[And He Walks With Me] Genesis 3
1 The serpent’s tactic here is subtle. Although God had created every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life (2:9), the serpent drew their attention to the one tree that they were not allowed to eat from and suggested that withholding this one thing from them was an injustice or an act of oppression.
2-3 Eve rightly responds to the serpent that she and her husband may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden, but notice how she expanded the directive concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil: You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die (emphasis added). It could be argued that or touch it was added by Adam and Eve to create a healthy margin, but the problem lay in elevating their human interpretation of God’s command to the same level as God’s command. This has been a natural tendency of humans throughout history. The Pharisees, for example, elevated rabbinical teaching to the same level as God’s commands and then played the two against each other to justify their own behavior. Similarly, Christians today elevate their traditions to the same level as God’s commands when they insist on certain Bible translations, types of music, formats for Sunday School, or other arbitrary things not really stipulated by God.
4 Eve opened the door to this temptation by adding to God’s command. Now, the serpent pushed the door wide by questioning God’s integrity. No! You will certainly not die was a half-truth that built upon the initial suggestion that God was being unjust in prohibiting them from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God was, according to the serpent, unjust and untruthful. In reality, however, the serpent’s protest left out some key facts. They may not die physically, immediately, but they would die. Sin of any degree is a wound that will immediately rob us of spiritual life. Eventually, it would rob Adam and Eve of physical life, and it has robbed every subsequent generation as well.
5-6 The irony here is that Eve and her husband were already like God. They alone among all of creation were made in his image (1:26-27) and entrusted with his mission to rule over his creation (1:28-30). The serpent insisted that they should not be content with being fashioned in God’s image but should strive for more: they should be gods themselves. This is another common tactic of our enemy! He will suggest that God has withheld something important from us and then let our minds devise a way to illegitimately claim that something for ourselves.
Certainly, Eve was wrong for eating the fruit. God’s command was clear, but she allowed Satan to twist it and her until she did the one and only thing she was not supposed to do. However, Adam is not beyond blame. He had every opportunity to call her back from the serpent’s deception, to remind her of God’s generosity and the clarity of his command, but he did not. Moreover, he then took the fruit and ate it himself. She may have been deceived into taking that first bite, but he knew full well what he was doing. His sin, then, is elevated to utter defiance of God and his command. Given this reality, we may not point the finger at one gender or the other to blame them for The Fall. Both participated equally, and both were now equally guilty.
7 Eating the fruit had the desired effect: Then the eyes of both of them were opened. However, it also had one catastrophic side effect: They knew they were naked. They now possessed the wisdom of God, but that wisdom only pointed out how far they were from his perfection. They were finite, physical creatures compared to their infinite, spiritual Creator. And now, they had transgressed his express command. They were no more naked, no more inadequate now than they were in 2:25, but now they were cognizant of the fact. While they were before naked without shame, they were now naked with all the shame.
In an effort to hide their nakedness, the man and his wife sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. These fig leaves were wholly inadequate for the task and, in fact, only highlighted their sin and shame. It is our natural inclination to hide our sin and imperfections, but that effort only highlights and exacerbates the situation in God’s eyes.
8-9 It is interesting that God came walking in the garden after the man and woman are described as naked (7). The implication is that he had already seen them and knew all about their sin as well as their attempt to cover it up.
Once again, they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. They realized that their fig garments were inadequate for covering their shame, and so they fled from the Lord.
Here is revealed the first part of God’s redemptive plan. Knowing that Adam and Eve sinned, God came to the garden and called out to the man. There was never a point where God did not know where the man and his wife were. They were the ones who had put up the barriers between them and him. Yet, instead of simply appearing where they were and blowing away those barriers, he beckoned to them. Even at this early juncture, he sought them. He also gave them the choice to reveal themselves or to flee farther.
12-13 When confronted with his sin, the man and woman both deflected responsibility. How would history have been changed if they had merely acknowledged that, yes, they had eaten from the tree and repented on the spot? But instead, they evaded and blamed. This is the difference between the sinner and the saint: saints will still occasionally fall short and sin, but they will immediately acknowledge their sin and repent.
14-15 So begins the epic battle between good and evil, with humans caught in the middle. Sin will always chase us, and if we are not careful, it will get us. Yet, Jesus struck the great serpent’s head and so gives the promise of ultimate victory over sin to those who will repent and follow him.
16 Your desire will be for your husband. This phrase is translated a variety of ways depending on theological persuasion. The word translated for by the CSB carries the general idea of moving toward something. Depending on the context, then, it can mean a couple of things. For instance, if an army was moving toward its home base, this term would suggest a hero’s welcome was in order. Conversely, if that same army was moving toward its enemy, this term would suggest battle was imminent. Accordingly, those who would make women subject to men will often interpret it according to the ESV translation: Your desire shall be contrary to your husband (emphasis added). Certainly, this may be the case. There are women who want nothing more than to destroy their male counterparts. On the other hand, this verse may also be translated as the CSB renders it: Your desire will be for your husband (emphasis added). This would suggest that women will improperly prioritize their husbands, seeking and obeying the men in their lives over God himself. Fortunately, we need not choose one of these translations or the other. God was likely deliberate in his ambiguity because, whether it introduces undue hostility or desire, the result is the same. Instead of enjoying the co-equal partnership God intended us to have, he will rule over her. This is not the way it is supposed to be, and one of the objectives of God’s plan of redemption is to restore the relationship between men and women to its original, ideal state.
17-19 The problem here was not that Adam listened to [his] wife, but that he listened to [his] wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘Do not eat from it’ (emphasis added). Men should listen to their wives, but they should not allow their wives to lead them into things they know God does not approve. So also, women should listen to their husbands without following them into sin.
The curse against Adam was multifaceted. First, the ground would still provide the food they needed, as God intended, but they would now have to work hard for it. In addition to trees which were pleasing in appearance and good for food (2:9), the ground would now produce thorns and thistles, and instead of being able to just pick and eat whatever they wanted from virtually anything in God’s garden, they would have to cultivate the plants of the field so that they would eat bread by the sweat of your brow. Second, they would eventually return to the ground. That is, their physical bodies would eventually die. So the serpent’s omission is revealed. He had claimed they would certainly not die (4), but that was only temporary.
20-21 God’s redemptive plan began in earnest when the man named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living. It should be noted that Adam gave this name to his wife before she had their first child, suggesting that he was not thinking of her as the mother of a race of humans. Rather, he was thinking of her as the mother of everything else that lives. There is a key lesson in this: in the aftermath of sin, we may not know what the future holds. Namely, we may not know if we will be able to continue down God’s original path for our lives. Yet, we must start where we are and return as best we can to what he already revealed to us. Adam and Eve were created to care for God’s creation. They did not yet know if they would be able to be multiply and fill the earth with humans, but they could get back to the work of caring for the rest of creation.
God’s redemptive plan continued when he made clothing from skins for the man and his wife, and he clothed them. That is, he gave them the means to more adequately cover their nakedness and shame. New Testament authors would use this same illustration to speak of Jesus’ work in our lives. He covers our guilt and shame with his own righteousness. The key in both cases is that God did this. God is the only one who can adequately cover our nakedness.
22-24 Despite God’s earnest desire to redeem mankind, there had to be a distinction between God and mankind. Initially, it was to be ignorance of good and evil. That is, humans were to be utterly innocent. However, when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that distinction was obliterated. Therefore, God had to take away something else, and that something was unlimited access to the tree of life which could grant eternal, abundant life. What a terrible trade! We gained knowledge of our own inadequacy and shame, and it cost us eternal, abundant life! This, however, is still the cost of sin today!
A second consequence of sin is estrangement from God. The Lord God sent him away from the garden of Eden, where God was. God’s presence and an intimate relationship with him are integral to eternal life. This boundary is then fortified when God stationed the cherubim and the flaming, whirling sword east of the garden of Eden to guard the way to the tree of life. There is, then, no way for humans to unilaterally breach this line and restore fellowship with God. We need God to open the door.
The garden was planted in the east (2:8) as a sort of forward outpost of God’s presence in the world. Now, though, Adam and Eve are driven further east, out of his presence, and throughout the rest of Genesis at least, east is often used to represent humanity’s estrangement from God. E.g., in Genesis 4:16, Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden (4:16).