Genesis 3

There is wordplay in the Hebrew connecting 2:25 with 3:1. "And the two of them were naked (עֲרוּמִּ֔ים / arummim, which is the plural form of arum)…. Now the serpent was shrewd (עָר֔וּם / arum)…."

The pun ties together the creation of Adam and Eve and their temptation, and it points to the futility of disobedience: "The nude humans have been duped by the shrewd serpent; they want to be shrewd, but in the end they are only nude…."

Although "nude" would make the pun more obvious in English, "naked" is the right word because of its association with vulnerability and shame.¹

Whereas the narration records the serpent as speaking directly to Eve, his statements to Eve use second person plural verbs, indicating that the serpent is targeting both her and Adam. In v. 6, we learn that Adam was "with her," yet did not protest, and he also chose to eat the forbidden fruit.

St. Ambrose indicated that God only spoke directly to Adam, whereas Eve learned of the prohibition concerning the tree from her husband.¹ Thus, the serpent's temptation of Eve was a means of circumventing Adam.²

The Hebrew word נָחָשׁ (nachash) was translated into the Greek LXX as ὄφις (ophis), meaning "snake" or "serpent," which is the primary sense of this word in its noun form. However, the Hebrew word נָחָשׁ (nachash) could potentially also have been understood in other ways (not to imply that it should be translated differently, but that an ancient reader might have had these connections in mind within their "cognitive framework"). The implication is that an ancient reader would have known the "serpent" was a divine being that gave an omen to Eve—the account would not have been (mis)understood as a fairy tale about a talking snake. Additional semantic domains of the Hebrew word נָחָשׁ (nachash) in addition to its primary sense as "serpent" include:

• The verbal root (binyan) נחשׁ (n-ch-sh) of the noun means "to seek and tell omens, foretell" and so refers to divination.¹

• Luminescent / brazen, as it pertains to copper / bronze (related by the binyan (נחשׁ) of נְחֹשֶׁת / nechoshet). See also the reference to the city of Nachash in 1 Supplements (Chronicles) 4:12, which implies a city of copper / bronze smiths. Copper / bronze is used in descriptions of divine beings as well (cf. Daniel 10:6 in the Hebrew MT; WEB translates this as "burnished bronze"). The emphasis on "shining" or "luminescence" may be a bit of a stretch in my opinion, but the connection to copper / bronze is clear both in Hebrew and Aramaic.²

• "Snakes were a symbol in the ancient world of wisdom, fertility, and immortality."³

Both St. Ephrem the Syrian and St. John of Damascus taught that Adam and Eve had a pre-existing relationship with the serpent.¹ St. Ephrem the Syrian also taught that the animals could not enter paradise, so Adam and Eve had to go outside the garden to meet with the serpent. In the previously referenced hymn, he expresses that the serpent only learned of God's prohibition to Adam and Eve concerning the tree of knowledge through prior conversation.

Whereas some contemporary commentators believe that Eve exaggerated God's prohibition by saying they were not even to touch the tree, several of the Fathers went further to indicate that Adam and Eve were not even supposed to look at the tree lest they be enticed by its beauty.² St. Ephrem indicated that the Tree of Knowledge served "as a boundary to the inner region of Paradise…. [and] that it was not lawful to penetrate further, beyond that Tree."³

The LXX indicates that if Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, they will be "as gods" (ὡς θεοί / hōs theoi), which corresponds to the Hebrew הְיִיתֶם֙ כֵּֽאלֹהִ֔ים (həyîtem kēʾlōhîm; i.e. "like the gods"). However, the gramatically plural elohim is generally translated in the singular, so English translations of the Hebrew often render this "like God."

The desire for deification (theosis) is not the problem (this was in fact God's intention for Adam and Eve and for all humanity), but rather the means by which they attempted to obtain it via a shortcut. Instead of pursuing theosis through obedience, they were disobedient and attempted to obtain it on their own terms. They then were exposed to knowledge that they weren't yet mature enough to receive.

St. Irenaeus stated that God did not create human beings "perfect" at the outset, and he offered various reasons why.

He suggested, for instance, that Adam and Eve, whom he depicts as infants in paradise, needed to grow in order to achieve perfection, the fullness of being human to which they were called by God. For example, a mother could give a newborn child meat rather than milk, though this would not benefit the infant at all. Likewise, God could have given us a full share in his life and existence from the beginning—but we would not have been able to receive such a magnificent gift, without being prepared by learning through experience.

A newborn infant may have "perfect" limbs, but needs to exercise (and to fall) before being able to walk and to run; so, too, creatures need to be exercised in virtue before they can share in the uncreated life of God.¹

This is a pervasive theme in later geneaological lists, standing in contrast to ANE perspectives that receiving knowledge from divine beings was a good thing. The Old Testament Scriptures instead point to the other divine beings as prematurely bringing knowledge to humanity that it was not mature enough to receive, resulting in the undoing of creation (descent into further chaos and death rather than order and life).²

[T]he tree of knowledge was not planted originally with any evil intent, nor was it forbidden in a spirit of jealousy. Let not the enemies of God make any such suggestion or think to imitate the serpent. On the contrary, it was good if eaten at the right time; for as I understand it, the fruit was contemplation, which is only safely attempted by those who have attained a more perfect state. But it was not good for those at a lower stage of development, … just as mature food is not profitable for those of tender years who still need milk.³

The Fathers taught that Adam and Eve's pride and avarice led to their Fall.

Pride goes before destruction,

And folly before a fall.

Proverbs 16:18

St. Augustine taught that since humanity's downfall came about through pride, our path to restoration is the way of humility.¹

The Fathers also taught that although humanity's downfall came about by means of a tree (of the knowledge of good and evil), so also did its redemption (on the Cross).

The reversal is paradoxical. Adam reached upward to be "like God" and fell, but Christ descends in humility, and His being "lifted up" on the Cross (John 12:32) is at once His death and His exaltation (Philippians 2:8–11); the only way to rise from the Fall is to go down (Luke 14:11). So He descends even to the lowest place, into Hades itself, and from there rises and ascends on high (Ephesians 4:9-10), drawing all people to Himself.

Eve chose to listen to the serpent's (re)interpretation of God's word.

Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent:

For if thou comest too near it, it will bite thee:

The teeth thereof are as the teeth of a lion,

Slaying the souls of men.

Wisdom of Sirach 21:2

By listening to the serpent instead of God, "they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator."¹

In this account, Eve is faced with two interpretations of reality…. One interpretation of this fruit and why it was forbidden was given by God, Who created Eve and everything else, and another one was given by the serpent, a fellow creature….

Eve, we could say, at this point decides that all that matters is the "text" alone—the two interpretations or statements made—along with how things look on the surface to her own eyes, which is only the superficial, physical reality. Apparently she doesn't stop to consider who it is giving each interpretation, and what her relationship is with each interpreter. Like many modern-day commentators, she thinks that interpretation can be impersonal, "objective." "Don’t ask God about this," the serpent implies; "He is not trustworthy. He doesn’t really love you. He doesn't really want the best for you." Then he implies, "And don't ask Adam, either. Judge for yourself—you don't need others to help you discern the truth."

The fruit really is beautiful. It looks good to Eve, and what the serpent says seems reasonable to her "unaided reason," so she decides to accept the interpretation he offers, and to act on his statement—an action which the serpent implies she can make completely independently. However, Eve doesn't realize that in choosing the serpent's interpretation, and in acting with her supposed autonomy, she in fact chooses communion with the serpent over, and instead of, communion with God and her husband.²

Eve's temptation serves as an example of how humans are tempted, summarized by St. John:

For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not from the Father, but from the world.

1 John 2:16

Eve's reasoning is distorted and darkened by her passions, and she entertains the serpent's temptation and enters into dialog with his tempting counsel. Fr. Pat Reardon compares 3:6 (from the Hebrew MT) with 1 John 2:16:

Fr. Pat further points out that

St. Paul describes Eve's beguilement as a corruption from "simplicity" (2 Corinthians 11:3). In place of God's emphatic command, known solely through the moral tradition available to her, Eve declared the autonomy of her own thought, not pausing to consider that her thinking was hardly more than the perverse assertion of her passions.²

St. Irenaeus pointed to Mary's obedience beginning the process of undoing what Eve's disobedience had brought about (and likewise Christ's obedience undoing Adam's disobedience):

That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.³

Concerning the fig leaves, Rashi wrote: "This was the tree of which they had eaten; by the very thing through which their ruin had been caused was some improvement effected in their condition."¹

In contrast, St. Ephrem indicated that Adam actually left paradise: "he ran off and took refuge among the modest fig trees."²

The serpent promised that if the forbidden fruit was eaten, Adam and Eve "would be as gods, knowing [(γινώσκοντες / ginōskontes)] good and evil" (v. 5). Once they had eaten, "they knew [(ἔγνωσαν / egnōsan)] they were naked." Both words are forms of the same the Greek verb meaning "to know" (γινώσκω / ginōskō). Brenton's translation of "perceived" obscures this connection between vv. 5 and 7.

Several Fathers comment on the time of day, making the point that the sun was now setting for Adam and Eve (literally and metaphorically).

I noticed that some other English translations of the LXX had the singular "tree" rather than plural "trees" for this verse. For example:

• LES: "in the middle of the tree of the garden"
• OSB: "within the tree in the middle of the garden"

This struck me as very curious that Adam and Eve would hide "in the middle of the tree of the garden" ("ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ παραδείσου" / "en mesō tou xylou tou paradeisou"). The Tree of Life is described in 2:9 as "the tree of life in the midst of the garden" ("τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ" / "to xylon tēs zōēs en mesō tō paradeisō"). This made me wonder if the implication in the LXX is that they hid within the Tree of Life in an attempt to avoid death, the promised consequence of their transgression.

However, this is almost certainly not the intended meaning. In the Hebrew, the use of the gramatically singular "tree" can refer to a plurality of trees (עֵץ / ēts is a collective noun). Similarly in Greek, ξύλον (xylon) means "wood," and can also be used as a collective noun for trees, as translated by Brenton (ENGLXXUP).

I offer this only as an anecdotal observation, but found it interesting that multiple other translations render it in the singular ("tree").¹

The Fathers emphasize God's patience and mercy in calling for Adam, giving him an opportunity for repentance.

God's follow-up question further demonstrates his patience and mercy. Instead of responding in anger, God asked a question, but also made it clear that He knew what had happened. Instead of humbling himself, Adam responded by pointing the finger at God and at Eve.

Adam begins a cascading blame game that destroys the relationships between:

• God and humanity,
• the marital relationship,
• the relationship between humanity and creation itself, and even
• the relationship within one's own soul/self (e.g., shame).

When Adam accused both God and his wife instead of accepting responsibility for his free choice to disobey God, he broke both relationships in a single sentence. Rather than simply saying "Yes" when God asked if he had eaten from the forbidden tree, Adam replied to God, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it."¹ Note both accusations: "The woman" (blaming Eve) whom You gave me (blaming God).

Whereas Adam blamed Eve and God for what was given to him (the fruit and the woman, respectively), Eve indicated that she had been deceived by the serpent. God also mercifully gave her an opportunity to repent, and patiently asked her a question rather than expressing an angry response.

God does not question the serpent nor respond with patience and mercy to it. God responds to all three parties in reverse order of the blame game: first the serpent, then Eve, and finally Adam.

Note that only the serpent and the ground are cursed. Adam and Eve were not cursed (the first human cursed by God is Cain in 4:11).

Adam's "sentence" is the longest of the three. God cursed the ground. The sins of leaders often result in the bitterness and rebellion of their insubordinates. Likewise, creation itself now rebels against man due to his sin—our own bodies included.

Before the fall, all things were subject to the control of man, because God had made him ruler over all the things on the earth and in the water…. At that time the earth brought forth of itself fruits for the use of the animals that were subject to man, and there were neither violent rains upon the earth nor wintry storms. But, after the fall, "when he was compared to senseless beasts, and was become like to them," [Psalm 48:13] and when he had caused the unreasoning desire within himself to prevail over his rational intellect and had become disobedient to the commandment of the Lord, then the creation subject to him rose up against this ruler appointed by the Creator, and he was ordered to work in the sweat of his face the earth from which he had been taken.¹

Whereas the Hebrew MT records God's curse on the serpent as "upon your belly you shall go," the LXX adds "on your chest and belly you shall go" ("ἐπὶ τῷ στήθει σου καὶ τῇ κοιλίᾳ πορεύσῃ" / "epi tō stēthei sou kai tē koilia poreusē"), perhaps to emphasize that the entire underside of the serpent is intended.

There is a contrast between vv. 1 and 14 describing the serpent, on which Rashi commented, "Corresponding with his subtleness and his greatness was his downfall; 'more subtle than all' — 'more cursed than all'":¹

• 3:1: "Now the serpent was the most crafty of all the brutes on the earth…."
• 3:14: "Because thou hast done this thou art cursed above all cattle and all the brutes of the earth…."

The fathers emphasize that Eve's seed being referred to here is Jesus. This is the "first Gospel" (protoevangelium).

Whereas in 1:28, God blessed them, saying "Increase and multiply…," He now pronounces that "I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings…." The Hebrew MT and Greek LXX have the same respective verb in both of these passages. The implication for both Adam and Eve is that their role as God's image-bearers has become more challenging. Eve will now experience suffering when striving to fulfill her roles as mother and wife.

Brenton (ENGLXXUP) translated ἀποστροφή (apostrophē) as "submission," but a better translation is probably "recourse." However, the Hebrew תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqah) is perhaps better translated "longing," which appears to be the sense understood by several of the Fathers.

The LXX translation of this word may have been a misreading of the Hebrew where a single-letter difference results in a different word:

[T]he traditional rendering is "desire…." Some ancient translations of Genesis understood the word to mean "desire" (e.g. Symmachus, Gen[esis] 4:7 Vulg[ate]). Most, however, understood it to mean "turning" or "returning," as in the rendering of the Septuagint: "and to your husband shall be your returning." That more prevalent rendering has often been explained as being based on a misreading, since the rare word used here differs by only one letter from a common word that means "returning" (teshuḇah). The usage of teshuqah in the ancient manuscripts found at Qumran, however, suggests that "desire" versus "turning" is a false choice. Given the limited number of occurrences, the matter is not certain, but the word seems to have the sense of impetus or movement with the connotation of desire. The best English equivalent would therefore be "longing…." This understanding of the word makes it unlikely that the preposition has an adversarial sense, as in ESV: "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband."¹

St. John Chrysostom saw this "longing" (or "yearning") for her husband as part of God's mercy to women:

As if to explain his reasons to the woman, the loving God said this, meaning, In the beginning I created you equal in esteem to your husband, and my intention was that in everything you would share with him as an equal, and as I entrusted control of everything to your husband, so did I to you; but you abused your equality of status. Hence I subject you to your husband: " 'Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will be your master.' " Because you abandoned your equal, who was sharer with you in the same nature … and for whom you were created, and you chose to enter into conversation with that evil creature the serpent, and to take the advice he had to give, accordingly I now subject you to him in future and designate him as your master for you to recognize his lordship, and since you did not know how to rule, learn well how to be ruled. " 'Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will be your master.' " It is better that you be subject to him and fall under his lordship than that enjoying freedom and authority, you would be cast into the abyss. It would be more useful also for a horse to carry the bit and travel under direction than without this to fall down a cliff. Accordingly, considering what is advantageous, I want you to have yearning for him and, like a body being directed by its head, to recognize his lordship pleasurably.²

Tertullian drew a connection between the thorns and thistles due to God's curse on the ground and the crown of thorns worn by Jesus, which then began the process of undoing the curse:

What sort of garland, however, I pray you, did He who is the Head of the man and the glory of the woman, Christ Jesus, the Husband of the church, submit to in behalf of both sexes? Of thorns, I think, and thistles,—a figure of the sins which the soil of the flesh brought forth for us, but which the power of the cross removed, blunting, in its endurance by the head of our Lord, death's every sting.¹

The pronouncement of mortality. The Fathers make it clear that this was the result of humanity's choice. Humans chose death and so brought it about by their free choice. Death was not a punishment imposed on humanity by God.

From what source did death come to Adam? Was it from the nature of a tree of this sort or actually from God? If we ascribe this to the nature of the tree, then the fruit of this tree seems to be superior to the vivifying power of the breath of God, since its fruit had drawn into death’s toils him on whom the divine breath had bestowed life. If we maintain that God is the responsible cause of death, then we can be held to accuse Him of inconsistency. We seem to accuse Him of being so devoid of beneficence as to be unwilling to pardon when He had the power to do so, or of being powerless if He was unable to forgive. Let us see, therefore, how this question can be resolved. The solution, unless I am mistaken, lies in the fact that, since disobedience was the cause of death, for that very reason, not God, but man himself, was the agent of his own death. If, for example, a physician were to prescribe to a patient what he thought should be avoided, and if the patient felt that these prohibitions were unnecessary, the physician is not responsible for the patient’s death. Surely in that case the patient is guilty of causing his own death. Hence, God as a good physician forbade Adam to eat what would be injurious to him.¹

As St. Paul said:

Therefore, [even] as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin, death passed to everyone, because {of which} all sinned.²

Whereas Adam named the creatures he ruled over beginning in 2:20, he had not named his wife because she was his equal.¹ However, now that they have fallen and Eve has been subjected to Adam, he now names her as he previously did the animals.

Her name points to hope for how humanity will now continue through childbearing, albeit with pain and suffering. I herein refer to the traditional name "Eve" (חַוָּה / Havvah) despite the LXX (appropriately) using Ζωή (Zōē, meaning "Life") in this verse. She is later called Eve (Εὕαν) beginning in 4:1 (LXX). The Hebrew חַוָּה (Havvah) was etymologically related to חָֽי (ḥāy, "the living"), which is retained in the Greek LXX: Ζωή (Zōē = "Life") is the mother of the ζώντων (zoōntōn = "living").

Bray & Hobbins translated the Hebrew for "garments of skin" (כָּתְנֹ֥ות עֹ֖ור / kattenōt ōwr) as "tunics of leather" (which is also a good translation of the LXX’s χιτῶνας δερματίνους / chitōnas dermatinous). The fathers associate the garments with human mortality and frailty.¹

A kuttōnet is always worn by one in authority showing that, however diminished their standing, they still act with divine authority.²

There is further an allusion to priestly service in the clothing, and the potential killing of an animal to provide these garments of skin may also be an allusion to animal sacrifice related to atonement. However, due to the verb indicating that God "made" (ἐποίησεν / epoiēsen) the garments, he may have just created them (i.e., without killing any animal).

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. 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).³

God clothed humanity's nakedness as an act of mercy and does so even further in Christ.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Galatians 3:27

In Christ, "you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its Creator."⁴

I counsel yoʋ to buy from me gold refined by fire so that yoʋ can become rich, and white garments so that yoʋ can clothe yoʋrself and the shame of yoʋr nakedness will not be exposed, and eye salve to anoint yoʋr eyes so that yoʋ can see.

Revelation 3:18

For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

1 Corinthians 15:53

Christians are further clothed in Christ and are a new creation (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:1-5, 16-17).

1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not made by human hands. 2For in this tent we groan, longing to be further clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now he who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has also given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

2 Corinthians 5:1–5

Even as God drives Adam and Eve from the garden, however, He provides better clothing for them (v. 21). This is important. Man's sin created the problem of nakedness, and hence the solution of clothing, as described here in chapter 3. In the Bible's final book, nonetheless, when man's sin has in every last sense been conquered, we do not see the human race returned to the nakedness of its primitive, unfallen state. The new man in Christ is clothed. We are described in the Book of Revelation as wearing the white robes of glory. Grace, that is to say, does more than reverse the effects of sin; it transforms the effects of sin. Our new innocence in Christ is not to be identified as simply the earlier innocence of Adam. The effect of sin is not merely removed; it is assumed into a more ample transformation.⁵

The Fathers generally indicate that Adam & Even did not receive the knowledge (nor godlike status) promised by the serpent. They also view their banishment from paradise and the Tree of Life as an act of mercy to prevent them living eternally in suffering and futility.

Humanity was exiled from the presence of God, but God continued to provide means for humans to be in His presence, albeit in limited and provisional ways, until the coming of Christ to provide a path for all God’s people. We continue to pray and worship facing the East, awaiting His second and final coming for our full re-entrance to paradise and the tree of life.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give the right to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God.’

Revelation 2:7

The second Adam, Jesus Christ, points out that through the water of the bath of rebirth, the flickering flame—by which the cherubim guardian blocked the entry into paradise when the first Adam was expelled—would be extinguished. Where the one went out with his wife, having been conquered by his enemy, there the other might return with his spouse (namely, the church of the saints), as a conqueror over his enemy.¹

St. Ephrem the Syrian associated the sword guarding the tree of life with the spear that pierced Jesus' side in John 19:34: Christ "was pierced and so removed the sword from the entry to Paradise."²

Apparently then, man did not die on the day he ate of the tree. But in the closing verses of the chapter, sanctuary symbolism and language reappear (3:21–24). God clothes the human couple and then expels them through the east-facing entrance to the garden where cherubim are stationed to guard the tree of life. These features anticipate the design of the tabernacle and the regulations associated with it. Like the garden of Eden, the tabernacle was a place where God walked with his people. To be expelled from the camp of Israel or to be rejected by God was to experience a living death; in both situations gestures of mourning were appropriate (Lev 13:45–46; Num 5:2–4; 1 Sam 15:35). The psalmists, too, held that in the house of God men could "drink from the river of the delights [עדן], for with thee is the fountain of life" (Ps 36:9–10 [8–9]). Only in the presence of God did man enjoy fullness of life. To choose anything else is to choose death (Prov 8:36). The expulsion from the garden of delight where God himself lived would therefore have been regarded by the godly men of ancient Israel as yet more catastrophic than physical death. The latter was the ultimate sign and seal of the spiritual death the human couple experienced on the day they ate from the forbidden tree….

The symbolic dimensions of the story linking the garden with the later sanctuaries support a paradigmatic reading. Water, gold, jewels, cherubim and so on link the garden of Eden with the tabernacle and temples described later. The curses pronounced on the guilty for disobeying the divine instructions anticipate those pronounced on those who disregard the law. These elements give the story a universalistic flavor, or at least a pan-Israelite setting. "Adam" is every man in Israel.³