《Expository Notes on the Whole Bible – Genesis》(Thomas Constable) Commentator

God's confrontation of the sinners 3:9-13

This section begins to relate the effects of the Fall. We now see the God who was creator and benefactor in chapters 1 and 2 as judge (cf. Genesis 1:3-4). He first interrogated the offenders to obtain a confession, then announced new conditions for life, and finally provided for the sinners graciously. The sinners' responsibility was to confess their sins and to accept and trust in God's provision for them (cf. 1 John 1:9).

Note that God took the initiative in seeking out the sinners to re-establish a relationship with them. Evidence of God's love is His unwillingness to abandon those He loved even when they failed to do His will. His approach was tender as well as gracious (Genesis 3:9; Genesis 3:11; Genesis 3:13).

"In . . . spite of the apparent similarity in expression to pagan religions the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament reveal all the more remarkably a sharply contrasting concept of deity." [Note: Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religions," Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):29.]

The text records several effects of the Fall on Adam and Eve.

1. They felt guilt and shame (Genesis 3:7)

2. They tried to change these conditions by their own efforts (Genesis 3:7).

3. They fled from God's presence out of fear of Him (Genesis 3:8; Genesis 3:10).

4. They tried to blame their sin on another rather than confessing personal responsibility (Genesis 3:12-13).

The fact that Adam viewed God's good gift to him, Eve, as the source of his trouble shows how far he fell (Genesis 3:12). He virtually accused God of causing him to fall by giving him what he now regarded as a bad gift.

Verse 14-15

Effects on the serpent 3:14-15

God's judgment on each trespasser (the snake, the woman, and the man) involved both a life function and a relationship. [Note: J. T. Walsh, "Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A Synchronic Approach," Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977):168.] In each case the punishment corresponded to the nature of the crime.

"Curses are uttered against the serpent and the ground, but not against the man and woman, implying that the blessing has not been utterly lost. It is not until human murder, a transgression against the imago Dei, that a person (Cain) receives the divine curse ..." [Note: Mathews, p. 243.]

1. The snake had been crafty (Heb. 'arum), but now it was cursed (Heb. 'arur). It had to move on its belly (Genesis 3:14). Some commentators take this literally and conclude that the snake had legs before God cursed it. [Note: E.g., Josephus, 1:1:50.] Others take it figuratively as a reference to the resultant despised condition of the snake. [Note: E.g., Leupold, Exposition of Genesis , 1:162; Kidner, p. 70; Mathews, p. 244.]

2. It would eat dust (Genesis 3:14). Since snakes do not literally feed on dust, many interpreters take this statement figuratively. Eating dust is an expression used in other ancient Near Eastern writings to describe the lowest of all forms of life. In the Bible it also describes humiliation and total defeat (cf. Psalms 44:25; Psalms 72:9; Isaiah 25:12; Isaiah 49:23; Isaiah 65:25; Micah 7:17).

God revealed later through Isaiah that serpents will eat dust during the Millennium (Isaiah 65:25). Presently snakes eat plants and animals. Perhaps God will yet fulfill this part of what He predicted here in Genesis concerning snakes in the millennial kingdom. This is a literal interpretation. If this is correct, then perhaps we should also take the former part of the curse literally, namely, that snakes did not travel on their bellies before the Fall. Alternatively Isaiah may have meant that serpents will be harmless after God lifts the curse on creation in the Millennium.

3. There would be antagonism between the serpent and human beings (Genesis 3:15 a). This obviously exists between snakes and people, but God's intention in this verse seems to include the person behind the snake (Satan) as well as, and even more than, the snake itself.

". . . the seed of the serpent refers to natural humanity whom he has led into rebellion against God. Humanity is now divided into two communities: the elect, who love God, and the reprobate, who love self (John 8:31-32; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). Each of the characters of Genesis will be either of the seed of the woman that reproduces her spiritual propensity, or of the seed of the Serpent that reproduces his unbelief." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, pp. 93-94. Cf. p. 46.]

4. Man would eventually destroy the serpent, though the serpent would wound man (Genesis 3:15 b). This is a prophecy of the victory of the ultimate "Seed" of the woman (Messiah) over Satan (cf. Revelation 19:1-5; Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8). [Note: See John Sailhamer, "The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):5-23.] Most interpreters have recognized this verse as the first biblical promise of the provision of salvation (the protoevangelium or "first gospel"). [Note: See John C. Jeske, "The Gospel Adam and Eve Heard: Genesis 3:15" Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 81:3 (Summer 1984):182-84; and Walter C. Kaiser Jr., "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest," Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.] The rest of the book, in fact the whole Old Testament, proceeds to point ahead to that seed.

"The snake, for the author, is representative of someone or something else. The snake is represented by his 'seed.' When that 'seed' is crushed, the head of the snake is crushed. Consequently more is at stake in this brief passage than the reader is at first aware of. A program is set forth. A plot is established that will take the author far beyond this or that snake and his 'seed.' It is what the snake and His 'seed' represent that lies at the center of the author's focus. With that 'one' lies the 'enmity' that must be crushed." [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 55. See also Mathews, pp. 246-48.]

"The text in context provides an outline that is correct and clear in pattern but not complete in all details. Numerous questions are left unanswered. When Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, the details of the climax were filled in and specified, but the text does not demand to be reinterpreted. Nor does it demand interpretation in a way not suggested in context." [Note: Elliott E. Johnson, "Premillennialism Introduced: Hermeneutics," in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, p. 22. See also Darrell L. Bock, "Interpreting the Bible-How Texts Speak to Us," in Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 81; and Wenham, pp. 80-81.]

God cursed all animals and the whole creation because of the Fall (Romans 8:20), but He made the snake the most despicable of all the animals for its part in the Fall.

"Words possess power. God's words of blessing and of curse are most powerful. They determine our lives." [Note: Pamela J. Scalise, "The Significance of Curses and Blessings," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):59.]

Verses 14-21

The judgment of the guilty 3:14-21

As the result of man's disobedience to God, the creation suffered a curse and began to deteriorate. Evolution teaches that man is improving his condition through self-effort. The Bible teaches that man is destroying his condition through sin. Having been thrice blessed by God (Genesis 1:22; Genesis 1:28; Genesis 2:3) the creation now experienced a triple curse (Genesis 3:14; Genesis 3:17; Genesis 4:11).

"In the Bible, to curse means to invoke God's judgment on someone, usually for some particular offense." [Note: Wenham, p. 78.]

Nevertheless God also began recreation with the promise of the seed, the land, the dominion, and the rest for trust in His powerful word.

Genesis 3:14-19 reveal the terms of the second major biblical covenant, the Adamic Covenant. Here God specified the conditions under which fallen man was to live (until God lifts His curse on creation in the messianic kingdom; Romans 8:21). The elements of this covenant can be summarized as follows. God cursed the serpent (Genesis 3:14) but promised a redeemer (Genesis 3:15). He changed the status of the woman in three respects: she would experience multiplied conception, sorrow and pain in motherhood, and continuing headship by the man (Genesis 3:16). God also changed Adam and Eve's light workload in Eden to burdensome labor and inevitable sorrow because of His curse on the earth (Genesis 3:17-19). Finally, He promised certain physical death for Adam and all his descendents (Genesis 3:19).

Verse 16

Effects on women 3:16

1. Eve would experience increased pain in bearing children. There evidently would have been some pain in the process of bearing children before the Fall, but Eve and her daughters would experience increased pain. The text does not say that God promised more conception as well as more pain. [Note: Cf. Schaeffer, p. 93.] "Pain" and "childbirth" is probably another hendiadys in the Hebrew text meaning pregnancy pain.

2. Women's desire would be for their husbands. There have been several different interpretations of what the woman's "desire" would be.

a. The phrase "your desire will be for your husband" means that a woman's desire would be subject to her husband's desire.

"Her desire, whatever it may be, will not be her own. She cannot do what she wishes, for her husband rules over her like a despot and whatever she wishes is subject to his will." [Note: E. J. Young, Genesis 3, p. 127. Cf. John Calvin, Genesis, p. 172.]

b. The woman will have a great longing, yearning, and psychological dependence on her husband.

"This yearning is morbid. It is not merely sexual yearning. It includes the attraction that woman experiences for man which she cannot root from her nature. Independent feminists may seek to banish it, but it persists in cropping out." [Note: Leupold, 1:172. Cf. Gini Andrews, Your Half of the Apple, p. 51.]

c. The woman will desire to dominate the relationship with her husband. This view rests on the parallel Hebrew construction in Genesis 4:7. This view seems best to me.

"The 'curse' here describes the beginning of the battle of the sexes. After the Fall, the husband no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. The woman's desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship), and he must master her, if he can. Sin had corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. And so the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny, domination, and manipulation." [Note: Foh, p. 69. See also her article, "What is the Woman's Desire?" Westminster Theological Journal 37:3 (Spring 1975):376-383; Mathews, p. 251; and Waltke, Genesis, p. 94.]

d. The woman would continue to desire to have sexual relations with her husband even though after the Fall she experienced increased pain in childbearing.

"... the woman's desire for the man and his rule over her are not the punishment but the conditions in which the woman will suffer punishment.... It may be concluded that, in spite of the Fall, the woman will have a longing for intimacy with man involving more than sexual intimacy.... [Note: Irving Busenitz, "Woman's Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered," Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):203, 206-8. Cf. Song of Solomon 7:10.]

This view takes this statement of God as a blessing rather than a curse.

Verses 17-19

Effects on humanity generally 3:17-19

1. Adam would have to toil hard to obtain a living from the ground (Genesis 3:17-18). Adam already had received the privilege of enjoying the garden (Genesis 2:15), but this did not require strenuous toil.

"As for the man, his punishment consists in the hardship and skimpiness of his livelihood, which he now must seek for himself. The woman's punishment struck at the deepest root of her being as wife and mother, the man's strikes at the innermost nerve of his life: his work, his activity, and provision for sustenance." [Note: von Rad, pp. 93-94.]

"These punishments represent retaliatory justice. Adam and Eve sinned by eating; they would suffer in order to eat. She manipulated her husband; she would be mastered by her husband. The serpent destroyed the human race; he will be destroyed." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 33.]

"In drawing a contrast between the condition of the land before and after the Fall, the author shows that the present condition of the land was not the way it was intended to be. Rather, the state of the land was the result of human rebellion. In so doing, the author has paved the way for a central motif in the structure of biblical eschatology, the hope of a 'new heaven and a new earth' (cf. Isaiah 65:17 : [sic] Romans 8:22-24; Revelation 21:1)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 109.]

2. He would return to dust when he died (Genesis 3:19). Rather than living forever experiencing physical immortality, people would now die physically and experience physical mortality.

"Genesis 3:19 does not attribute the cause of death to the original composition of the human body, so that man would ultimately have died anyway, but states merely one of the consequences of death: Since the human body was formed from the dust of the earth, it shall, upon death, be resolved to earth again." [Note: Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, p. 143.]

Genesis 3:18 shows the reversal of the land's condition before and after the Fall. Genesis 3:19 shows the same for man's condition.

"Adam and Eve failed ... to observe the restrictions of the Edenic covenant [Genesis 1:26-31; Genesis 2:16-17]. Innocence was lost and conscience was born....

"Having failed under the Edenic covenant, human beings were then faced with the provisions of the Adamic covenant [Genesis 3:14-19]. That covenant was unconditional in the sense that Adam and Eve's descendants would be unable by human effort to escape the consequences of sin....

"A ray of light is provided, however, in the Adamic covenant because God promised that a redeemer would come [Genesis 3:15].... This is the introduction of the great theme of grace and redemption found in the Scriptures....

"Unless tempered by the grace of God and changed by subsequent promises, people continue to the present time to labor under the provisions of the Adamic covenant." [Note: Walvoord, p. 188.]

Verse 20-21

Additional effects on Adam and Eve 3:20-21

Adam and Eve accepted their judgment from God and did not rebel against it. We see this in Adam naming Eve the mother of all living, a personal name that defines her destiny (Genesis 3:20). He believed life would continue in spite of God's curse. This was an act of faith and an expression of hope. He believed God's promise that she would bear children (Genesis 3:16). His wife's first name "woman" (Genesis 2:23) looked back on her origin, whereas her second name "Eve" anticipated her destiny.

1. Note that before God sent Adam and Eve out into a new environment He provided them with clothing that was adequate for their needs (cf. Romans 3:21-26). Their own provision (Genesis 3:7) was not adequate. He did for them what they could not do for themselves.

". . . he [Adam] had to learn that sin could be covered not by a bunch of leaves snatched from a bush as he passed by and that would grow again next year, but only by pain and blood." [Note: Marcus Dods, The Book of Genesis, p. 25.]

2. Furthermore, God prevented Adam and Eve from living perpetually in their fallen state (Genesis 3:22-24).

Verses 22-24

Expulsion from the garden 3:22-24

Genesis 3:22 shows that man's happiness (good) does not consist in his being like God as much as it depends on his being with God (cf. Psalms 16:11). [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 59.] "Like one of us" probably means like heavenly beings (God and the angels; cf. Genesis 1:26). [Note: Wenham, p. 85; Waltke, Genesis, p. 95.]

Cherubim in the Old Testament surround and symbolize God's presence. They are similar to God's bodyguards. Ancient oriental iconography pictured them as human-headed winged lions guarding holy places. [Note: James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, pp. 159-60, plates 456, 458.] Moses pictured them here defending the tree of life with a flaming sword. They guarded the ark of the covenant later as they earlier guarded the tree of life in the garden (Genesis 3:24). The laws contained in the ark were a source of life for the Israelites. The golden lampstand in the tabernacle represented a tree of life and the presence of God. [Note: Wenham, p. 86.]

As people moved east from the garden they settled in Shinar and built Babel (Gr. Babylon, Genesis 11:2). When Lot departed from Abraham he moved east to Sodom (Genesis 13:11). When Abraham came back from the East he returned to the Promised Land and the city of Salem ("peace," Genesis 14:17-20). Thus God's presence continued to reside in the garden (Promised Land?) in a localized sense, and movement to the east from there typically involved departing from Him.

"No matter how hard people try to do away with male dominion, agonizing labor, painful childbearing, and death, these evils will continue because sin is present. They are the fruits of sin." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 33.]

Rebellion against God results in suffering and death, but confession secures His gracious provisions. This section explains why human beings toil and agonize all their lives and finally die. Sin is responsible, and only the removal of sin will end this condition. God is a savior as well as a judge in this pericope. Moses introduced the way of covering sin, namely, through the death of an innocent substitute. Consequently there is hope in the midst of tragedy. [Note: See Steve Davis, "Stories of the Fall in the Ancient Near East," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):37-40. On the larger issue of sin's origin, see William K. Harrison, "The Origin of Sin," Bibliotheca Sacra 130:517 (January-March 1973):58-61.]

"The chapter simply does not support the concept that one finds fulfillment and bliss in liberating oneself from subordination to God's word, his permissions and his denials. Man is not suddenly metamorphosed from a puppet to a free and independent thinker. In fact, he never was an automaton. If man had lacked the ability to choose, the prohibition from God not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would have been superfluous. One is not told to abstain from something unless he has the capacity not to abstain." [Note: Hamilton, p. 211.]

Thus Genesis 3 introduces us to the fact of human freedom as well as reminding us of divine sovereignty. [Note: See Sidney Greidanus, "Preaching Christ from the Narrative of the Fall," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:643 (July-September 2004):259-73.]
04 Chapter 4
Verses 1-8

Was Eve thanking God for helping her bear a son (Cain), [Note: Mathews, p. 265; Wenham, pp. 101-2.] or was she boasting that she had created a man (Cain) as God had created a man (Adam, Genesis 4:1)? [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 111-12; Waltke, Genesis, p. 96.] The former alternative seems preferable (cf. Genesis 4:25). "Cain" means "acquisition," a portent of his own primary proclivity. Abel, from the Hebrew hebel, means "breath, vapor, exhalation, or what ascends." As things turned out, his life was short, like a vapor. "Abel" also means "meadow" elsewhere.

Why did God "have regard" for Abel's offering and not Cain's (Genesis 4:4)? It was because Abel had faith (Hebrews 11:4). What did Abel believe that Cain did not? The Bible does not say specifically. The answer may lie in one or more of the following explanations. [Note: See Jack P. Lewis, "The Offering of Abel (Genesis 4:4): A History of Interpretation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):481-96.]

1. Some commentators believed Abel's attitude reveals his faith. Cain's improper attitude toward God is evident in Genesis 4:5. [Note: Davis, p. 99; Pentecost, p. 41; et al.]

2. Others say Abel's faith is evident in his bringing the best of the flock (Genesis 4:4) whereas Moses did not so describe Cain's offering (Genesis 4:3).

"He [the writer] characterizes Abel's offerings from the flocks as 'from the firstborn' and 'from their fat.' By offering the firstborn Abel signified that he recognized God as the Author and Owner of Life. In common with the rest of the ancient Near East, the Hebrews believed that the deity, or lord of the manor, was entitled to the first share of all produce. The firstfruits of plants and the firstborn of animals and man were his....

"Abel's offering conformed with this theology; Cain's did not. In such a laconic story the interpreter may not ignore that whereas Abel's gift is qualified by 'firstborn,' the parallel 'firstfruits' does not modify Cain's....

"Abel also offered the 'fat' which in the so-called 'P' [Priestly] material belonged to the Lord and was burned symbolically by the priests. This tastiest and best burning part of the offering represented the best. Abel's sacrifice, the interlocutor aims to say, passed the test with flying colors. Cain's sacrifice, however, lacks a parallel to 'fat.'" [Note: Bruce K. Waltke, "Cain and His Offering," Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):368. Cf. idem, Genesis, p. 97; Keil and Delitzsch, 1:110; and Hamilton, p. 223.]

Possibly Cain's bad attitude resulted in his not offering the best to God. In other words, both options 1 and 2 could be correct.

"Abel went out of his way to please God (which meant he had faith in God, Hebrews 1:6), whereas Cain was simply discharging a duty." [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 34.]

"We think the absence of 'firstfruits' for Cain in juxtaposition with Seth's 'firstborn' would not have been lost on the Mosaic audience.

"Both giver and gift were under the scrutiny of God. Cain's offering did not measure up because he retained the best of his produce for himself." [Note: Mathews, p. 268. I prefer this view.]

3. Many believe that Abel realized the need for the death of a living substitute to atone for his sins, but Cain did not. If he understood this, he may have learned it by divine revelation that Scripture did not record explicitly. [Note: Thomas, et al.] Perhaps Cain and Abel learned that an animal sacrifice satisfied God whereas a vegetable sacrifice did not from the fact that the fig leaves that Adam and Eve used to cover their nakedness were not satisfactory but an animal skin was (Genesis 3:7; Genesis 3:21). They provided the fig leaves, but God provided the animal skins. Thus the contrast in the case of Cain and Abel may also be between what man provides (works) and what God provides (grace).

"Faith always presupposes a Divine revelation to which it is the response ..." [Note: Ibid., p. 55.]

"Whatever the cause of God's rejection of Cain's offering, the narrative itself focuses our attention on Cain's response. It is there that the narrative seeks to make its point." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 112.]

God questioned Cain, as He had Adam and Eve (cf. Genesis 3:9; Genesis 3:11), to elicit Cain's admission of sin with a view to repentance, not simply to scold him. His father reluctantly admitted his guilt, but Cain tried to cover it up by lying. Cain was "much more hardened than the first human pair." [Note: von Rad, p. 106.] "Sin is crouching at the door" (v.7) probably means that the power and tragic consequences of sin could master the person who opens the door to it (cf. Genesis 3:16).

"The consequences of his reaction to God's correction are more far-reaching than the initial sin itself, for if he pursues sin's anger, it will result in sin's mastery over him. This is his decision. It is possible for Cain to recover from sin quickly if he chooses the right thing." [Note: Mathews, p. 270.]

The Apostle John revealed the reason Cain killed Abel in 1 John 3:12 : "... his own works were evil and his brother's righteous." Abel's attitude of faith in God resulted in righteous works that produced guilt in Cain. The seriousness of Cain's sin is clear from God's repeated references to Abel as Cain's "brother" (Genesis 4:9-11).

"If you want to find out Cain's condition of heart you will find it after the service which he pretended to render; you know a man best out of church ..." [Note: Joseph Parker, The People's Bible, 1:147.]

Later, under the Mosaic Law, the fact that a killing took place in a field, out of the range of help, was proof of premeditation (cf. Deuteronomy 22:25-27).

"Cain and his unrighteous offspring served as a reminder to Israel that its destiny was measured in the scales of ethical behavior." [Note: Mathews, p. 269.]

Verses 1-16