TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers Genesis 3:1–5. His four-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
We have here an account of the temptation with which Satan assaulted our first parents, to draw them into sin, and which proved fatal to them. Here observe,
I.The tempter, and that was the devil, in the shape and likeness of a serpent.
1.It is certain it was the devil that beguiled Eve. The devil and Satan is the old serpent (Rev 12:9), a malignant spirit, by creation an angel of light and an immediate attendant upon God's throne, but by sin become an apostate from his first state and a rebel against God's crown and dignity. Multitudes of the angels fell; but this that attacked our first parents was surely the prince of the devils, the ring-leader in the rebellion: no sooner was he a sinner than he was a Satan, no sooner a traitor than a tempter, as one enraged against God and his glory and envious of man and his happiness. He knew he could not destroy man but by debauching him. Balaam could not curse Israel, but he could tempt Israel, Rev 2:14. The game therefore which Satan had to play was to draw our first parents to sin, and so to separate between them and their God. Thus the devil was, from the beginning, a murderer, and the great mischief-maker. The whole race of mankind had here, as it were, but one neck, and at that Satan struck. The adversary and enemy is that wicked one.
2.It was the devil in the likeness of a serpent. Whether it was only the visible shape and appearance of a serpent (as some think those were of which we read, Exo 7:12), or whether it was a real living serpent, actuated and possessed by the devil, is not certain: by God's permission it might be either. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent,
(1.)Because it is a specious creature, has a spotted dappled skin, and then went erect. Perhaps it was a flying serpent, which seemed to come from on high as a messenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; for the fiery serpents were flying, Isa 14:29. Many a dangerous temptation comes to us in gay fine colours that are but skin-deep, and seems to come from above; for Satan can seem an angel of light. And,
(2.)Because it is a subtle creature; this is here taken notice of. Many instances are given of the subtlety of the serpent, both to do mischief and to secure himself in it when it is done. We are directed to be wise as serpents. But this serpent, as actuated by the devil, was no doubt more subtle than any other; for the devil, though he has lost the sanctity, retains the sagacity of an angel, and is wise to do evil. He knew of more advantage by making use of the serpent than we are aware of. Observe, There is not any thing by which the devil serves himself and his own interest more than by unsanctified subtlety. What Eve thought of this serpent speaking to her we are not likely to tell, when I believe she herself did not know what to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good angel, and yet, afterwards, she might suspect something amiss. It is remarkable that the Gentile idolaters did many of them worship the devil in the shape and form of a serpent, thereby avowing their adherence to that apostate spirit, and wearing his colours.
II.The person tempted was the woman, now alone, and at a distance from her husband, but near the forbidden tree. It was the devil's subtlety,
1.To assault the weaker vessel with his temptations. Though perfect in her kind, yet we may suppose her inferior to Adam in knowledge, and strength, and presence of mind. Some think Eve received the command, not immediately from God, but at second hand by her husband, and therefore might the more easily be persuaded to discredit it.
2.It was his policy to enter into discourse with her when she was alone. Had she kept close to the side out of which she was lately taken, she would not have been so much exposed. There are many temptations, to which solitude gives great advantage; but the communion of saints contributes much tot heir strength and safety.
3.He took advantage by finding her near the forbidden tree, and probably gazing upon the fruit of it, only to satisfy her curiosity. Those that would not eat the forbidden fruit must not come near the forbidden tree. Avoid it, pass not by it, Pro 4:15.
4.Satan tempted Eve, that by her he might tempt Adam; so he tempted Job by his wife, and Christ by Peter. It is his policy to send temptations by unsuspected hands, and theirs that have most interest in us and influence upon us.
III.The temptation itself, and the artificial management of it.
We are often, in scripture, told of our danger by the temptations of Satan, his devices (Co2 2:11), his depths (Rev 2:24), his wiles, Eph 6:11. The greatest instances we have of them are in his tempting of the two Adams, here, and Mt. 4. In this he prevailed, but in that he was baffled. What he spoke to them, of whom he had no hold by any corruption in them, he speaks in us by our own deceitful hearts and their carnal reasonings; this makes his assaults on us less discernible, but not less dangerous. That which the devil aimed at was to persuade Eve to cut forbidden fruit; and, to do this, he took the same method that he does still. He questioned whether it was a sin or no, Gen 3:1. He denied that there was any danger in it, Gen 3:4. He suggested much advantage by it, Gen 3:5. And these are his common topics.
1.He questioned whether it was a sin or no to eat of this tree, and whether really the fruit of it was forbidden. Observe,
(1.)He said to the woman, Yea, hath God said, You shall not eat? The first word intimated something said before, introducing this, and with which it is connected, perhaps some discourse Eve had with herself, which Satan took hold of, and grafted this question upon. In the chain of thoughts one thing strangely brings in another, and perhaps something bad at last. Observe here,
[1.]He does not discover his design at first, but puts a question which seemed innocent: "I hear a piece of news, pray is it true? has God forbidden you to eat of this tree?" Thus he would begin a discourse, and draw her into a parley. Those that would be safe have need to be suspicious, and shy of talking with the tempter.
[2.]He quotes the command fallaciously, as if it were a prohibition, not only of that tree, but of all. God had said, Of every tree you may eat, except one. He, by aggravating the exception, endeavours to invalidate the concession: Hath God said, You shall not eat of every tree? The divine law cannot be reproached unless it be first misrepresented.
[3.]He seems to speak it tauntingly, upbraiding the woman with her shyness of meddling with that tree; as if he had said, "You are so nice and cautious, and so very precise, because God has said, 'You shall not eat." The devil, as he is a liar, so he is a scoffer, from the beginning: and the scoffers of the last days are his children.
[4.]That which he aimed at in the first onset was to take off her sense of the obligation of the command. "Surely you are mistaken, it cannot be that God should tie you out from this tree; he would not do so unreasonable a thing." See here, That it is the subtlety of Satan to blemish the reputation of the divine law as uncertain or unreasonable, and so to draw people to sin; and that it is therefore our wisdom to keep up a firm belief of, and a high respect for, the command of God. Has God said, "You shall not lie, nor take his name in vain, nor be drunk," etc.? "Yes, I am sure he has, and it is well said, and by his grace I will abide by it, whatever the tempter suggests to the contrary."
(2.)In answer to this question the woman gives him a plain and full account of the law they were under, Gen 3:2, Gen 3:3. Here observe,
[1.]It was her weakness to enter into discourse with the serpent. She might have perceived by his question that he had no good design, and should therefore have started back with a Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence to me. But her curiosity, and perhaps her surprise, to hear a serpent speak, led her into further talk with him. Note, It is a dangerous thing to treat with a temptation, which ought at first to be rejected with disdain and abhorrence. The garrison that sounds a parley is not far from being surrendered. Those that would be kept from harm must keep out of harm's way. See Pro 14:7; Pro 19:27.
[2.]It was her wisdom to take notice of the liberty God had granted them, in answer to his sly insinuation, as if God has put them into paradise only to tantalize them with the sight of fair but forbidden fruits. "Yea," says she, "we may eat of the fruit of the trees, thanks to our Maker, we have plenty and variety enough allowed us." Note, To prevent our being uneasy at the restraints of religion, it is good often to take a view of the liberties and comforts of it.
[3.]It was an instance of her resolution that she adhered to the command, and faithfully repeated it, as of unquestionable certainty: "God hath said, I am confident he hath said it, You shall not eat of the fruit of this tree;" and that which she adds, Neither shall you touch it, seems to have been with a good intention, not (as some think) tacitly to reflect upon the command as too strict (Touch not, taste not and handle not), but to make a fence about it: "We must not eat, therefore we will not touch. It is forbidden in the highest degree, and the authority of the prohibition is sacred to us." [4.] She seems a little to waver about the threatening, and is not so particular and faithful in the repetition of that as of the precept. God has said, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; all she makes of that is, Lest you die. Note, Wavering faith and wavering resolutions give great advantage to the tempter.
2.He denies that there was any danger in it, insisting that, though it might be the transgressing of a precept, yet it would not be the incurring of a penalty: You shall not surely die, Gen 3:4. "You shall not dying die," so the word is, in direct contradiction to what God had said. Either, (1.) "It is not certain that you shall die," so some. "It is not so sure as you are made to believe it is." Thus Satan endeavours to shake that which he cannot overthrow, and invalidates the force of divine threatenings by questioning the certainty of them; and, when once it is supposed possible that there may be falsehood or fallacy in any word of God, a door is then opened to downright infidelity. Satan teaches men first to doubt and then to deny; he makes them sceptics first, and so by degrees makes them atheists. Or, (2.) "It is certain you shall not die," so others. He avers his contradiction with the same phrase of assurance that God had used in ratifying the threatening. He began to call the precept in question (Gen 3:1), but, finding that the woman adhered to that, he quitted that battery, and made his second onset upon the threatening, where he perceived her to waver; for he is quick to spy all advantages, and to attack the wall where it is weakest: You shall not surely die. This was a lie, a downright lie; for, [1.] It was contrary to the word of God, which we are sure is true. See Jo1 2:21, Jo1 2:27. It was such a lie as gave the lie to God himself. [2.] It was contrary to his own knowledge. When he told them there was no danger in disobedience and rebellion he said that which he knew, by woeful experience, to be false. He had broken the law of his creation, and had found, to his cost, that he could not prosper in it; and yet he tells our first parents they shall not die. He concealed his own misery, that he might draw them into the like: thus he still deceives sinners into their own ruin. He tells them that, though they sin, they shall not die; and gains credit rather than God, who tells them, The wages of sin is death. Note, Hope of impunity is a great support to all iniquity, and impenitency in it. I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of my heart, Deu 29:19.
3.He promises them advantage by it, Gen 3:5. Here he follows his blow, and it was a blow at the root, a fatal blow to the tree we are branches of. He not only would undertake that they should be no losers by it, thus binding himself to save them from harm; but (if they would be such fools as to venture upon the security of one that had himself become a bankrupt) he undertakes they shall be gainers by it, unspeakable gainers. He could not have persuaded them to run the hazard of ruining themselves if he had not suggested to them a great probability of bettering themselves.
(1.)He insinuates to them the great improvements they would make by eating of this fruit. And he suits the temptation to the pure state they were now in, proposing to them, not any carnal pleasures or gratifications, but intellectual delights and satisfactions. These were the baits with which he covered his hook. [1.] "Your eyes shall be opened; you shall have much more of the power and pleasure of contemplation than now you have; you shall fetch a larger compass in your intellectual views, and see further into things than now you do." He speaks as if now they were but dim-sighted, and short-sighted, in comparison of what they would be then. [2.] "You shall be as gods, as Elohim, mighty gods; not only omniscient, but omnipotent too;" or, "You shall be as God himself, equal to him, rivals with him; you shall be sovereigns and no longer subjects, self-sufficient and no longer dependent." A most absurd suggestion! As if it were possible for creatures of yesterday to be like their Creator that was from eternity. [3.] "You shall know good and evil, that is, every thing that is desirable to be known." To support this part of the temptation, he abuses the name given to this tree: it was intended to teach the practical knowledge of good and evil, that is, of duty and disobedience; and it would prove the experimental knowledge of good and evil, that is, of happiness and misery. In these senses, the name of the tree was a warning to them not to eat of it; but he perverts the sense of it, and wrests it to their destruction, as if this tree would give them a speculative notional knowledge of the natures, kinds, and originals, of good and evil. And, [4.] All this presently: "In the day you eat thereof you will find a sudden and immediate change for the better." Now in all these insinuations he aims to beget in them, First, Discontent with their present state, as if it were not so good as it might be, and should be. Note, No condition will of itself bring contentment, unless the mind be brought to it. Adam was not easy, no, not in paradise, nor the angels in their first state, Jde 1:6. Secondly, Ambition of preferment, as if they were fit to be gods. Satan had ruined himself by desiring to be like the Most High (Isa 14:14), and therefore seeks to infect our first parents with the same desire, that he might ruin them too.
(2.)He insinuates to them that God had no good design upon them, in forbidding them this fruit: "For God doth know how much it will advance you; and therefore, in envy and ill-will to you, he hath forbidden it:" as if he durst not let them eat of that tree because then they would know their own strength, and would not continue in an inferior state, but be able to cope with him; or as if he grudged them the honour and happiness to which their eating of that tree would prefer them. Now,
[1.]This was a great affront to God, and the highest indignity that could be done him, a reproach to his power, as if he feared his creatures, and much more a reproach to his goodness, as if he hated the work of his own hands and would not have those whom he has made to be made happy. Shall the best of men think it strange to be misrepresented and evil spoken of, when God himself is so? Satan, as he is the accuser of the brethren before God, so he accuses God before the brethren; thus he sows discord, and is the father of those that do so.
[2.]It was a most dangerous snare to our first parents, as it tended to alienate their affections from God, and so to withdraw them from their allegiance to him. Thus still the devil draws people into his interest by suggesting to them hard thoughts of God, and false hopes of benefit and advantage by sin. Let us therefore, in opposition to him, always think well of God as the best good, and think ill of sin as the worst of evils: thus let us resist the devil, and he will flee from us.
Historical interpretation
Seven Centuries of Reception
15 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
(32) Did the serpent speak with a human voice? [Gen 3:2] In the first place, it may be the fact that at the beginning of the world even the other animals besides man were not entirely destitute of the power of articulate speech, but only that man excelled them in a greater fluency and perspicuity of speech and language. In the second place, when anything very marvellous requires to be done, God changes the subject natures by which he means to operate. Thirdly, because our soul is entirely filled with many errors, and rendered deaf to all words except in one or two languages to which it is accustomed; but the souls of those who were first created were rendered acute to thoroughly understand every voice of every kind, in order that they might be pure from evil and wholly unpolluted. Since we indeed are not endowed with senses in such perfection, for those which we have received are in some degree depraved, just as the construction of our bodies too is small; but the first created men, as they received bodies of vast size reaching to a gigantic height, must also of necessity have received more accurate senses, and, what is more excellent still, a power of examining into and hearing things in a philosophical manner. For some people think, and perhaps with some reason, that they were endowed with such eyes as enabled them to behold even those natures, and essences, and operations, which exist in heaven, as also ears by which they could comprehend every kind of voice and language.
(33) Why did the serpent accost the woman, and not the man? [Gen 3:2] The serpent, having formed his estimate of virtue, devised a treacherous stratagem against them, for the sake of bringing mortality on them. But the woman was more accustomed to be deceived than the man. For his counsels as well as his body are of a masculine sort, and competent to disentangle the notions of seduction; but the mind of the woman is more effeminate, so that through her softness she easily yields and is easily caught by the persuasions of falsehood, which imitate the resemblance of truth. Since therefore, in his old age, the Serpent{5}{the ancients believed that the serpent became young again by casting his skin. Ovid says--Anguibus exuitur tenui cum pelle vetustas.} strips himself of his scales from the top of his head to his tail, he, by his nakedness, reproaches man because he has exchanged death for immortality. His nature is renewed by the beast, and made to resemble every time. The woman, when she sees this, is deceived; when she ought rather to have looked upon him as an example, who, while showing his ingenuity towards her, was full of devices, but she was led to desire to acquire a life which should be free from old age, and from all decay.
As for the serpent’s speech, either Adam understood the serpent’s own mode of communication, or Satan spoke through it, or the serpent posed the question in his mind and speech was given to it, or Satan sought from God that speech be given to the serpent for a short time.
The serpent could not
enter paradise,
for neither animal
nor bird
was permitted to approach
the outer region of paradise,
and Adam had to go out
to meet them;
so the serpent cunningly learned,
through questioning Eve,
the character of paradise,
what it was and how it was ordered.
When the accursed one learned
how the glory of that inner tabernacle,
as if in a sanctuary,
was hidden from them,
and that the Tree of Knowledge,
clothed with an injunction,
served as the veil
for the sanctuary,
he realized that its fruit
was the key of justice
that would open the eyes of the bold
and cause them great remorse.
Although the serpent was cunning, it was only more cunning than the dumb animals that were governed by Adam. It is not true that because the serpent surpassed the level of animals in cleverness, it was immediately raised up to the level of human rationality. It was only more clever than those animals that lack reason and was only more crafty than the animals that had no mind. For it is clear that the serpent, which did not have the mind of man, did not possess the wisdom of mankind. Adam was also greater than the serpent by the way he was formed, by his soul, by his mind, by his glory and by his place. Therefore it is evident that in cunning also Adam was infinitely greater than the serpent.
The tempter then turned its mind to the commandment of the One who had set down the commandment. Adam and Eve were commanded not only to not eat from the tree, but they were not even to draw near to it. The serpent then realized that God had forewarned them about even looking at it lest they become entrapped by its beauty. With this in mind, the serpent enticed Eve to look upon it.
But since all creatures are subject to passions, lust, with the stealth of a serpent, has crept over man's affections: well therefore has holy Moses represented lust under the similitude of a serpent; for it creeps upon its belly like a serpent, not walking on foot, nor raised up on legs, gliding along by the sinuous contortions, as it were, of its whole body. Its food, as that of the serpent, is earthly, for it knows not heavenly food, but feeds on carnal things, and changes itself into various kinds of desire, and bends to and fro in tortuous wreaths. It has poison in its fangs, whereby the belly of every luxurious man is ripped up, the glutton is slain, the licker up of dishes perishes.
Although you are aware that the serpent is wiser than all creatures, his cunning is especially noticeable here. As he sets his snares, he pretends to give utterance to the words of God, for God had already said: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for the day you eat of it you must die. [ Gen 2:16 ] The serpent inserted a falsehood in questioning the woman thus: 'Did God say, you shall not eat of any tree?' Whereas God had actually said: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat, but from one tree you must not eat,' meaning, by that, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which was not to be tasted. We need not wonder at the manner of deception. Deceit accompanies any effort at ensnaring an individual. The serpent's question was not without its purpose. But the woman's reply will indicate that there was nothing questionable in the command of God: 'Of the fruit of all the trees in the garden we may eat, but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it neither shall you touch it, lest you die.' There was nothing inexact about the command itself. The error lay in the report of the command. The Scriptural passage under discussion is self-explanatory. We realize that we ought not to make any addition to a command even by way of instruction. Any addition or qualification of a command is in the nature of a falsification. The simple, original form of a command should be preserved or the facts should be duly set before us. It frequently happens that a witness adds something of himself to a relation of facts. In this way, by the injection of an untruth, confidence in his testimony is wholly shattered. No addition therefore--not even a good one--is called for. What is, therefore, at first sight objectionable in the addition made by the woman: 'Neither shall you touch anything of it'? God did not say this, but, rather: 'you must not eat.' Still, we have here something which leads to error. There are two possibilities to the addition she made: Either it is superfluous or because of this personal contribution she has made God's command only partly intelligible. John in his writings has made this clear: 'If anyone shall add to them, God will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone shall take away from these words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life.' [ Rev 22:18,19 ] If this is true in this case, how much truer is it that nothing should be taken away from the commands laid down by God! From this springs the primary violation of the command. And many believe that this was Adam's fault-not the woman's. They reason that Adam in his desire to make her more cautious had said to the woman that God had given the additional instruction: 'Neither shall you touch it.' We know that it was not Eve, but Adam, who received the command from God, because the woman had not yet been created. Scripture does not reveal the exact words that Adam used when he disclosed to her the nature and content of the command. At all events, we understand that the substance of the command was given to the woman by the man. What opinions others have offered on this subject should be taken into consideration. It seems to me, however, that the initial violation and deceit was due to the woman. Although there may appear to be an element of uncertainty in deciding which of the two was guilty, we can discern the sex which was liable first to do wrong. Add to this the fact that she stands convicted in court whose previous error is afterward revealed. The woman is responsible for the man's error and not vice-versa. Hence Paul says: 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and was in sin.' [ 1 Tim 2:14 ]
Now let us examine another question relative to the addition which was made to the command. Does this addition in itself seem to be objectionable? If the words, 'neither shall you touch it,' are actually advantageous and tend to put one on his guard, why did not God expressly forbid this even to the point of seemingly permitting it by not forbidding it? Wherefore, both points must be examined; namely, the reasons why He neither permitted it nor forbade it. Some raise the question: Why did He not order that the object which He had made should be seen and touched? But, when you realize that there was in that tree the knowledge of good and evil, you can understand that He did not wish you to touch what is evil. Sufficient is it for us, using the words of the Lord, 'to watch Satan fall as lightning from heaven,' [ Luke 10:18 ] and giving to his sons not the meat of life, but that of night and darkness, as it is written: 'He gave him to be meat for the people of the Ethiopians.' [ Ps 73:14 ] Thus far on the subject of the reason why He did not command the tree to be touched. Here are the reasons, as I understand them, why God did not prohibit this act. There are many things which do us harm, if we make up our minds to touch them before we know what they are. We often learn, in fact, by experience to be resigned if we know beforehand that a certain food or drink is bitter. You learn to be tolerant if you believe that what is bitter is beneficial, lest your sudden realization of its bitterness may offend you and cause you to reject what may prove to be salutary. It is advantageous, therefore, first to have knowledge of this bitter quality, so that you may not be squeamish and that you may realize what is good for you. These are examples of what may harm us just to a slight degree. From the discussion which now follows, take warning of what may cause us more serious damage unless we make provision against it.
Take the case of the Gentile who is eager for the faith. He becomes a catechumen and desires a greater fullness of doctrine to strengthen his faith. See to it that in his willingness to learn he is not exposed to false doctrine. Take care that he does not learn from Photinus or from Arius or from Sabellius. See that he does not hand himself over to teachers of this sort who would attract him by their airs of authority, so that his untrained mind, impressed by the weight of such august prestige, will be unable to discriminate the right from the wrong. He should first, therefore, determine with the eyes of his mind what are the logical sequences. Let him note where life exists by touching the life-giving qualities of holy Scripture, so that no interpreter will stand in his way. Sabellius reads for him: 'I am in the Father and the Father in me,' [ John 14:10 ] and says that means one Person. Photinus reads that 'there is one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.' [ 1 Tim 2:5 ] And elsewhere: 'Why do you wish to kill me, a man?' [ John 8:40 ] Arius, too, read the following: 'For the Father is greater than I.' [ John 14:28 ] The reading is clear, but the catechumen first ought to reflect on the matter in his own mind, so as to discover the real meaning of these passages. He is influenced by the prestige of his teachers. It would have been more to his advantage if he had not investigated at all rather than have come upon such an instructor. But the Gentile, too, if he takes up the Scriptures, reads: 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.' [ Lev 24:20 ] Again: 'If thy right hand is an occasion of sin to thee, cut it off.' [ Matt 5:30 ] He does not understand the sense of this. He is not aware of the secret meaning of the divine words. He is worse off than if he had not read at all. Hence he has furnished a lesson to these men on how they should have investigated the meaning of the Word of God. A careful, not a superficial, examination of the context of the passage should be made. It is written: 'What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have investigated: of the Word of Life. And we have seen and now testify and announce to you.' [ John 1:1,2 ] You see how he investigated, so to speak, with his hands the Word of God and afterward announced it. Hence, the Word would not perhaps have caused injury to Adam and Eve if they had first touched and handled it, as it were, with the hands of the mind. Those who are infirm can by careful examination and handling investigate the nature of each and every object which they do not understand. Certainly, those weak first parents of ours should have studied beforehand the problem presented to them: How were they to touch the tree in which they knew there was knowledge of evil? The knowledge of evil, in fact, can frequently be of advantage to us. Wherefore we read in the oracular words of Scripture of the wiles of the Devil, so that we learn how we can escape his arts. We should be aware of his temptations, not that we may follow his lead, but that by instruction we may avoid these pitfalls.
At this point there are some who doubt whether God meant that the fruit of every tree should be eaten-this injunction to include every tree, inclusive of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil-or whether, in fact, He referred to every tree, but excluded only the tree of knowledge of good and evil? These people are of the opinion that this matter is not without significance, because, although the fruit of this tree is harmful in itself, still, if it were combined with that of the other trees, it could not be injurious. They cite as example of this fact the belief that an antidote can be obtained from the body of a serpent which, being poisonous since it is extracted from a serpent, is harmful when taken alone, but when mixed with other drugs has medicinal properties. The knowledge of good and evil, also, if one possesses wisdom that is ever an aid toward survival and if one reaches out after the other types of virtue, is considered to be of no inconsiderable value. On that account, therefore, many hold that we can even understand the reason why God made this prohibition. He did not wish that tree of the knowledge of good and evil should be eaten alone and not in combination with the fruit of the others. He did not prohibit this if the other trees are taken into consideration at the same time. Wherefore what God said to Adam is cited: 'Who told you that you were naked? You have eaten, then, of the tree which alone I commanded you not to eat.' [ Gen 3:11 ] This would seem to offer an occasion for disputation. In the preceding passage the woman might well have not made any reply to the serpent's question: 'Did God say, you shall not eat of any tree of the garden?' But she answered: 'Of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it.' In this incident, as she was on the point of sinning, the woman's faith may appear to have been weak. Moreover, I shall not despoil Adam of all the virtues, so that he would appear to have attained no virtue in Paradise and would seem to have eaten nothing from the other trees, but had fallen into sin before he had obtained any fruit. I shall, therefore, not despoil Adam lest I may despoil the whole human race, which is innocent before it acquires the capacity to know good and evil. Not without reason was it said: 'Unless you turn and become like this child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' [ Matt 18:3 ] The child, when he is scolded, does not retaliate. When he is struck, he does not strike back. He is not conscious of the allurements of ambition and self-seeking.
The truth seems to be, then, that He commanded the tree not to be eaten, not even along with the fruit of the other trees. Knowledge of good, in fact, although of no use to a perfect man, is, on the other hand, of no value to a man who is imperfect. Paul speaks of himself as imperfect: 'Not that I have already obtained this or already have been made perfect, but I press on hoping that I may lay hold of it already.' [ Phil 3:12 ] Hence the Lord says to the imperfect: 'Do not judge that you may not be judged.' [ Matt 7:1 ] Knowledge is, therefore, of no use to the imperfect. Hence we read: 'I did not know sin unless the Law had said, thou shalt not lust.' And further on we read: 'For without the Law sin is dead.' [ Rom 7:7,8 ] What advantage is it to me to know what I cannot avoid? What avails it for me to know that the law of my flesh assails me? Paul is assailed and sees 'the law of his flesh warring against that of his mind and making him prisoner to the law of sin.' He does not rely on himself, but by the grace of Christ is confident of his 'deliverance from the body of death.' [ Rom 7:23:24 ] Do you think that anyone with knowledge of sin can avoid it? Paul says: 'For I do not the good that I wish, but the evil that I do not wish.' [ Rom 7:19 ] Do you consider that this knowledge which adds to the reproach of sin can be of help to man? Granted, however, that the perfect man is unable to sin. God foresaw all men in the person of Adam. Hence it was not fitting that the human race in general should have a knowledge of good and evil-a knowledge which he could not utilize because of the weakness of the flesh.
The cause of envy was the happiness of man placed in paradise, because the devil could not brook the favors received by man. His envy was aroused because man, though formed in slime, was chosen to be an inhabitant of paradise. The devil began to reflect that man was an inferior creature yet had hopes of an eternal life, whereas he, a creature of superior nature, had fallen and had become part of this mundane existence.
[The Devil] aimed to circumvent Adam by means of the woman. He did not accost the man who had in his presence received the heavenly command. He accosted her who had learned of it from her husband and who had not received from God the command which was to be observed. There is no statement that God spoke to the woman. We know that he spoke to Adam. Hence we must conclude that the command was communicated through Adam to the woman.
Let us, however, listen to what she says to him in reply. That is, when he said, "'Why is it that God said, Do not eat of any tree of the garden?'" the woman replied to the serpent, "'We do eat of every tree of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, Do not eat or even touch it in case you die.'" [ Gen 3:2, Gen 3:3 ] Do you see his malice? He said what was not the case so as to entice her into conversation with him and thus learn what was the case. The woman, you see, is evidently encouraged as though he were kindly disposed to her, and she reveals the whole of the instruction, tells him all in detail, and by her reply deprives herself of any excuse. I mean, what could you say in your defense, woman? "God said, Do not eat of any tree in the garden." You ought to have turned away from the speaker and said to him, Be off, you are a cheat, you do not know the force of the direction given us, nor the extent of the enjoyment we have, nor the abundance of good things given us. For your part you said God has told us to taste nothing of any tree, whereas out of his great goodness the Lord and Creator has permitted us enjoyment and control of them all, bidding us keep away only from one, and this likewise out of great care for us lest we taste it and die. You should, had you been in your right mind, have ad dressed these words to him, turned away from him utterly, and have had nothing to do with him nor listened to anything said by him
Do not think of the snake the way he currently is, since we now run from him and are disgusted by him. It was not this way in the beginning; the snake was a friend of humanity, even the closest of servants. What, then, made him our enemy? The declaration of God: “You are more cursed than all the cattle, and more than every wild animal. I will place hostility between you and the woman.” This hostility destroyed the friendship. I say “friendship,” but I do not mean an intellectual relationship, it was instead one which mindless creatures are capable of having. The snake used to serve humans in the same way the dog displaces friendship—not with word but by body language. Since it was a creature who held such great closeness to humanity, the snake was a convenient tool for the devil.…So the devil spoke through the snake in order to deceive Adam. Please hear me in love and do not receive my words carelessly. My question is not easy to take. Many scoff, “how did the snake speak, with a human’s voice or with a snake’s hiss?” or “how did Eve understand him?” Before the fall, Adam was filled with wisdom, discernment and prophecy.… When the devil noticed the snake’s intelligence and Adam’s high opinion of it (Adam considered the snake very wise), the devil spoke through the snake so that Adam would think that the snake, being intelligent, was able to imitate even human speech.
[Hyperichius] also said, ‘The serpent whispered to Eve and cast her out of paradise. The man who whispers against his neighbour is like the serpent. He condemns the soul of whoever listens to him, and he does not save his own.’
He then said to the woman: "Did God really command you not to eat from any tree in the Garden?" To which the woman replied: "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden, but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God commanded us not to eat, nor to touch it, lest perhaps we die." "Therefore, first the serpent asked and the woman answered this so that the transgression would be inexcusable, and it could not in any way be said that the woman had forgotten what God had commanded."
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. And the serpent was on intimate terms with man, associating with him more than all the rest and conversing agreeably with him. For that reason it was through this relation that the devil, who is the source of evil, made that most evil suggestion to our first parents.
Continue studying Genesis 3:2 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Genesis 3:2 captures the pivotal moment where the woman, Eve, responds to the serpent's insidious question, confirming God's generous provision that permits consumption from the vast majority of the Garden's trees. While her statement appears factually accurate in acknowledging the abundance, it subtly prepares the ground for the serpent's subsequent manipulation by focusing the dialogue on the parameters of God's command, thereby setting the stage for the unfolding drama of humanity's temptation and fall.
Context
Literary Context
This verse immediately follows the serpent's cunning and deceptively framed question in Genesis 3:1, which subtly challenged the scope of God's command regarding the trees in the Garden. Eve's response here is the first direct verbal interaction between humanity and the tempter, serving as a crucial pivot point in the narrative. It sets the stage for the serpent to narrow its focus from the vastness of God's provision to the single prohibition, leading directly into Eve's subsequent, and ultimately fatal, misrepresentation and addition to God's word in Genesis 3:3. The dialogue unfolds with dramatic tension, revealing the serpent's strategic approach to temptation.
Historical & Cultural Context
While the Garden of Eden narrative transcends specific historical or cultural periods as a primordial account, understanding its context involves grasping the ideal, unfallen state of creation. The "garden" itself (Genesis 2:8) represents a place of perfect provision, intimate communion with God, and boundless freedom, where humanity was given dominion and sustenance. The presence of the "serpent" introduces an element of external evil or opposition, a creature described as "more subtle than any beast of the field" (Genesis 3:1). This context emphasizes the purity and generosity of God's initial design, making the subsequent temptation and fall all the more tragic against a backdrop of divine benevolence.
Key Themes
Genesis 3:2 contributes to several overarching themes within the broader narrative of Genesis and the biblical canon. Foremost is the theme of God's Abundant Provision, initially established in Genesis 1 and reiterated in Genesis 2:16, where humanity is given vast liberty within the Garden. This verse also introduces the theme of the Subtlety of Temptation, demonstrating how evil often begins not with outright denial, but with questioning and a re-framing of truth, as seen in the serpent's initial query in Genesis 3:1. Furthermore, it foreshadows the critical importance of Accurately Handling God's Word, as Eve's initial correct statement will soon be followed by a fatal distortion in Genesis 3:3, highlighting the fragility of human understanding when confronted by deception.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This term refers to Eve, the first woman, created from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:21-23). Her designation here emphasizes her role as humanity's representative in this pivotal encounter, making her response critical for all human history.
This word describes the creature initiating the dialogue. Its root suggests 'hissing' or 'enchantment,' hinting at its deceptive nature. While initially presented as a 'beast of the field,' its cunning and ability to speak mark it as more than an ordinary animal, serving as the instrument of temptation and later revealed as a manifestation of evil (Revelation 12:9).
This primitive root signifies consumption, literally or figuratively. In this context, it refers to the act of partaking of the fruit. The repetition of the verb in the original Hebrew (an infinitive absolute followed by an imperfect verb, ʼāḵōl nōʼḵēl) emphasizes the certainty and permission: 'eating we are certainly permitted to eat,' underscoring God's generous provision before the prohibition.
Verse Breakdown
"And the woman said unto the serpent,"
This opening clause immediately establishes the direct dialogue between Eve and the tempter. It signifies the commencement of the critical exchange that will determine humanity's immediate future. The woman, as the first to be directly confronted by the serpent, takes on the role of responding to the initial challenge to God's word.
"We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:"
Eve's statement here is factually accurate and affirms God's generous provision. The Hebrew construction, ʼāḵōl nōʼḵēl (אָכוֹל נֹאכֵל), literally "eating we may eat," is an emphatic idiom conveying full permission and certainty. It highlights her initial understanding that God had granted them abundant liberty to consume from virtually all the trees within the vast and bountiful Garden of Eden, setting the stage for the serpent to focus on the single exception.
Literary Devices
This verse employs several subtle literary devices that contribute to its dramatic impact. The primary device is Dialogue, which immediately draws the reader into the unfolding drama between Eve and the serpent. The serpent's cunning question in Genesis 3:1 and Eve's seemingly straightforward response in Genesis 3:2 establish a Foreshadowing of the impending conflict and fall; the reader, aware of God's command, senses the tension building. There is also an element of Irony, as Eve's accurate affirmation of God's generosity paradoxically provides the serpent with the precise opening it needs to introduce doubt and focus on the single prohibition. The use of the emphatic Hebrew idiom for "we may eat" (Emphasis) serves to highlight the initial vastness of God's permission, making the subsequent turn to disobedience all the more tragic.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Genesis 3:2, though brief, is rich in theological implications. It underscores the initial state of humanity's blessedness and God's boundless generosity in providing for all needs within the Garden. Eve's accurate affirmation of God's permission highlights the vast scope of divine provision before the introduction of sin. However, it also subtly introduces the theme of human vulnerability to deception, even when possessing accurate knowledge. The serpent's strategy of engaging in dialogue, rather than overt coercion, reveals the insidious nature of temptation, which often begins by questioning God's goodness or His word, shifting focus from abundance to perceived restriction. This foundational interaction sets the stage for understanding the origin of sin and the subsequent need for redemption.
Reflection and Application
This seemingly simple exchange in Genesis 3:2 offers profound lessons for contemporary believers. It reminds us that temptation often begins not with a blatant lie, but with a subtle questioning of God's character or His commands. Eve's initial, accurate statement about God's generosity serves as a crucial reminder that we must always ground ourselves firmly in the truth of God's abundant provision and His good intentions for us. The enemy's strategy is to shift our focus from what God has generously given to what He has seemingly withheld, creating discontent and doubt. Therefore, vigilance is paramount. We are called to know God's Word intimately, not just generally, so that we can discern and resist the subtle distortions that seek to undermine our faith and lead us away from His perfect will. Our spiritual health depends on our ability to distinguish between truth and deceptive half-truths, always affirming God's goodness even when facing perceived limitations.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Was Eve's statement in Genesis 3:2 completely accurate?
Yes, Eve's statement in Genesis 3:2 is factually accurate regarding God's permission for humanity to "eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden." God had indeed granted them immense liberty, allowing them to freely eat from all but one specific tree (Genesis 2:16-17). Her accuracy here underscores the initial vastness of God's provision and her awareness of it. However, this accurate statement serves as a setup for the serpent's next move, where Eve will begin to subtly misrepresent God's command in Genesis 3:3, demonstrating how temptation can begin with partial truths or seemingly innocuous conversations that gradually lead to disobedience.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Genesis 3:2, capturing Eve's initial, accurate affirmation of God's generous provision before the fall, profoundly highlights humanity's original state of blessedness and the subsequent vulnerability to subtle deception. This pivotal moment underscores the need for a perfect human response to God's word—a response that Eve, despite her initial accuracy, ultimately failed to sustain. In Christ, we find the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), who perfectly fulfills what the first Adam and Eve could not. Where Eve's dialogue with the serpent led to a distortion of truth and disobedience, Jesus, when confronted by temptation in the wilderness, responded with unwavering adherence to God's precise word (Matthew 4:1-11). He did not add to or subtract from God's commands but lived a life of perfect obedience, culminating in His sacrificial death. The abundance and provision initially enjoyed in Eden, and affirmed by Eve, find their ultimate and eternal expression in Christ's work, through whom believers are granted access to the true "tree of life" (Revelation 2:7) and the fullness of God's grace (John 1:16).