Genesis 3:7-15

Commentary:

3:6- We must question why the man ate from the fruit of the tree after the woman. The two most common answers have been that he was a wimp who did whatever his wife did or that he knew it was wrong but didn’t want to live without her (a la Romeo and Juliet). I definitely don’t believe it’s the first option, and I’m not convinced of the second. I tend to think he was just as swayed by the serpent’s promise as she was; they both wanted what he was selling. This is another case where the Bible doesn’t specify, so any speculation we make is just our best guess.

3:7- This is a bit of splitting hairs, but I think it’s an important distinction. I don’t like to call this the Fall. I think it’s better called The First Failure Narrative. I know that’s not as catchy as “the Fall,” but this wasn’t a fall and there was more than one. To fall, you have to have achieved a certain status that you no longer hold. But many make a solid case that the man and woman did not lose their status as God’s representatives here. They failed to live up to the roles He had given them. So instead of falling downward, they failed to move forward. Also, this is not The Fall. This is the first of three falls (or failures) in the first eleven chapters of Genesis that all need to be read in conversation with each other. Humans fail here in Genesis 3 by not moving forward, supernatural beings fail in Chapter 6 by encouraging humanity’s self-destructive path, and humans fail again at the Tower of Babylon in Chapter 11 by repeating the independence of the first man and woman.

It’s worth noting that much of this verse is using metaphorical language. They were not literally blind. By saying their eyes were opened, the text is speaking of the new power they had gained to discern good and not good on their own terms.

There are differing interpretations on whether they both simultaneously realized their actions or if the woman knew before the man ate. I lean toward the former, suggesting that their fate remained uncertain until the man also ate. If he had not eaten, I think there might have been a chance for him to redeem his bride. However, such notions remain conjecture.

Sewed doesn’t imply needle and thread but rather pasting to their bodies or perhaps tying together. Even so, the amount of time that took could have been used to address the problem instead of trying to hide it. But don’t we often make that same mistake? We waste time trying to make our mistakes sound not as bad instead of just admitting them and working to move forward. Who would have thought a story with characters named Human and Female Human would apply so well to all of us?

Aprons is a word meaning girdle or belt. So, while it wasn’t exactly the stereotypical single fig leaf on medieval statues, it wasn’t much more than that either. Some also take that to mean the woman’s breasts were not originally considered nudity that needed to be covered.

The choice of a fig leaf for cover has sparked a fascinating debate. Some believe they picked it because of its large size. Others figure it was just the closest thing nearby. But some have taken that idea and surmised the Tree of Discerning of Good and Not Good was the fig tree from which they took the leaves.

Interestingly, figs take on eschatological significance in various biblical passages. Isaiah 34 and Jeremiah 8 are the only other times in the Tanakh that fig and leaf are used together, and those passages seem to imply the end of an age as well. Perhaps the next most well-known instance of figs in the Bible is Jesus’ cursing a fig tree as a symbol of the Israelite leadership’s unpreparedness for His arrival. Thus, the plant that was present at the beginning of humanity's age, becomes a symbol of the end of an age marked by human failure and abuse, paving the way for a new era of God's peace on earth.

3:8- The word translated voice can also mean sound in a general sense. How the KJ translated it is implausible since you can’t hear a voice walking. You can hear a voice talking, or you can hear the sound of someone walking. Thus, they heard the sound of Yahweh God walking.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible never explicitly mentions God’s walking with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day. This is the only occurrence in Genesis of God’s walking in the Garden, and it’s a one-time event. Though it certainly could have been a daily ritual, the text makes no such definitive statement.

That word cool is ruach, meaning wind, breath, or spirit. It likely refers to the point of the afternoon where the temperature starts to decline, but it could also be translated as implying that God appeared in a storm. Then, the sound of His walking could be thunder. You have to perform some linguistic gymnastics to get there in this verse, but that picture does fit other passages in the Tanakh where God appears in cloud form with His words sounding like thunder (ie Sinai with Moses and then later with Elijah, depending on how you translate that passage as well).

Trees is singular here, but I couldn’t find a single version that translated it that way. It sounds like the man and woman hid in the middle of the Tree of Discerning Good and Not Good itself.

An intriguing parallel may be drawn between how the man and woman hid from God in a tree and how God Himself would later be exposed on a tree (the cross) to undo the consequences of their choice. It demonstrates the profound storytelling in the biblical narrative.

3:9- With slightly different spelling, God’s question of “Where are you” is also the first word of the book of Lamentations. Perhaps there is nothing to that, but I think you could see this as God’s lament over humanity’s choice.

The question "Where are you" could be a rhetorical inquiry, meaning something akin to "Why are you hiding?" Since the human's response did not provide a location but rather a reason for hiding, this view might make more sense.

Speaking from a therapist’s perspective, it’s significant that God rarely bursts out in anger when someone sins in the Bible. We tend to think that’s how He acts, but more often than not, He instead approaches the person and asks questions. He doesn’t even make accusations. He gives the person a chance to speak their side of the story. He does that here, with Cain in the next chapter, with Elijah on Sinai, with Jonah outside Nineveh, and with Peter after the resurrection. And as with Jesus’ interaction with Peter, Yahweh asks three questions here. We often assume that we know all the relevant information and rush to conclusions and Facebook posts, but if Almighty God saw fit to gather more information before making a judgement, perhaps we should also.

3:10- Voice here could again be sound, depending on what you think this appearance of God looked like.

The human blames his hiding on his newly discovered nakedness, but I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. Nudity wasn’t the problem for a very simple reason—he wasn’t naked anymore. He already covered his genitals. The problem wasn’t with his reality. He had been naked all along and nothing was wrong. Now that he’s no longer physically exposed, we can understand that physical nakedness is a symbol of the greater issue at hand—emotional nakedness or vulnerability.

Being naked is the most vulnerable you can ever be. There is nothing between you and the rest of the world. That’s why so many people are afraid or ashamed to be naked—they struggle with their own image and self-worth and are afraid that if someone else saw them stripped bare, that person would hate them as much as they hate themselves. Have you ever noticed how almost everyone has a dream at some point about being naked in front of other people? You’re at school or work and realize halfway into what you’re doing that you forgot your pants. Why would that be so common? Because we have a deep-rooted psychological fear of other people seeing us in all the our flaws and imperfections that we grapple with every day. We’re too terrified to face the reality that we are not as good at hiding our broken identities as we think we are, even going all the way back at to the Garden.

But God’s ideal was not for humans to be burdened with shame and fear. He’s been working since the Garden to restore human relationships so that we can accept our healing identity as His beloved image and likeness. The rest of Scripture is an answer to your private shames that you’re too afraid to let other people see without a cover. The story of the Bible is an invitation to give up whatever rotting fig leaves you’ve pasted over the private parts of your life and embrace God’s vision of you as whole and worthy in Him without the need for anyone else’s approval.

3:11- The use of you here is masculine singular. It might refer to the man and woman as a single human, adam, or some have suggested that the prohibition on eating was only for the man. They would then use that position to explain Paul’s harsher treatment of Adam in Romans 5 than of Eve in 1 Timothy 2. I don’t think that position holds up very well, but it is a possibility.

3:12- The man’s answer is structured to sound like he’s blaming God by association. It’s like he’s accusing the salesman of selling him a faulty product.

3:13- This isn’t God’s blaming the woman. He’s giving her a chance to own up and not repeat the mistake her husband just made. In a way, the woman is more loyal than her husband since she didn’t blame him as he did her.

The word translated beguiled encompasses a rich range of meaning including cheating, causing to forget, and entertaining false hopes.

3:14- God does not question the nachash. The NET Bible points out the chiastic structure here— “The man is questioned, the woman is questioned, the serpent is cursed, sentence is passed on the woman, sentence is passed on the man.”

The phrase “cursed above all cattle” should probably be translated “banished from all animals.” Although we often call this “The Curse” as if God cursed all of Creation, only two entities are cursed—the nachash and the ground. Since no other animals were cursed, I don’t think it makes sense to say the nachash was cursed more than all other animals. It would make sense to say he was isolated from the rest of the created beings. The odd wording is likely intended to contrast with his earlier description as being wiser than all animals. Both verses use the phrase מִכֹּל֙ חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה, “from every living animal of the field.”

Despite common beliefs, this doesn’t seem to imply the nachash had limbs that he lost here. It’s more the idea of being humiliated and humbled. Other ancient texts describe public humiliation as crawling on one’s belly and eating dust.

The repeated allusions to dust in this passage remind the reader of the brevity of life and carry a prophetic warning. In the Biblical story, dust is the substance from which humanity originated and to which it returns. And the nachash is said to eat dust until he dies. Far too often, humans eat away at each other as well, participating in the destructive cause of the nachash.

As a side note, the middle word in the Torah is belly in Leviticus 11:42, stating that snakes aren’t kosher. That can hardly be a coincidence.

3:15- We must disavow ourselves of four common notions here. This verse isn’t about why humans are afraid of snakes. It isn’t proof that the devil is behind every bad event in history. It doesn’t predict a virgin birth. And, it isn’t (entirely) about Jesus.

First, recall that the nachash is a supernatural being, not just a snake. Thus, ophidiophobia is not in view. Rather, this is the origin of a conflict between the supernatural and natural realms.

Second, this does not imply that there is a single evil entity behind all negative events in human history. Both the seed of the woman and the nachash are treated as if they are locked in eternal conflict though it is their many descendants which are implied. The Bible frequently applies such synecdoches when calling a group of people by the name of their originator (ie Jacob for all of Israel, Esau for the Edomites, Judah for the southern tribes, etc).

Third, though some have seen “seed of the woman” as a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus, this position is untenable. Seed does not have to mean sperm; it can mean descendants. Otherwise, one must say that Hagar experienced a virgin birth according to Genesis 16:10.

Fourth, this verse seems to be implying a continual conflict between good and bad humans, not a future destruction of evil by a suffering Messiah. “The repetition of the verb ‘attack,’ [sometimes translated bruise, strike, or something similar] as well as the word order, suggests mutual hostility is being depicted, not the defeat of the serpent. If the serpent’s defeat were being portrayed, it is odd that the alleged description of his death comes first in the sentence. If he has already been crushed by the woman’s ‘Seed,’ how can he bruise his heel? To sustain the allegorical view, v. 15b must be translated in one of the following ways: ‘he will crush your head, even though you attack his heel’ (in which case the second clause is concessive) or ‘he will crush your head as you attack his heel’ (the clauses, both of which place the subject before the verb, may indicate synchronic action).” -NET Bible Notes

Robert Altar sees the two uses of attack as homonyms, words that sound the same but are actually from different roots. He translates them as “boot…bite. . . . the first verb meaning ‘to trample,’ the second, identical in form, probably referring to the hissing sound of the snake just before it bites.” --Robert Alter, Translation and Commentary

In other words, this verse does not depict the destruction of the nachash. It speaks only of an ongoing battle between those who live out the way of life (seed of the woman) and those who live out the way of death (seed of the serpent). So, we should be on the lookout from this point forward for a faithful human who will deal with evil at the source and trust in God’s wisdom instead of man’s. Interestingly, 1st Samuel seems intent on convincing you that person is David. The book contains several references to crushing serpents. In 1 Samuel 5:4, the Philistine god Dagon is decapitated by the presence of Yahweh’s ark. Dagon was often depicted as a scaly creature like a sea serpent. Chapter 11 details Saul’s defeat of an Ammonite ruler literally named Serpent (nachash)! Then 1 Samuel 17:5 describes Goliath as wearing bronze (spelled nachosheth) scales of armor like a snake. And verse 51 has David cutting off the head of the giant serpent. Later exploits have him wiping out the Nephilim as well.

Though many see an ultimate crushing of the serpent in Jesus’ death and resurrection, no such statement is explicitly made in Scripture. The closest allusion is in Romans 16:20, but that is not about Jesus. Paul, thinking like a Jew, saw the archetypal serpent as being crushed, not by Jesus, but by Christians who choose to live in the life-giving way of Yahweh.

This verse never specifically says the snake would be stepped on. We assume that because of the mention of the heel, but Psalm 91:13 is the only direct mention of stepping on snakes in the Tanakh.

Fascinatingly, the Vulgate reads “she will crush your head,” enforcing the veneration of Mary in medieval Catholicism. No other translation I am aware of makes that translation choice.

Notice as well that the focus is on crushing the serpent, not his seed. Evil is to be destroyed at the source. If you attack the seed of the serpent, you’re attacking images of God who still have a chance to switch sides. The line you’re a part of will change based on your decisions. The first seed of the woman (Cain) became the seed of the snake. Jacob began in the line of the serpent (Genesis 25:21-26) but later became the patriarch of Yahweh’s family.

A unique parallel can also be found in the stories of Biblical women who crushed heads. Jael (Judges 4:21, 5:24), the woman of Thebez (Judges 5:53), and Judith (Judith 13:9-10, 13:18) all claim victories by violently bashing in an enemy’s skull. Fascinatingly, Jael and Judith alone are called “blessed among women” along with Jesus’ mother, Mary (Luke 1:42).