Genesis 3:16-24

Recommended Resources:

Sweat: A Biblical Theology in Three Acts | Liam Thatcher Article

God Abandons the Garden of Eden and Dwells with the Cherubim | Torah.com Article

Does God Punish Women with Pain in Childbirth? | Bible Project YouTube Video (clip from their Classroom)

Why Cain Builds a City | Bible Project Podcast Episode

Commentary:

3:16- Two important points must initially be addressed. First, humans are not cursed in this story; the curse is directed towards only two entities—the nachash and the ground. Second, God’s working in non-ideal situations is not the same thing as His approval of the circumstances. Some people read this passage as if it’s God’s commanding life happen this way. They take these verses to imply childbirth, work, and life in general are supposed to be painful and therefore refuse to take painkillers or work desk jobs. They see a divinely-blessed hierarchy of males over females (or at least husbands over wives). But the curse is something to be overcome, not something to be furthered. These verses are not God’s ideal for humanity but simply His stating what life will be like non-ideal, post-Eden world.

The two words translated sorrow here are two different words. While the second can include physical pain, the first word is more about anxiety. And it’s the same word that describes Adam’s struggle, placing the humans’ judgements in parallel to each other. Curiously, the text mentions sorrow with conception rather than childbearing or childbirth. There is a common word for childbirth that isn’t used here, so the first part of the verse should be read as referring to conception rather than childbirth.

God's statement is not about previously nonexistent pain in childbirth but about the brokenness that will now exist in sexual relationships as a natural consequence of their actions. Conception will often be associated with emotional trauma for many women, as seen in numerous stories throughout Genesis. For example, consider the stories of infertility (Sarah and Rebekah), Hagar's treatment as a sex slave, the complexities of polygamy (Lamech, Jacob, and others), cases of rape (Dinah and Noah’s wife), Tamar’s prostitution, the unfulfilled sex drive of Potiphar's wife, and others.

A significant debate centers around the translation of a simple preposition in this verse—“to.” The woman’s desire could be to, against, or subject to her husband. All are grammatically possible. If it’s to her husband, that often has sexual connotations. Since this is part of the judgement and sexual attraction to one’s spouse is good, that position seems untenable. Many take the view that her desire would be against or contrary to her husband, implying that she would be trying to usurp his natural authority. But, again, this verse is judgment, not a blessing or command. God is not saying that women should be second to men, although in a post-Eden world, they often will be. The solution is not to have men or women ruling over each other but to have both ruling together. The third option is that her desire would be subject to her husband. That position makes the most sense since, like the rest of the verse, this would simply be a statement of reality. Men often subject women to their preferred ways. Humans were supposed to rule over the animals together, but now men will often dominate women, treating them like animals.

3:17- "Cursed is the ground for your sake" can be interpreted in two ways— either the land was cursed because of Adam and Eve, or the ground was cursed in place of them.

Their failure resulted in humanity's separation from its origin; they could no longer experience true peace with the earth until it eventually claimed them in death. This signifies a profound shift in their relationship with the earth from which they came. Humanity is surrounded by an environment of curse that can creep into them until it eventually consumes them in death.

3:18- While Genesis 1:29 mentioned that humans could use vegetable (herb) seeds, Genesis 1:30 called vegetables food for the animals. Now, after listening to the serpent, humans find themselves eating vegetables like beasts, foreshadowing their gradual descent into acting like beasts in the following chapters.

3:19- In “The Epic of Eden. . . Dr. Sandra Richter argues that [sweat] actually has nothing to do with hard work, but is an Ancient Near Eastern idiom for anxiety. Perspiration-inducing fear. She writes:

‘Where does anxiety fit into God’s curse upon us? What we find in Genesis 3 is that because of the rebellion of the earth and the expulsion of Adam and Eve from God’s presence, humanity will now live their lives in an adversarial world with a constant, gnawing undercurrent of dread that there will not be enough, that their labour will not meet the need. What if the crop fails? The livestock die? A fire, storm, or drought? Can you relate? What about groceries this week? Rent, mortgage and car payment? College tuition? Retirement? What if I get sick? What if my kids get sick? I am a citizen in the richest nation in the world. I have a secure position at a well-endowed seminary and still I worry. And so do you. This is the curse of ‘Adām – limited resources, an insecure future and a world that no longer responds to my command. Any Adams out there?’

I found this helpful. As someone who lives in a non-agrarian society, and whose only experience of working the soil is recreational, growing a few vegetables in our 4×2 foot garden bed, I’ve found this part of the curse hard to relate to. But the breadth of the idiom makes so much sense of the anxiety we experience in the world today. Providing for our families, maintaining our health, living through uncertain times. Mental health challenges are increasing dramatically in part due to a whole load of modern issues our forefathers never had to face; social media, tech addiction, loneliness and isolation, to name a few. COVID has only exacerbated these problems, as people have become firstly more aware of their vulnerability, and then have had to grapple with the fear of returning to some kind of ‘new normal’ as restrictions lift.

Understanding this anxiety as part of the curse of the fall is helpful. We live in a sweaty world.” -https://liamthatcher.com/2021/10/01/sweat-a-biblical-theology-in-three-acts/

Prior to the human’s failure, there was no mention of sweat, leading some to comment that work was literally no sweat at that time. Under the Mosaic Torah, bodily "leakiness" was generally associated with impurity, as liquids leaving the body rendered a person unclean. Blood, puss, semen, menstrual fluid, and human waste were considered unclean substances. Although sweat is never specifically called unclean, a passage in Ezekiel 44 seems to place it within that category. Ezekiel was experiencing a vision of a renewed temple and observed, “And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.” (Ezekiel 44:17–18)

In other words, the priests were to wear breathable clothing that prevented them from sweating so as not to be unclean. And sweat only shows up one other time in the Bible—Luke 22:44. “And being in an agony [Jesus] prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Add in Matthew 27:29 that mentions the crown of thorns placed on Jesus, and I think we’re supposed to see Jesus as reversing the effects of the curse as He takes on the consequences of humanity’s failure.

It is worth noting that the concept of inherited sinfulness is conspicuously absent in these passages. The Tanakh never attributes any subsequent human actions to Adam's sin; conversely, it teaches that people can please God through their own righteous actions. Although a few New Testament passages (mostly in Paul’s writings) can seem to say all humans inherit sin from Adam, theologians do not agree on the implications of those verses. One can be a committed Christian and not believe in inherited sin.

3:20- The odd placement of this verse suggests we are intended to read it as Adam’s response to Yahweh’s judgement. But the man’s tone is unclear, leading to two divergent views moving forward. One position sees Adam’s giving the name Life to his wife as a positive. They were supposed to die after eating from the tree, so the woman’s name represents their praising Yahweh that they did not immediately die. The other view sees the new name as a negative. By naming his bride Life, Adam was exhibiting further independence from Yahweh. Eve, rather than Yahweh, would be the source of life moving forward. Although many would find the first view more attractive, Eve’s declaration at the birth of Cain in Chapter 4 makes more sense from the second view.

Eve’s moniker as the Mother of All Life begs the question, Why “all life”? Why not “humanity”? All life is broader than just humanity. I’m not sure what significance could be drawn here, but it is a fascinating puzzle.

“In the Hebrew here, the phonetic similarity is between awah, “Eve,” and the verbal root ayah, “to live.” It has been proposed that Eve’s name conceals very different origins, for it sounds suspiciously like the Aramaic word for “serpent.” Could she have been given the name by the contagious contiguity with her wily interlocutor, or, on the contrary, might there lurk behind the name a very different evaluation of the serpent as a creature associated with the origins of life?” --Robert Alter, Translation and Commentary

“The explanation of the name forms a sound play (paronomasia) with the name. “Eve” is חַוָּה‎ (khavvah) and “living” is חַי‎ (khay). The name preserves the archaic form of the verb חָיָה‎ (khayah, “to live”) with the middle vav (ו) instead of yod (י). The form חַי‎ (khay) is derived from the normal form חַיָּה‎ (khayyah). Compare the name Yahweh (יְהוָה) explained from הָיָה‎ (hayah, “to be”) rather than from הַוָה‎ (havah). The biblical account stands in contrast to the pagan material that presents a serpent goddess hawwat who is the mother of life.” Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Ge 3:20.

3:21- Clothing someone is usually an honorary act in the rest of the Bible. Furthermore, the word used for coats mostly shows up in descriptions of the priests’ robes. These connections may indicate that Adam and Eve still retained their priestly status as they moved out of the Garden.

Bible Project’s podcast series on The City, particularly Episode 2 gets into some fascinating comparative word studies with the Hebrew words for help, skin, light, and city.

3:22- Warren Vanheltoo has suggested that the Tree of Life couldn’t actually provide eternal life and that the real problem was that the humans might think a mere tree could restore their broken relationships. “In English, the connection can also be expressed: ‘Lest he put forth his hand in order to take of the tree in order to eat in order to live forever.’ There was one intention which God was opposing. The four verbs are tied as relating one purpose, a wrong purpose; not that man would live forever without redemption, but that man would suppose that something so material as a single fruit would cure his sin separation. God had already promised the “seed” of the woman to strike Satan. This was not some second possible cure. Thinking it magical would be further evidence of man’s depravity.” -Warren Vanhetloo, “Cogitations,” (http://cbsvan.net/home), #1057, 04.13.09

3:24- The language is intensive, almost like God is divorcing them from the Garden.

In the Bible, moving east becomes symbolic of existence apart from God, a motif that recurs throughout the Genesis scroll seven times. This theme is likely related to Israel's location in eastern exile at the time of the writing of this narrative.

The cherubim, mentioned here as guardians of the Garden, later reappear in descriptions of the temple's tapestry that divided the holy place from the holy of holies. Thus, one can surmise cherubim are tasked with patrolling the boundaries between the human and divine realms. They appear a few times throughout the biblical narrative, with a description found only in Ezekiel. “Their appearance was the same for each of the four of them, as if the wheel was in the midst of a wheel. When they went to the four of their directions that they went, they did not change direction when they went, for the place to which the head turned, they went behind him; they did not change direction at their going. And their whole body, and their rims, and their spokes, and their wings, and the wheels were full of eyes all around—the wheels for the four of them. Concerning the wheels, he was calling them ‘the wheelwork’ in my hearing. And each one had four faces; the face of the one was the face of a cherub, and the face of the second was the face of a human, and the face of the third was the face of a lion, and the fourth was the face of an eagle.” –Ezekiel 10:10–14, The Lexham English Bible

This imagery finds parallels in other cultures as well, such as the sphinxes of Egypt, mythical half-human half-animal creatures that guarded sacred spaces. These guardians didn't necessarily pose a direct threat themselves but symbolized the idea of a protective force safeguarding a space beyond human reach.

Regarding the flaming sword, note that it is not said to be held by the cherubim. Rather, it appears to be its own entity. We must consider how Adam and Eve would have perceived this supernatural spectacle. Would they even understand the purpose of a sword? What would supernatural beings even need a sword for in the first place? I believe a case can be made that humans didn’t invent swords; they were originally supernatural weapons. As crazy as that may sound, it would fit the picture we get from tradition. First Enoch 6-9 retells the story of Genesis 6, adding in that the Nephilim shared forbidden knowledge of metallurgy (among other topics) with humans, teaching us how to make swords. Though that account is not considered inspired Scripture, it is worth considering.

Four Aramaic and four Jewish targumim (ancient translations) have God, not just the cherubim, taking up residence east of the Garden. This is based on a slightly different vocalization of the Hebrew text, which is likely a more original reading. The matter gets into some really nerdy grammatical obscurities, but I think the doctrinal application is important. Not only are humans exiled from the Garden, but God is now “self-exiled” as well. The Tanakh tends to depict God as being geographically tied to specific locations. This is His moving outside the Garden in order to be near humans. Though the Tree of Life was now unobtainable, Yahweh situated Himself within their reach. His location at the gate of Eden will come into play in the next story of Cain and Abel as well. (Read Torah.com’s article “God Abandons the Garden of Eden and Dwells with the Cherubim” for more on this.)

God consistently guides us away from living in the past of our lives and moves us toward a more hope-filled future even though that future may look uncertain in our eyes. Preventing Adam and Eve from returning to the Garden was a redirection toward a better future than could be obtained by going back. In this, we can find a divine reminder that there is always more to be pursued ahead of us than could be gained from turning back to where we came from.