and the Kenites or any other tribe. The interdependence of chap. 4’s literary components, such as vv. 17–26, precludes that the genealogy ever circulated independently in its present form.243 Since the Kenite theory rests on the assumption that Cain is the eponymous head and since there is no linkage between the desert Kenites and the city-dwellers of 4:17–24, the theory remains a speculative reconstruction with little merit.
Beyond the supposed Cain-Kenite connection, the notion of a nomadic Cain who in fact fathers urban dwellers would be on the face of it a contradictory effort. This leads to diverse proposals about how this could have happened, including the suggestion that there were two different Cains of folklore: the one who is the farmer-turned-city-father and the other who is the ancestor of the Kenite tribe known for its nomadic life and metal work (cp. Tubal-Cain’s metallurgy).244 If so, it is remarkable that the author of our account would be so unconscious of the problems created by this ill-fated aspiration as to have attempted it. We will speak in more detail of the genealogies and their problems at 4:17, but here we will present in a cursory way the indications of an original literary unity.
Chapter 4 fits harmoniously with the literary strategy of Genesis at large and within the tôlĕdôt section (2:4–4:26), especially chap. 3.245 It is routine in Genesis to include narrative expansions in the genealogies (e.g., Enoch, 5:22–24; Nimrod, 10:8–12), even lengthy ones as we find in 4:3–16 for the Cainite genealogy (cp. Noah’s, 5:32–9:29). Also the nonelect line of descent appears first, followed by the elect lineage as we find here with Cain preceding Seth’s lineage (e.g., Japheth and Ham before Shem, chap. 10). Chapter 4 can be regarded as a genealogy of Adam’s family that would match the genealogical genre of chap. 5.246 In the former case the genealogy is branched, meaning that all three descendants of Adam are specified, whereas in chap. 5 the genealogy presents only the line of one son, Seth.
Internally 4:1–26 also possesses evidence of cohesion. (1) The birth announcements at the three seams of the chapter have similar language (e.g., “lay with his wife,” vv. 1, 17, 25). (2) The narrative is built on the numerical congruity of sevens and multiples of seven: the emphatic “seven” for Cain (v. 15) and Lamech (v. 24); “brother” is found seven times, “Cain,” fourteen and “Seth,” seven; the divine names “God,” “LORD God,” and “LORD” together in 2:4–4:26 occur thirty-five times (5 × 7), equaling the same number “God” appears in 1:1–2:3, and the seventieth (10 × 7) occasion of deity’s name in Genesis is at 4:26b when men called on the “name of the LORD.” (3) The same Hebrew construction (participle) identifying the occupations of the participants is found for Cain and Abel (4:2), Cain as builder (v. 17), and Jabal as tent dweller (v. 20). Also the chiasmus of vv. 2–5 overlaps the genealogical notice of 4:1–2 and the narrative vv. 3–5, suggesting an interdependence in genealogy and narrative. F. I. Andersen has noted the alternation between the names “Abel” and “Cain” as well as their profession and acts of worship:
A And became Abel a keeper of flocks
A′ And Cain became a worker of soil
B Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD
B′ But Abel brought, also he, some of the firstborn of his flocks and their fat portions
C And looked with favor the LORD on Abel and on his offering
C′ And on Cain and on his offering he did not look with favor.
The pairing of the lines and the alternation of the participants create the chiasmus: (1) Abel, Cain, Cain, Abel and (2) flocks, soil, soil, flocks.247 (4) The narrative in structure and language imitates what is found in chaps. 2–3.248 Chapters 2–3, and 4 show a chiastic pattern built around the interchange of dialogue and narrative with the central element serving as the dramatic turn in the story. In the Eden narrative 3:6–8 is the turning point, detailing the sin of Adam and Eve, and in the present narrative the centerpiece 4:8 records the murder of Abel:249
A 4:2b–5 Narrative: Cain, Abel actors, Lord passive
B 4:6–7 Dialogue: Lord questions Cain
C 4:8 (dialogue) Narrative: Cain murders Abel
B′ 4:9–15a Dialogue: Lord and Cain
A′ 4:15b–16 Narrative: Lord active, Cain passive
There are also many lexical similarities: divine questioning, “Where?” “What?” (4:9 with 3:9; 4:10 with 3:13); Adam’s and the LORD’S replies, “I heard you [lit., your voice] in the garden” (3:10) and “Listen [lit., “voice”]! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground” (4:10); the curse against Cain (“You are cursed from the land [hāʾădāmâ],” 4:11) and the curses against the serpent (“You are more cursed,” 3:14) and the “ground” (hāʾădāmâ;3:17); the protective “mark” of Cain and the provision of Adam’s clothing (4:15 with 3:21); the divine forewarning of “desire” and “rule” (4:7 with 3:16); and the expulsion toward “east of Eden” by “driving” (gāraš) out the culprits (4:14 with 3:24). Thematically we find Adam and Cain have the same occupation (2:15; 4:2); both of their sins are related to the “fruit” (3:6; 4:3); their separation from God is brought on by the issue of “knowing” (yādaʿ;3:5–6, 22; 4:9); and they are questioned, sentenced, and punished in the same manner.
Clearly chap. 4 must be heard in partnership with chap. 3. We noted there that the theological import of this structural and lexical association is cause-effect. Chapter 4’s events are seen as genetically related to the fall of Adam and Eve, and the actions of parent and child are viewed as an organic whole. This attributes the lamentable advances of sin in the Cain-Abel episode to the inception of sin inside the garden. Now Cain, Adam’s firstborn, acts out the serpent’s purposes by murdering the “seed” of the woman Eve (3:15). And, unlike his parents, there is no sense of shame or remorse; if anything, he is incensed that God would censure him. His aggression against Heaven’s dictate is surpassed by the vitriolic voice of Lamech, who imitates his ancestor through murdering the vulnerable. Among all these bothersome noises, we never hear from poor Abel, except the unnerving sound of the blood-drenched ground that cries out for satisfaction.