The Stones Cry Out

The following commentary may also be downloaded as a PDF.

Genesis 3 (The Fall/Curse):

In the first two chapters of the Bible we read about the beginnings of all things in the natural world. Now in chapter three we will encounter the man and woman in the Garden of Eden. A new character will come on the scene; the serpent. The man and woman will be deceived by the serpent and rebel against their Creator. God will then issue a triad of curses. These curses are the subject of one of the most heated debates between YECs and OECs. Most YECs believe the curses were global in extent and suggest that the entire Creation is cursed because of Adam and Eve's sin. In opposition to this view most OECs argue a local extent of the curse and say that only Adam, Eve and the serpent were cursed. They maintain there is no biblical evidence the natural world itself was cursed. Based on their position on the extent of the Curse in Genesis 3, members of both sides of this debate will interpret the scientific data very differently. YECs say the earth is cursed and therefore may look ancient, but there is no way we can deduce anything about the earth's history because of its fallen state. Meanwhile, OECs say that the text does not limit the way we use and trust modern scientific methods such as radiometric dating because the earth was very much the same before the Fall as it is today. Let's explore this text with a mind clear of any pre-conceived ideas.

Genesis 3 (ESV)
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?
2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
3 but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
4 But the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, Where are you?
10 And he said, I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.
11 He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?
12 The man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, What is this that you have done? The woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate.
14 The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
16 To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
17 And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
20 The man called his wifes name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
22 Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

After the Creation accounts in the first two chapters of the Bible, Moses begins to tell the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. Presumably, by this time, all of Creation is in working order and the man and woman are beginning to fulfill God's command to take dominion and cultivate the land. A new character is introduced here in the serpent. There is not much debate over just who the serpent really is as he is called Satan by the Apostle John in Rev. 20:2. In fact, there are a number of NT passages that refer to Genesis 3. A few of them touch on Adam's sin (the Fall) and some mention the punishment for that sin (the Curse). The debate, as it was in the Creation accounts, is really over the matter of extents. For example did God curse all of Creation (global extent) or did He just curse the man, woman, and serpent (local extent). Again, depending on which interpretation you subscribe to will affect your interpretation of the rest of Scripture as well as scientific observations. As we study this passage we will again need to be mindful of not only the Hebrew word choice and grammatical considerations, but also how a 15^th century BC Israelite listener might have understood the passage. We must not read into the passage any preconceived ideas regarding our scientific knowledge in the 21^st century. We must also be careful not to read anything into the text that is not absolutely clear. As an appendix, I offer commentaries on a few NT passages that refer directly and indirectly to the pericope at hand.

The Sin:

Genesis 3:1-7 (ESV)

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?
2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
3 but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
4 But the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die.
5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

In order to figure out what kind of writing we are dealing with and where we are in relation to the pericope we must first look at the verbs. The first verb we see is hayah (to be) which is perfect. This is followed by a string of wayyiqtol verbs. This tells us that we are dealing with a narrative of sequential acts with a sentence containing background information to kick it off.

The pericope begins with the introduction of a new character, the serpent (Heb. nachash). The word is used 29 times in the OT and each other use refers to a typical snake as we know it today (an exception may be where Isaiah refers to Leviathan as a serpent (Is. 27:1)). We will soon see that this is no ordinary snake here. John refers to this serpent as Satan in Rev. 12:9 and 20:2. Many global-extent Young Earth Creationists (YECs) believe that this serpent originally walked upright and was doomed to crawl on its belly upon God's cursing in 3:14. We will examine this possibility later when we explore that text.

The serpent is here referred to as crafty. This is the Hebrew word arum. It is used only 12 times in the OT. TWOT indicates the term can mean crafty either in a positive or negative sense. However, the LXX translation phronimos usually carries a positive connotation in most of its 41 occurrences. It may seem obvious to think of the serpents craftiness as a negative trait, especially when referred to in 2Cor. 11:3. The word Paul uses in that text is panourgia though and not phronimos. Panourgia is used exclusively in the NT in a negative sense, and indeed Philo described the serpent's craftiness with panourgia, but the LXX translators chose phronimos which is positive. In the NT Jesus instructs His disciples to shrewd (phronimos) as serpents and innocent as doves (Matt. 10:16). It is hard to imagine Jesus telling His disciples to be crafty like serpents if a negative connotation was in view. Though the serpent may have used his craftiness for evil, it appears it was an inherently good trait he possessed.

This reference by Jesus to the craftiness of serpents tells us a few things about the nature of the serpent in Genesis 3. First, the serpent did not lose his craftiness when cursed for it still existed in Jesus' day. Second, if that is true, then we know that this is no ordinary snake because snakes are not known for their craftiness today, nor do they speak. It appears that this passage is not describing the encounter between Eve and a snake, but rather Eve and the one who is indwelling the snake, namely Satan. This will be a key observation when discussing the effects the curse on the serpent has, if any, on present-day snakes.

Another interesting observation from the text is that the serpent (i.e. Satan) was made by God. It must always be remembered that the greatest evil power in Creation is part of Creation and is therefore subordinate to God. By saying that the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field, the text seems to give the allusion that Satan had indwelt the serpent for quite some time as the serpent itself was known for its craftiness and its ability to talk. It is as if Adam and Eve thought this was truly coming from the creature itself with Satan's identity hidden from them. It does seem clear however that the text is describing not the body, but the possessor of the serpent. The idea of demons occupying animal bodies is also found in the NT (Mark 5:11-13).

The first wayyiqtol verb in the pericope describes an action by the serpent. Interestingly it is the identical verb describing God's first action in 1:3. It is the verb wayyomer (and [he] said). Whereas God's first words called light to shine out of the darkness (2Cor. 4:6), the serpent's first words, in a sense, usher darkness back into Creation. To start, the serpent drops the personal name Yahweh when referring to God. He asks Eve, Did elohim actually say? As we will see, he was successful in causing Eve to neglect the personal name of her Creator in this dialogue whereas the rest of the passage that follows keeps the Name.

Presumably, the serpent asked Eve a question he knew the answer to already, but in concordance with his craftiness he asks if God really told them not to eat of any tree in the garden. This prompts an interesting response. Not only does Eve not consider the personal name Yahweh, she adds to God's words in verse 3. She correctly states that God warned them not to eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, but she adds the phrase neither shall you touch it. If God said these words they are not recorded in Scripture. More likely, the warning was far removed from Eve's mind and embellishments therefore naturally followed. This is not difficult to understand if there had been a time where close communication between God and Eve had ceased or had become sporadic at best (perhaps this is the reason for Paul's warning to the Corinthians in 2Cor. 11:3). Such a time was ideal for the serpent to make his move. It is significant then that he chose Eve as his target rather than Adam (1Tim. 2:14). Although Adam was with her (verse 6), the easier target was Eve. The serpent most likely guessed Adam would fall easy prey to his wife upon her offering the fruit to him.

Whether or not Eve was aware of her additions to God's words, an act which is strictly forbidden (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18), she correctly reiterated the penalty for disobedience: they would die (Heb. muth). Just as there are warnings against adding to God's words, there are some for taking away from them as well. The two appear to be equally serious in the whole of Scripture. What did Eve leave out? In addition to the name Yahweh, she omits the seriousness of the penalty for the sin. In Genesis 2:17, God said they would surely die (moth tamuth). The infinitive absolute is thereby given to emphatically pronounce the certainty of their death should they disobey and eat the fruit. In verse 3, Eve only restates the imperfect without the infinitive part of the construct. We can begin to get the sense of manipulation and intimidation the serpent has over Eve at this point. He has successfully gotten her to haphazardly recall God's command and lessen the severity of the consequences for failure to obey.

A few critical observations and conclusions can be made in the serpent's final reply to Eve. To her he says, You will not surely die. Satan here uses the infinitive absolute moth temuthun. Where Eve had failed to restate this, the crafty serpent here replies to the emphatic with a negative. God had expressed a certain death. The serpent countered with a certain escape from death. In Scripture, the term death can mean either a physical one or a spiritual one. For sure, God's punishment in 2:17 has elements of both. Satan played on strictly the physical component. He knew she would not physically die in the day (yom) she ate of the fruit, so he boldly stated the certainty of that to her. From Scripture and from fossil evidence we know that animal death had occurred before Adam and Eve's sin. They were aware of what physical death was and therefore understood just what death was when God warned them in 2:17. It seems Eve was unaware or unmoved by the spiritual death she would instantaneously encounter upon falling into sin. She was apparently comforted by the authoritative response from the serpent. It came from someone who no doubt was there when God issued the warning to Adam and was able to twist it in his favor. This clearly sounds like someone who believes himself to be at the least equal to God Himself (Is. 14:12-14).

The serpent's persuasive statement continues, For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. To go with the idea that he believed he is God's equal he commences to explain what God is actually thinking. He goes so far as to make God out to be the one who is deceiving and keeping information from them. The position of being like God is here defined as knowing good and evil. The fact that this tree was able to give this power to those who eat of it and that Adam was warned not to eat of the tree on Day 6 proves that Satan (who is called the Evil One (Matt. 13:38-39)) had fallen before God pronounces His Creation very good in Gen. 1:31. This is contrary to what most YECs believe who regard 'very good' to be equal with 'perfect' in every form. Satan had most definitely turned evil because of his pride (Ezek. 28:17) before the end of the Creation Week. Something about the original nature of mankind was hindering a true knowledge of good and evil. It was only after their rebellion that they understood there is a way contrary to God's (i.e. evil). Originally they knew no guilt (2:24). Afterwards they would realize their guilt completely (3:7).

Though he was in the body of an ordinary snake, Satan had disguised himself as an angel of light (2Cor. 11:14) and offered Eve a chance to be like God. Eve looked at the tree and saw that it was good (LXX: kalos) for food. The tree was a delight (taawah) to her eyes. The tree was to be desired (chamad) to make her wise. Eve then takes the fruit and eats. We see here a logical recipe for sin. It starts with the eyes and initially seems harmless. The first two steps were not in and of themselves wrong for Eve to consider. After all, much of the vegetation God created was pleasing (chamad) to the eyes and good for food (2:9). Eve had to eat. The tree was good in so far as being able to fulfill that purpose. The tree was pleasing to her eyes and was desired, but as the Scripture alludes, not just for food but more so to make her wise. It was this desire (chamad) to be like God and obtain this secret knowledge that caused her to fall to temptation. In His 10^th Commandment God strictly forbids the negative form of this desiring (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21) using the same Hebrew word. In Deuteronomy He also uses the verb form of the other word here, awah, to further describe this negative desiring. In a sense, Eve lusted after this knowledge and gave in to temptation. James tells us when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin (Jas. 1:15). Her eyes were now open to what she had done.

Scripture is clear both here and in other passages in that it was Eve who was first tempted and fell (2Cor. 11:3; 1Tim 2:14). But it is also clear that the responsibility for the sin nature being imputed down through the generations to the present is solely Adam's (Rom. 5:12-19; 1Cor. 15:21-22). In verse 6 it says that Adam was with her. Later in verse 9 God searches out Adam and not Eve to give an account of his actions. Though Eve was deceived and fell and started the chain reaction of disobedience, it appears that Adam stood idly by and watched everything before he himself took part.

With both of their eyes now opened to the knowledge of good and evil, they noticed they were naked and made coverings for themselves out of leaves. The Bible mentions that in their pre-fallen state they were naked and were not ashamed (2:25). Upon committing the first sin they became ashamed of their nakedness. It was not so much the fruit of the tree that opened their eyes but the fact that they had disobeyed their Creator's command and had fallen out of their perfect spiritual relationship with Him. They now had the first feeling of true guilt. It is interesting that the couple's first act in addressing their shame is to provide for themselves a covering. The only thing they could do is hastily put together a few fig leaves for their loins. In providing a true covering (kippur) for the atonement of mankind's sin (Lev. 17:11) through His Son Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:7; Heb. 12:2) the gracious Creator did away with man's shame when man could only mask it. Before the hope of that promise existed, Adam and Eve did the only logical thing; they covered up, ran and hid.

The Blame:

Genesis 3:8-13 (ESV)

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, Where are you?
10 And he said, I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.
11 He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?
12 The man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, What is this that you have done? The woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate.

Yahweh elohim has to this point seemed far away. In the conversation between Eve and the serpent only 'God' was mentioned as if the serpent was attempting to distance the relationship between man and his Creator. After the Fall, it is the 'LORD God' (Yahweh elohim) who comes looking for His special creatures. As it turned out, Yahweh was never far away. The serpent accomplished his mission to separate the couple from their Creator. When Yahweh comes it is now man that tries to run away. The text says they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. This verse is difficult to translate and has been the subject of a lot of confusion. The phrase in the ESV in the cool of the day reads in the Hebrew leruach hayom. The phrase is most literally rendered 'at the wind of the day.' It is usually translated 'in the cool of the day' because the windy part of the day is in the late afternoon in Palestine and it usually cools off the land. Other translations are 'at the time of the evening breeze' (HCSB, NRSV), 'in the evening breeze' (The Message), 'at the breezy time of the day' (NET), 'during the cool part of the day' (NCV), and 'when the cool evening breezes were blowing' (NLT). The LXX simply has deilinon (at evening). Deilinos is used 5 other times in the LXX always referring to the time of the evening sacrifices (Ex. 29:39, 41; Lev. 6:13; 1Kings 18:29; 2Chr. 31:3). In most of these verses they translate from the Hebrew erev. This is the typical Hebrew word for evening. The typical LXX and NT word for evening is espera. Deilinos is not used in the NT. It seems the LXX translators saw this event in 3:8 as occurring around the time of the day when the evening sacrifices would later be instituted (i.e. around twilight).

Some have argued that the phrase should be translated as 'the wind of the storm' suggesting a storm theophany where Yahweh is coming to judge the couple after their first sin. Jeffrey Niehaus (Pratico and Van Pelt: Basics of Biblical Hebrew, pp. 397-9) claims the word yom which is almost exclusively translated as 'day' has an Akkadian equivalent of umu which can mean either 'day' or 'storm.' While it does make good theological sense to think of Yahweh coming mightily in judgment, this interpretation is not the simplest. There appears to be no other place in the OT where yom should be translated as 'storm.' It is true that qol (sound) could be translated more intensely as 'thunder' as in Ex. 19:19. It is also true that mithhalek (the hithpael participal form of walking) could be translated more intensely as 'walking back and forth' as in Esther 2:11 and here in the YLT. In fact, in most of the 7 other uses of mithhalek, the word connotes a majestic powerful walk of a king either human (1Sam 12:2) or God Himself (Deut. 23:15). With all of these data before us, perhaps the best interpretation is a mixture of the two. There seems to be no textual or contextual evidence that God is merely taking His usual stroll through the garden to chat with Adam and Eve. Rather He appears to be majestically walking through the garden accompanied potentially by peals of thunder as He comes to meet His creatures to deal with their disobedience. This storm comes at the usual windy part of the day near twilight, but the couple is hiding as this is obviously no typical tempest. Of the other eight uses of chava (hide) in the intensive reflexive hithpael stem that refer to a person or people, all of them refer to the subject as hiding themselves out of fear of death. It stands to reason here that Adam has recalled God's promise of death in 2:17 and is hiding for his life.

With the couple in hiding amongst the trees of the Garden, Yahweh calls and singles out Adam with a rhetorical question. The 'you' in verse 9 is in the singular suggesting Yahweh holds Adam responsible for what had transpired. This fits with the rest of Scripture particularly the NT. Surely God knew where Adam was or else the Psalmist is in error when he claims His understanding is infinite (Ps. 147:5 NASB). Elsewhere the Apostle John claims that God knows all things (1John 3:20). This question seems merely to start the dialogue and call Adam to judgment.

When caught, Adam confesses that he hid because of the [thunderous] noise of Yahweh (v. 10). He then covers up his real fear by saying that it was because he was naked that he was afraid. More likely the realization of his nakedness was a by-product of his sin and his fear was truly that of being punished for his disobedience. The text seems to portray Adam here in a frenzied panic and understandably so.

Yahweh then continues with two more rhetorical questions that go unanswered: Who told you that you were naked? and Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat? In an act of desperation Adam answers in v. 12 by blaming not only Eve for giving him the fruit, but also God Himself for giving him Eve. God's attention then turns to Eve for an account of her deeds. Eve promptly shifts blame to the serpent. In the end they both confess that they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree. It was now time for God's punishment to come to the three individuals. Interestingly, He does it in reverse order according to the giving of the blame.

The Curse:

Genesis 3:14-19 (ESV)

14 The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
16 To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.
17 And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

This section of the pericope is known as the Curse. It is one of the most hotly debated passages in Scripture particularly with regards to the subject of the age of the earth, the reliability of scientific observations, and the timing of animal death (fossilization) and Noah's Flood. Most global-extent YECs hold that the Scripture claims that death (even that of animals) was a direct consequence of the Fall and therefore all of the fossils we see were a result of Noah's global deluge. Local-extent OECs maintain that only human death is mentioned here and as a result, the fossil record could have predated the Fall possibly by hundreds of millions of years based on the interpretations of the Creation accounts and the record of nature. YECs respond by claiming that the natural record cannot give an accurate history of events because nature was cursed by God here in Genesis 3. The world we live in and study, they say, is fallen and has been subject to physical laws not present in the original Creation (see Romans 8:19-22). We have already seen however that the natural world of Genesis 1-2 was nearly identical to the one we know today with respect to the processes at work. If all Creation is cursed as a result of Adam's original sin, we will be able to clearly deduce that from a detailed study of these six verses. We will also touch on Romans 8 to see if it adds support to this theory. The serpent is punished first in the opening two verses.

Verse 14 begins with the wayyiqtol verb wayyomer. This time it is Yahweh who is speaking as if to have the final word over the evil serpent who began the pericope by speaking to Eve. The serpent is to be cursed above all livestock and all beasts of the field. The word for cursed here is arar, a verb used 48 times in the OT. It is one of 6 verbs translated as curse in the OT. The other 5 are qelalah, taalah, qavav, naqav and zaam. According to TWOT the primary meanings are as follows:

1.) Arar - the absence of blessing

2.) Qelalah - the absence of a blessed state and the lowering to lesser state

3.) Taalah - curses as in a large broad category

4.) Qavav - having to do with actually uttering the curse

5.) Naqav - blasphemy

6.) Zaam - to defy or denounce

The curse against the serpent is here spelled out for the reader in a three-fold manner. The first part of the curse is uttered on your belly you shall go. Many have taken this to be a morphological change regarding the locomotion of the serpent. That is, originally the snake had legs and walked about until here where it was sentenced to slither along on its belly. There is no doubt that that is the most straightforward literal reading in the English translation. But is that really the intended message of Moses to his original audience? First of all we have already seen that this pericope so far has not been about a snake but the one who embodies the snake, namely Satan. Certainly Satan does not slither along on his belly today, so either this curse is truly meant for the snake or it is not to be taken literally as a physical one. The former does not make much sense in the context of the passage and certainly seems unfair to the snake. The latter may then be taken as a sense of shame. Satan was to figuratively crawl away defeated, much like the snake he embodied.

The second part of the curse reads dust you shall eat all the days of your life. The Hebrew audience knew quite well that snakes do not actually eat dust. To take this literally would quickly encounter contradiction in the natural world today. Therefore, like the first part of the curse, we are to take this figuratively as a sense of shame and defeat. This is attested in Micah 7:17 where the nations against Israel will lick the dust like a serpent when they come trembling before Yahweh. Interestingly, Is. 65:25 is often seen as a picture of when the conditions of Eden are restored and the curse is lifted. In this verse the prophet speaks of a time when the wolf and the lamb will graze together and the lion will eat straw like the ox. But he goes on to say that dust will be the serpent's food. In Genesis, the serpent's dust eating is a product of the curse. This puts the Edenic restoration interpretation of Is. 65:25 in jeopardy. Rather this verse should be seen as prophesying a new era in the future and not a time when pre-Fall conditions will be restored.

The final part of the curse against the serpent is given in verse 15. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. This verse is often claimed as a protoevangelium (a first telling of the gospel). To determine if this is so, it will be helpful to distinguish all the characters. To be sure, there are five. First it is Yahweh who is pronouncing the curse. Next there is the addressee, the serpent given as the second person singular pronoun 'you.' Then we encounter the woman, Eve. Next we see the serpent's offspring. This noun (zera) is never pluralized but it can be either singular or plural in meaning based on context. Here it is uncertain if there is a single offspring or a collective group of offspring intended. Finally there is the woman's offspring. We know this is an individual because he is later identified with a third person singular masculine pronoun. In addition to the cast, there is another observation worth mentioning upfront. While there will be enmity between Satan's offspring and Eve's offspring, the ultimate battle is between Satan and a certain male descendent of Eve.

God begins the verse by saying He will put enmity between Satan and the woman. The word here is eyvah (LXX: echthra) and it is only used 5 times in the OT. It generally conveys a feeling of hatred or hostility between parties. In the NT the idea is that anything of fleshly or worldly bias is hostility (echtra) towards God whether it is the mind (Rom. 8:7) or just plain friendship with the things of the world (Jas. 4:4). That same idea is present in Genesis where the woman and Satan will have nothing but hatred and hostility towards each other. The same goes for Satan's offspring and the male offspring of Eve. It stands to reason then that this descendent will have a mind set on God and the things of the Spirit rather than a focus on worldly lusts.

Next we are given a prophecy that he (the male descendent of Eve) shall bruise your (Satan's) head and you (Satan) shall bruise his (the male descendent of Eve) heel. The ESV accurately represents the verb 'bruise' (Heb. suph) as it is in the qal stem in both occurrences. Since the verbs are identical, the English translations should be as well. The NIV, NCV and the Latin Vulgate change verbs unnecessarily. The LXX translates both as tereo which is a bit odd as it generally means 'to keep watch over,' but can have the sense of 'aim at something;' in this case the head and the heel. Since the Vulgate paved the way to translate different verbs it has been tempting to see the serpent as merely lying in wait and striking at the male offspring while he himself would ultimately crush the head of the serpent with his foot. This interpretation with its emphatic biases should be dismissed as it is not what the text is truly saying. While the serpent only attacks the heel and the male offspring attacks the head, it can, however, be interpreted that the male offsprings attack will cause more damage perhaps even being fatal.

There are a few supposed allusions to this text in the NT. First, there seems to be a parallel in Rev. 12. The passage clearly calls Genesis 3 to mind by mentioning that Satan is the serpent of old (12:9). Satan is here symbolized as a dragon who fell from heaven taking a third of the angels with him. Both he and his angels were thrown down to earth. This event has not happened yet according to the Scripture. When this happens, Satan will come in great fury knowing he has only a little bit of time left (12:12). Verse 13 states that he will persecute the woman (Israel) who gave birth to the male child (Jesus). Actually in the Greek it is only a male (arsena). The word child is not in the text. This may have allusions to Genesis 3:15 where we saw that a male descendent of the woman will have a hostile relationship with Satan. Then in verse 17 we find the text saying that Satan will be enraged with the woman in perhaps another fulfillment of the enmity mentioned in Genesis 3:15.

Another NT passage is Romans 16:20 where Paul states that the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The forcefulness of some translations including the Vulagate may have been influenced by this verse. There are a few problems with this, however. First, the Greek word here (suntribo) is different than the LXX word in Gen. 3:15 (tereo) with tereo literally meaning 'to watch over.' Second, the one doing the crushing in Romans is God, while in Genesis it is the male descendent of Eve. Third, there is no method given for the bruising in Genesis 3, while it is 'your foot' in Romans 16. The 'your' here refers to the brethren (v. 17) in the church in Rome. Again, in Genesis it is the male offspring who is doing the bruising. So if there is an allusion here to Genesis 3:15 it is indirect at best. There is no textual evidence to interpret the passage here as someone crushing the head of a snake (Satan) with his foot. To do this is to miss the figurative language which predicts only a bruise (probably permanent and fatal) to the head of Satan. The details and methods are not given.

Since Eve's offspring is singled out as a male, is it possible to determine exactly who this man is? The answer is not exactly clear in Scripture although I believe it can be logically inferred. If we read on in Revelation regarding the dragon who we clearly saw was Satan, the dragon of old (12:9; 20:2), we find that an angel binds him up in the abyss for 1,000 years (20:1-3). The angel himself cannot be the male descendent of Eve, and it is clear that this is only a temporary confinement. After the 1,000 years are up, Satan is released for one last battle. Quickly he is defeated and thrown into the Lake of Fire (20:7-10). In Luke 12:5 Jesus instructs the people to fear God who has the authority to cast into hell. Since the Bible is clear on the deity of Christ and since the events in Revelation take place just after Christ's 1,000 year reign on earth, it seems more than reasonable to infer that Satan's fatal wound is dealt by Jesus Himself. Jesus fits the description of a male descendent of Adam and Eve (Luke 3:23-38). Jesus alone is able to bruise the head of Satan in the sense demanded by the text. All this evidence strongly proclaims this passage as a protoevangelium, or first telling of the gospel. The implication is that immediately after Adam and Eve's first act of disobedience, and during their punishment, they were offered redemption. While there was clear and strong consequence for their sin, they had hope in a future savior.

Next Yahweh speaks to the woman in verse 16. In the first part of the curse against Eve, Yahweh says I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing. The phrase surely multiply (harbah arbeh) is an infinitive absolute. This construction is used to add emphasis and certainty that the action of the verb will take place (see also Gen. 2:16 and 17). Most often this phrase is translated with the English word 'surely' as in the ESV. Almost every other English version translates the phrase 'greatly multiply' which seems to miss the meaning of the statement. The emphasis is on the certainty not the severity. Nevertheless, Eve's pain was to be multiplied, which stands to reason she was to have at least some pain without the addition of God's curse. In addition, we saw the first use of the word ravah in Gen. 1:22 where God blessed the creatures of the sea and the air and told them to multiply. Obviously there was an initial quantity of each in order for them to multiply. Many who claim the entire Creation was cursed here in Genesis 3 site Eve's pain in childbearing as proof. Clearly the text supports the presence of pain before the curse, even if it was slight. Furthermore the word itstsavon (pain/toil) is only used 3 times in the OT; here, verse 17 where it speaks of Adam's toil in his labor and Gen. 5:29 where it is prophesied that Noah will bring rest from the toil caused by God's curse. The Greek word here in the LXX is lupe which could either mean physical or spiritual pain and carries a more general feeling than itstsavon. Eve's pain was to be in her herayon (childbearing). This word is used only here in the OT and could more literally mean conception or pregnancy. The LXX interestingly uses stenagmos (a groaning).

The second line of the curse towards Eve seems to be a parallel of the first; in pain you shall bring forth children. This time pain is etsev (again translated as lupe in the LXX). You will notice the root is the same as itstsavon in the first part of the curse. Now Eve will experience pain or sorrow while bringing forth children. This passage is often interpreted as such that the pain experienced by women during childbirth is a result of Eve's sin. While it is possible that this is correct, there are a few things often missed that should be accounted for. First, there was pain in childbearing before this curse. Second, the curse is directed towards Eve, therefore it is an assumption that it is passed down to all women. Third, it is assumed that the terms here describe a physical pain. Again, these may be correct assumptions, but care should be taken to avoid reading things into the text. The phrase teldiy vaniym (you shall bring forth children) does seem to call to mind the familiar pain that a woman experiences during delivery. The LXX reads texe tekna which speaks of bringing a child into the world. While the traditional interpretation of this curse is that it affects all women from Eve down and is speaking of a physical change to the female body that is more conducive to pain during childbirth, the text does not address what exactly that change was. Therefore, since the text implies there would be some pain even without the curse, it makes more sense (in my opinion) that the additional pain Eve was to incur was emotional or spiritual pain. Such feelings are common in the conception, pregnancy and delivery process. Perhaps in the original Creation women would have experienced none of the emotional effects of this process though still experiencing the physical pain. Out of necessity there must have been a severe alteration to the female body to go from a pain-free delivery to the one experienced by women today. That change is not recorded in Scripture. Is there a Scriptural basis for assuming the pain is emotional?

In the next and final part of Yahweh's curse towards Eve, He mentions a change in her desire. This is clearly a behavioral change and not a physical one. Also, the spiritual pain of etsev is attested in Scripture. It does mean physical labor in places, but it also depicts more of a sorrow in places such as Prov. 10:22 where it says that the blessing of the Lord makes rich; and He adds no sorrow (etsev) with it. Also in Prov. 15:1 we see that a harsh (etsev: painful, sorrowful) word stirs up anger. Furthermore, in the 18 verses in the LXX where lupe is used, at least 14 of them are strictly dealing with emotional pain or grief. Finally, in the NT lupe is exclusively used to denote grief or sorrow, not physical pain. An important and relevant passage is John 16:20-22. Here Jesus is telling His disciples that He is going to be leaving them for a while, but then He will return. The disciples would experience grief (lupe), but then would experience joy at His return. Jesus uses an analogy in verse 21 of a woman experiencing pain (NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV); sorrow (ESV, NKJV, KJV) when she is in labor because her time has come to give birth. The word lupe is used here not to describe the physical pains of labor, but the emotional as demanded by the context. Jesus here is essentially saying that the lupe experienced by women during the childbearing process is not physical (although that definitely exists!) but sorrowful. He also adds that our gracious God has allowed for the moments after childbirth to be that of joy. So much so that the lupe of the curse is remembered no more. Additionally, consider Is. 26:17 where it says, "As the pregnant woman approaches the time to give birth, she writhes (chiyl) and cries out in her labor pains (chevel), thus were we before You, O Lord." In a verse that obviously speaks of physical pain, none of the words used in Genesis 3 are found. All of this textual evidence leads me to believe that the pain with which Eve was cursed during labor was not physical, but spiritual.

The last part of the curse against Eve would be that her desire shall be for [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]. There is a bit of consternation over just what is meant here. Is it a physical desire? Is it a desire to be the head of the household? The word here is teshuqah and it is only used 3 times in the OT; elsewhere in Gen 4:7 and Song 7:10. The LXX curiously translates as apostrophe (a turning back) which does not seem to make sense. It uses apostrophe in Gen. 4:7 whereas in the Song of Solomon, the similar epistrophe is used. The word's sparse usage may lead to more questions than answers and certainly the LXX appears not to help. We can deduce however in Gen. 4:7 that sin is crouching at the door and its teshuqah is for us (i.e. it wants to control or master us), but we must master it. The poetic use in the Song of Solomon speaks more of a physical desiring. From the context, the use here more closely resembles that of Genesis 4:7 where someone or something is doing the desiring but someone else must do the mastering (Heb. mashal in both verses). All this evidence seems to suggest that Eve is cursed by having a desire to dominate or control her husband, but it will be the husband who rules over her. The Bible does not comment on whether Eve's curses will be imputed to all women down through the ages, but the traditional view is that they are.

While Eve will want to control the relationship with Adam, he will mashal over her. In the LXX, kurieuo is used while the similar passage in Gen. 4:7 uses archo. Mashal is first used in Gen. 1:18 where the sun and moon are given to rule over the day and night. The word carries a wide range of meanings, but the general sense is 'to govern' or 'to be master of.' It can mean a fierce, harsh ruling as in Is. 19:4, or it can be a righteous ruling in the fear of the Lord as in 2Sam. 23:3. While the current passage does not mention the extent of this governing, the Bible is clear on the relationship of a man with his wife. While man is head of the woman (1Cor. 11:3), he is to love her and give himself up for her (Eph. 5:27) and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life (1Pet. 3:7). The Scriptures clearly lay most of the responsibility on the man to nurture the relationship with the woman, and it is not to be done in a malicious manner. Rather than rule in a sense of a dictator, the NT suggests the man is to lead with respect to moral integrity. Nevertheless, the woman will desire the lead role in the relationship according to the passage at hand.

So far in the account of the Curse there does not appear to be any mention of a change in the way the physical world operates. The curse against the serpent (Satan) was strictly a prophecy of his ultimate demise at the hand of a male descendent of Eve who, it can be deduced, is Jesus Christ. Secondly, the curse against Eve (and reasonably assuming all women thereafter) seems to be purely emotional. There would be increased grief in childbearing and a desire to be the head of the marriage relationship. There appears to be no physical effect on either her or the reptilian body of the serpent. The passage now moves towards the curse against Adam where natural effects of the Curse are often sited.

The curse against Adam spans verses 17 to 19 of chapter three. Because Adam ate of the tree, cursed is the ground because of [him]; in toil [he] will eat of it all the days of [his] life. Many have taken this cursing of the ground to be universal in extent; proof that the physical Creation in its entirety is cursed (with backing from Romans 8). I will comment on Romans 8 later, but if all Creation is cursed it should be readily evident in this, the account of the Curse itself. The word for curse here again is arar which I argued above depicts the absence of a blessing or a barrier in the way of the blessing (cf. v. 14). Taken as such the blessing of the ground (i.e. abundant crops) would be prevented and absent. The cursing of the ground is seen elsewhere in Scripture. In Genesis 4:11-12, Cain is cursed (arar) from the ground which is later defined as "when you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you." So when Cain murdered his brother Abel, God cursed the ground. This meant it would no longer yield abundant crops when Cain tried to cultivate it. It did not mean that the laws of nature were altered in any way. Next, in Genesis 5:29 Lamech prophesies that his son Noah "will bring rest from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the LORD has cursed (arar)." This prophecy would make no sense if somehow Noah were to reverse the natural laws to what they were before the Fall. Also, in a passage of conditional curses in Deut. 21:18, the produce of the ground would be cursed (arar) if Israel disobeys God in the land He is giving them. If the cursing of the ground in Gen. 3 is to be a permanent one, then how could it be that it could be cursed again? These three passages seem to indicate that the ground that was cursed was local to Adam. The evidence being that the ground was later cursed because of Cain's sin, Noah would bring an end to the curse on the ground, and there would be a possibility the ground could be cursed again if Israel rebels against God in the Promised Land. There is no mention here of a lasting change in the way the physical world operates.

What of the toil that Adam would encounter while working the ground? This is the same word (itstsavon) used for Eve's pain in childbearing in verse 16. The LXX also translates this word here as lupe which as was discussed above almost always depicts an emotional pain, not a physical one. The word may be better translated as 'sorrow' here rather than 'toil' as in the KJV and YLT. Thus the translation of 'painful labor' (HCSB) seems unwarranted. Perhaps the NLT's paraphrase "all your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it" conveys the proper message of Adam's sorrow he would feel as he no doubt worked hard to reap just a little in the field that was cursed.

Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you. This phrase has also given proof to some who adhere to the notion of a global curse. They argue that this is the first appearance of thorns and thistles in creation. They are then a new physical creation ushered in to aid in the cursing of the earth. First of all, the word bara (to create) is not used in this passage; neither are any of the other verbs commonly regarded as denoting a new appearance such as 'be,' 'make,' 'fashion,' etc... The verb translated here as shall bring forth speaks of a common ordinary growth of vegetation. While the verb is in the hiphil stem denoting causative action on God's part, it is unnecessary to demand a creative act. Since God was in His resting stage having completed Creation (Gen. 2:1-2), it seems more correct to think of this as a change that made thorn and thistle growth more conducive. Perhaps this acted in tandem with the couple's expulsion later on into a land that was overrun with this kind of vegetation. This would account for Adam's sorrow in his labors to try to cultivate good crops.

The next part of the curse against Adam reads by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread. It is important to see that hard work is not the result of the Curse. Adam was told in 2:15 to cultivate and keep the land. In 1:28 the couple was told to subdue the land. The word used there implies that it would not willingly be subdued, but rather it would take some effort. Hard work is not a curse. No doubt cultivating the Garden of Eden would have been easier because thorns and thistles were not present. The curse here is stating that his efforts would need to be multiplied. He would have to work extra hard to cultivate this new cursed ground. We have seen in Genesis 2:5-6, that this land is naturally poorly irrigated. The seasonal waters would make it difficult for Adam to sustain a bountiful harvest. All of this would add to Adam's sorrow, but it is crucial to understand that the rewards of good honest hard work are a blessing and they are to be enjoyed as a gift from God (Eccl. 2:24; 5:19).

We come now to the most theologically relevant portion of the curse, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. The death sentence itself is not so much debated, but the extent of it is hotly contested. Was the death sentence passed on to all humanity (local extent) or is it spread across to the animal kingdom as well (global extent)?

The words make it clear that Adam is to eventually experience a physical death. We must be honest, however, that the text here does not say if this death would have happened anyway or if it is the product of the curse. If anything the curse given to Adam seems to emphasize the hard work he would experience until his death, not his death specifically. This has led to speculation as to whether Adam was created mortal. The Bible does not address this here, but it seems clear when taking all Scripture into account that that is not the case. First of all, God warns him that he would die on the day he eats of the fruit (Gen. 2:17). While that speaks primarily of spiritual death, it is clear that there is a component of physical death intended as well. Secondly, the NT seems to indicate that Adam's sin is responsible for death entering the world (Rom. 5:12-21; 1Cor 15:21-22). In each of these passages thanatos is used which is the same word in Gen. 2:17 (LXX).

Many YECs take a global-extent view saying that through Adam's sin all death came into the world; both to man and to the animal kingdom. This has been the predominant view down through the ages. But is this really what the Bible teaches? Hopefully we can agree that physical death to human beings was part of the Curse. At the very least, it is a punishment for Adam's sin (Gen. 2:17) and the Curse involved the imputation of the sin and therefore physical death to every successive generation (Rom. 5:12-21). Animal death is not specifically mentioned in the narrative on the Curse in Genesis 3. Those who adhere to the global-extent view call on Romans 5:12 as proof. This verse states that "therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." It must be noted that not only are animals not mentioned in this verse either, Paul seems to go out of his way to state that death spread to all men (anthropos). In my opinion, he intended to stress that death was passed down only to humans. He could have left out the word anthropos. He also could have included animals. But he did not. Similarly, 1Cor. 15:21-22 is called upon as proof that animals did not die before the Fall. In that passage we read, For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. While the passage does not say that death came to men, it also makes no mention of animals. There is yet another problem in suggesting this speaks of death to the animal kingdom. Verse 22 implies that if in Adam all (including animals) die, then in Christ all (including animals) will be made alive. There are obvious theological and biblical contradictions that appear if these verses include animal death. The Bible is very clear that Christ died for us for our sins (Rom. 5:6,8; 14:15; 1Cor. 8:11; 15:3; 1Pet. 3:18). Therefore, since the Bible makes absolutely no claim that animal death is a result of the Fall/Curse, we can very reasonably assume that animals had died for some time prior to Adam's sin.

The other argument used as proof that animals did not die before the Fall is the statement made by God in Gen. 1:31 that everything He created was 'very good.' Some have taken these words beyond their meaning to say that the original Creation was perfect and free of any natural evil. As I discussed earlier at 1:31, there is no reason to read that into the text. In fact, Paul says in 1Tim 4:4 that everything created by God IS good. It does not say that it WAS good and then was corrupted by man's sin. Likewise in other portions of Scripture animal death is depicted as a good thing. Abel's sacrifice of an animal was considered a good thing (Gen. 4:4). God Himself even provided a ram for Abraham to offer as a sacrifice (Gen. 22:13-14). God gives the lions their prey (Job 38:39-41; Ps. 104:21). In a few cases God even tells His people to destroy the animals in a city (Deut. 13:15; 1Sam 15:3). To say that animal death is a product of the Curse and had no part in God's very good Creation is to not only contradict Scripture but also to accuse God of feeding the fallen nature of His creatures. When looked at properly, Scripture reveals that humans are God's masterpiece in Creation. Animals are wonderful creations but they are made lower than man. Man fell into sin, but God provided a covering in the Old Testament through the death of animals (Lev. 17:11). The Bible says that when an animal was offered up it was a soothing aroma to the Lord (Lev. 1:9, 13, 17). That is not to say that God enjoys animal death. Rather this practice was given as a type of what would be the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross (Heb. 10:1-10). Therefore animal death in the Bible fits with God's Creation being very good just as He said (Gen. 1:31).

To summarize the extent of the Curse as given here in Genesis 3

1. The curse against the serpent was directed towards the one controlling the serpent, namely Satan, and not towards the physical body of a snake
2. Satan was to be banished in shame (3:14) and later defeated once and for all by a male descendent of Eve (3:15).
3. Eve was to undergo two emotional changes. First her sorrow during childbearing was to be multiplied. Second, she would now want to dominate the relationship with her husband.
4. The ground was cursed and Adam was to eat of its produce in sorrow (same word used for Eve's sorrow in childbearing).
5. Adam would be sent back to the land from which he came which was overcome with thorns and thistles
6. Adam would experience physical death

In analyzing the six verses in the Curse narrative, we must be honest in concluding we see absolutely no mention of any change in the physical laws nor do we see any mention of the entire Creation being cursed so as to alter its physical appearance or the way it functions. We must be careful not to read into the text that which is not there. Not only is suggesting God cursed His entire Creation eisegesis (a reading into the text) it also backs one into an unfortunate corner when trying to explain the harmony between Scripture and scientific data. No change in any physical laws has been found in the rock record or the astronomical record. To say that the earth was free of natural evil (i.e. earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, animal death, disease, etc...) before the Fall is to depict the earth as a mystical fairy tale place. A world without these things is a world without plate tectonics. A world without plate tectonics cannot produce the physical features seen in Genesis 2 such as topography for flowing rivers, gold and other minerals. Such a world is not very good. It is dead. It cannot sustain human life.

The Consequence:

Genesis 3:20-24 (ESV)

20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
22 Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

After God delivers His curse to the three involved persons, the narrative picks up again in verse 20 with a wayyiqtol verb. After the Curse, Adam called his wife's name Eve. In Hebrew Adam calls her chawah. This word is similar to chayah which is the word for 'life.' The LXX interestingly translates Eve as Zoe (life). In Gen. 4:1 (the only other mention of Eve), the LXX uses Eua from where we get the English 'Eve.' Translated literally, the LXX reads "Adam called his wifes name 'Life,' because she was the mother of all the living." By saying she was the mother of all the living, the Bible makes it clear that we are all descendents of Adam and Eve. Scientists now believe that all human beings were descended from a single human pair. Based on Y-chromosome DNA in males today, it is believed that all humans descended from Adam roughly 60,000 years ago. Considering the first six Creation Days spanned 4.5 billion years, it seems fitting that God's masterpiece of Creation is a most recent event. Long ages need not be discounted because of our limited minds to understand them. Rather they should be looked at with appreciation that our Creator took such a vast amount of time to prepare a beautiful planet for us to inhabit. Once again, science has confirmed what Christians knew all along: Eve was the mother of all the living.

It says next that Yahweh made for them garments of skin and clothed them. Many feel that when God killed the animal to make the coverings for Adam and Eve, that this was the first death incurred in the world. This conclusion is reasonable if one assumes there was no death prior to the Fall, but as we have seen, there is no biblical reason for assuming animals had not died before that event. In any case, it shows God's concern for the new state of His creatures. They had fallen and needed a physical and spiritual covering for their sin. The spiritual covering had already been promised in verse 15. The physical covering is now given to cover their shame of nakedness.

Next Yahweh makes an interesting statement. He says that the man has become like one of Us and then He clarifies that by saying that he now knows good from evil. As we saw in chapter 1, the use of the first person plural when spoken by God most likely is a reference to the Trinity (one God in three distinct persons). The triune God's statement on the surface seems to give credence to Satan's temptation in verse 5. Satan appears to have gotten it right, but as is typical for him, he throws tidbits of truth in with his deceptions. The man only became like God in that he was aware that his rebellion was evil. This knowledge was not comforting, rather it caused him great fear and anguish and even cost him his life.

God's concern was that now Adam might eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. This tree was not forbidden. It was there for Adam to eat of freely (2:16). The debate over whether these trees were literal or figurative should end now with this verse. If the tree was figurative, there would be no need for Adam to have to leave and no need for God to guard the path. These two trees were most definitely literal trees. Adam ate from the literal Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and then he was blocked from the literal Tree of Life. The tree, however, is probably a model of the true tree that is in heaven (Ezek. 47:12; Rev. 22:2), much the same as the tabernacle was a model of the one in heaven (Heb. 9:21-24). Just as the heavenly tree will bring healing to all who eat, so too would this earthly tree apparently. The text says that Adam would live forever. This verse should also end the debate over whether Adam was created mortal. If he was allowed to freely eat of this tree which would make him live forever, then it stands to reason that he was originally made to live forever. It is only his sin which brought about his death (Rom. 5:12). The word for forever here is olam. It is used 439 times in the OT and is the Hebrew word for eternity. The LXX translates with the beautiful phrase 'eis ton aiona' which is literally rendered 'into the age' or 'into the eon'. This phrase is hard to bring into English because we tend to water down such words like 'forever' and 'eternity.' In the NT this phrase is sometimes expanded to 'eis tous aionas ton aionon' when speaking of God's transcendent glory (Phil. 4:20). Literally that means 'into the ages of ages,' a breadth of time that goes beyond time itself. The incomprehensiveness of this should not let us minimize the phrase. Adam would live into eternity, having never to experience any kind of death, in his physical body if he was to eat of this tree. But now his soul would live on because of his faith in his spiritual redeemer (3:15), but he would need a new physical body because it was sentenced to death.

Therefore in verses 23 and 24 God would send Adam and Eve out of the garden back into the land in which they were created. It was a land unlike the Garden of Eden. It had ephemeral irrigation (Gen. 2:5-6) and it was overrun with thorns and thistles (3:17-18). Adam was cursed to cultivate this land because of his disobedience. Cultivating in the garden would have been a breeze compared to this. Here, he will work much and reap little. In sorrow and with the sweat of his brow will he toil in this land all the days of his life (3:17,19).

It was not enough for God to merely drive the couple out. He also placed cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the Tree of Life. The word 'cherubim' is a transliteration of the Hebrew word. It is used 90 times in the OT, most often in reference to the carvings that rested above the Ark of the Covenant and in Solomon's temple. They are also the beings seen by Ezekiel in his visions (Ezek. 10-11). Apparently, cherubs were mighty angelic beings. One particular cherub mentioned in Ezekiel 28:11-19 is thought by many to be Satan himself. Though not mentioned by name, it is readily apparent that this is not the earthly king of Tyre. The cherub was in the Garden of Eden (v. 13) and was blameless until unrighteousness was found in him and he fell (v. 15). Obviously, the timing of Satan's fall lies somewhere between the Beginning (Gen. 1:1) and the passage at hand. For now it is enough to say that the beings guarding the way to the Tree of Life were of the same race as Satan himself before his rebellion. One can only imagine Adam's chances of slipping past them and partaking of the healing fruit of the tree.

It is interesting to remember that Adam's job in the garden was to cultivate and keep (shamar) it (Gen. 2:15). After his sin and expulsion, God places the cherubim at the entrance to keep (shamar) him from the Tree of Life. God made sure that the only means to salvation was through the promise of the seed given in verse 15. The Tree of Life was a means to the physical healing that Adam needed, but it was guarded such that access to it was impossible. Adam, and every human being since, only had one cure for the wages of sin; that is the hope of the male descendent, Jesus Christ.

Dan Leiphart, 2009