Genesis 2-5 - In Depth Bible Commentaries

Genesis 2:4-4:26, The Things Brought Forth in the Heavens and the Earth
When They Were Created–
Luxurious Garden and Expulsion
Please read Genesis 2:4-4:26 carefully in NIVSB, TNISB and ESVSB, along with their
notes, before beginning to use this translation with its footnotes. These chapters, like the story of
creation, are of vital importance for Biblical Theology! As we seek to come to know the God of
the Bible, YHWH of Israel / Jesus Christ, let us pray constantly for Divine guidance!
Genesis 2:4-25, the Biblical View of Human Origins, Especially of Marriage
Introduction 1
1
Fox comments on Genesis 2:4b-3:24, that “This most famous of all Genesis stories contains
an assortment of mythic elements and images which are common to human views of prehistory:
the lush garden [the Muslim Koran’s view of heaven is permeated with ‘garden’ images], four
central rivers located (at least partially) in fabled lands, the mysterious trees anchoring the garden
...a primeval man and woman living in unashamed nakedness, an animal that talks, and a God
Who converses regularly and intimately with His creatures...
“The narrative presents itself, at least on the surface, as a story of origins. We are to learn
the roots of human sexual feelings, of pain in childbirth, and how the anomalous snake (a land
creature with no legs) came to assume its present form. Most strikingly, of course, the story
seeks to explain the origin of the event most central to human consciousness, death...
“Part I of the story (chapter 2) sets the stage in the garden, focusing on Adam, ‘Everyman’...
“Part II (chapter 3)...[with its introduction of the snake] as the third character is typically
ancient Near Eastern (it is so used in other stories about death and immortality, such as the
Gilgamesh Epic from Mesopotamia)...[and which] disappears as a personality once the fatal fruit
has been eaten...
“Although the specifics of this story are never again referred to in the Hebrew Bible, and
are certainly not crucial for the rest of Genesis, one general theme is central to the Bible’s
worldview. This is that rebellion against or disobedience toward God and His laws results in
banishment / estrangement and, literally or figuratively, death. Thus from the beginning the
element of choice, so much stressed by the prophets later on, is seen as the major element in
human existence...
“The resolution of the story, banishment from the garden, suggests the tragic realization
that human beings must make their way through the world with the knowledge of death and with
great physical difficulty. At the same time the archetypal [original type or pattern] man and woman
do not make the journey alone. They are provided with protection (clothing) given to them by
the same God Who punished them for their disobedience. We thus symbolically enter adulthood
1
(continued...)

A second story of the creation of the first man--the transcendent God is the immanent God,
YHWH–(2:4-7)
Humanity is finite--made from dust, humanity shares in animal-life
The "garden of Luxurious Place," "in the east," with its two special trees--(2:8-9)
A river, that becomes four major rivers, flows from that garden--(2:10-14)
Humanity responsible for productivity through labor--(2:15)
Humanity subject to a Divine prohibition from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
--(2:16)
Humanity made for companionship--the creation of woman--(2:16-25)
A first marriage
No shame in human sexuality 2
1
(...continued)
with the realization that being turned out of paradise does not mean eternal rejection or hopelessness.”
(Pp. 17-18)
2
What an important passage this is for understanding the biblical teaching concerning woman,
and marriage!
See Suras 2:30-39; 7:11-25; 15:26-44, 17:61-65, 20:115-124 and 38:71-85 for the
Koran’s story of the garden of Eden.
2

The Biblical View of Human Origins, Especially of Marriage
Genesis 2:4-25, Hebrew Text with English Translation
2.4 ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> tAf[] ~AyB. ~a'r>B'hiB. #r,a'h'w> ~yIm;V'h; tAdl.At hL,ae
`~yIm'v'w> #r,a, These (are the) things brought forth (in) the heavens and the earth, when they
were created, on (the) day (of) YHWH God’s making earth and heavens: 2.5 x;yfi lkow>
hw"hy> ryjim.hi al{ yKi xm'c.yI ~r,j, hd,F'h;bf,[e-lk'w> #r,a'b' hy #r,a'h'-l[; ~yhil{a/ And every plant of the field will not
yet be in the earth, and all vegetation of the field will not yet sprout. For YHWH God did not
cause rain upon the earth, and there is no human being to work the ground. 2.6 hl,[]y: daew.
`hm'd'a]h'-ynEP.-lK'-ta, hq'v.hiw> #r,a'h'-!mi And a mist would go up from the earth, and it
would water all the face of the ground. 2.7 -!mi rp'[' ~d'a'h'-ta, ~yhil{a/hw"hy> rc,yYIw:
`hY"x; vp,n [J;YIw:
`rc'y" rv,a] ~d'a'h' -ta, ~v' And YHWH God planted a garden in Luxurious Place, eastwards;
and there He placed the human whom He shaped.
2.9 bAjw> ha,r>m;l. dm'x.n< #[e-lK' hm'd'a]h'-!mi ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> xm;c.Y:w:
`[r'w" bAj t[;D;h; #[ew> !G"h; %AtB. ~yYIx;h; #[ew> lk'a]m;l.And YHWH God caused to
sprout from the ground every tree desirable for seeing, and good for eating; and a tree of the
lives, in (the) middle of the garden; and a tree of the knowledge (of) good and evil. 2.10 rh'n"w>
`~yviar' h['B'r>a;l. hy"h'w> dreP'yI ~V'miW !G"h;-ta, tAqv.h;l. .!d,[eme aceyO And a river is
3

going out from Luxurious Place, to give drink to the garden; and from there it divides, and it
becomes four river-sources. 2.11 #r,a,-lK' tae bbeSoh; aWh .!AvyPi dx'a,h' ~ve
`bh'Z"h; ~v'-rv,a] hl'ywIx]h; The one’s name, Piyshon–it is the one that encircles all the
Chavilah (land), where there is the gold. 2.12 xl;doB.h; ~v' bAj awhih; #r,a'h' bh;z]W
`~h;Voh; !b,a,w> And that land’s gold (is) good–there (also is) the bedholach, and the shoham
stone. 2.13`vWK #r,a,-lK' tae bbeASh; aWh !AxyGI ynIVeh; rh'N"h;-~vew> And the
second river’s name– Giychon. It is the one that encircles the entire Land of Ethiopia. 2.14
aWh y[iybir>h' rh'N"h;w> rWVa; tm;d>qi %lehoh; aWh lq,D,xi yviyliV.h; rh'N"h; ~vew>
`tr'p. And the third river’s name, Chiddeqel. It is the one that flows east of Assyria. And the
fourth river–it is Perath.
2.15 `Hr'm.v'l.W Hd'b.['l. !d,[e-!g:b. WhxeNIY:w: ~d'a'h'-ta, ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> xQ;YIw:
And YHWH God took the human being, and placed him in (the) garden of Luxurious Place, to
work it and to preserve it.
2.16 `lkeaTo lkoïa' !G"h;-#[e lKomi rmoale ~d'a'h'-l[; ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> wc;y>w: And
YHWH God commanded the human being, saying, From every tree of the garden you may fully
eat. 2.17 tAm WNM,mi ^l.k'a] ~AyB. yKi WNM,mi lk;ato al{ [r'w" bAj t[;D;h; #[emeW
`tWmT' And from (the) tree of the knowledge (of) good and evil, you shall not eat from it;
because in the day of your eating from it, you will surely die.
2.18 rz

v,a] lkow> Al-ar'q.YI-hm; tAar>li ~d'a'h'-la, abeY"w: ~yIm;V'h; @A[-lK' taew> hd,F'h;
`Amv. aWh hY"x; vp,n< ~d'a'h' Al-ar'q.yI And YHWH God shaped from the ground every
live animal of the field, and every bird of the heavens, and He brought (them) to the human being
to see what he would call out to it; and everything that the human being called out to it–[the] living
animal(s)--that (was) its name. 2.20 @A[l.W hm'heB.h;-lk'l. tAmve ~d'a'h'ar'q.YIw:
`ADg>nT; ~yhil{a/
And YHWH God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the human being, and he slept. And He took
one of his sides, and closed (with) flesh behind it. 2.22 [l'Ceh, ;-ta ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> !b,YIw:
`~d'a'h'-la, h'a,biy>w: hV'ail. ~d'a'h'-!mi xq;l'-rv,a] And YHWH God built the side which
He took from the human being, into a woman, and He brought her to the human being.
2.23 ~d'a'h' rm,aYOw:
ym;c'[]me ~c,[, ~[;P;h; tazO
yrIf'B.mi rf'b'W
hV'ai areQ'yI tazOl.
`taZO-hx'q\lu vyaime yKi
And the human being said,
This now, bone from my bones,
and flesh from my flesh;
to this it will be called out, Woman,
because from a man was taken this one.
5

2.24 !Ke;-l[;
AMai-ta,w> wybia'-ta, vyai-bz"[]y:
ATv.aiB. qb;d'w>
`dx'a,rf'b'l. Wyh'w>
For this reason
a man will leave his father and his mother,
and he will hold closely to his woman;
and they will become one flesh.
2.25 `Wvv'Bot.yI al{w> ATv.aiw> ~d'a'h' ~yMiWr[] ~h,ynEv. Wyh.YIw: And the two of them were
naked, the human being and his woman–and they were not ashamed.
6

The Biblical View of Marriage
Genesis 2:4-25, Hebrew Text with Translation and Footnotes
3
2.4 ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> tAf[] ~AyB. ~a'r>B'hiB. #r,a'h'w> ~yIm;V'h; tAdl.At hL,a
3
Sarna comments on 2:4-3:24 that “While God the Creator was the primary subject of the
previous chapter, the focus of attention now shifts to humankind...One of the most serious questions
to which the present narrative addresses itself–the origin of evil–would be unintelligible
without the fundamental postulate of the preceding cosmology, repeated there seven times: the
essential goodness of the Divine creation...
“The startling contrast between this vision of God’s ideal world and the world of human
experience requires explanation...How is the existence of evil to be accounted for?...The biblical
answer to this fundamental question, diametrically opposed to prevalent pagan conceptions, is
that there is no inherent, primordial evil at work in the world. The source of evil is not metaphysical
but moral. Evil is not trans-historical but humanly wrought. Human beings possess free will,
but free will is beneficial only insofar as its exercise is in accordance with Divine will...Abuse of the
power of choice makes disaster inescapable.” (P. 16)
Bowie comments that “In the story of the garden of Eden there is revealed the eternal truth
that there is right and wrong, a true choice and a false choice; an obedience to the voice that represents
the highest, and a willful disobedience; and that when man has sinned, no matter with
what plausible excuse, there is that within him which shrinks away and hides, naked and ashamed
before the light.” (P. 498)
Westermann comments on Genesis 2-3 that “Exegetes are constantly turning to [this
passage]; they never cease proposing fresh interpretations. In fact there are so many that only
the most important can be outlined here [in his massive three-volume work].” (P. 186)
This is certainly true, because this ancient story is so filled with important and challenging
theological views that it has become a continuing source of biblical understanding, challenging its
interpreters to probe its depth of meaning.
Westermann also states that “The whole event described in Genesis 2-3 reveals a carefully
constructed arch which begins with the command that God gives to his human creatures, and
ascends to a climax with the transgression of the command. It then descends from the climax to
the consequences of the transgression–the discovery, the trial and the punishment. The conclusion,
the expulsion from the garden where God has put the man and woman, calls to mind again
the beginning. There is a well-rounded, clear and polished chain of events.” (P. 190)
“What distinguishes the story in Genesis 2-3 from Joshua 7 [the story of Achan’s crime
and its punishment] or from Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment is that everything takes place
in a direct confrontation between humans and God: God addresses the prohibition directly to the
man. God Himself discovers the transgression, conducts the trial and pronounces judgment...The
paradise story then is a primeval narrative of crime and punishment. All narratives in Genesis 1-
11 (4:1-6; 6:1-4; 6-9; 11:1-10) belong directly or indirectly to this broad category.” (P. 193)
7
(continued...)

3
(...continued)
Westermann holds that “The history of Israel together with everything that happened in it,
is part of the history of humankind and cannot be set apart from it or put in a different order...The
‘fall’ introduces a story of curse which is followed by a story of blessing beginning in Genesis 12.
The express function of the primeval story [is] to give meaning to God’s action toward humankind
as a whole; this colors the whole work. God’s action toward His human creatures and the goal He
has set for them, Genesis 12:3, remains always the background to what is said about His special
action toward His people. This accords with the lively interest which [the author] shows in human
beings, their potential and their limits, in his presentation of the patriarchal history... (Pp. 196-97)
Wenham comments that “Within this editorially demarcated unit of 2:5-4:26, three quite
distinct narratives are apparent: the garden of Eden, 2:5-3:24; the murder of Abel, 4:1-16; Cain’s
family, 4:17-26...
“The garden story itself falls into two halves:
2:5-25 (the creation of man and his wife);
3:1-24 (the temptation and fall from the garden)...
“Chapter 2 further subdivides into:
(a) the creation of man and the garden, verses 5-17;
(b) the creation of woman, verses 18-25.” (1, p. 49)
Wenham then goes on to describe the garden story as consisting of seven scenes:
(1) 2:5-17 Narrative God the sole actor; man present but passive
(2) 2:18-25 Narrative God the main actor, man minor role, woman and animals
passive
(3) 3:1-5 Dialogue Snake and woman
(4) 3:6-8 Narrative Man and woman
(5) 3:9-13 Dialogue God, man and woman
(6) 3:14-21 Narrative God main actor, man minor role, woman and snake passive
(7) 3:22-24 Narrative God sole actor: man passive
“...The whole narrative is therefore a masterpiece of palistrophic writing, the mirror-image
style, whereby the first scene matches the last, the second the [next to last] and so on...” (P. 51)
Wenham discusses the relationship of the garden-story to other Near Eastern material. He
states that “Sumerian tradition told of a paradise island on Dilmun at the head of the Persian Gulf
...with an abundance of life-giving water springing out of the earth [see ‘Enki and Ninhursag: a
Paradise Myth’ in ANET, pp. 37-41]...Similarly, Ugaritic mythology also affirmed that El lived ‘at
8
(continued...)

3
(...continued)
the sources of the two rivers in the midst of the two oceans’ [see ANET, ‘The Tale of Aqhat,’ pp.
149-55, especially p. 152]...
“This shows that the idea of a well-watered paradise where the Gods dwelt was a common
motif in the ancient Orient...
“It is often affirmed that the notion of plants that could confer immortality was well known in
antiquity...Very interestingly, the Epic of Gilgamesh (11:280-90) links a serpent with such a lifegiving
plant. Having acquired this plant, Gilgamesh left it beside a well while he went to bathe, but
a snake appeared and ate it...
“But the most striking comparison is with the Adapa Myth which, though of Mesopotamian
origin, was also found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt [see ANET, pp. 101-03]. Adapa is phonetically
close to Adam and he is also known to be the first of the seven sages (apkallus) of Mesopotamia,
who were contemporaries of the antediluvian [‘before the flood’] kings...Adapa was summoned to
heaven where he was interrogated by the God Anu and invited to eat of the bread of life and
water of life. But Adapa declined having been briefed in advance by his personal God Ea not to
accept such an offer. Adapa was then allowed to return to earth...Though at first sight this looks
like a close parallel to the Genesis story, the context of the Adapa myth is quite different, and the
obedience of Adapa contrasts with the disobedience of Adam.
“In all these cases there is no evidence of simple borrowing by the Hebrew writer. It would
be better to suppose that he has borrowed various familiar mythological motifs, transformed them,
and integrated them into a fresh and original story of his own...
“Whereas Adapa heeded the word of the God Ea and did not eat the forbidden fruit, Adam
and Eve rejected the Lord’s command and followed the serpent...
“In the Gilgamesh Epic the snake devoured the plant of rejuvenation: in Genesis no one
is said to have consumed it...
“The Atrahasis Epic (1:208-50 [see ANET, pp. 512-14]) mentions that man was created
out of clay mixed with the blood of a God, indicating that man is partly physical, partly Divine...
“Genesis puts the same idea into different images: man was made from the dust of the
ground, and then God breathed into him the breath of life...
“In Mesopotamian thought, man worked so that the Gods could rest. Genesis 2 gives no
hint of this approach: God worked until all man’s needs were satisfied...
”The God of Genesis is totally concerned with man’s welfare. Man is to be more than a
tiller of the ground; his need is for companionship, a lack which the Creator is anxious to fill...
9
(continued...)

4
`~yIm'v'w> #r,a, These (are the) things brought forth (in) the heavens and the earth when they
3
(...continued)
“Whereas in chapter 1 there was a distinctively polemical thrust challenging the accepted
mythology of creation in the ancient Near East, this note is muted in chapters 2 and 3. Rather
the writer appears to be using and adapting earlier motifs in a free and creative way to express his
vision of reality...Thus Divine truths about man and his relationships with his Creator and his
fellow creatures are presented in a vivid and memorable way.” (Pp. 52-3)
Wenham quotes Otzen (Myths in the Old Testament, p. 25), as stating: “‘The narratives
in the opening chapters of Genesis do not have the character of real myths.’ But the garden of
Eden story does fulfill functions often associated with myths in other cultures. It explains man’s
present situation and obligations in terms of a primeval event which is of abiding significance.
Marriage, work, pain, sin, and death are the subject matter of this great narrative. And this narrative
is replete with powerful symbols–rivers, gold, cherubim, serpents and so on–which hint at its
universal significance...
“...The author of these chapters identified the origin of the problems that beset all mankind
–sin, death, suffering–with a primeval act of disobedience of the first human couple. Where a
modern writer might have been happy to spell this out in abstract theological terminology–God
created the world good, but man spoiled it by his disobedience--Genesis puts these truths in vivid
and memorable form in an absorbing yet highly symbolic story.” (Pp. 54-55)
What do you think? Do you hold the view that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are either
historical, and factual, or meaningless and useless? Or do you hold the view that humanity’s
myths contain some of the most precious and meaningful truths that ancient peoples perceived,
and that they have passed down to their descendants?
If you are persuaded to take the garden-story of Genesis 2-3 literally, do you also think
that men have one less rib or side than women? Do you believe that serpents originally walked
upright and talked with human beings? Do you believe that there was a literal tree whose fruit
could impart eternal life to humans?
NIVSB comments that while 1:1-2:3 is a “general account of creation...2:4-4:26 focuses on
the beginning of human history.” (P. 8) TNISB states that in contrast to the earlier story, “here
the scene is limited to a garden, and there is no indication of the time involved in the creation
process...The order of creation is different...God is more immediate and personal, planting and
shaping on the scene rather than commanding from a distance. In place of the formal, repetitious
style of the first account, this is a dramatic story with interacting characters and a distinctive
vocabulary.” (P. 9)
4
The Hebrew Book of Genesis is divided into eleven parts. The first part, 1:1-2:3 is the
creation story, but is given no title as its heading in the Hebrew Bible. But the remaining ten
parts are all given a title at their beginning, involving this unique Hebrew word tAdl.At, tholedhoth,
which is feminine plural, and which means something like "offspring," or "productions,"
or “those things (feminine) being given birth,” or perhaps, in a more general way, "stories of
(continued...)
10

4
(...continued)
descendants," or "generations,” or “birthings." Fox translates by “begettings.” We have chosen to
translate by “things brought forth.”
Sarna notes that "The tAdl.At hL,a, )elleh tholedhoth (‘these generations...or begettings...or
record of events’) formula is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Book of
Genesis. In each of its other ten occurrences, it introduces what follows, invariably in close
connection with the name of a person [or, we add, subject] already mentioned in the narrative."
(P. 16)
For the Hebrew phrase tAdôl.At hL,aeä, )elleh tholedhoth, “these (are) things brought
forth,” the Greek translation has au[th h` bi,bloj gene,sewj, haute he biblos geneseos, “this (is)
the scroll (or ‘book’) of birth (or ‘becoming’), changing from the plural “these” to the singular “this,”
and understanding our “things brought forth” to mean “book of birth (or ‘becoming’).” In fact, this
Greek translation is the exact translation of the Hebrew text at Genesis 5:1, but is not a translation
of this present text, in which the word for “book” does not appear.
This is the first occurrence in Genesis of the phrase tAdôl.At hL,ae, )elleh tholedhoth,
and here it occurs in the title of a section of material–as similar phrases using this feminine plural
noun do on nine other occasions throughout the book:
Genesis 2:4 (here), tAdôl.At hL,aeä, (elleh tholedhoth, these (are) things brought forth by the
heavens and the earth;
Genesis 5:1, tdoßl.AT rp,se ê hz, we)elleh toledhoth, and these (are) things brought forth by the
sons of Noah (compare 10:32);
Genesis 11:10, tdoål.AT hL,ae…, elleh toledhoth, these (are) things brought forth by Shem;
Genesis 11:27, tdoål.AT ‘hL,ae’w>, we)elleh toledhoth, and these (are) things brought forth by
Terach;
Genesis 25:12, tdoål.AT ‘hL,ae’w>, we)elleh toledhoth, and these (are) things brought forth by
Yishael (compare 25:13);
Genesis 25:19, tdoål.AT ‘hL,ae’w>, we)elleh toledhoth, and these (are) things brought forth by
Isaac;
Genesis 36:1, tdoål.AT ‘hL,ae’w>, we)elleh toledhoth, and these (are) things brought forth by
Esau;
(continued...)
11

5 6 7 8 9
were created, on (the) day (of) YHWH God’s making earth and heavens:
4
(...continued)
Genesis 36:9, tdoål.AT ‘hL,ae’w>, we)elleh toledhoth, and these (are) things brought forth by
Esau;
Genesis 37:2, tAdål.To hL,aeä, elleh toledhoth, “these (are) things brought forth by Jacob.
We believe that these are all headings of originally separate documents, lacking any statements
concerning authorship or date of composition, which now in the final editing of Genesis
have been united together with this formulary title phrase in order to make one united document.
Wenham comments that “...It is clear that in all cases [this phrase, which we translate
‘and these (are) things brought forth by...’] describes what [a person] and his descendants did, not
the origins of [the person]. Here [at Genesis 2:4] by analogy the [phrase] is applied to the heavens
and the earth, and therefore ‘must describe that which is generated by the heavens and the
earth, not the process by which they themselves are generated’ (Skinner, p. 41). In other words,
2:4 makes an excellent title for what follows, but in no way can it be regarded as a postscript to
what precedes it.” (P. 56)
We agree with Wenham, and are taking verse 4 as the introductory statement to the
following story in chapters 2-4.
See Hamilton, pp. 150-51 for a discussion of this verse, as to whether it should be considered
as belonging (as a sort of trailing summary statement) to the first chapter (1:1-2:3), or as the
heading of chapters 2-4, and also for discussion of whether the verse should be divided, with the
first part summarizing the story of 1:1-2:3, and the second half introducing the story of chapters
3-4. In fact, the statement is rather disjointed, and can be taken in either way–as the history of
exegesis shows. Fretheim seeks to combine both views, stating that “I construe it as a hinge
verse that looks both backward and forward...” (P. 349)
Westermann holds that 2:4a is the title of 1:1-2:3, here coming at the close of the story,
rather than at the beginning, as it clearly does elsewhere in Genesis. He states that “What is
described in 1:1-2:4a is the #r,a'h'w> ~yIm;V'h; tAdl.At, tholedhoth hashshamayim we
ha)arets, the generations of [our ‘things brought forth by’] the heavens and the earth.” (P. 81)
Many scholars have agreed with this conclusion, as is shown in the different Christian and
Jewish translations of the verse (see the next footnote). However, we think that this feminine
plural noun means “the things produced by,” “the productions of,” or “things brought forth by,” and
then the content of those “birthings” or “things brought forth” is given in the words or story or
stories that follow. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the story of the origin of the heavens and the earth, not the
story of the heavens’ and the earth’s “productions.” If Westermann’s view is correct, this is the
only place in Genesis where the phrase is used to refer to a previous story.
What do you think?
12

5
Westermann is not the only scholar who has divided verse 4 at this point, with 4b being seen
as distinct from 4a, and forming the introductory sentence to the story of Genesis 2-3. King
James, JPS 1917, New King James and New American Standard do not divide the sentence;
but New International, New Revised Standard, New Jerusalem and Tanakh all divide the
sentence into two parts, implying the beginning of a new section with the second half of the verse.
4b is translated by Westermann “When Yahweh God made earth and the heavens–there
was not yet any plant of the field...” (P. 181), and describes this phrase as the important opening
words of the “J” document. As Wenham notes, “Commentators who regard verse 4b as the start
of the J source draw attention to the verbal parallel with the opening line of Enuma Elish. Enuma
means ‘when, in the day.’” (P. 56)
The two phrases introduced by B., be, ~a'_r>B")hiB., behibbar)am, “when they were created,”
and ~yIm")v'w> #r,a,î ~yhiÞl{a/ hw"ïhy> tAf±[] ~Ay©B., beyom (asoth yhwh )elohiym )erets
weshamayim, “on (the) day of YHWH God’s making earth and heavens,” may easily be taken as
coordinates, using the two verbs ar'äB', bara) and hf'[', (asah as synonyms, just as they have
appeared in the first story, side by side. As previously stated, we think the noun tAdl.At, tholedhoth
means something like “things brought forth,” and points to the things contained in the
material that follows.
Here, then, we conclude, in Genesis 2:4 as a whole we have the introduction to this second
story of Genesis which is given in the remainder of chapters 2-4, and which tells us some of
the most important “things brought forth” by the heavens and the earth, from the viewpoint of the
entire human race–including the giving birth to sin, suffering, murder, and universal death, as it
tells the story of human crime and its Divine punishment. Why do these very bad things exist in
God’s very good creation? It is because of human disobedience to God’s command!
6
Those who take the position that the seven days of 1:1-2:3 are to be understood lliterally of 7
24-hour days, need to ask what is the meaning of this present statement, “on the day of YHWH
God’s making earth and heavens”? Are we to understand this day as one 24-hour day? Or is the
author summing up the seven days of the earlier story in terms of one day? What do you think?
7
In chapter 1, God is pictured as far above the universe, simply speaking his word of command,
and the creation results (but the Spirit of God is also pictured as being immanent in the
universe, hovering over the face of the waters).
Now, beginning in 2:4, ~yhil{a/ hw"hy>, YHWH God (notice this new name for God,
combining the masculine plural noun ~yhil{a, )elohiym used in chapter 1 with the singular
Divine personal name, hw"hy>, YHWH–a “unity in plurality”--is pictured in a very human-like way,
as a great "Potter" Who stoops to gather up clay, then shape it into the physical form of a human
being, and then breathe His Own breath into it, imparting life.
(continued...)
13

7
(...continued)
Such a contrast is no problem for those who understand these stories in a symbolical way,
without attempting to read exact, literal, "scientific-like," chronological, historical reports from
them. But for those who demand such a literalistic, historical understanding, and demand that
both stories be "harmonized" in all their details, these contrasts can be overwhelming.
Biblical Theology holds these two pictures of God (as both "transcendent" and "immanent")
in tension. God is not a human being; He is far above and beyond any such earthly limitations,
dwarfing all humanity and the universe. But at the same time He is constantly present in human
history, present with all His creatures, communicating with them, revealing Himself in human
imagery, guiding them, blessing them, and judging them. The best way to picture the Divine reality
(so that human beings can understand) is in terms familiar to all human beings. In this way,
the student always knows that the biblical descriptions are almost always meant symbolically, not
literally; but they are also meant very seriously--the transcendent God is also the immanent God--
the God Who is far above and beyond human beings and all the created universe, is also the God
Who is closely present with His human creatures, active in their history as both Maker, Judge and
Savior.
The Divine personal name hw"hy>, yhwh (which we transliterate by YHWH) is used over
6,000 times in the Hebrew Bible. Until post-exilic times, it was commonly read and pronounced
by the readers, and the name was commonly used by the Israelites in forming their personal
names. They even shortened the Divine name with a sort of "nick-name," Yah, or even Yah-Yah.
But later, post-exilic Israelites superstitiously refused to pronounce the Divine name, fearing that it
would cause their death to even so much as speak it. So, the original vowels used in the pronunciation
of hwhy>, yhwh were eliminated, and in their place the vowels from the Divine title
yn:doa], )adhonay, “My Lord,” or ~yhil{a/, )elohiym, “God,” were used, making the name YHWH
impossible to accurately pronounce, as spelled by the Massoretes. The grotesque non-Hebraic
pronunciation Jehovah was the result. Though we do not know for sure how the Divine name
YHWH was originally pronounced in Hebrew, we know for certain it was not pronounced "Jehovah.”
Probably it was pronounced "Yahweh"; or, possibly, "Yihweh," or even "Yehawweh." But
the evidence from its usage in Hebrew personal names, and from its shortened forms, point to the
pronunciation, "Yahweh." See on the Internet, Wikipedia’s article “Tetragrammaton.”
Sarna holds that the name’s “simplest interpretation...is ‘He Who Causes To Be.” Sarna
adds that this name “expresses God’s personality, His relationship to human beings, and His
immanence in the world.” (P. 40) NIVSB states concerning the name YHWH that it emphasizes
“His role as Israel’s Redeemer and covenant Lord.” (P. 8).
We think that both Sarna and NIVSB are here over-stating the evidence, and that the
Divine name means “He Will Cause to Be,” not only by bringing into existence in the beginning (as
in Genesis 1:1-2:3) but in the history of the world, in which God is active, continually causing
things to happen, as in the first family.
(continued...)
14

7
(...continued)
When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (from the late fourth to the second
centuries B.C., following the conquest of the Near East by Alexander the Great), the translators
could not find a satisfactory way to translate this Divine name--and rather than confuse their
Greek readers, decided to replace it with ku,rioj, "Lord." Thus, instead of being translated as a
personal name, it was exchanged for a title, used commonly in Greek history for kings and slaveowners.
In the New Testament, Jesus is given this Divine title, o` ku,rioj, ho kurios. The earliest
Christian confession was exactly this: “Jesus Christ is Lord”–Philippians 2:11). We think that
one of the central affirmations of this usage is that YHWH, the God of Israel, is present personally
in Jesus. It is an amazingly high claim for Jesus; but this is the best explanation of the evidence.
What do you think?
In addition, [;vuAhy>, Yehoshua), “Joshua” in Hebrew, translated by the Greek as VIhsou/j,
the name of “Jesus” in the New Testament, means literally, "YHWH Is Salvation," and is the
name of Jesus because YHWH's saving right relationship is embodied in Him. Readers of the
Hebrew Bible, with its constant use of YHWH as the name of God, who come to the New Testament,
wonder where the name of YHWH has gone–since it never occurs in the Greek New
Testament. We hold that the name is present every time the name of Jesus is mentioned–that
Jesus is in fact “YHWH’s Salvation.” Do you agree?
Throughout Genesis 1:1-2:3 we have witnessed the constant use of the Divine name
~yhil{a/, )elohiym, “God,” the plural noun with singular verbs. Now we see the appearance of
the Divine name ~yhil{a/ hw"hy>, yhwh )elohiym, “YHWH God.” It seems obvious that this
change in terminology for describing the Deity is an indication of different authorship from that of
chapter one, where only the name ~yhil{a/, )elohiym, “God” occurs. This makes it apparent, we
think, that here a new source document has been brought into the final edition of Genesis.
Hamilton accounts for this change in the Divine name as follows: “...It is no secret that in
the religions of the ancient Near East compound names were used to designate one God...Amon-
Re in Egypt and Kothar (-wa-) Chasis at Ugarit. This phenomenon also existed in Israel, as illustrated
by Yahweh-Elohim. But why should it suddenly surface in 2:4a and disappear shortly
thereafter?” This designation for Deity is used consistently throughout the remainder of chapter 2
and chapter 3, but curiously enough the combination disappears in chapter 4, and occurs in the
Pentateuch only once more, at Exodus 9:30.
For all of the occurrences of this double-name in the Hebrew Bible, see: Genesis 2:4, 5,
7, 15, 18, 21; 3:1, 8, 13, 21; Exodus 9:30; beyond the Pentateuch, see 2 Samuel 7:25; 2 Kings
19:19; 1 Chronicles 17:16, 17; 28:20; 2 Chronicles 1:9; 6:41, 42; Psalms 59:6; 72:18; 80:5,
20; 84:9, 12 and Jonah 4:6.
(continued...)
15

7
(...continued)
Westermann comments that “The combination Yahweh-Elohiym, which occurs here for the
first time, serves, as does the whole sentence, to clamp together the two creation narratives in
chapter 1 and chapter 2.” (P. 199) We would add that this unique name for the Deity also
serves to clamp together chapters 2 and 3 as well.
Wenham notes that “The strangeness of the phenomenon has taxed the imagination of
literary critics and exegetes alike, for whether one accepts the usual documentary analysis or not,
the commentator must still explain why here the editor of this finely constructed tale has forsaken
his usual policy of using one name or the other and instead uses both together.” (P. 56) And, we
add, then drops the double name in chapter 4.
What do you think?
8
Here the qal infinitive construct verb tAf[], (asoth, “to make” is used as a synonym for the
earlier verb used in this sentence, the niphal infinitive construct ~a'r>B'hiB., behibbar)am, “when
they were created.” The Greek translation does not reflect these two verbs, but has only the one
verb, evpoi,hsen, epoiesen, “He made.” It seems, from the number of occurrences of the two
verbs in description of the same reality, that they are used by the author of Genesis as synonyms.
9
While the Hebrew text reads ~yIm'v'w> #r,a,, )erets weshamayim, “earth and heavens,” the
Samaritan Pentateuch reads #raw ~ymv, shamayim we)erets, “heavens and earth,” and
the Greek translation likewise reads ouvranou/ kai. gh/j, ouranou kai ges, “of heaven and of
earth,” reverting to the order of Genesis 1:1.
The story of creation in chapter one is told from “heaven’s viewpoint,” while the story in
chapters two-three is told from an earthly, human viewpoint. Perhaps this is the reason for the
reversed order of this phrase.
This phrase, ~yIm'v'w> #r,a,, )erets weshamayim, “earth and heavens” (and the variant
readings as well), is the equivalent of “the universe”–the totality of everything that is. Compare
Psalm 148:13, the only other place where the two words occur in this order. But also see the
following passages where the two words occur in the reverse order, #r,a,w.~yIm'v', shamayim
we)erets, “heavens and earth”:
Genesis 2:1, 4; 14:19, 22;
Exodus 20:11; 31:17; 32:13;
Deuteronomy 3:24; 4:26; 10:14; 11:21; 30:19; 31:28;
2 Kings 19:15;
Isaiah 37:16; 55:9;
(continued...)
16

10
2.5 yKi xm'c.yI ~r,j, hd,F'h;bf,[e-lk'w> #r,a'b' hy #r,a'h'-l[; ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> ryjim.hi al{ And every
11 12
plant of the field will not yet be in the earth, and all vegetation of the field will not yet sprout.
9
(...continued)
Jeremiah 23:24; 32:17; 33:25; 51:48;
Joel 4:16;
Haggai 2:6, 21;
Psalms 69:35 (verse 34 in English); 102:20 (verse 19 in English); 113:6; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8;
134:3; 135:6; 146:6;
Lamentations 2:1;
1 Chronicles 29:11;
2 Chronicles 6:14.
10
Westermann observes that “Verses 4b-6 comprise the antecedent, verse 7 is the main
statement, which is continued in verse 8...The sentence verse 5 contains two pieces of information
about what was not yet there, and two reasons for it...The only function of the information in
verse 5 is to introduce the main sentence in verse 7 in such a way as to qualify it chronologically.
The four negative sentences taken together determine the time of the creation of humanity as
primeval [i.e., original, pre-historic, ‘mythical’] time. It is not so important to say what it was that
did not yet exist, but only to express clearly that reality as we know it was not yet.” (P. 199)
Wenham notes that the text has “four conjoined circumstantial clauses describing the situation
prior to God’s creation of man in verse 7. But the interpretation of verses 5-6 is difficult:
Some...regard verse 5 as describing the whole earth as a desert...
Others...argue that the creation of chapter 1 is presupposed and therefore 2:5-6 are stating what
agricultural land was like before man started farming.
A third view...argues that the main interest is to contrast the situation before man’s arrival (2:5-6)
with that after his creation and disobedience (3:17-24)...” (P. 57)
What do you think?
11
The noun x;yfi, siyach, “bush,” “shrub,” “plant,” is found here and three other places in the
Hebrew Bible: Genesis 21:15; Job 30:4 and 7. It refers to some kind of desert shrub, beneath
which the weary, thirsty traveler could find rest. This word is not found in the opening chapter of
Genesis.
We think it is a mis-guided attempt to seek to harmonize the opening story in Genesis 1-
2:3 with this second story in chapters 2:4-3:24; similarly, we think that it is a misguided attempt to
(continued...)
17

For YHWH God did not cause rain upon the earth, and there is no human being to work the
11
(...continued)
hold that the two stories are contradictory. They are very distinct stories, told for quite different
purposes; and the attempt to make them into one harmonious story does not do justice to either
of them.
The opening story points to the transcendent [‘above and independent of the material
universe’] God Who has created the entire universe “very good,” and Who has called upon His
creation to share with Him in His works of creation.
This second story points to the immanent God, Who is closely related to the humans He
has made, and teaches that it is the humans, not God, who are responsible for bringing suffering
and death into the paradise-like world which God has given them.
Both stories have very important theological teaching to give; but that teaching becomes
muted when the stories are amalgamated into one story, or when the two stories are set in
opposition to each other.
What do you think? Have you been taught, or do you attempt, to combine the two stories
into one unified story? How successful do you think this is?
12
The author’s use of two imperfect (future) verbs, hy

13 14
ground. 2.6 `hm'd'a]h'-ynEP.-lK'-ta, hq'v.hiw> #r,a'h'-!m hl,[]y: daew>i And a mist would
13
Fox translates by “and there was no human / adam to till the soil / adama–“ noting that “The
sound connection, the first folk etymology in the Bible, establishes the intimacy of humankind with
the ground...Human beings are created from the soil, just as animals (are (verse 10). Some have
suggested ‘human...humus’ to reflect the wordplay.” (P. 19)
Here, the story leaves off the imperfect, “future” verbs–there is no human being to work the
ground–in this ideal picture that the author wants the reader to have in mind.
Hamilton comments that “The scene described here is that of a barren desert. There is
neither shrub nor plant in the fields. Two factors account for this emptiness. God is not doing
what He is accustomed to doing–sending rain. Nor is there a man to till the soil, something that
he will do when he arrives on the scene. If plant life is to grow in this garden, it will be due to a
joint operation. God will do His part and man will expedite his responsibilities. Rain is not sufficient.
Tillage is not sufficient. God is not a tiller of the soil and man is not a sender of rain. But
the presence of one being without the other guarantees the perpetuation of desert like conditions.”
(Pp. 153-54)
This is a strange comment, considering that in many parts of the world, where for ages
there were no human beings to till the soil, vast rain-forests and tropical gardens have still grown
as a result of the Divine gift of life-imparting rain. What do you think?
14
The masculine singular noun dae, )edh, probably “mist,” is translated into Greek by phgh.,
pege, “fountain,” “spring,” or “well” (so also in the Latin Vulgate, fons, “spring”). The Hebrew
noun occurs elsewhere only at Job 36:27, where it is translated by u`etou/, huetou, “(of) rain.” But
the fact that it is described as “going up from the earth” forces us to think in terms of a heavy mist
arising from the ground, or of some subterranean source of water such as a spring, i.e., a “rain”
that ascends rather than descends.
See Hamilton, pp. 154-55 where he mentions the possible interpretations, “subterranean
freshwater stream,” “flood,” “waves,” “swell,” or “heavy rain.” He states that “Historical support for
the idea of an underground river that overflows its bank and seeps to the surface may be found in
the tradition preserved by Strabo that the Euphrates, or some branch of it, flowed underground
and subsequently surfaced to form lagoons beside either the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean
Sea.” (P. 155)
Wenham translates verse 6 by “But the fresh water ocean used to rise from the earth and
water the whole surface of the land.” He states that “Here again a Mesopotamian background
seems likely. In this area agriculture was totally dependent on controlling the annual floods of the
Tigris and Euphrates...
“Whatever the origin of the word, the concept of an underground stream watering the earth
is attested in Sumerian mythology: ‘From the mouth whence issues the waters of the earth...
brought her sweet water from the earth...her furrowed fields and farms bore her grain (Enki and
Ninhursag, 55-61, ANET, p. 38)...It is preferable to follow Castellino and Gispen, who put down
(continued...)
19

15
go up from the earth, and it would water all the face of the ground. 2.7 ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> rc,yYIw:
`hY"x; vp,n

16
(...continued)
potamian texts, in particular, repeatedly feature this notion, as does the Greek myth about Hephaestus,
who molded the archetypal woman Pandora from earth." (P. 17)
Sarna adds that "Here in Genesis, the image [of the Potter and the clay] simultaneously
expresses both the glory and the insignificance of man. Man occupies a special place in the hierarchy
of creation and enjoys a unique relationship with God by virtue of his being the work of
God's Own hands and being directly animated by God's Own breath. At the same time, he is but
dust taken from the earth, mere clay in the hands of the Divine Potter, Who exercises absolute
mastery over His Creation." (Ibid.)
Here, we think, the author uses perfect verbs, to describe what happened in that ideal
place he has been describing.
And once again the singular verb rc,yYIw:, wayyitser, “and he shaped (or molded),” is used
with the plural noun (YHWH) )elohiym. This verb, as Westermann notes, occurs 63 times in the
Hebrew Bible, and 43 of those occurrences have God as its subject. God “forms” or “molds”
humans, animals, dry land, mountains, summer and winter, and light. The verb describes God’s
creative work at the beginning as well as in history and in the present.” (P. 203)
Instead of the transcendent ‘~yhil{a/, )elohiym of chapter one, Who speaks and it is done
(but Who also “makes”), here YHWH God is pictured as a “Potter,” stooping to take up “dust,”
then, we assume, moistening it (Hamilton’s insistence on a distinction between “dust” and “clay,”
p. 156, is too subtle, we think), turning it into clay, then shaping it into the form of a human being–
and then breathing His Own breath into the clay figurine, causing it to come to life.
Hamilton notes that “...Neither the concept of the Deity as Craftsman nor the concept of
man as coming from earthy material is unique to the Bible. For example, from ancient Egypt we
have a picture of the ram-headed God Khnum sitting on His throne before a potter’s wheel, on
which He fashions the prince Amenhotep III (about 1400 B.C.) and his ka (an alter ego which protected
and sustained the individual)...
“Mesopotamian literature provides numerous examples of man’s derivation from clay...In
the Gilgamesh Epic...the nobles of Uruk pester the Gods and ask them to create one equal in
strength to the oppressive Gilgamesh. The Gods then ask Aruru the creator to make a counterpart
to Gilgamesh: ‘Thou, Aruru, did create [the man]; create now his double...When Aruru heard
this, a double of Anu she conceived within her. Aruru washed her hands, pinched off clay and
cast it on the steppe. On the steppe she created valiant Enkidu.
“A sister composition to the Gilgamesh Epic is the Atrahasis Epic, another literary tradition
about the creation and early history of man. As in Enuma Elish, here too man is created to
relieve the Gods of heavy work. His creation is described as follows: ‘We-ila (a God), Who had
personality, they slaughtered in their assembly. From His flesh and blood Nintu mixed clay...After
She had mixed that clay She summoned the Anunnaki, the great Gods. The Igigi, the great
(continued...)
21

16
(...continued)
Gods, spat upon the clay. Mami opened Her mouth and addressed the great Gods, ‘You have
commanded Me a task, I have completed it; You have slaughtered a God together with His personality.
I have removed Your heavy work, I have imposed Your toil on man.’” (Pp. 157-58)
The Genesis 2 story is highly symbolic in nature–or should we understand the story literally,
of YHWH God stooping in an earthly garden to take up moist clay in His hands to form the
first human being? Surely if we call the Egyptian and Greek stories of such Divine action “mythical,”
we must admit that here also we are dealing with the biblical “myth”–not falsehood, but the
biblical teaching concerning our human origin, clothed in the common language of myth.
What do you think? The author of these notes has been told that if he thinks the biblical
story is in fact a “myth,” then he is saying the biblical story is false. But this is not the case–he
believes that the biblical story is the “true myth,” over against many other stories concerning the
origin of humanity, which he thinks are relatively false. Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Westermann comments on all of this ancient tradition of God forming humanity out of clay
that “The creation of human beings...is presented as an inexplicable, indescribable and wonderful
process. It is primeval event, and as such not accessible to our understanding, just like creation.
This description of the creation of human beings out of earth has come down to the [author]
through the millennia, and his intention is simply to point out how inaccessible to us is the event.”
(P. 205)
What Westermann means is that we have no way of getting, and do not have, a literal,
exact description of humanity’s formation–only this kind of mythical, symbolical story. Do you
agree? Do you think modern science has a better, more factual story to tell concerning the origin
of human life–apart from “mythical” elements?
Wenham comments that “‘Shaping’ is an artistic, inventive activity that requires skill and
planning (compare Isaiah 44:9-10 [and its continuation through verse 17, with its description of
the work of both an iron-worker and a carpenter, working carefully with their tools]).” (P. 59)
Anyone who carefully observes the marvelous nature of the human body / mind combination,
with its intricate genetic origin guided by the DNA code, cannot help but tremble in awe
before the obvious skill and planning and intelligence–far greater than our human capabilities--
that have gone together in the formation of a human being. Do you agree? If you are a parent,
what are the feelings and realizations that you had when your first child was born? Did you
attribute it all to your own intelligence and physical prowess? Or were you filled with awe and
wonder?
17
The phrasehm'd'a]h'-!mi rp'[', (aphar min-ha)adhamah, “dust from the ground,” is trans-
lated cou/n avpo. th/j gh/j, choun apo tes ges, “mound (of dirt) from the earth” by the Greek.
This teaching concerning human origin “from dust” (or “dirt”) is emphasized in biblical literature–see
elsewhere:
(continued...)
22

18 19
life’s breath; and the human being became a live animal. 2.8/ !G: ~yhil{a hw"hy> [J;YIw:
17
(...continued)
Genesis 3:19, you are dust, and to dust you will return;
Job 4:19, human beings are those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust;
Job 10:9, remember that You fashioned me like clay; and will You turn me to dust again?;
Psalm 103:14, He knows how we were made; He remembers that we are dust;
Psalm 104:29, when You take away their breath, they die and return to the dust;
Ecclesiastes 3:20, all go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again;
Ecclesiastes 12:7, the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath / spirit / Spirit returns to
God Who gave it.
In the New Testament, see especially 1 Corinthians 15:47-49, and the new adjective
(perhaps coined by Paul), o` prw/toj a;nqrwpoj evk gh/j coi?ko,j, ho protos anthropos ek ges
choikos, “the first person–out of earth, of dust.” The Greek adjective coi?ko,j, choikos is related
to the noun cou/n, choun used by the Greek translation of this verse, Genesis 2:7.
Hamilton comments that “Nowhere does Genesis 2 imply that dust is to be understood as
a metaphor for frailty.” (P.158) We disagree. What other metaphor could be used in the story
that would better emphasize the weakness and frailty of human beings?
Wenham notes that there is a play on the two terms ~d'ªa'h', ha)adham, “the man,” and
hm'êd'a]h'ä, ha)adhamah, “the earth.” He thinks this emphasizes “Man’s relationship to the land.
He was created from it; his job is to cultivate it (2:5, 15); and on death he returns to it (3:19). ‘It is
his cradle, his home, his grave’ (Jacob)...This play on similar sounding words...is a favorite device
of Hebrew writers...” (P. 59)
18
The phrase, ~yYIx; tm;v.nI, nishmath chayyim, literally, “breath of lives,” is translated into
Greek by the phrase pnoh.n zwh/j, pnoen zoes, “a breath (or ‘blast’) of life.”
Hamilton notes that “Instead of using x;Wrå, ruach for ‘breath’ [or ‘spirit,’ or ‘wind,’ or ‘Spirit’]
(a word appearing nearly 400 times in the Hebrew Bible), Genesis 2:7 uses hm'v'n>, neshama
(which occurs some 25 times in the Hebrew Bible). Unlike x;Wrå, ruach, which is applied to God,
man, animals, and even false Gods, hm'v'n>, neshama is applied only to Yahweh and to man...
Thus 2:7 may employ the less popular word for breath because it is man, and man alone, who is
the recipient of the Divine breath. Now Divinely formed and inspired, he is a living person. Until
God breathes into him, man is a lifeless corpse.” (P. 159)
We think that hm'v'n>, neshama is a synonym of x;Wrå, ruach, and that this is a very weak
basis for building a biblical distinction between human beings and animals.
23
(continued...)

18
(...continued)
We agree with Westermann in his comment that “The breath of life...means simply being
alive, and the breathing in of this breath, the giving of life to humans, nothing more...And so there
are no grounds for the opinion that God created humans immortal...The person created by God is
a living person...A ‘living soul’ is not put into one’s body. The person as a living being is to be
understood as a whole and any idea that one is made up of body and soul is ruled out. A person
created as a living being means that one is a person only in one’s living state...” (P. 207)
We think that Westermann is right at this point. The story depicts humanity as having been
created mortal, but with the possibility of immortality, as Augustine taught, through eating of the
tree of the lives, not because of the possession of breath / spirit / Spirit.
Hamilton also comments that “In ancient Egypt, especially in the cult of Hathor (the Divine
Mother of the king), young princesses appear before the king with several objects in their hands to
present to him. As they present these objects they say: ‘May the Golden One (Hathor) give life to
thy nostrils. May the Lady of the Stars unite herself with thee.’ In our comments on Genesis
1:26 we suggested that the application of the Divine image to ‘man,’ as opposed to the king,
represented perhaps both a demythologizing of royal mythology and a democratization of society
in Israel. Such would seem to be the case here too. It is man, as representative of subsequent
humanity, who receives the Divine breath. It is not something only for the elite of society.” (Pp.
158-59)
We agree with this comment, but question whether the biblical statement raises humanity
above the animals, as superior to them because of this Divine “breath.” NIVSB comments that
“humans and animals alike have the breath of life in them.” P. 8)
19
Verses 6 and 7 supply the answer to the problem posed by verse 5. The problem is stated
as consisting of there being no plants or vegetation, no rain and no human (verse 5); the answer
is a mist to water the ground, and a living human being (verses 6-7).
The phrase hY"x; vp,n

20
`rc'y" rv,a] ~d'a'h'-ta, ~v' ~f,Y"w: ~d,Q,mi !d,[eB. And YHWH God planted a garden in
21 22 23
Luxurious Place, eastwards; and there He placed the human whom He shaped.
19
(...continued)
“live animals” in verses 20, 21, 24, 30; 2:7 (here) and 19. The Greek is likewise the same as is
found in those verses for a description of animals.
Wenham comments that “Man is more than a God-shaped piece of earth. He has within
him the gift of life that was given by God himself. The biblical writer was not alone in the ancient
world in rejecting a reductionist view of man which sees him as simply an interesting collection of
chemicals and electrical impulses.”
He compares Ezekiel 37:9 where the spokesperson “is told to blow on the recreated
bodies to resuscitate them, and then, filled with wind / spirit / Spirit (xwr), they stood alive. It is
the Divine in-breathing both here and in Ezekiel 37 that gives life...Given the other uses of the
phrase hY")x; vp,n

21
(...continued)
“paradise in Eden.” This makes it obvious that the early use of “paradise” simply means “garden,”
or “park,” and it is only later that “paradise of God” begins to take on a decidedly religious sense.
In Genesis 3:23-24, the Greek translation reads tou/ paradei,sou th/j trufh/j, tou paradeisou
tes truphes, “(out) of the garden / paradise of the luxury”–which is, we think, an apt translation
of the Hebrew !d,[e_-!G:, gan (edhen. Westermann paraphrases “the land of bliss” (p. 209;
see his excursus on pp. 208-11).
Wenham comments that “The use of the preposition ‘in’ shows that Eden is understood as
the name of the area in which the garden was planted.” (1, p. 61)
“Midrash HaGadol states, ‘A garden in Eden. A place on earth whose exact location is
unknown to any human being.’ Some interpret !d,[e, (edhen as an adjective, and render -!G:
!d,[e ÞB., gan-be(edhen ‘a garden in a place of delight’ (Radak; Rabbi Meyuchas) or: ‘a garden of
delight,’ (HaRechasim leBikah).” (Bereishis 1, p. 94)
Sarna comments that “Man’s first domicile is a garden planted by God. The narrative is
very sparing of detail about its nature and function. Other biblical references indicate that a more
expansive, popular story about man’s first home once circulated widely in Israel...Ezekiel 28:13,
31 testify to the one-time existence of a tale about a wondrous ‘garden of God,’ rich in a large
variety of precious stones, beautifully wrought gold, and an assortment of trees...Ancient Near
Eastern literature provides no parallel to our Eden narrative as a whole, but there are some suggestions
of certain aspects of the biblical Eden...
“The Sumerian myth about Enki and Ninhursag tells of an idyllic island of Dilmun, now
almost certainly identified with the modern island of Bahrein in the Persian Gulf. It is a ‘pure,’
‘clean,’ and ‘bright’ land in which all nature is at peace, where beasts of prey and tame cattle live
together in mutual amity. Sickness and old age are unknown. The Gilgamesh Epic likewise
knows of a garden of jewels. It is significant that our Genesis account omits all mythological
details, does not even employ the phrase ‘garden of God,’ and places gold and jewels in a natural
setting” (i.e., outside the garden). (P. 18)
We think Sarna’s comment is helpful, but over-stated. The Genesis story tells of a tree
whose fruit imparts life, and a tree whose fruit imparts knowledge of good and evil, and a serpent
that walks and talks. What do you think? Are those not “mythical” details?
22
YHWH God plants ~d,Q,mi !d,[eB.-!G;, gan-be(edhen miqqedhem, “a garden in Luxurious
Place, eastwards.” These words are intriguing, and call for interpretation. Where is “a garden in
Luxurious Place”? Does the author mean a specific country or geographical location by the name
of !d,[e, (edhen, i.e., in a specific fertile (“luxurious”) plain in southeastern or northwestern Mesopotamia
or on some beautiful shore of Arabia such as Bahrain? Or is this an example of biblical
(continued...)
26

22
(...continued)
“mythological language,” in which locations are named, but are impossible to pin-point on any
map?
And what is the meaning of ~d,Q,mi, miqqedhem, which we have translated “eastwards,”
but which can also be understood as meaning “of old,” or “in ancient time” (Sarna holds that it can
mean “in primeval times,” p. 18)?
If the phrase means “eastwards,” we ask “eastwards from where?” And even if it be assumed
that the phrase means “east of Israel,” we are still left with the question, “How far east?”
Does it mean “Mesopotamia”? Persia? India? China? Is not such language closely akin to
statements like “Long, long ago, in a kingdom by the sea”?
We think that this is obviously “mythical” language, and that while the text speaks of a
“geographical location,” it does not mean an actual, historical location on earth, but rather is
setting the stage for an “ideal story,” the uniquely powerful biblical “story” or “myth” or “parable”
concerning the origin of humanity, who once lived in the Luxurious Place of spiritual innocence
and intimacy with YHWH God, but who lost that condition through disobedience to God’s command.
Wenham comes to a similar conclusion, as he states that “It is simpler to associate Eden
with its homonym ‘pleasure, delight.’ Whenever Eden is mentioned in Scripture it is pictured as a
fertile area, a well-watered oasis with large trees growing...a very attractive prospect in the arid
East...So it seems likely that this description of ‘the garden in Eden in the east’ is symbolic of a
place where God dwells [no–where the first human being dwells!]. Indeed, there are many other
features of the garden that suggest it is seen as an archetypal sanctuary, prefiguring the later
tabernacle and temples.” (P. 61)
We ask, what are those ‘many features’? The mention of the winged-animals guarding its
way, is the only feature that has connotations of Israel’s moveable sanctuary and Solomon’s
temple. The story is not telling how YHWH God prepared a place for Himself to inhabit, or to be
worship-ed, but rather, a place for His human creature to inhabit, with not one mention of an altar
or of worship.
ESVSB insists that Genesis 2 depicts the human’s beings as living in “the sanctuary of
Eden,” assigned the task of “maintaining the sanctity of the garden as part of a temple complex.”
(Pp. 52, 53) But we insist that this is being read into the text, not genuinely derived from it. What
do you think?
Wenham continues: “But the mention of the rivers and their location in verses 10-14
suggests that the final editor of Genesis 2 thought of Eden also as a real place, even if it is
beyond the wit of modern writers to locate.” (P. 62) To the contrary, we agree with Westermann
that the very description of the rivers flowing out from Eden indicate the author’s use of Eden as a
symbol, not a geographical location. It is somewhere, but nowhere known to the readers of the
biblical story, either in ancient times or in the present.
(continued...)
27

22
(...continued)
For the occurrences of this noun !d,[e, (edhen in the Hebrew Bible, see:
Genesis 2:8 (here), 10, 15; 3:23, 24 (all with reference to the first home of humanity);
2 Samuel 1:24 (a plural, meaning luxurious clothes);
Isaiah 51:3 (YHWH makes Israel’s wilderness like Luxurious Place);
Jeremiah 51:34 (plural, with quite different meaning–“my luxuries”);
Ezekiel 28:13 (an obviously mythological understanding as it describes the former dwelling-place
of the Prince of Tyre on the Mountain of God);
Ezekiel 31:9, 16, 18, 18 (obviously mythological language, comparing Pharaoh’s Egypt with the
fallen nation of Assyria, as trees of Luxurious Place, the garden of God in Lebanon, being
cast down by YHWH, into the world of the dead);
Joel 2:3 (used in contrast with later desolation);
Psalm 36:8 (YHWH’s people drink from the river of His “Luxurious Places,” obviously an ideal,
symbolical usage);
2 Chronicles 29:12; 31:15 (where it is a personal name).
We think this evidence shows that the name “Eden” means “Luxurious Place,” not one
specific geographical location, but rather an “ideal location,” where there is great plenty and
peace, which becomes a symbol for the future hope of the people of God, as well as for their
present experience of His goodness.
The Sumerian myth of Enki and Ninhursag (see ANET, pp. 37-41, depicts such an “ideal
place” called Dilmun, which was located “east of Sumer.” It is a land (or perhaps an island) that is
pure, clean, and bright; there is no sickness nor death there, and all of the animals live together in
harmony. Its water is sweet, and its fields are highly productive. This is one example among
many others that can be found in world literature of such an “ideal place,” a “paradise,” which is
not meant as a description of an actual geographical location, or if it is, cannot be located with
certainty on any map. See Wikipedia on the Internet, “Dilmun.”
Hamilton asserts that “A number of factors in Genesis 2 suggest that the author presents
his material in a way that is decidedly anti-mythical. Thus, we read of man’s creation (verse 7)
before we read of the garden’s creation (verse 8). We do not read that the garden is a place of
blissful enjoyment. If it is such a place, the text does not pause to make that observation. Instead,
man is placed in the garden ‘to till it and keep it’ (verse 15).”
But, why can’t a mythical story tell of humanity’s creation before the creation of a garden in
which to place him? Has Hamilton established a rule that “all myths tell of humanity’s creation
following the creation of luxurious gardens”? Does a mythical story have to describe God’s “garden”
as a place of blissful enjoyment? And, in fact, in the overall story of Genesis 2-3, when
humanity is driven out of the garden, does that not mean the loss of blissful enjoyment? And is
there a rule that says “myths cannot tell of humanity’s being assigned work to do”?
We think it more correct to assess the story of Genesis 2-3 as the biblical mythology or
ideal story of human origins, and marriage, and the origin of suffering and death in God’s good
(continued...)
28

2.9 lk'a]m;l.bAjw> ha,r>m;l. dm'x.n< #[e-lK' hm'd'a]h'-!mi ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> xm;c.Y:w:
22
(...continued)
earth. The story is only “anti-mythical” in that it seeks to correct mistaken ideas of the nature and
value of work, the subordination of women to men, and the attribution of the origin of evil to “outside
forces,” rather than to human desire and mistaken choices. Such indications of time and
place as are found in the story speak of no one specific geographical location or calendar date.
They place the reader beyond time and place, and the story that is told deals with that which is
universal and constant (‘typical’) in God’s human creature. This is every reader’s story, our story–
he story of “everyone.” Adam is “Everyman”; and Eve is “Everywoman.” In this way, the story told
in Genesis 2:4-3:24 achieves “universal” meaning, and cannot legitimately be interpreted in
terms of nationalism–such as has been seen in Hitler’s cult of the Germanic blood and soil.
No, while the ancient story gives geographical details, it is impossible to tie them down to
any certain location known today or in the past. Compare 2:10-14, with its description of two
known rivers, and two completely unknown rivers.
Westermann states that "The intention is not to fix the area geographically but to push the
scene of the event into the far, unknown distance...This is a fixed stylistic trait of narratives of this
kind and it occurs elsewhere," as in Genesis 11:2.
Do you agree with Westermann? Why? Why not?
In the Egyptian cosmologies or stories of creation, by contrast, the exact geographical
"place of creation" is oftentimes given--for example, at Heliopolis, or Hermopolis, or at Thebes--
thereby pointing to these temple-cities as especially sacred centers of worship, and as the “navel”
of the earth. However, the story told in Genesis 2-3, which comes from Israel, makes no reference
to the land of Israel, or to Jerusalem, or to Mount Zion, the location of the Solomon’s tem-ple
built for the worship of YHWH God, and says nothing concerning the “navel of the earth.”
It is remarkable how there is so little that is specifically "Jewish" in this story. Rather, its
universalism is in sharp contrast to the cosmologies of Israel's neighbors.
What do you think?
23
Westermann comments that “The fact that they have been created as living beings means
that they must be provided with the means to live. This too is a tradition already at hand, and...is
found in the primitive creation stories [see Genesis 1:26-30]. Here too provision of the means of
life is part of the process of creation...2:8 is not a narrative about the creation of plants, but about
the provision of nourishment for the human creatures; this is a very important difference. The
narrator is not interested in plant life and vegetation in general because he is talking about the
creation of humans. God plants a garden to provide for His human creatures, not as part of the
creation of plants...The garden God planted to provide for His people has nothing to do with a
garden of God (or of the Gods) or with what is popularly called paradise...This garden was planted
by God only after the creation of human beings and is meant for them alone...The Greek renders
the word by para,deisoj, paradeisos and it is this that first gives the garden a significance which
it does not have in the [original] narrative.” (P. 208)
29

24
`[r'w" bAj t[;D;h; #[ew> !G"h; %AtB. ~yYIx;h; #[ew>And YHWH God caused to sprout from
25 26
the ground every tree desirable for seeing, and good for eating; and a tree of the lives in (the)
24
Compare Genesis 1:11. There it is said that God assigned to the earth the task of being cocreator
of the grass that sprouts. Here, nothing is said of the earth’s part in this on-going creation
through the “sprouting” of trees. This action is described as YHWH God’s work alone.
25
The phrase lk'a]m;l. bAjw> ha,r>m;l. dm'x.n,, nechemadh lemar)eh wetobh lema)akhal,
“desired (or, ‘desirable’) for seeing and good for food,” means “beautiful and nourishing.” The
Greek translation reads w`rai/on eivj o[rasin kai. kalo.n eivj brw/sin, horaion eis horasis kai
kalon eis brosin, “beautiful for sight and good for eating.”
The story intends, we think, to deal with the human longing (“desire”) for “beauty” (i.e., art,
aesthetics), and the need for nourishment. The trees which YHWH God has caused to sprout
meet these basic human needs–both “aesthetic / intellectual” and “physical” in nature.
26
Sarna comments that “The two special trees [one ‘of the lives,’ and the other ‘of the knowledge
of good and evil’] are brought to our attention in a deliberately casual manner.” (P. 18)
Literally, ~yYIx;h; #[e, (ets hachayyiym, is “tree of the lives.” This phrase is translated in
Greek by to. xu,lon th/j zwh/j, to ksulon tes zoes, “the wood (or ‘tree’) of the life.” For all the
uses of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, see:
Genesis 2:9 (here);
Genesis 3:22, to eat from the “tree of the lives” means to be enabled to live forever; to be
separated from the tree of the lives means to no longer be able to live forever;
Genesis 3:24, the “way to the tree of the lives” is still open to humanity, even after being
separated from that tree, but that way is guarded by the winged lions / bulls, “cherubim”
and by the flaming, turning sword;
Proverbs 3:18, the wisdom that comes from God is “a tree of lives”;
Proverbs 11:30, the fruit that is produced by a rightly related person is a tree of lives; its opposite
is violence that takes lives away;
Proverbs 13:12, desire that is fulfilled is a tree of lives; its opposite is a heart made sick;
Proverbs 15:4, a gentle tongue is a tree of lives; its opposite is a perverse tongue that breaks the
human spirit.
Compare also the intriguing passage Ezekiel 47:1-12, especially verse 12 where the trees
that grow along the banks of the wondrous life-giving river give their fruit every month, and their
leaves impart healing. For somewhat similar stories (myths) from the ancient Near East, in which
there is a plant which, when eaten, imparts life that never dies, in addition to the Epic of Gilgamesh,
see the two myths of Adapa and Etana (all three can be found in ANET).
30
(continued...)

26
(...continued)
See the “plant of life” in the Gilgamesh Epic, XI, 266-295: “If your hands obtain the plant,
[you will find new life]. Its name shall be ‘Man Becomes Young in Old Age; I myself shall eat (it),
and thus return to the state of my youth.’ [ANET, p. 96] Westermann comments that “Because of
the death of his companion Enkidu, Gilgamesh is obsessed with the horror of the inexorable fate
of death and goes in search of life that is not subject to death. He finds it in two forms: Utnapishtim
[the Babylonian Noah, who live in Dilmun] has been elevated to the Gods; but this is not open
to ordinary mortals. Utnapishtim shows him the other possibility: the plant of life. But he loses it
[to a serpent]...” (P. 214)
It seems obvious that the ancient Near East was deeply concerned with this universal
longing to escape the clutches of death, and attain to eternal life.
It is very impressive that this same theme is found here in Genesis 2-3, even though
scholars such as Westermann and Sarna claim that it is not integral to this story, but is a later
addition to it. For example, Sarna states that “It is not the mythical pursuit of eternal life but the
relationship between God and man that is the primary concern here.” (P. 18)
Still, Sarna goes on to state that “...The text presupposes a belief that man, created from
perishable matter, was mortal from the outset but that he had within his grasp the possibility of
immortality.” (Pp. 18-19)
We ask, should we think of a literal “tree,” here in Genesis two, that still grows within a
hidden garden somewhere on planet earth, but that cannot be found because of the awesome
guardian animals (“cherubim”) surrounding it, and the flaming sword that turns in every direction?
Are we to think that “living forever” (i.e., “eternal life”) is to be understood in Biblical Theology as
something that comes as a result of eating from such a literal tree’s fruit, instead of coming from
the knowledge of God and God’s wisdom?
The use of this phrase (~yYIåx;-#[e, (ets-chayyim, without the definite article as in Genesis,
“tree of life”) in the Book of Proverbs is instructive–where it cannot be referring to a literal
tree, but is identified as “wisdom,” and has to do with the fruit of righteous lives, with desire fulfilled,
and with a gentle tongue.
It should be obvious to every reader of the Bible that here we are dealing with highly symbolical
language, and that the story is not meant as describing a literal tree, but rather, is used as
a symbol for a number of different things. Such a story is obviously mythological; by so saying,
we do not mean at all that the story is “false.” We simply mean that the story is not meant literally;
it is very much like a “parable.”
But, we believe, it is the biblical mythology–which we understand to be the truth concerning
who we human beings are, where we came from, and what has gone wrong with our world.
There is a Divinely given source of “life” (that never dies), from which humanity has been separated,
but which is still available to humanity if they have the wisdom and the courage to seek it and
return to it.
(continued...)
31

27 28
middle of the garden; and a tree of the knowledge (of) good and evil. 2.10 aceyO rh'n"w>
26
(...continued)
See also from the Pseudepigrapha:
1 Enoch 24-25, Enoch is shown the seven mountains of the northwest and the tree of life, where
the throne of God is located, and this fragrant tree, which no one can touch until the
judgment, but when eaten will give long life;
2 Enoch 8:3, Enoch is taken to the third heaven, and sees paradise, with the tree of life, indescribable
for pleasantness and fine fragrance, more beautiful than any other, “at that place
where the Lord takes a rest when He goes into paradise”);
2 Esdras 8:52, It is for you that paradise is opened, the tree of life is planted, the age to come is
prepared, a city is built, rest is appointed, goodness is established and wisdom perfected
beforehand.
In the New Testament, see:
Revelation 2:7, To everyone who conquers, I will give permission to eat from the tree of life that
is in the paradise of God;
Revelation 22:2, 14 and 19, John’s vision of the heavenly city coming down out of heaven from
God, with the tree of life planted on both sides of the river, producing twelve kinds of fruit
every month, and whose leaves are for the healing of the nations; reminding the Biblestudent
of Ezekiel 47).
27 What does the biblical story intend for its readers to understand by this bAj t[;D;h #[e
[r'w";e, (ets hada(ath tobh wara(, “tree (of) the knowledge (of) good and evil”? The Greek translation
is to. xu,lon tou/ eivde,nai gnwsto.n kalou/ kai. ponhrou/, “the tree of the knowing (what is)
known of good and of evil.” Fox translates by “the tree of the knowing of good and evil,” and
comments that “Interpreters disagree on the meaning of this phrase. It could be a merism (as in
‘knowledge from A to Z’–that is, of everything), or an expression of moral choice.” (P. 19)
Sarna comments that such a tree “...is unparalleled anywhere outside the present narrative...”
(P. 19) See Wikipedia on the Internet, “Tree of Life,” and “Tree of Knowledge of Good
and Evil.”
Does the story intend its readers to understand a literal tree, the fruit of which, being eaten,
imparts moral discernment between good and evil, or even, universal knowledge (i.e., everything
good and evil)? Does it mean that apart from eating the fruit of this tree, humanity would know
nothing?
Or does the story intend this tree to be understood symbolically? We hold that the two
trees call for parabolic, symbolic interpretation. Taken literally, the story has little possibility for
theological value. According to the Bible, the kind of “lives” or "life" (“living forever”) that the story
has in mind has never come from the eating any kind of literal fruit that grows on trees, but has
always come through personal relationship with and obedience to the living God:
(continued...)
32

27
(...continued)
Jeremiah 2:13; 17:13 (the people of Judah have forsaken YHWH, the “fountain of living waters”);
John 17:3 (this is eternal life, that they should know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ
Whom You have sent).
Differing interpretations have been given to the meaning of “the knowledge of good and
evil,” including sexual knowledge (some understand the snake as a phallic symbol, and therefore
interpret the knowledge to be the understanding gained by participation in the rites of the fertility
religions oif the ancient Near East.
Hamilton mentions a number of arguments made for the interpretation of this second tree
as being a symbol for sexual knowledge. They include:
1. Upon eating of its fruit, the couple realize that they are naked and cover up their nakedness.
2. The verb “to know” is commonly used in the Hebrew Bible as a euphemism for sexual
intercourse.
3. In the Gilgamesh Epic, Enkidu acquired wisdom and became “like a God” after having sexual
intercourse with a prostitute for a week.
But, as Hamilton points out, this makes sexual intercourse forbidden by YHWH God, while
in both stories in Genesis 1 and 2, sexual intercourse is depicted as a God-given, normal relationship
between husband and wife.
Hamilton holds that eating of the forbidden tree symbolizes humanity’s declaring “ethical
autonomy” from YHWH God. He states that “What is forbidden to man is the power to decide for
himself what is in his best interests and what is not. This is a decision God has not delegated to
the earthling. This interpretation also has the benefit of according well with 3:22, ‘the man has
become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’ Man has indeed become [we would say,’has
attempted to make himself into’] a God whenever he makes his own self the center...the only
frame of reference for moral guidelines. When man attempts to act autonomously he is indeed
attempting to be Godlike. It is quite apparent why man may have access to all the trees in the
garden except this one.” (P. 166)
We believe that the much later story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, praying in
great agony, “Not my will, but Yours be done,” is the exact opposite of someone declaring “ethical
autonomy” from God. Indeed, this is what the woman does in this story in Genesis 2-3. Jesus,
instead of following His Own will and anguished desire, submits to God’s will.
What do you think?
Sarna holds that "It is not the mythical pursuit of eternal life but the relationship between
God and man that is the primary concern here." (P. 18) But the fact is that the ancient Near East
was deeply concerned with the universal longing to escape the clutches of death, and attain to
33
(continued...)

27
(...continued)
eternal life; and the point of this story is that eternal life can only be found through an intimate,
obedient relationship between YHWH God and humanity--there is no conflict in the two themes.
In fact, the entirety of Genesis 2-3 is concerned with the origin of suffering, pain, and
death in YHWH God's good creation--and the opposite of suffering, pain, and death is to be found
in the symbolic "tree of the lives." To dismiss this element from the story as unessential, or as a
later addition, is to radically alter the basic meaning of the story in its canonical (biblical) form.
Speculation concerning earlier possible forms of the story may be of interest to scholars, but the
story in its canonical form is the one that has influenced generation after generation the world
over, and the one with which the biblical student must relate.
According to the Genesis story, the commandment to not eat of the tree seems "arbitrary,"
and is perhaps intended to seem so. But the commandment enables the possibility of a relationship--whether
of obedience or disobedience--between YHWH God and His human creatures. We
think this commandment should be interpreted in the light of Deuteronomy 8:2, "Remember how
YHWH your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you
in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep His commands." Humanity,
according to this story, is subject to YHWH God's will, and must obey His commandment with
childlike obedience, no matter what human feelings or thoughts may be.
And so, according to this story, whenever humanity takes it upon itself to decide or to find
out what is good and evil, in disregard of the Divine commandment, it brings death upon itself
(i.e., separation from the “tree of the lives”). For humanity thereby fails the Divine test, rejecting
YHWH God as its Ultimate Ruler, and taking upon itself the right to judge and determine what is
good and what is evil--apart from the commandment or will of YHWH God. Making itself into a
miniature God, humanity suffers the consequences of disobedience to the Living God--certain
death.
This story, which is intended to be our story, the story of every reader, challenges our
proud assumption that we have "come of age," that we no longer need a "Father-figure" to impart
guidance and direction to our lives. Jesus' constant call to humanity to turn from pride and selfsufficiency
to cast itself upon God "the Father" (“Abba,” “Pappa,” “Daddy”), like a little child, in
obedience to the Divine word, is directly in line with this interpretation of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil.
What do you think?
28
Westermann notes that here, in the first line of verse 10, “the series of imperfect consecutive
(verbs) is interrupted by verses 10-14,” where timeless participles are found instead (with only the
imperfect verb dreP'yI, yippared, “it will be divided” in verse 10). He comments on this difference
in the form of speech in these verses and their context: “The passing on of knowledge about distant
lands and peoples by means of numeration is very different from narrative; it was originally
part of oral tradition which was reduced later to written tradition. A numerative, descriptive genre
like this has its own independent purpose and significance side-by-side with narrative...[It] pre-
(continued...)
34

28
(...continued)
sumes a story of the garden of Eden in a version which tells of the fertility of the garden brought
about by a river which waters it. It is something like the description of the city of God in Psalm
46:5 (verse 4 in English): ‘There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God...’” (P. 214)
What do you make of this? Is this talking about a literal river in Jerusalem, i.e., the tiny
stream of Gichon? We think it is a symbolical ‘river’ that flows through human hearts, wherever
human beings are responsive to the Spirit of God, as the City of Jerusalem is supposed to be. Do
you agree?
H. J. Fabry, in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 9, pp. 266-67, states concerning
Genesis 2:10 “The garden is a huge oasis watered by a mighty spring, which gives rise
to four rivers flowing through the whole world. Although lq,D< êxi, chiddeqel and tr"(p., perath are
familiar names (‘Tigris’ and ‘Euphrates’), it would be foolish to try to locate the rivers of paradise
on our maps. The world of the ancient narrator was totally different from ours. Furthermore, the
rivers Gichon and Pishon are otherwise unknown...
“The number four is significant, reflecting the four corners of the earth (Isaiah 11:12;
Exekiel 37:9; 1 Chronicles 9:24)...The waters from paradise bring growth and fertility to the
whole world.”
Westermann likewise comments, “The river that waters the garden becomes subsequently
the source of the rivers that water the world. Its division into four branches or, more accurately,
into four sources, is not the result of observation or information, but a (theoretical) attempt to link
the ‘information’ about paradise with geography. The purpose is to state that the rivers which
bring fertility (= blessing) to the world have their origin in the river which brings fertility (= blessing)
to the garden of God...This being the case, all attempts to explain or locate the sources of the four
rivers geographically are ruled out...
“The intention of the author in inserting 2:10-14 was not to determine where paradise lay,
as the majority of interpreters hold, but rather to point out–by way of parenthesis...that the ‘lifearteries’
of all lands of the earth have their source in the river that watered paradise...We can
understand then why the names and description of [two of] the four rivers are so vague and in
part so incomprehensible. The main theme of 2:10-14 links a statement about the primeval land
with information about the known world, indicating the great age of the tradition behind 2:10-14
with its hazy and primitive notions of geography.” (Pp. 215-16)
Sarna states similarly that “Somewhere beyond the confines of the garden the single river
separates into four branches that probably represent the four quarters of the inhabited world. In
other words, the river of Eden also nourishes the rest of the world with its life-giving waters.” (P.
19)
What do you think? Should we understand the river arising in Eden as a literal river, or is it
the beginning of the biblical motif of a great spiritual river that flows from God into His peoples’
lives? See the following passages:
(continued...)
35

28
(...continued)
Isaiah 33:17-22,
17. Your eyes will see the King in his beauty;
they will behold a land that stretches far away...
20b. Your eyes will see Jerusalem,
a quiet habitation, an immovable tent,
whose stakes will never be pulled up,
and none of whose ropes will be broken.
21. But there YHWH in majesty will be for us--
a place of broad rivers [~yrIïh'n>, nehariym], streams [~yrIßaoy>, ye)oriym],
where no galley with oars can go,
nor stately ship can pass.
22. For YHWH is our Judge, YHWH is our Ruler,
YHWH is our King; He will save us.
Isaiah 41:17-20:
17. When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none,
and their tongue is parched with thirst,
I, YHWH will answer them,
(I, the) God of Israel will not forsake them.
18. I will open rivers (tArêh'n>, neharoth) on the bare heights,
and fountains in the midst of the valleys;
I will make the wilderness a pool of water,
and the dry land springs of water...
20. so that all may see and know,
all may consider and understand,
that the hand of YHWH has done this,
the Set-Apart One of Israel has created it!
Isaiah 43:15-19
15. I am YHWH, your Set-Apart One,
One creating Israel, your King.
16. Thus said YHWH,
Who gives a way in the sea,
a path in the mighty waters...
17. Do not remember the former things,
or consider the things of old.
18. I am about to do a new thing;
now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
I will make a way in the wilderness
and rivers in the desert...
(continued...)
36

28
(...continued)
for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert,
to give drink to My chosen people,
19. the people whom I formed for Myself,
so that they might declare My praise.
Isaiah 48:18-19
18. O that you had paid attention to My commandments!
Then your prosperity (^m,êAlv., shelomeka) would have been like a river (rh'N"k;,
kannahar),
and your right-relationship like the waves of the sea;
19. your offspring would have been like the sand,
and your descendants like its grains;
their name would never be cut off
or destroyed from before me.
Isaiah 66:12-13
12. For in this way YHWH spoke:
Look at Me–extending prosperity (~Aløv', shalom) to her like a river (rh'’n"K., kenahar),
and the wealth of the nations like an overflowing stream (lx;n:ôk., kenachal);
and you shall nurse and be carried on her side,
and fondled on her knees.
13. Like a man whose mother comforts him,
so I will comfort you;
you shall be comforted in Jerusalem...
Ezekiel 47:1-12
47.1 Then he brought me back to the entrance of the temple (tyIB;h;, habbayith); there,
waters were flowing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced
east); and the waters were flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple,
south of the altar. 47.2 Then he brought me out by way of the north gate, and led me around on
the outside to the outer gate that faces toward the east; and the waters were coming out on the
south side.
47.3 Going on eastward with a cord in his hand, the man measured one thousand cubits,
and then led me through the waters, and it was ankle-deep. 47.4 Again he measured one
thousand, and led me through the waters; and it was knee-deep. Again he measured one
thousand, and led me through the waters; and it was up to the waist. 47:5 Again he measured
one thousand, and it was a river (lx;n:, nachal) that I could not cross, for the waters had risen; it
(continued...)
37

28
(...continued)
was deep enough to swim in, a river (lx;n:, nachal) that could not be crossed. 47.6 He said to
me, Son of a human, have you seen this?
Then he led me back along the bank of the river (lx;n:, nachal). 47.7 As I came back, I
saw on the bank of the river (lx;n:, nachal) a great many trees on the one side and on the other.
47.8 He said to me, These waters flow toward the eastern region and go down into the Arabah,
and when it enters the sea, the sea of stagnant waters [? The phrase is la, hM'Y"ëh; Wab'äW
hM'Y"ïh;-, ubha)u hayyammah )el-hayyammah, ‘and they come to the sea (or ‘to the west’) to the
sea (or ‘to the west’) the waters will become fresh (or, ‘will be healed’)]. 47.9 Wherever the tworivers
[~yIl;’x]n:, nachalayim] go [compare Zechariah 14:8 below], every living creature that
swarms will live, and there will be very many fish, once these waters reach there. It will become
fresh [the Dead Sea!]; and everything will live where the river [lx;n:, nachal] goes. 47.10 People
will stand fishing beside it from En-gedi to En-eglaim; it will be a place for the spreading of nets;
its fish will be of a great many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea [i.e., the Mediterranean]. 47.11
But its swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they are to be left for salt. 47.12 On the
banks, on both sides of the river [lx;n:, nachal], there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their
leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the
waters for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing.
[This vision of the life-giving river should be compared with John’s vision in Revelation 22:1-5.]
Zechariah 14:8,
On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem,
half of them to the eastern sea [i.e., the Dead Sea],
and half of them to the western sea [i.e., the Mediterranean Sea];
it shall continue in summer as in winter [i.e., it will be a perennial river, not a wadi
that is dry part of the time].
Joel 4:18 (3:18 in English),
In that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine
the hills shall flow with milk,
and all the stream beds [yqEïypia], )aphiyqey] of Judah shall flow with water;
a fountain [!y"©[.m;, ma(yan] shall come forth from the house of YHWH
and water the Wadi [lx;n:, nachal] Shittim [‘Acacias,’ east of the Jordan].
38
(continued...)

28
(...continued)
Psalm 36:7-9,
36.7 How precious is Your steadfast love, O God!
And sons of humanity will seek refuge in the shadow of Your wings.
36.8 They feast on the abundance of Your house,
and You give them drink from the river [lx;n:, nachal] of Your delights [^yn

`~yviar' h['B'r>a;l. hy"h'w> dreP'yI ~V'miW !G"h;-ta, tAqv.h;l.!d,[eme And a river is going
29
out from Luxurious Place, to give drink to the garden; and from there it divides, and it becomes
30
four river-sources. 2.11 hl' êywIx]h; ( #r

31 32
`bh'(Z"h; ~v'Þ-rv,a] The one’s name, Piyshon –it is the one that encircles all the Chavilah
30
(...continued)
does the text say whether the river divided into branches immediately on leaving the garden or
later on in its course.” (P. 216)
We translate the Hebrew noun ~yviar', r)oshiym, “river-sources,” although the plural
noun is normally translated “heads” (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, p. 911 [4c]).
Rabbi Hirsch “comments that some criticize the geographical description in this verse [10]
because it has been taken to refer to a river which divides into four streams, and no such river
has been found...But ~yvi(ar', ro)shiym does not mean branches but four separate heads. The
river starts as a single stream, and outside Eden, after it has watered the garden, it evidently disappears
into the ground and springs up again in four different locations as four separate rivers.”
(Bereishis 1, p. 96)
The Greek translation is avrca,j, archas, “beginnings.” Westermann points out that this has
been understood to mean “beginnings,” or “sources,” or “river sources,” or “outlets,” or “upper
course,” or “main current.” He agreed with F. Delitzsch that it should be translated “The beginnings
of the rivers that branched from it...” He states that “The difficulties that arise here disappear
when one realizes that the author does not want to describe in detail any geographical area,
but the transition from the river of paradise to the four rivers of the world; they begin at the point
where the river of paradise divides itself.” (P. 216)
“The number 4 stands for completeness; H. Gunkel notes that ‘the ancients speak of the
four corners of the world, the four directions of the heavens, the four parts of the earth...each
continent has its river’...The structure of 2:10-14 shows that the 4 indicates completeness. Their
origin from the garden sets them over against the world. It is the world which receives life and
fertility from the four rivers that flow from the river of paradise...If the intention of verses 11-14 is
to describe the four rivers as belonging to the four regions of the world, then one cannot expect
precise details and descriptions of definite circumscribed areas.” (P. 217)
T.C. Mitchell, in his article on “Eden, Garden of,” in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary notes
that “The names of the four tributaries or mouths, which were evidently outside the garden, are
given...The last two are identified, without dissent, with the Tigris and Euphrates respectively, but
the identifications for the Pishon and Gihon are almost as diverse as they are numerous, ranging
from the Nile and Indus to tributaries of the Tigris in Mesopotamia. Sufficient data are not availble
to make it possible to identify either of these two rivers with certainty.” (2, p. 409).
We do not see any real way to connect the Pishon and Giychon with the Nile and the
Indus, and think instead that the author, by using both real rivers and unknown rivers, means to
include all earth’s rivers, from the largest and most well-known, to the very smallest (Giychon;
however this river is not located in Israel in this story, but in Ethiopia) and least known (Pishon)
along whose banks civilization has developed, as all having their origin in the garden of a luxurious
place, where humanity’s forbears once lived in intimate relationship with YHWH God.
41

33
(land), where there is the gold. 2.12 !b,a,w>xl;doB.h; ~v' bAj awhih; #r,a'h' bh;z]W
31
Fox translates by Pishon / Spreader.”
The story supplies the name of the first river--!AvyPi, piyshon, but no such river is known
in biblical or modern times.
But see Ben Sirach 24:23-29, which mentions the great “River of the Torah” as being like
the Piyshon that fills men with wisdom, and then compare the Torah to the Tigris at the time of
first-fruits; the Euphrates that makes one full of understanding, the Jordan at harvest time, and
the Giychon (at vintage time), apparently indicating his knowledge of the Piyshon River–or, it may
be that he is simply taking that name from the Bible.
32
Or, perhaps, that “winds through.”
Hamilton notes that “The Hebrew verb bb;Þs', sabhabh [Genesis uses the present participle
with the definite article, bbeASh;, hassobhebh, literally ‘the one encircling’] may be construed
as ‘circle on the periphery of a land,’ or ‘wind through, meander.’ One cannot say which is
to be preferred here. Rivers more often twist and turn than encircle.” (P. 166)
33
The Samaritan Pentateuch spells this name hl' êywIx]h;, hachawiylah, “the chawiylah,”
without the definite article, i.e., hl' êywIx], chawiylah, “chavilah.” This variant reading does not
change the meaning of Genesis.
For mentions in the Hebrew Bible of “Havilah,” see:
Genesis 2:11 (here, the land, the only place where the definite article is used with the noun);
Genesis 10:7 (the name of a descendant of Kush), 29 (a son of Yoqtan);
Genesis 25:18 (where it is a geographical location of Yishmael and his descendants, evidently in
Arabia east of Egypt); 1 Samuel 15:7 (very similar);
1 Chronicles 1:9 (a son of Kush);
1 Chronicles 1:23 (a son of Yoqtan).
All of these occurrences are related to areas in the southern or northeastern part of Arabia.
Westermann thinks that the noun means “sand,” and here means “The Land of Sand.” He
notes that “One can well understand that a number of areas in different places could be called by
this name.” (P. 217)
Wenham holds that Arabia was “certainly a source of gold in ancient times. On this basis
the Piyshon must either be identified with an Arabian river, or with the Persian Gulf and Red Sea
‘which goes round all the land of Havilah.’” (P. 65)
42
(continued...)

34 35 36
`~h;Voh; And that land’s gold (is) good –there (also is) the bedholach, and the shoham
37
stone. 2.13 `vWK #r,a,-lK' tae bbeASh; aWh !AxyGI ynIVeh; rh'N"h;-~vew> And the
33
(...continued)
However, It is certainly unusual to use the word “river” in referring to such large bodies of
water as an ocean gulf.
34
The phrase awhih; #r,a'h', ha)arets hahiw), is another occasion among many in the
rd
Pentateuch in which the 3 person singular feminine pronoun with the definite article, awhih;,
hahiw), literally “the it (feminine)” is to be read, even though the pronoun, without the Massoretic
rd
pointing is the 3 person masculine singular pronoun aWhh;, hahu). See Gesenius-Kautzsch-
Cowley, 32k [p. 107] where it is stated that awh, hu) stands for aWh, hu) (“that,” masculine
singular) or ayhi, hiy) (“that,” feminine singular) in the Pentateuch, the punctuation marks of the
Massoretes making it clear when it is, as here, to be read as feminine (a so-called qere perpetuum).
There are only eleven exceptions to this in the Pentateuch. It is possible that this usage is
an indication of a very early time in Hebrew literature.
35
The Samaritan Pentateuch adds the adverb dao+m., me)odh, “very,” or “exceedingly,” at this
point in the text. The interpolation does not change the meaning of Genesis, but only makes the
description more emphatic.
36
This definite noun xl;doB.h;, habbedholach occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only at
Numbers 11:7, where it is used as a symbol for understanding what the “Manna” looked like (i.e.,
its color?) It may mean “bdellium,” a strong-smelling gum-substance which the Koehler-Baumgartner
Lexicon describes as “sweet-scented, golden, translucent resin from south Arabia.”
The LXX translates by o` a;nqrax, ho anthraks, “the coal,” or “the charcoal” here at Genesis
2:11, but at Numbers 11:7 translates by krusta,llou, krustallou, “crystal,” “rock-crystal.”
37
This phrase~h;Voh; !b,a,w., we)eben hashshoham, obviously refers to some type of precious
stone, such as onyx or chrysoprasus, or beryl, found in Yemen and India. The noun is found
12 times in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 2:12 (here); Exodus 25:7; 28:9, 20; 35:9, 27; 39:6, 13
(all of these passages in Exodus concerning decoration of the Moveable sanctuary and the High-
Priest’s clothing); Ezekiel 28:13; Job 28:16; 1 Chronicles 24:27 and 29:2. The identification of
precious stones mentioned in the Bible is notoriously difficult and imprecise.
The biblical story affirms that Chavilah is a place where gold, valuable commodities and
precious stones are found.
43
(continued...)

38 39 40
second river’s name–Giychon. It is the one that encircles the entire Land of Ethiopia. 2.14
37
(...continued)
Hamilton comments that “...The gold is not a part of Eden. It is found only in territories
outside Eden. While water, food, and monogamous marriage [we add, and labor] are a part of
Eden, riches and precious metals are not.” (P. 169)
By contrast, see Ezekiel 28:13 (where Eden, the garden of God, is described as being
filled with precious stones of all sorts) and the garden of jewels depicted in the Epic of Gilgamesh,
ANET, p. 89, column b, lines 44-51. Eden in the Genesis story is filled with labor and intimate
relationship between husband and wife, as well as with YHWH God, but not with gold and
precious stones. In the Book of Revelation, chapters 21-22, the heavenly city, the new Jerusalem
that John sees descend to earth, is adorned with all sorts of precious stones and has streets of
gold.
38
Fox translates by “Gihon / Gusher.”
The modern visitor to Jerusalem is familiar with the spring Giychon, which flows from the
east side of Ophel underneath the hill to the western side at the Pool of Siloam–a tiny little
stream, but one which played an important role in Jewish rituals of ordination of high officials, and
which furn-ished enough water for the king’s gardens. The name means “a bursting forth,” and
the water from the spring “surges” intermittently. For mentions of !AxyGI, Giychon elsewhere in
the Hebrew Bible, see:
1 Kings 1:33 (where Solomon was anointed as King), 38 (same), 45 (same);
2 Chronicles 32:30 (Hezekiah’s building of the tunnel beneath Ophel);
2 Chronicles 33:14 (a wall west of Giychon).
We understand the author of Genesis to mean that all of earth’s rivers–from the largest
and most well known, to the smallest and least known, all originate there in that place where
YHWH God first placed humanity–and that the meeting of all human needs stems from there, i.e.,
all humanity benefits from that beginning place. But see the next sentence, which causes the
reader to think of some other river than that in Jerusalem, which cannot be conceived as “going
round all the land of Cush (i.e., Ethiopia),” except in a highly symbolical way, such as we are
suggesting–that the blessings of those rivers rising out of the garden of Luxurious Place flows into
the most distant countries on earth (which Ethiopia was understood to be in biblical times).
39
The same participle found in verse 11 occurs here, bbeêASh;, hassobhebh (spelled slightly
differently). It may mean “the one encircling,” but it may also mean “the one meandering
through.” See the next footnote.
40
The Hebrew Bible uses this noun vWK, Kush, to mean “Ethiopia,” both the land and the
people. See elsewhere:
Genesis 10:6, 7, 8 (the father of Nimrod);
(continued...)
44

aWh y[iybir>h' rh'N"h;w> rWVa; tm;d>qi %lehoh; aWh lq,D,xi yviyliV.h; rh'N"h; ~vew>
40
(...continued)
2 Kings 19:9 (Tirhaqah is its king); Isaiah 37:9 (same);
Isaiah 11:11 (YHWH’s people will be gathered a second time, partially from Kush);
Isaiah 18:1 (site of whirring wings and rivers);
Isaiah 20:3 (Isaiah’s walking naked for three years is a sign to Egypt and Kush);
Isaiah 20:4 (captives from Kush will be led away naked by the Assyrians);
Isaiah 20:5 (source of dismay to those who depended upon Kush);
Isaiah 43:3 (Kush given in exchange for Israel);
Isaiah 45:14 (merchandise of Kush will come over to Cyrus);
Jeremiah 46:9 (Kush’s soldiers carry shields);
Ezekiel 29:10 (Egypt’s border is Kush);
Ezekiel 30:4 , 5, 9 (devastation is coming upon Kush);
Ezekiel 38:5 (armed soldiers from Kush accompany Gog’s forces);
Nahum 3:9 (Kush was the strength Thebes depended upon in vain);
Zephaniah 3:10 (YHWH’s people from beyond the rivers of Kush will come to YHWH, bringing
offerings);
Psalm 7:1 title (name of a Benjaminite);
Psalm 68:31 (Kush is urged to hurry to stretch out its hands to God);
Psalm 87:4 (Kush knows YHWH);
Job 28:19 (Kush’s precious stones cannot be compared to the value of wisdom);
Esther 1:1 (Ahasuerus’ kingdom reached from India to Kush); 8:9 (same);
1 Chronicles 1:8, 9, 10 (descendant of Ham, father of Nimrod).
Also, see the adjective yviWK, kushi (“Kushite,” which occurs some 27 times).
It is important to note that for the world of biblical times, Kush / Ethiopia was symbolic of
the “farthest end of the earth.” Hamilton and others suggest that here in Genesis 2:13 the
reference may be to another Land of Kush, the “Kassite” Kingdom to the east of Mesopotamia (1,
p. 170). If Hamilton’s idea concerning the Kassites is correct, the intended river will be the Choaspes
or Kerkha which is located east of the Tigris.
But what is the river Giychon that encircles or meanders through the entire Land of Kush?
If we take the participle to mean “encircles,” we know of no such river. If we take it in the second
sense, we think of the Nile River which originates in Kush, and descends to the north into the
Mediterranean–but why would Genesis call the Nile “Giychon”?
It seems best to think of all earth’s mightiest rivers, down to the smallest and least well
known, as originating in that Divine garden where YHWH formed humanity–watering all the earth,
to its most remote areas, bringing blessings to all humanity.
45

41 42
`tr'p. And the third river’s name Chiddeqel. It is the one that flows east of Assyria. And the
fourth river–it is Perath. 43
41
The river lq,D,xi, chiddeqel is the well-known Tigris River (the Greek translation is Ti,grij,
which has been transliterated into English. It is mentioned only here at Genesis 2:14 and Daniel
10:4 (Daniel’s great vision comes as he stands on the bank of the great river, the Tigris).
42
The phrase rWVa; tm;d>qi %lehoh; aWh, hu) haholek qidhmath )ashshur, “it is the one
that goes [literally, ‘walks’] east of [or ‘in front of’] Assyria,” evidently means “flows on the eastern
side of the Kingdom of Assyria,” or possibly “the City of Assyria.”
Hamilton states “It is unlikely that the reference can be to the empire whose territory extended
on both sides of the Tigris. Thus a reference to the capital city is more likely.” (P. 170)
Hamilton adds that “We recall, however, that Asshur [the city of ‘Asshur’] had begun to
lose its importance by 1400 B.C. Would the so-called ‘J’ source highlight a city in its creation epic
that had long since ceased to carry any weight, or could this section have been inscribed by
someone who knew the glory of the capital?
Westermann remarks that if the ancient city of Asshur is meant, ‘then there must be a very
ancient tradition which goes back to a time before Nineveh became the capital of the Assyrian
kingdom.’” (P. 170)
43
The name tr'p., perath, means “Euphrates.”
Hamilton comments that “The Hebrew word...may be based on Sumerian buranun, ‘great
river,’ and Akkadian purattu, ‘the river.” Now from the Ebla texts comes the word ba-ra-du, ‘cold
river,’ and ba-ra-du ma-dad, ‘the great cold river,’ for the Euphrates. This name would be appropriate
for the Euphrates, since it originates in the Armenian mountains.” (P. 170)
Wenham notes that “The geographic location of Eden has been debated at great length
but quite inconclusively. The general setting as described in verses 5-8 favors a Mesopotamian
site. In Eden a great river rises, and after leaving the garden, splits up into four rivers including
the Tigris and Euphrates. On this basis alone we should conclude that Eden lies somewhere in
Armenia near the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates. And this is a long-established, widely held
view...
“It is, however, complicated by the mention of the Piyshon flowing round Havilah (Arabia?)
And the Gichon flowing round Cush (Ethiopia or western Iran?). An easy solution is to put the
confusion down to the hazy geographical knowledge of the ancients. They imagined all these
rivers did join up somewhere.
“Fewest problems are posed by the view of Haupt...and Speiser that the garden was located
near the head of the Persian Gulf. Here three of the rivers converge [how so?], and if the
(continued...)
46

44
2.15 `Hr'm.v'l.W Hd'b.['l. !d,[e-!g:b. WhxeNIY:w: ~d'a'h'-ta, ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> xQ;YIw:
45
And YHWH God took the human being, and placed him in (the) garden of Luxurious Place, to
43
(...continued)
fourth is an Arabian stream or the Persian Gulf itself, all four meet. According to Mesopotamian
mythology, the island of Dilmun (Bahrain) at the northern end of the gulf was a paradise isle, a
land of life and immortality, where thousands of people from surrounding areas were buried, perhaps
in an attempt to ensure eternal life...
“The greatest difficulty with this view is that, according to Genesis, the rivers as they flow
from Eden split into four, whereas on Speiser’s location they flow toward Eden to converge
there...
“Is this perhaps yet another example of the way in which Genesis takes up old mythological
motifs, radically transforming them to suit its purposes? Maybe the reversed flow of the rivers
suggests that paradise is beyond man’s present experience. Their names affirm that there was a
garden there, but maybe the insoluble geography is a way of saying that it is now inaccessible to,
even unlocatable by, later man (compare 3:24).” (Pp. 66-67)
44
Westermann notes that here in verse 15 “The narrative thread is resumed with the imperfect
consecutive” verb being used. (P. 184).
It is quite obvious that verse 15a is a repetition of the statement made already in verse 8a.
Wenham states that “Here the writer picks up the narrative thread from verse 8 by repeating
some of the same phraseology, a characteristic device of Hebrew narrative signaling the end of a
digression...” (P. 67)
45
Or, “gave him rest...” The verb WhxeNIY:w:, wayyanichhehu, means literally, “caused him to
rest,” and there is a biblical motif concerned with “entering into the Divine ‘rest’.” See Hebrews
3:1-4:13.
Bereishis 1, p. 99 states that “The Midrash connects WhxeNIY:w:, wayyanichhehu with
hx'nUm., menuchah, ‘repose’ [or ‘rest’] and renders...’and He gave him repose in the Garden of
Eden...”
The Greek translates by e;qeto, etheto, simply “He set...” without any mention of avna,pausij
or kata,pausij, anapausis or katapausis, which are the Greek words used for “rest.” And the
fact is that oftentimes “to set” is all that the Hebrew verb means.
Hamilton translates the verb “led (him)...” (P. 171)
If the verb is intended to mean “gave him rest,” then this would be in conformity with the
interpretation of this passage as meaning a “blissful paradise”–but see the next footnote. It was
(continued...)
47

work it and to preserve it. 46
45
(...continued)
certainly not a “rest” without labor or responsibility that is being depicted here.
46
Fox translates by “to work it and to watch it,” noting that a different word for work, Hd"ßb.['l.,
“to work / serve it,” from the word used in 2:2-3, hk'al'm., mela)khah.
Westermann notes how scholars such as Budde have interpreted the story in terms of
humanity’s entry into “blissful enjoyment,” but holds that this “...is here quite clearly a notion of
paradise that is completely foreign to the text of the Old Testament [but, we insist, not completely
foreign, if the verb WhxeNIY:w:, wayyanichhehu, means literally, ‘caused him to rest’]. Hesiod describes
the golden age in this way as does the Koran...It is of the utmost significance that the Old
Testament knows nothing of such an idea of paradise.
“The story of the creation of human beings in Genesis 2 makes quite clear the essential
components of human existence. Human beings are created by God, and so from the very beginning
they stand in a relationship to their Creator, 2:7. A human being as a complete person is a
living being because God has breathed life into him, 2:7. Human existence includes occupation
or work, verse 15b, and, most important of all, community with other human beings, verses 18-
24. Work is regarded here as an essential part of human existence. Life without work would not
be worthy of human beings.” (P. 220)
Hamilton comments that “There is no magic in Eden. Gardens cannot look after themselves;
they are not self-perpetuating. Man is placed there to dress it and keep it...Man is placed
in the garden as servant...The garden is something to be protected more than it is something to
be possessed...The point is made clear here that physical labor is not a consequence of sin...
Eden certainly is not a paradise in which man passes his time in idyllic and uninterrupted bliss
with absolutely no demands on his daily schedule.” (P. 171)
Bereishis 1, p. 99 refers to Torah Teminah’s view that “...Only after God told him to cultivate
and keep the garden did He give him permission to eat of its fruits for it is improper for man
to benefit from this world without contributing something beneficial towards the settlement and
upkeep of the world.”
In the Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths, the view of work is presented that human
beings were created by the Gods in order to do the work of the Gods, or to relieve the Gods of
their heavy burdens. Westermann comments that “In contrast to Genesis 2:15 they are to cultivate
the ‘field of the Gods’ and their work is linked immediately with the cult, with the temples
which they are to build and with festivals...In the Enuma Elish epic too, people were created to lift
the drudgery from the shoulders of the Gods. The beginning of the Atrahasis Myth treats this in
great detail...
“This is very different from Genesis 2:15. The Sumerian and Akkadian Myths refer human
work to the world of the Gods; from the very beginning; this is typical of myth: the Gods need
(continued...)
48

2.16 `lkeaTo lkoïa' !G"h;-#[e lKomi rmoale ~d'a'h'-l[; ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> wc;y>w: And
YHWH God commanded the human being, saying, From every tree of the garden, eating you
47
shall eat. 2.17 WNM,mi ^l.k'a] ~AyB. yKi WNM,mi lk;ato al{ [r'w" bAj t[;D;h; #[emeW
46
(...continued)
people for the heavy work...Genesis 2:15 strips work of any mythical connection with the world of
the Gods...Work is part of human existence because the living space which the Creator has assigned
to His people demands this work. Human work is de-mythologized; civilization, of which
agriculture is a constitutive part, acquires thereby its own independent significance...
“Human work then, as a mandate from God to His creatures, is a necessary part of the
exchange between God and His people. Work is a determining factor in a God-created person.
The dignity which belongs to civilization rests on the mandate of God to His creatures.” (P. 222)
This is another example, we think, of how this Torah-story serves as “legislation.”
Sarna comments that “The man is not indigenous [i.e., a ‘native’] to the garden. He is
fashioned elsewhere and finds himself in it solely by the grace of God. True, his needs are easily
taken care of, but his life in the garden is not to be one of indolence. He has duties to perform. It
is his responsibility to nurture and conserve the pristine perfection of the garden. This he must do
by the labor of his hands. Yet, no strenuous exertion is required, for nature responds easily to his
efforts.” (P. 20)
According to this story, work was not a Divine curse imposed upon humanity because of
disobedience, but rather, the original intention of YHWH God for His human creature, apart from
which there could be no genuine humanity.
47
Or, “you may fully eat.” Fox translates by “you may eat, yes, eat.”
The first command given by YHWH God to the human being is one of vast permission,
accompanied by the very limited single denial, and it is obvious that the vast freedom permitted
far outweighs the one single area prohibited.
Westermann comments that “The release of all other trees in the garden means that the
man need suffer no deprivation; there is plenty of food there.” (P. 222)
Wenham comments that “In 2:9 it was said that the garden contained trees good to eat;
now explicit permission is given to eat of them all save the tree of knowledge [of good and evil]...
The prohibition applies simply to one of the two special trees; evidently man was allowed to eat of
the tree of life if he wanted.” (P. 67)
In this instance of “Torah legislation,” the legislation is extremely permissive, not negative
and burdensome.
49

48
`tWmT' tAm And from (the) tree of the knowledge (of) good and evil, you shall not eat from it;
48
Rabbi Hirsch says that “as is plain from the chapter, the tree’s fruit was succulent and tempting,
yet man was forbidden to eat from it. Because it was against God’s will that man partake of
it, its eating was intrinsically ‘bad’ no matter what the senses might dictate. Thus the tree was
there to demonstrate that ‘good and bad’ are concepts that are dependent on the will of God, not
the senses of man.” (Bereishis 1, pp. 95-96)
Westermann interprets the importance of this commandment as enabling a relationship
between the human creature and the Creator–a relationship that arises directly out of the giving of
the command. “Such a personal relationship to God is part of human existence as a whole, and it
only becomes possible through a commandment of God.” (P. 223)
Westermann refers to Deuteronomy 8:2, which states, “Remember the long way that
YHWH your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing
you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep His commandments.” We
would add verses 5-6, which state, “Know then in your heart that as a parent disciplines a child so
YHWH your God disciplines you. Therefore keep the commandments of YHWH your God, by
walking in His ways and by fearing Him.”
Westermann goes on to say, “The meaning of the command becomes clearer when it is
compared with the duty imposed on the man in verse 15b. The duty of tilling and keeping the
garden is something comprehensible; the command need not be comprehensible, and such is the
case here. The meaning is this: the command remains the word of the One Who commands.
One can only hear it while one hears in it the One Who commands and is obedient to Him. The
command then opens up the possibility of a relationship to the One Who commands. By the
command something is entrusted to the man; he is given an area of freedom which the animals
do not possess; it is not a limitation but an enlargement of his potential...
“Where there is the capacity to decide there is at the same time a limit. Every command
sets limits. And so the original form of the command is the prohibition. The prohibition which
restricts the man hems him in with threat. This limitation is expressed in the law, and here in the
sentence, ‘In the day that you eat of it you shall die’...To say no to God–and this is what freedom
allows–is ultimately to say no to life; for life comes from God...The primeval prohibition...indicates
that neither community among humans nor any sort of relationship with God can exist without
such limits. Where human freedom means utter lack of restraint and hence complete arbitrariness,
then human community and relationship with God are no longer possible.” (Pp. 223-24)
Fretheim likewise comments that “To transgress these limits entails deciding about one’s
own best interests, to become autonomous, independent of the will of God for one’s life. To refrain
from eating recognizes creaturely limitations and the decisiveness of the will of God for
human life...The permission established an incredible range of freedom for the creatures; hence,
the command that follows certainly does not seem repressive...To be truly a creature entails
limits; to honor limits becomes necessary if the creation will develop as God intends. Yet while
the language takes the form of command, the issue involves trust in the word of God. (P. 351)
50
(continued...)

ecause in the day of your eating from it, dying, you will die.” 49
48
(...continued)
We think these comments by Westermann and Fretheim are profoundly true, and will richly
repay our study and meditation. Do you think this is true of your life? Are you under a Divine
command, which you recognize as coming from God, and which causes you to choose between
life and death? If you say no, what about the laws concerning gravity, and poisonous substances,
and fire, and water? If you do not pay heed to the laws that are inherent in these substances, and
obey them, will you not die? Who do you think gave those laws–your parents? No, they long
antedated your most distant ancestors, they are inherent in the creation itself. And if there are
inherent laws that must not be broken in such things as fire and water, are there not also laws in
human relationships, in sexual practices, etc. etc.?
Wenham comments that “The restriction is blunt and firm. ‘Never eat,’ literally, ‘you shall
not eat,’ resembles in its form the Ten Commandments: al, lo, ‘not,’ followed by the imperfect
[‘future’ verb] is used for long-standing prohibitions; compare ‘Do not steal, murder, etc. [literally,
‘you shall not steal, you shall not murder, etc.] (Exodus 20:3-17). To it is appended a motive
clause: ‘for on the day you do (eat), you will certainly die’ (compare Exodus 20:5, 7, 11), a characteristic
feature of Hebrew law...
“It is not, as Westermann (p, 225) maintains, the characteristic formulation for the death
sentence in legal texts. They use infinitive plus hophal [tmwy, yumath], ‘he shall be put to death,’
whereas here we have infinitive plus qal [twmt, tamuth], ‘you will die.’ This is the form characteristic
of Divine or royal threats in narrative and prophetic texts (e.g., Genesis 20:7, 1 Samuel
14:39, 44; 22:16; 1 Kings 2:37, 42; 2 Kings 1:4, 6; Ezekiel 33:8, 14). These parallels show that
the fruit of the tree was not poisonous, as occasionally suggested. The death sentence demonstrates
God’s seriousness in prohibiting access to the tree.” (P. 67)
Sarna similarly comments that “Unrestricted freedom does not exist. Man is called upon by
God to exercise restraint and self-discipline in the gratification of his appetite. This prohibition is
the paradigm for future Torah legislation relating to the dietary laws.” (P. 21)
We see little or no relationship between this prohibition and the later dietary laws, other
than the fact that priests / judges, acting for God give laws concerning some forms of food that
are not to be eaten. In the much later dietary laws, literal forms of food are being forbidden; here
the forbidden tree is obviously symbolical in nature.
We agree with Fretheim that “The two trees represent two possible futures: life and death.
To be separated from the tree of life (3:22-24) represents the broken nature of the relationship,
with death being inevitable.” (P. 352) This is another example of legislation in the Torah.
49
Fox translates by “you must die, yes, die.” The “death penalty” that YHWH God announces
to His human subjects call for interpretation.
51
(continued...)

49
(...continued)
Sarna holds that here it “must mean being deprived of the possibility of rejuvenation by
means of the ‘tree of life,’ as existed hitherto–in other words, inevitable expulsion from the
garden.” (P. 21)
Westermann holds that, “The one alternative that matters [is]: Was the punishment
imposed when the command was transgressed or not?” (P. 224) He goes on to show how the
phrase “on the day” plays a key role in interpretation–some (such as Speiser, Cassuto and
Hamilton) saying that the penalty was carried out on the day of the transgression–in that the
human beings, who had been created “immortal,” became “mortal,” and subject to death “on that
day,” that is, deprived of access to the tree of the lives.
But Westermann holds, along with others, such as Th. C. Vriezen, that this phrase “on the
day” is used throughout the Hebrew Bible in other ways than literally, sometimes meaning “at the
time when,” and that to insist that it means “in the 24-hour period in which the transgression occurs,”
is untenable. He also holds that the “death penalty” has a fixed meaning in the Hebrew
Bible, and never means anything like “you will become mortal,” or “you will die sometime later.”
He concludes that “One must agree...with H. Gunkel, and many others: ‘This threat is not
fulfilled subsequently: they do not die immediately; this fact is not to be explained away, but simply
acknowledged’...Gunkel says that our difficulty with this was not felt so strongly by the ancient
narrator, who would reply that God is and remains Master of what He says [compare the Divine
refusal to inflict the death penalty on the adulterous wife of YHWH (Jerusalem) in Ezekiel 16].
One must agree. But the narrative itself can throw further light on the difficulty: the death
penalty...is not really a threat; it is, in the context, much more a warning...
“After the man and the woman have eaten from the tree, a new situation arises in which
God acts differently from the way He had indicated. This ‘inconsequence’ is essential to the narrative;
it shows that God’s dealing with His creatures cannot be pinned down, not even by what
God has said previously. [We add, YHWH God of the Genesis story is no legalist, Who is bound
by His Own law; rather, He is free to graciously forgive even the most guilty, if He so chooses].
And so even God’s acts and words are open to misinterpretation and the serpent makes use of
this.” (P. 225)
We think Westermann is correct in this understanding, and insist that this is in accordance
with the theology taught in Exodus 32-34, which is that Israel can only be the people of YHWH if
YHWH is a God of grace, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. Here again we note the great proundity
of this ancient story, which calls for our meditation and interpretation, as God’s leniency is
depicted as over-ruling His Own sentence of law.
We think that according to the Genesis story the human beings were originally allowed to
eat from the tree of the lives, prior to their transgression–which, however the phrase may be understood,
implies participating in the “life” or “lives” it imparts. The story implies (as Augustine understood
it) that humanity has been created mortal, but with the possibility of immortality through
eating of that tree. Being separated from the garden, and from that tree, means remaining simply
mortal, with the only possibility of immortality being that of returning along the way to the tree of
(continued...)
52

50
2.18 rz

51 52
`ADg>n

53 54 55 56
make for him a helper, corresponding to him.” 2.19 hm'd'a]h' !mi ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> rc,YIw:
52
(...continued)
Bersishis 1, p. 103 notes how “The Midrash perceives the human factor in this need: One
who has no wife dwells without good, help, joy, blessing, and atonement.” Similarly, “Harav Gifter
...notes that love and devotion to another human being is an essential forerunner to love and
devotion to God.” (Ibid., p. 104)
Bowie, in like manner, comments that “It was God who said, ‘It is not good that the man
should be alone,’ and God Who commanded that a man ‘shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh’ (2:24)–or, as the strong Hebrew words imply, one personality. They shall ‘be fruitful
and multiply.’ Thus marriage and the conception of children are lifted up above blind instinct and
endowed with sacredness...” (P. 497)
Compare a similar thought by the wise teacher of Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, concerning how
“two are better than one.”
We think the Roman Catholic insistence on vows of celibacy (by ordained priests, and
nuns, to live “alone”) is in contradiction to this teaching of Genesis 2, and that the devastating
consequences of this unnatural arrangement are being felt in overwhelming ways in recent church
history.
Sarna comments at this point that “Celibacy is undesirable.” (P. 21)
But compare the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, especially in verse 8, where Paul
holds that it is good for people (if they have the gift) to remain single, i.e., to be “alone.”
What do you think? If both of these views are equally the “word of God,” and Paul’s statement
is no more than his “opinion,” which view do you take to be correct? Would you say in the
light of Paul’s view that mandatory celibacy is a violation of creation’s intention, whereas voluntary
celibacy is an acceptable option? This is another example of the Torah as legislation.
53 st
The Massoretic text spells the 1 person singular imperfect verb Hf,[/a,, )e(eseh, “I will
make” with a dagesh-forte in the final h, he. However, Codex Leningradensis, along with many
other Hebrew manuscripts and editions of the Hebrew text spell the word hf,[/a, without the
dagesh-forte.
The Greek translation changes from the 1st person singular Hf,[/a,, )e(eseh, “I will make”
of the Hebrew to the 1st person plural poih,swmen, poiesomen, “let Us make,” in a similar way to
Genesis 1:26. The Latin Vulgate follows the LXX in reading the plural instead of the singular.
Again the author uses the root verb hf[, (asah, “make,” in the description of the Divine activity.
55

54
The masculine singular noun rzn

Al-ar'q.yi-hm tAar>li ~d'a'h'-la, abeY"w: ~yIm;V'h; @A[-lK' taew> hd,F'h; tY:x;-lK'
57
`Amv. aWh hY"x; vp,n< ~d'a'h' Al-ar'q.yI rv,a] lkow> And YHWH God shaped from the
58 59 60
ground every live animal of the field, and every bird of the heavens, and He brought (them) to
55
(...continued)
Westermann comments that “Together with the mutual help is the mutual correspondence,
the mutual understanding in word and answer as well as in silence, which constitutes life in common.
These two phrases describe in an extraordinary way what human community is; it has to do
primarily with man and woman, and determines human existence for all times.” (P. 227)
56
Wenham comments on verses 19-20 that “Despite God’s identification of man’s need, there
is a delay in His provision: contrast the instantaneous fulfillment of the Divine word in chapter 1.
This hold-up creates suspense. It allows us to feel man’s loneliness. All the animals are brought
before him, and we see him looking at each one in the hope it would make a suitable companion
for man. Bereshith Rabba 17:5 pictures the animals passing by in pairs and man commenting,
‘Everything has its partner but I have no partner.’” (P. 68)
57
Both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Greek translation imply a text that reads the adverb
dA[, (odh, “again,” at this point in the text (in Greek, e;ti, eti, “still,” “yet”). The interpolated word
does not change the meaning of Genesis.
58
The Samaritan Pentateuch interpolates the sign of the direct object, ta, )eth at this point in
the text. The interpolation does not change the meaning of Genesis.
Compare Genesis 2:7. Just as YHWH God is depicted as a “Potter,” or “Molder,” using
the earth’s clay (or dirt) to shape the human being, so also it is with the animals and the birds.
The Great Potter continues His production. According to this story, human beings have a common
origin with the animals and with the birds–they all come from the same earth’s clay.
59
The word for ‘live animal,’ tY:Üx;, chayyath, is the construct form of the noun ‘hY"x;, chayyah,
which as Wenham notes, anticipates the name given to the woman by the man in the next
chapter, 3:20, hW"+x;, chawwah–see its footnote 85. Wenham states that “Though in Hebrew
these creatures’ names sound so similar to Eve’s, they are not what man is looking for.” (P. 68)
Fox translates by “whatever the human called it [the animal] as a living being.”
60
The Massoretic text has @A[ål.W, ule(oph, literally “and to bird(s).” Several Hebrew manucripts,
the Greek translation, the Syriac translation, the Jonathan Targum and the Latin Vulgate
have @A[-lk'l.W, ulekhol-(oph, literally “and to all bird(s).” This variant reading does not
change the meaning of Genesis, but shows how unfounded the view is of an “absolute, infallible
(continued...)
57

61 62
the human being to see what he would call out to it; and everything that the human being
60
(...continued)
Hebrew text of the Torah” which is assumed by some Jewish scholars, and is the basis for the
speculation centered around “The Bible Code.”
61
Hermann Gunkel pointed out that the author neglects to mention the sea creatures, assuming
along with others that the narrative is intended to depict the creation of all living creatures.
But, as Westermann notes, “...That is not the case. He is thinking of the animals from the viewpoint
of human beings. Can animals be their helpers or companions? And so the fish do not
come into consideration.” (P. 228)
Westermann comments that “God brings the animals to the man: this procession gives
expression to the intention of God in making the animals; it implies that it is the man who finds out
and decides what sort of helper corresponds to him...
“This passage can serve as a good example of how exegesis must adhere strictly to what
the narrative says. J. Hempel...exaggerates when he says that God really meant the animals to
be human companions; however, the man misused them and so God gave him as a punishment
the woman who brought distress...The author is showing with all the emphasis he can that the
animals are not the man’s counterpart. He wants, if only polemically, to stress the difference
between a human being and a beast...
“The narrative...tells of the possibility that the creation of the animals may offer the man the
help which is suited to him, no more and no less. It is the man who decides whether this is so or
not, and he decides against it.” (P. 228)
We think it very likely that this story has a polemical thrust–directed against the bestiality of
the Canaanite and Near-Eastern religions of the ancient world surrounding Israel.
What do you think?
Bereishis 1, p. 105 notes how Sforno holds a similar view: “God brought the animals to
man for a double purpose: to have man name the animals and thus establish his lordship over
them; and to satisfy man that he could not hope to find from among them a suitable companion–
to serve the dual function of helping him physically and spiritually, and at the same time to be his
intellectual equal.”
62 rd
The Hebrew preposition with the 3 masculine singular suffix Al, lo, literally “to him,” is referring
to the collective nouns that have preceded it in this sentence.
Fretheim comments that “God intends from the beginning that things not stay just as they
were initially created. God creates a paradise, not a static state of affairs, but a highly dynamic
situation in which the future lies open to various possibilities.” (P. 349) And, we add, the human
being plays a vital, determinative role in creating that future, naming, and making decisions as to
58
(continued...)

63 64
called out to it–[the] living animal(s), that (was) its name. 2.20 tAmve ~d'a'h' ar'q.YIw:
`Adg>n

65
And the human being called out names to all the cattle, and to bird(s) of the heavens, and to
66 67 68 69
every living animal of the field; and for a human being, he did not find a help corresponding
65
Some Hebrew manuscripts, the Greek translation, the Syriac translation, the Aramaic Tar-
gums and the Latin Vulgate join in interpolating the word lk, khol, “all,” or “every” at this point in
the text. But neither the Massoretic text nor the Samaritan Pentateuch read this noun. Whether
it is read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Genesis.
66
Fox translates by “every living-thing.”
67
As just stated, the human being is given responsibility for naming the live animals–but that
responsibility extends beyond the live animals of the field to include the birds of the heaven, and
the domesticated animals as well.
Hamilton holds that “This is the first fulfillment of God’s directive to humankind in 1:26, 28
to exercise authority over the animals, the fish, and the fowl. For to confer a name...is to speak
from a position of authority and sovereignty.” (P. 176)
Hamilton also notes that some commentators have found in this passage a major conflict
between the two stories of creation in chapter one and this story in chapter two–for there, the
animals were created before the human being, and here they are created (“shaped”) after the
human being.
But, Hamilton holds, “This verse does not imply that this was God’s first creation of animals.
Rather, it refers to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for
naming.” So, also Umberto Cassuto, Genesis I, p. 129.
We think this is the kind of literalistic treatment of these ancient texts that instead of
understanding them as “stories,” in which precise, exact statements are not to be expected,
demands of them exactitude and preciseness which is foreign to their nature. We would rather
say, the first story pictures it that way, the second this way–and allow any seeming differences to
remain, without attempting to harmonize the stories or claiming that the stories are contradictory,
or seeking to eliminate any seeming inconsistencies. Scientific treatises may be treated in such a
manner–but it is inappropriate for such ancient stories as these.
68
The Hebrew text is ambiguous, and can be read “and for Adam,” or as we have translated it,
“and for (the) human being (or, ‘man’)...” The Massoretes have not read the definite article,
choosing the meaning “and for Adam.” But the text without the Massoretic vowels can be read
either way.
Wenham holds that “This pointing [i.e., way of spelling] suggests that the Massoretes
wanted to understand the personal name Adam.” (1, p. 47) And Sarna comments that here
“Adam” is used for the first time as a proper name. (P. 22).
69
Hamilton notes that the subject of the verb “he (did not) find” is ambiguous, and that interpreters
have taken it to mean either “YHWH God did not find,” or “the human being did not find.”
(continued...)
60

70 71
to him. 2.21 wyt'[ol.C;mi tx;a; xQ;YIw: !v'yYIw: ~d'a'h'-l[; hm'Der>T; ~yhil{a/ hw"hy>
69
(...continued)
Hamilton proposes to change the verb from a qal perfect to the qal passive form of the verb, “was
not found.” (P. 174-75) This is certainly possible, but we think it better to leave the verb as pointed
by the Massoretes, and leave the text ambiguous. Whether or not it has to do with a Divine
search, or with a human search, no animal is suitable for the human being’s help, i.e., none
“corresponds to him.”
While it is true that a human being can have sexual intercourse with an animal, that is
about the only way that the animal “corresponds” to the human being, and by far the majority of
the manifold elements of interpersonal relationships possible between human beings are impossible
between human beings and animals.
Westermann notes that “The first act of the decision taken in verse 18b is concluded in
verse 20b. The Creator has not yet achieved what He wanted; the state of ‘not good’ has not
been altered. The tension which began in verse 18a is intensified.” (P. 229)
70
Sarna comments that “The review of the subhuman creation makes the man conscious of his
own uniqueness, of his inability to integrate himself into that whole biological order or feel direct
kinship with the other animate beings. At the same time, by observing the otherwise universal
complementary pairing of male and female, he becomes aware of his own exceptional status and
of his solitariness.” (P. 22)
We think that this text contains an implicit criticism of the sexual practice of “bestiality,” in
which human beings engage in sexual intercourse with animals–something that was prevalent in
the fertility religions of the Ancient Near East. Do you agree?
The editors of Bereishis 1, p. 107 note that “It was thus God’s will that man not be given a
wife until he came to the realization that he had no suitable mate among the living creatures and
he would therefore crave for fitting companionship as befitting as she.”
Westermann quotes Gunkel saying that “The scene presumes a very naive notion of God.
God makes an experiment that is futile.” (P. 225)
This is, of course, assuming that the “he found” refers to YHWH God, and not to Adam,
which is not certain from the text. But even if it is taken as referring to God, we insist that the
Hebrew Bible is full of Divine experiments that failed, none greater than YHWH’s attempt to
make Israel His obedient people in covenant relationship with Him.
What do you think? Do you think God “experiments” with human beings, and sometimes
fails in those experiments?
Westermann explains that “Genesis 2 acknowledges that people do not find the true
meaning of human life in the mere fact of existence; if this were the case, then community with
the animals would be enough. But people find the meaning of life only in human community; it is
only this that makes the true humanity.” (Ibid.)
(continued...)
61

72
lPeY:w: `hN"T,x.T; rf'B' rGOs.YIw: And YHWH God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the human
73 74
being, and he slept. And He took one of his sides, and closed (with) flesh behind it.
70
(...continued)
The Epic of Gilgamesh deals with this same problem by its depiction of Enkidu as halfanimal,
half-human, who finds the meaning of his life by sexual intercourse with a prostitute, and
by his life-long companionship with Gilgamesh.
Westermann states that “The old tradition that lies behind the Enkidu scene agrees with
Genesis 2:19-20 in that there is a background echo of a distant past when humans and beasts
were closer to each other...But Genesis 2:19-20 raises the mere possibility that the animals could
be the man’s helper, it says emphatically that the animals cannot be a helper corresponding to the
man.” (P. 226)
71
Westermann comments on verses 21-24 that they describe the creation of the woman, and
that “It is here that the creation of humankind achieves the goal intended by God; His work has
now succeeded. Verse 23 here corresponds to God’s judgment over the individual works of creation
in Genesis 1: now it is good.” (P. 229)
Wenham comments that “The creation of woman from man’s rib supplies what was missng
for his perfect happiness. Five short clauses in verses 21-22 describing God’s work complete
the description of the task of finding a companion for man begun in verse 18. His success is
rapturously acclaimed in the poetic outburst in verse 23.” (P. 69)
72
The feminine singular noun hm'Der>T;, tardemah, means “deep sleep.” The Greek trans-
lation is e;kstasin, ekstasin (accusative), literally “ecstasy,” sometimes meaning “bewilderment.”
Other occurrences of the Hebrew noun are to be found at:
Genesis 15:12, Abhram’s night-time Theophany as Abhram receive a Divine communication
while in a deep sleep;
1 Samuel 26:12, a deep sleep falls on King Saul and his army;
Isaiah 29:10, YHWH has poured out upon Ariel / Jerusalem a spirit of deep sleep;
Job 4:13, visions of the night come on those in deep sleep–see verses 12-19;
Job 33:15, Elihu states that God speaks to people in a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep
sleep falls on them;
Proverbs 19:15, laziness causes people to fall into a deep sleep.
73
Hamilton argues that the noun [l'Ceh;, hatstsela(, translated into Greek as th.n pleura,n,
ten pleuran (“side,” or “rib”) is ordinarily translated into English as “the rib,” but should more
probably be translated “the side.”
“The word designates a side or the shell of the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:12, 14;
37:3, 5), the side of a building (Exodus 26:20; 36:25) or even a whole room (‘side chamber,
(continued...)
62

73
(...continued)
arcade, cell,’ Ezekiel 41:5-8), or a ridge or terrace on a hill (2 Samuel 16:13)...
“Genesis 2:21-22 is the only place in the Old Testament where the modern versions, both
Jewish [so, Fox, but with a footnote, ‘or possibly ‘sides,’ p. 20] and Christian, render this noun as
‘rib.’ If we translate ‘side’ rather than ‘rib,’ then the passage states that woman was created from
an undesignated part of man’s body rather than from one of his organs or from a portion of bony
tissue.” (P. 178)
We think Hamilton is correct in this observation, as do a number of Jewish commentators:
“‘And He took one of his sides’...As Rabbi Hirsch observes the word [l'ce, tsela( never appears
in Scripture as a ‘rib’ but always as a ‘side.’” (Bereishis 1, p. 108)
Hirsch is further quoted as saying, “Unlike man, the material for woman’s body was not
taken from the earth. God built one side of man into woman–so that the single human being now
became two. Thereby, the complete equality of man and woman was irrefutably demonstrated.”
(Ibid., p. 109)
“The Sages in the Midrash ascribe all the special characteristics of woman–her delicate
voice, character and temperament, as being derived from this formation of woman from the already
feeling, sensitive body of man; in contrast to man himself who was created from the dead,
unfeeling earth.” (Ibid.)
74
Whereas the Massoretic text reads hN"T,x.T;, tachtennah, “in its (feminine singular) place,”
rd
the Samaritan Pentateuch reads hyTxT, tachteyha, the more usual spelling of the 3 feminine
singular suffix. This is another indication, we believe, of how the Samaritan Pentateuch is a later
edition of the Hebrew text, intent on correcting the grammar and spelling of the original Hebrew
(which is very similar to the later Massoretic text).
Wenham comments that “Indeed, the whole account of woman’s creation has a poetic
flavor: it is certainly mistaken to read it as an account of a clinical operation or as an attempt to
explain some feature of man’s anatomy [as a number of scholars do]. Rather, it brilliantly depicts
the relation of man and wife. ‘Just as the rib is found at the side of the man and is attached to
him, even so the good wife, the rib of her husband, stands at his side to be his helper-counterpart,
and her soul is bound up with his’ [quoting Cassuto, p. 134]...’Not made out of his head to top
him, not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under
his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved’ [quoting Matthew Henry]...
“Charming though this picturesque tale is, it should be borne in mind that it has a more
serious purpose than entertainment. Here the ideal of marriage as it was understood in ancient
Israel is being portrayed, a relationship characterized by harmony and intimacy between the
partners. The destruction of this relationship is described in the following chapters, but like other
aspects of man’s existence set out in Genesis 1-2, the first days of the first marriage remain a
goal to which Israel hoped to return...The story therefore needs to be closely read, for in its often
(continued...)
63

2.22 -la, h'a,biy>w: hV'ail. ~d'a'h'-!mi xq;l'-rv,a] [l'Ceh;-ta, ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> !b,YIw:
75 76 77
`~d'a'h' And YHWH God built the side which he took from the human being, into a woman,
74
(...continued)
poetic phraseology are expressed some of the Old Testament’s fundamental convictions about
the nature and purpose of marriage.” (P. 69) This is another example of “Torah legislation” in the
creation-stories.
Sarna observes that "Curiously, the extant literature of the ancient Near East has preserved
no other account of the creation of primordial woman. The present narrative is therefore
unique. Moreover, whereas the creation of man is told briefly, in a single verse, the creation of
woman is described in six verses. This detail is extraordinary in light of the generally nondescriptive
character of the biblical narrative and as such is indicative of the importance accorded this
event. With the appearance of woman, creation is complete." (P. 21)
Human beings, the story claims, are made for the intimate interpersonal relationship of
family, of husband and wife; and the lone individual, separated from its mate, and apart from
family, is "not good." A similar theme is found in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12.
The masculine singular rz[,,
(ezrah, "Help." The implication of the text is that the male is weak and incomplete without the
woman.
However, it is not a question of "superior" or "inferior." Rather, it is a question of two parts
of one whole, mutually responding to the needs of each other, both incomplete and inadequate
without the other.
75
According to the language of this ancient story, the male was “formed” from the clay, like a
vessel is made by a potter. But the female is “built,” as YHWH God uses the raw materials taken
from the side of the male, and constructs from them the female. Hamilton comments that “Just as
the man does not emerge until a creative Divine act on the dust takes place, so woman does not
emerge until a creative Divine act is performed on the man’s side.” (P. 179) Perhaps it is better
to say, “until a creative Divine act is performed on the raw materials taken from the male.”
Fretheim comments that “The description of the human creation emphasizes the personal
attention implicit in the image of God as Builder.” (P. 353)
76
Yes, the woman has been “taken” from the male’s side; but in 3:19 and 23 it will be stated
that the male has been “taken” from the ground, hm'd'a]h', ha)adamah. Thus, in terms of argu-
64
(continued...)

78
and he brought her to the human being.
76
(...continued)
ments about male chauvinism in the Bible, it could be held that the female is depicted as having
a loftier origin than the male.
77
Westermann warns that “The creation of the woman from the rib of the man should not be
understood as a description of an actual event accessible to us [i.e., as if this were the description
of an actual physical operation, and as if men have one less rib than women.]...The event described
is a primeval event [that is, a story about pre-historical times, before historical observation
or writing, in pre-historical, ‘legendary,’ or ‘mythical’ time] and the creation of the woman out of the
rib of the man can no more be presented than the creation of the man out of earth or dust.” (P.
230)
We agree. The story is obviously using highly symbolic, picturesque language, which
should not be taken literally, but should be taken seriously. What do you think?
Hamilton makes the important observation that “None of Israel’s neighbors had a tradition
involving a separate account of the creation of the female. In biblical thought the woman is not
subsumed under her male counterpart.” (P. 177)
We agree with this statement as regards the Genesis story of origins, but do not agree that
throughout biblical thought the woman is not subsumed under her male counterpart–sometimes
we do find women treated as subordinates–for example in places where the numbering of God’s
people occurs, and only males are counted. Still, in spite of the male chauvinism which becomes
apparent in many places in the Bible, this primeval story of human origins does give a separate
account of the creation of the female, in which the female is certainly not being depicted as inferior
to the male.
In Genesis 1, male and female are depicted as being created at the same time. Here, the
female is created after the male–and it could be argued that this implies that the female is an
“after-thought,” not as important as the male. But on the other hand, there is in Genesis 1 an
obvious movement from the lower forms of life to the higher, and under this principle, the later the
creation the higher its place in creation, implying that the female is superior to the male.
What do you think?
78
Wenham comments that “When man woke up, God ‘brought her to the man.’ The God-created
partner is introduced to man by the Creator Himself.” (P. 69)
Sarna comments likewise that “As noted in a midrash, the image may well be that of God
playing the role of the Attendant Who leads the bride to the groom. Without doubt, the verse
conveys the idea that the institution of marriage is established by God Himself.” (P. 23)
Fretheim comments that “Twice God ‘brings’ a creature–first the animals, then the woman–
before the man. God thereby is placed at the service of the ‘good’ of the human being, presenting
creative possibilities before him.” (P. 352)
(continued...)
65

79
2.23 ~d'a'h' rm,aYOw:
ym;c'[]me ~c,[, ~[;P;h; tazO
yrIf'B.mi rf'b'W
hV'ai areQ'yI tazOl.
`taZO-hx'q\lu vyaime yki
And the human being said,
80
This now, bone from my bones,
81
and flesh from my flesh;
78
(...continued)
What do you think? Do you agree that this passage is dealing with “the institution of
marriage”?
79
Sarna comments that “Man’s first recorded speech is a cry of ecstatic elation at seeing the
woman.” (P. 23) Wenham comments that “In ecstasy man bursts into poetry on meeting his
perfect help-meet...the first three lines are a poetic formulation of the traditional kinship formula.
For example, Laban said to his nephew Jacob, ‘You are my bone and my flesh’ (29:14; compare
Judges 9:2; 2 Samuel 5:1; 19:13-14 (English, 12-13). Whereas English speaks of blood relationships,
Hebrew spoke of relatives as ones ‘flesh and bone.’” (P. 70)
80
Bereishis 1, p. 109, notes that the phrase ~[;P; ªh; tazO, zo)th happa(am means “‘This
time,’ literally ‘this, the time.’ That is, finally, after having unsuccessfully sought a mate from
among every creature...(Rashi; as explained by Lekach Tov; Toledos Yitschak and Vilna Gaon).”
“Targum Yonasan holds that the meaning is, “‘This time and not again,’ is woman ‘created
from man.’ I.e. ‘This time’ only will woman come forth from man. From now on the contrary will
be true: Man will come forth from woman! (Rashbam).” (Ibid., p. 110)
What do you think? Can this be a matter of “both / and,” rather than “either / or”?
81
Bereishis 1, p. 110 states that the phrase “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” means
“...She is as dear to me as my own body.” Compare Genesis 29:14; Judges 9:2 and 1 Chronicles
11:1
Westermann calls the phrase "bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh" a "formula of
relationship," pointing out that "The narrative in Genesis 2 reflects a stage in civilization which
was aware of the great importance of the role of woman in the existence of humankind. Genesis
(continued...)
66

to this it will be called out, Woman--
82 83
because from a man was taken this one.
81
(...continued)
2 is unique among the creation myths of the ancient Near East in its appreciation of the meaning
of woman, i.e., that human existence is a partnership of man and woman." (P. 232).
Fretheim comments that “The man’s words recognize that the ‘not good’ situation of verse
18 has now become good. ‘Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’... highlights mutuality and
equality.” (P. 353)
What do you think? Does this biblical story have a profound understanding of male and
female, and of marriage? Can you improve on that understanding?
In terms of this biblical story, divorce / separation of married partners is the equivalent of
surgical amputation. What do you think?
82
The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek translation, a Qumran Hebrew manuscript of Gen-
esis and an Aramaic Targum all read Hv'²yaime, me)iyshah, “from her man,” instead of the
Massoretic text’s vyaime, me)iysh, “from a man.” This appears to be later commentary on an
original text, slightly refining, but not changing the meaning of Genesis.
83
This statement quoted in verse 23 is the first recorded human speech in this story of human
origins. It is what J.G. Herder calls “a jubilant welcome,” and Hamilton calls “an exclamatory outburst”
(p. 179); we think it is an example of Semitic “parallelism,” and have made this to appear in
our translation.
There is an intimate closeness between the male and the female, which the male recognizes
and affirms with this joyous outburst of emotion. The two share a common origin; they are
“made of the same stuff.” His bones are her bones; his flesh is her flesh–is there any possible
way of more emphatically expressing their “oneness”? She is female, he is male–but both share
a common humanity.
Walter Brueggemann, in an article entitled “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Genesis 2:23a)”
in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1940), pp. 532-42, holds that the phrase is a “covenant formula,”
and that it is not so much a description of a common birth as it is of a common, reciprocal
loyalty.
Hamilton, in commenting on this article, states that “Taken in this way, the man’s this one,
this time, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh becomes a covenantal statement of his commitment
to her...Circumstances will not alter the loyalty and commitment of the one to the other.
So understood, the verse does not attribute strength to the man and weakness to the woman, as
if he is the embodiment of bone and she is the embodiment of flesh. Both the man and the woman
share the entire spectrum of human characteristics, from strong to weak.” (P. 180)
67
(continued...)

83
(...continued)
Wenham comments that “Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (compare
3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of
the ensuing narrative (3:17 [surely Wenham means 3:16, where the Divine pronouncement of
judgment on the woman is that her husband will rule over her; but this is a punishment that results
from a broken relationship with YHWH God, not the original Divine intention for marriage].” (P.
70)
We think it is much truer to the biblical text to say, as Brueggemann has stated, “In the
garden there is equality; outside the garden, there is subordination.”
We agree with Fretheim, who comments that “The naming by the human parallels God’s
naming (1:5-10); it belongs as a part of the creative process, discerning the nature of intracreaturely
relationships. For the woman to be named by the man does not subordinate the
named to the namer, any more than does Hagar’s naming of God subordinate the Deity to her
(16:13). Naming involves discernment regarding the nature of relationships (the male ‘rule’ over
the female derives from sin, 3:16).” (P. 353)
Sarna, by contrast with Wenham, comments that “Here the man gives her a generic, not a
personal, name, and that designation is understood to be derived from his own, which means he
acknowledges woman to be his equal. Moreover, in naming her hV'êai, )ishshah, he simultaneously
names himself. Hitherto he is consistently called ~d'(a', )adham; he now calls himself
vyai, (iysh for the first time. Thus he discovers his own manhood and fulfillment only when he
faces the woman, the human being who is to be his partner for life.” (P. 23)
We add that it is the teaching of this Torah-like passage (Genesis 2:23-24) along with the
earlier passage (Genesis 1:27) that formed the biblical basis for Jesus’ teaching concerning the
permanent nature of monogamous marriage, that makes divorce a denial and breaking of the
Divine intention. See Mark 10:2-8 (and parallels). In the Hebrew Bible, see Malachi 2:14-26.
Jesus states that in marriage, the male and the female “are no longer two, but rather one
flesh.” Then, he adds, “Therefore, that which God joined together, let no person separate.”
Westermann comments on verse 23 that “The narrative in Genesis 2 reflects a stage in
civilization which was aware of the great importance of the role of woman in the existence of
humankind. Genesis 2 is unique among the creation myths of the whole of the ancient Near East
in its appreciation of the meaning of woman, i.e., that human existence is a partnership of man
and woman...What is meant is the personal community of man and woman in the broadest sense
–bodily and spiritual community, mutual help and understanding, joy and contentment in each
other.” (P. 232)
Here again we sense that while the biblical story is not a matter of “legislation” concerning
marriage and its permanency, it is laying the biblical basis for such legislation. Here, says this
68
(continued...)

84
2.24 !Ke-l[;
AMai-ta,w> wybia'-ta vyai-bz"[]y:
ATv.aiB. qb;d'w>
`dx'a, rf'b'l. Wyh'w>
85
For this reason
83
(...continued)
ancient story, is the Divine intention for male and female. This is another example of “Torah
legislation” in the creation-story.
What do you think? Do you consider this passage of vital importance for modern humanity’s
understanding of marriage, and the relationship of husbands and wives?
And we ask, where in the world’s religious literature and myths / stories concerning human
origins, can you find anything approaching this biblical myth / story for its power, applicability, and
beauty?
84
Westermann notes that “There is a change of speaker between verses 23 and 24. It is not
the man who is speaking now but the narrator.” (P. 233)
Wenham in like manner states that “This is not a continuation of the man’s remarks in
verse 23, but a comment of the narrator, applying the principles of the first marriage to every
marriage.” (P. 70)
Rashi likewise holds that verse 24 “is not a continuation of Adam’s words, but a kind of
bracketed statement interjected by God, carrying with it a prohibition of incest to the ‘children of
Noah’ (i.e., the nations of the world...)” (Bereishis 1, p. 110)
What do you think? How will you describe this statement in verse 24? We take it to be an
example of “Torah legislation” concerning marriage. Do you agree?
85
Brown-Driver-Briggs states that the phrase !Ke-l[;, (al keyn, means “upon the ground of
such conditions,” “therefore (introducing, more generally than !kel', lakeyn), the statement of a
fact, rather than a declaration.” (P. 487)
The conditions are the content of the preceding verse 23, the fact of the male and female’s
being so closely and intimately related.
We are translating verse 24 as also being poetic, with three parallel lines.
69

86
a man will leave his father and his mother,
86
NIVSB comments on verse 24 that “Instead of remaining under the protective support of his
parents a man leaves them and, with his wife, establishes a new family unit.” (P. 9)
There has been discussion concerning whether or not this text reflects a matriarchal
society, since it states that a man will leave (Westermann translates “leaves,” holding that here
the imperfect verb is used “to express actions which may be repeated at any time or on a given
occasion,” p. 185) his father and mother, and the assumption is that it is the wife’s family that the
man now goes to belong to. See von Rad, p. 85.
This is, we think, reading a great deal of legal technicality into an ancient story which is not
intended for the discussion of sociology, but rather is grounding the permanency of marriage in
the Divine action. Of course, in the biblical story itself, the first man (Adam) has no earthly father
and mother to leave–the statement means, in future marriages.
M. M. Bravmann (Studies in Semitic Philology, pp. 593-95) has explained the statement
psychologically. He refers to the saying, “A son is a son until he gets him a wife; a daughter is a
daughter is a daughter all of her life,” and holds that the man coming to marriage has less emotional
attachment to his family ties than does the woman to hers, and that the man leaves his
home to a degree that the woman does not.
This view, we think, like that of von Rad, is reading a great deal into the text, since it is not
a psychology text, but a religious one–not primarily interested in either sociology or psychology.
What it is interested in is the formation of the home through the permanency of marriage. When
a man and a woman come together in marriage, the old relationships are forsaken. Ideally, this
would take place on both sides of the marriage, although the statement emphasizes the role of
the male in forsaking, leaving his family. Perhaps in a patriarchal society such as Israel obviously
was, this would make the statement even more emphatic–even the male leaves his family
too. In the place of the old relationship, comes a new, binding, permanent relationship--the “one
flesh” of a newly formed home, of husband and wife, who now cling closely to one another.
What do you think?
Wenham comments that “On marriage a man’s priorities change. Beforehand his obligations
are to his parents: afterwards they are to his wife. In modern Western societies where filial
duties are often ignored, this may seem a minor point to make, but in traditional societies like
Israel where honoring parents is the highest human obligation next to honoring God, this remark
about forsaking them is very striking.” (P. 71)
We understand this statement as a “normative observation,” which plays a role in Torah, in
teaching the will of God for His people. Obviously, the story cannot be taken literally, as if the first
human being, Adam, had a father and a mother to leave; rather, the statement is meant as an
observation concerning the nature of marriage, when it is formed in accordance with the Divine
intention.
70

87
and he will hold closely to his woman;
88 89
and they will become one flesh.
87
The ancient story emphasizes the role of the male in the formation and maintenance of the
new union. He is the one who takes the lead in breaking with the past, severing the old relationships,
and then he “holds closely” to his wife. Thus the new home is formed.
Wenham translates, ‘and sticks to his wife,’ and comments that “this phrase suggests both
passion and permanence should characterize marriage.” (P. 71).
Bereishis 1, p. 111 comments that the male is to cling to his wife, “but not to a male (i.e., a
prohibition against pederasty; for it is natural only for the opposite sexes to cling to each other.”
What do you think? If this is a prohibition of pederasty, males engaging in anal intercourse
with young boys, as this Jewish commentary claims, is it not also a prohibition of both homosexual
and lesbian marriage? Has our modern “coming out of the closet” thrown new light on this
ancient text, making it irrelevant? What have such “same sex unions” done for the home?
The two verbs used here, bz"[]y:, yaazobh, “he will leave,” “he will forsake,” and qb;d'w>,
wedhabhaq, “and he will hold closely,” “he will cling to,” are, according to Hamilton, “covenantal
terms,” used to describe Israel’s “forsaking” or “leaving” her covenantal relationship with YHWH
(Jeremiah 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 2:9, etc.), and also to describe Israel’s
“clinging” or “holding closely” to YHWH in its covenantal relationship (Deuteronomy 4:4; 10:20;
11:22; 13:5, English 13:4; 30:20). “Thus, to leave father and mother and cling to one’s wife
means to sever one loyalty and commence another.” (Hamilton, p. 181)
We think that this observation leads to the conclusion that the depiction here of biblical
marriage is that of a covenantal relationship, as Brueggemann has claimed.
Westermann comments that “‘For the sake of the wife he has chosen [but there is no
‘choosing’ on the part of the man in this text; it is better to say, ‘the wife he has been given’], the
man leaves father and mother, loosing the strongest bodily and spiritual bonds’ [quoting B. Jacob].
It is amazing that this one word (‘cleaves to’) presents the basic involvement of man and
woman as something given with and rooted in the very act of creation. The primary place is not
given to propagation or to the institution of marriage as such. The love of man and woman receives
here a unique evaluation.” (P. 234)
88
Where the Massoretic text reads Wyàh'w>, wehayu, “and they will become,” the Greek transla-
tion, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac translation (see), the Targum of Jonathan (see) and
the Latin Vulgate (see) interpolate the additional phrase, oi` du,o, hoi duo, “the two (of them)...” =
~h,ynEv., sheneyhem, most probably taking this from verse 25.
89
NIVSB comments that “The divine intention for husband and wife was monogamy. Together
they were to form an inseparable union, of which ‘one flesh’ is both a sign and an expression.”
(continued...)
71

89
(...continued)
(P. 9)
What do you think? Do you agree?
The explicitly sexual connotations should not be glossed over or denied. As the "normative
explanatory comment" in verse 24 states, the passage is speaking of sexual oneness when it
speaks of their becoming "one flesh." This is obviously the way Paul has taken this passage in 1
Corinthians 6:16, where "clinging to" and "one flesh" are both understood sexually.
According to this ancient story of Genesis 2-3, human beings--male and female–are intended
by YHWH God to be joined in sexual union. The text expresses a frank and wholesome
appreciation of human sexuality, explicitly stating that there is nothing shameful or impure about
sexual intercourse or about the naked human body as YHWH God created it. Only when humanity
turns away from its Divinely intended relationship with YHWH God in disobedience does a
sense of shame enter into the story--see Genesis 3:7.
Already, the male exclaims, the female is bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh; that is
their common origin; now, they will become (Westermann changes to the present tense, “they
become,” p. 182) “one flesh,” which means they will unite their bodies together–which, of course,
has sexual connotations. They will become one flesh as their bodies unite in sexual intercourse.
There could be no clearer way for the biblical story to inform its readers of the Divine intention for
the sexual union of male and female. This is again an example of the Torah as legislation.
It is a major failure of Christian theology, beginning in the early centuries with such theologians
as Tertullian (died after 220 A.D.), Cyprian (died 258 A.D.), Jerome (died 420 A.D.) and
Augustine (died 430 A.D.) to have rejected, or at least minimized, this important emphasis of Biblical
Theology–and as a result leading the Christian movement into a glorification of sexual abstinence
and asceticism, which is in fact a rejection of a major emphasis of the Hebrew Bible, not
only here in the creation-stories, but also in the teaching of Proverbs / Song of Solomon.
What do you think?
This healthy affirmation of the God-intended physical relationship between male and female
as husband and wife is an integral part of the biblical picture of human nature as intended
by its Creator. We think this verse is in fact a normative observation and then a theological conclusion
that is being drawn from this ancient story, an ancient form of torah, normative teaching
which is intended to serve as the basis for the later readers’ own marital relationships.
Is this simply “old fashioned superstition,” or something that the modern world will forsake
and reject to its own peril?
Wenham comments that “This does not denote merely the sexual union that follows marriage,
or the children conceived in marriage, or even the spiritual and emotional relationship that it
involves, though all are involved in becoming one flesh. Rather it affirms that just as blood relations
are one’s flesh and bone...so marriage creates a similar kinship relationship between man
(continued...)
72

2.25 `Wvv'Bot.yI al{w> ATv.aiw>~d'a'h' ~yMiWr[] ~h,ynEv. Wyh.YIw: And the two of them were
90 91
naked, the human being and his woman–and they were not ashamed.
89
(...continued)
and wife. They become related to each other as brother and sister are. The laws in Leviticus 18
and 20, and possibly Deuteronomy 24:1-4, illustrate the application of this kinship-of-spouses
principle to the situation following divorce or the death of one of the parties...” (P. 71)
“As the Tur comments: Let him be worthy of clinging to his wife and to none other because
man and his wife are in reality one flesh as they were at the beginning of creation...But that can
only take place if at the same time they become one mind, one heart, one soul...and if they subordinate
all their strength and efforts to the service of a higher will (Hirsch).” (Bereishis 1, pp.
111-12)
Simpson comments that “The verse [24] was not originally an affirmation that marriage
was from the beginning, by Divine intention, monogamous. Such an affirmation would indeed
have been impossible at that time...” (P. 500)
But how can it be said that such an affirmation would have been impossible? We disagree,
and think the passage teaches, by means of an ancient story concerning the Divine institution
of marriage, that marriage is a binding relationship between one man and one woman.
We also think that the later uses of this passage in Mark 10:6-9, Matthew 19:4-6, 1 Corinthians
6:16 and Ephesians 5:31 are correct, reiterating the ancient Torah-story’s view of the
Divine intention for marriage.
It would be possible to say today that such an affirmation is impossible still, since there are
so many divorces and broken marriages (just as there was bigamy and polygamy in biblical
times). But human failures do not change the Divine intention.
What do you think?
Fretheim comments that “These verses make no mention of children; rather, the writer focuses
on the man-woman relationship, not on the woman as the bearer of children.” (P. 354)
90
Codex Leningradensis interpolates a minuscule w, waw, “and,” or “both,” before the definite
noun ~d'Þa'h.', ha)adham, causing the text to read “both (or, ‘and’) the man...” without changing
the meaning of Genesis.
91
In the biblical story’s depiction of the first man and woman, husband and wife share each
others naked bodies without any shame being attached to that physical relationship.
73
(continued...)

91
(...continued)
Wenham comments that “This verse has an important narrative function. It closes [the
present scene], thereby creating a parallel with the end of [the scene] in 3:21, and it also explains
the background to many of the actions in chapter 3. After eating the forbidden fruit, the couple
notice their nakedness, make fig-leaf aprons, cover themselves, and hide in the bushes when
they hear God approaching (3:7-11). 2:25 points out that originally [the human couple] did not
react this way: ‘They were not ashamed’...’they were unabashed’ or ‘they were not disconcerted.’
They were like young children unashamed at their nakedness.” (P. 71)
The (plural) adjective ~yMiWr[], (arummiym, “naked,” is found 16 times in the Hebrew
Bible–here, Genesis 2:25; elsewhere, see:
1 Samuel 19:24, Saul is overwhelmed by the Spirit, and speaks for YHWH (‘prophesies’) all day
and all night before Samuel, naked;
Isaiah 20:2, 3, 4, Isaiah walks about in Israel both naked and bare-footed for three years, as a
sign of the coming denuding of Egypt and Ethiopia by the King of Assyria;
Isaiah 58:7, the proper way to worship YHWH is to clothe the naked when you see them;
Hosea 2:5 (2:9 in English), YHWH has given Israel wool and flax to cover her nakedness;
Amos 2:16, on the day of YHWH, when judgment comes upon Israel, even the mighty warriors
will flee away naked;
Micah 1:8, Micah vows to go about lamenting and wailing, barefoot and naked, because of
Judah’s wound;
Job 1:21, 21, Job was born naked, and will die naked;
Job 22:6, Eliphaz accuses Job of having stripped the naked of their clothing;
Job 24:7, Job laments the fact that widows and orphans, the needy and the poor lie naked all
night without any covering;
Job 24:10, the kidnaped orphans go about naked without clothing;
Job 26:6, Sheol, the grave, is naked before God, and abaddon, destruction, have no covering;
Ecclesiastes 5:14 (5:15 in English), just as wealthy people came forth from their mother’s womb
naked, so will it be in their death.
According to this biblical story, it is only when human relationships go bad and YHWH
God’s commandment is broken, that shame enters into human history, and the human being and
his wife seek to cover up their nakedness. See:
Genesis 3:7, 10, 11, the adjective is spelled slightly differently ~Miruy[e, (eyrummiym, also
meaning nakedness;
Deuteronomy 28:48, in captivity, the formerly prosperous Jews will serve their captors in hunger,
thirst, nakedness, and lack of everything;
Ezekiel 16:7, the beautiful young woman Jerusalem is naked and bare, in need of clothing, 22,
same;
Ezekiel 16:39, stripped of her clothes and jewelry, the prostitute Jerusalem will be naked and
bare once again;
74
(continued...)

91
(...continued)
Ezekiel 18:7, true right-relationship means covering the naked with a garment, 16, same;
Ezekiel 23:29, Oholibah, Judah, is left naked and bare by her Babylonian captors.
Hamilton holds that “With the exception of this verse, nakedness in the Old Testament is
always connected with some form of humiliation...A full documentation...would show that nakedness
as a symbol of guilt is most frequent, and perhaps such a connection between nakedness
and guilt was suggested by the abbreviated dress of slaves and prisoners of war.” (P. 181)
We do not think these passages show this–rather nakedness is viewed as the natural state
of every baby and every dead person, as well as in the intimate relationship between husbands
and wives. But nakedness is also the condition brought on by poverty (which the wealthy need to
alleviate), and by the rapacity of conquerors.
What do you think?
rd
The 3 person plural hithpolel imperfect verbWvv'Bot.yi, yithboshashu, has reflexive
meaning, “they did not shame one another.” This is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where
this form of the verb occurs.
The Greek translates ouvk hv|scu,nonto, ouk eschunonto, “they were not being ashamed,”
the imperfect middle form.
We think this is a very frank appreciation of the goodness of the physical body, and of the
sexual relationship intended by YHWH God between husbands and wives.
So what do you make of this ancient biblical story concerning the first marriage? Is it just
an antique curiosity out of humanity’s past? Or does it have dynamic, lasting meaning for the
ages, and for today? We choose the latter.
75

The Origin of Suffering and Death in God’s Good World
What Went Wrong? Can Humanity Return to the Tree of Lives?
Genesis 3:1-24, Introduction
The student should read Genesis 3 carefully from NIVSB, TNISB, and ESVSB, along with
their notes, before beginning to use this translation with its footnotes. Continue to ask God for
Divine guidance as you study this passage which has played such an important role in the history
of Biblical Theology! 1
Suffering, pain, & death--a result of humanity's misuse of God's gifts--listening to the voice of
YHWH God’s creature rather than God's, and following human desire and thoughts and
suggestions, rather than the Divine command--(3:1-24) 2
1
Bowie comments that “In the entire range of the world’s writings it would be difficult to find any
passage so brief which has had such immense influence upon human thought as chapter 3.” (P.
501) We agree.
2
Sarna holds that in this section of Genesis, beginning at 2:4, the theme is that of the origin of
evil. He notes that this story would be "...Unintelligible without the fundamental postulate of the
preceding cosmology, repeated there seven times: the essential goodness of the Divine creation.
The startling contrast between this vision of God's ideal world and the world of human experience
requires explanation. How did the pristine harmony between God, man, and nature come to be
disturbed? How are we to explain the harsh, hostile workings of nature, the recalcitrance of the
soil to man's arduous labors? If God ordered man and woman to procreate, why then does woman
suffer the pangs of childbirth in fulfilling God's will? If God created the human body, why
does nudity in the presence of others instinctively evoke embarrassment? In short, how is the
existence of evil to be accounted for?
"The biblical answer to this fundamental question, diametrically opposed to prevalent
[Near-Eastern] conceptions, is that there is no inherent, primordial evil at work in the world. The
source of evil is not metaphysical but moral. Evil is not trans-historical but humanly wrought.
Human beings possess free will, but free will is beneficial only insofar as its exercise is in accordance
with Divine will. Free will and the need for restraint on the liberties of action inevitably generate
temptation and the agony of choosing, which only man's self-mastery can resolve satisfactorily.
The ensuing narrative demonstrates that abuse of the power of choice makes disaster
inescapable." (P. 16)
We appreciate Sarna’s valuable work on Genesis–but disagree with him at this point.
When he says that “evil is not trans-historical but humanly wrought,” we believe that he is making
an “either / or” out of what the Bible makes a “both / and.” We agree with him that the Bible
teaches there is no inherent, primordial evil at work in the world–no, the entire creation is “very
good.” But not only does the Bible lay the blame for evil upon humanity’s free will, it also lays
blame on YHWH God Himself. It is YHWH God Who has made the serpent with its cunning, and
placed it in the garden. See footnote 3 for discussion of YHWH God’s responsibility for evil.
76
(continued...)

The world--a testing-ground for humanity's relationship with YHWH God. 3
2
(...continued)
Bowie comments that “Alexander Whyte, of Edinburgh, was remembering with gratitude
the enlightenment that had come to him from men of science: from the geologists, the paleontologists,
the biologists, and the students of evolution who have interpreted the history of the earth
and of life upon it. But he wrote: ‘I always miss in them...a matter of more importance to me than
all else that they tell me. For, all the time...I still feel...a disorder and a dislocation that my scientific
teachers neither acknowledge nor leave room for its acknowledgment and redress...When I
come to the end of my reading–Is that all? I ask...To speak out the whole of my disappointment
and complaint in one word, What about sin? When and where did sin enter in the evolution of the
human race and seize in this deadly way on the human heart? Why do you all so avoid and shut
your eyes to sin?’ (From Bible Characters, New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1896, 1, 11-12)
“...The supreme contribution of the Genesis story [in chapters 2 and 3] is that it lifted up
the one concern that supremely matters–Why has man lost touch with God? It was not the kind
of world that Adam and Eve had around them, but the kind of behavior that they showed in it, that
was the decisive issue. It is man’s soul, not his circumstances, that needs redemption. So there
is a sense in which every woman is Eve and every man is Adam, and the cardinal question for
every soul is how it can find the grace to keep it from a continual repetition of the fall.” (P. 492)
We think Whyte’s observation, and Bowie’s comment on it, is very important. If you reject
the Genesis story concerning the origin of suffering and death in the world, how do you explain
their origin? Are you willing to say with Sartre and Camus and Russell that “It’s just the way the
cookie crumbles”?
3
The obvious implication of the biblical story is that YHWH God wants the human being to be
tested concerning its relationship to Himself and the Divine commandment. According to this
story:
YHWH God intentionally gave the male the female, who would become such a source of
"testing" for his relationship with YHWH God. But YHWH God is not responsible for the man's
decision to follow the woman's offer rather than the Divine Commandment.
YHWH God has placed creatures and gifts in the world which do deceive and test humanity,
specifically the serpent, and which can easily become an excuse for disobeying YHWH God's
voice. But humanity itself is ultimately responsible for its disobedience. This is the way in which
this ancient story understands the human situation.
The female, in similar manner to the male, seeks to shift the blame from herself to the
snake, that has tricked her and deceived her. What the snake said to the woman was a mixture
of truth and falsehood. At face value, the snake's words were true; but at a deeper level, they
were devastatingly untrue. So, the woman's statement, like the male's, is true. But, in spite of the
fact that she has been deceived, she is still held responsible for her actions.
And it is YHWH God Himself Who created and placed the snake, with all its "cunning" in
the garden of Luxurious Place, thereby making possible the testing and deception of the woman.
(continued...)
77

3
(...continued)
But YHWH God is not therefore responsible for the woman's disobedience to His command. The
woman herself is ultimately responsible for listening to the cunning voice of the snake, rather than
to the voice of YHWH her God. There is no "condescension" to the female as somehow less
intelligent, or any less responsible for her actions than the male. The woman is just as responsible
as the male for making a decision concerning her ultimate allegiance and loyalty.
But if God Himself created and made possible all these tests, all these possibilities, is He
not Himself ultimately responsible for the existence of sin, suffering and death in human history?
And before giving a hasty answer to this question, remember the statement attributed to YHWH in
Isaiah 45:7, Who addresses the Persian Cyrus (whom He has already called “His anointed on,
His ‘messiah,’”) telling him that He (YHWH) is the One:
‘rAa rcEïAy
%v,xoê arEäAbW
~Alßv' hf,î[o
[r"_ arEAbåW
hw" ßhy> ynIïa]
hL,ae(-lk' hf,î[o
Who forms light (like a great Potter),
and Who creates darkness;
Who makes peace (or ‘prosperity’).
and Who creates evil–
I, YHWH–
One Who does (or “makes”) all these things!
YHWH identifies Himself as engaged in a continuing creation (using five present participles:
forms, creates, makes, creates, makes). This is an important affirmation for the biblical
view of YHWH God.
As Brueggemann states, “Israel is clear that Yahweh governs darkness as well as light,
that God can make use of [but He says nothing of ‘making use of’–He only says He creates
and makes!] either to effect Yahweh’s purpose. This central conviction in Israel works against
our ‘enlightened’...theology, which imagines that God is singularly and everywhere light and
love. Not so the God of Moses, the God of the Bible...
“This God works [or, better, ‘creates’!] ‘the darkness’ as well as ‘the light’...At the core of
this...affirmation is the assertion ‘I am Yahweh.’ The incomparability of Yahweh is as One
Who presides over heaven and earth, over life and death, over chaos and creation. This
same God dispatches both darkness and light, decrees [shalom, peace] and evil...
78
(continued...)

3
(...continued)
“This view of God...is a scandal to a religious culture that wants to associate only the
‘good things’ with God. But such a cleaned up version of God is faithful neither to our experience
nor to the witness of Scripture itself.” (New Interpreter’s Bible, Exodus, pp. 767-68
Yes, Isaiah 45:7 powerfully rejects Persian dualism (Cyrus’ religion). which states that
there are two Gods–a God of light (Ahura Mazda), and a God of darkness (Ahriman)–with the
God of Light responsible for the good things in life, and the God of Darkness responsible for all
evil (much like some Christian theologies still today).
Even though Isaiah’s “radical monotheism” (“one God, and only one God, Creator of light
and darkness, of good and evil”) forces those who agree with it into the difficult problem of the
Divine responsibility for evil, still Isaiah will not accept dualism. He would much rather have to
struggle with the question of how the good God can be responsible for all the evil in the world (as
is struggled with in the Book of Job), than to turn to a dualistic explanation of two different Gods.
See in addition, Deuteronomy 32:39, where YHWH calls upon Israel,
aWhê ‘ynIa] ynIÜa] yKiä hT'ª[; ŸWaår>
ydI+M'[i ~yhiÞl{a/ !yaeîw>
hYa, ynIåa]w: ‘yTic.“x;m'
`lyCi(m; ydIßY"mi !yaeîw>
(You people,) see now that I, I (am) He–
and there is no God beside (or “with”) Me!
I will put to death, and I will bring to life;
I struck, and I, I will heal!
And there is none delivering from My hand!
Here, YHWH, speaking through His spokesperson Mosheh, proclaims to Israel that He is
the only God–Who both puts to death and brings to life; Who strikes, but Who also heals. We
hold that this is exactly what Genesis 1 and 3 teach.
It is in accord with this kind of affirmation of “radical monotheism” that the Hebrew Bible
depicts YHWH as Creator of the universe, with both its light and darkness, with both its chaos and
order, with both life and death, with both its goodness and its tests, and with its possibilities of
evil. It depicts YHWH as the One calling Assyria and Babylonia to the task of destroying both
northern Israel and Judah, including Israel’s places of worship, and multitudes of men, women
and children–see especially the Book of Lamentations.
79
(continued...)

The world--a place of suffering and death
Humanity's freedom and responsibility--choosing life or death.
Divine care in spite of human disobedience. 4
The way to the tree of the lives–guarded by the winged-animals and the fiery, turning
sword (grace and demand)--still open to humanity. 5
3
(...continued)
Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah all unite their prophetic voices to affirm that it is YHWH
Who is attacking and destroying Israel, both Northern Israel and later the southern kingdom of
Judah. The mourning voice that we hear in Lamentations confesses that Jerusalem has been
attacked and destroyed by YHWH, not by some devil or satan or anti-Christ.
Such a view of God is deeply problematic to philosophical theologians, but is part and parcel
of the Hebrew Bible’s view of YHWH God, and of any truly Biblical Theology in which the
death of Jesus Christ is attributed not only to the Jewish and Roman authorities and powers, but
also to YHWH God!
What do you think? Is the God you worship the Creator of both light and darkness, of both
good and evil? If not, why not?
4
Even though YHWH God's punishment has been brought to bear on the man and his wife,
YHWH God is still pictured as watching over them and their descendants closely, and as caring
for them.
As Westermann comments, "This anthropomorphic talk is saying that here God and His
people are still side-by-side. The statement retains its meaning in the context; the last action of
the Creator toward His creature before expelling him from the garden is an action of care and
concern. It is just this primitive anthropomorphic language that is such a wonderful expression of
this concern: the Creator 'protects' His creatures while putting them at a distance, and the protective
action accompanies them on their way." (P. 269) And in the stories that immediately
follow, YHWH God stays close to His human creatures, counseling them, protecting them.
What a beautiful observation for all who know their own guilt and waywardness. We note
that the “distance” is between the human beings and the garden where the tree of lives is located
--not between the humans and YHWH God, who continues to be with them, guiding them out into
their future.
5
This ancient story holds that if humanity had been allowed to remain in the garden of Luxurious
Place, and had been able to eat from the tree of the lives, it would have "lived forever"--that
is, it would have shared in Divine immortality. The theological implication is that humanity is mortal,
not inherently immortal, as in Platonic Greek idealistic thought. The possibility of immortality
("living for-ever") was YHWH God's original intention for humanity, conditioned upon their living in
the garden, and eating from the tree of lives. But now, because of disobedience to YHWH God,
80
(continued...)

5
(...continued)
humanity has been separated from that possibility. Only if humanity can return to that garden,
and partake of the tree of the lives, can it gain immortality, and live forever.
Sarna along with Brueggemann, Westermann (and many others), however, holds that
since Genesis 2:4-3:24 relegates the tree of the lives to an insignificant, subordinate role, "The
Bible dissociates itself completely" from the question of immortality. Sarna claims that the
Bible's concern "...is with the issues of living rather than the question of death, with morality
rather than mortality. Its problem is not the mythical pursuit of eternity, but the actual relationships
between man and God, the tension between the plans of God and the free-will of man."
(Understanding Genesis, pp. 26-27; note that in his later commentary, this view is no longer
expressed so forcefully, and the tree of the lives is given a role in Sarna's interpretation of the
story as a whole.)
But this view held earlier by Sarna, and joined in by Westermann and Brueggemann, is
obviously overstatement. The Bible does not dissociate itself completely from the question of
immortality, but rather, in the New Testament and Christian faith the whole matter of resurrection
and immortality becomes one of its central concerns--a concern anticipated in the Hebrew Bible.
Genesis 2:4-3:24 as it has come down to us in the canonical Hebrew Bible, is deeply
concerned with the problem of death, and mortality, and with the possibility of humanity's attainment
of immortality. The critical attempt to excise the tree of the lives from this story must be
considered speculative and unsuccessful, especially now in the light of Near-Eastern parallels, in
which the quest for immortality plays such an important role--as can be seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh
(ANET, pp. 72-90, the Myth of Adapa (ANET, pp. 101-02) and the Myth of Etana (ANET,
pp. 114-18).
The highly symbolic nature of this ancient story is here most obvious. No literal, geographical
garden is being described, that some scientific exploration party may one day come across.
Rather, the symbolism of the Jewish moveable sanctuary and temple, with its "most holy place" is
here being drawn on a grand scale, and made universal. The "way to the tree of the lives," guarded
by the winged-animals and by the flame of the revolving sword symbolizes the possibility still
remain-ing, despite terrifying difficulties involved, of humanity's finding its way back to the tree of
the lives. Only if humanity can make its way back along that "way" guarded by the wingedanimals
and the flam-ing, revolving sword, to that original condition of child-like fellowship with
YHWH God--in loving, trusting obedience--can they eat the fruit of the tree of the lives, and
thereby live forever.
We take the winged-animals–originally placed on the top of the chest of the covenant–with
the infinite demand below and infinite grace above--but in this story placed at the entrance way to
the tree of lives--to be symbolic of the place where humanity must come to share in long-lasting
life. We take the flaming, turning sword to be a symbol of God's "word," which cuts and burns,
dest-roying evil from the human heart. The way back to the tree of the lives is through coming
into the presence of God's demand and grace, letting His Word cut us through and through,
burning out all evil.
81
(continued...)

5
(...continued)
Genesis 2:4-3:24 speaks to the heart of the human predicament. The problems this
ancient story addresses are those of suffering, pain, and death; of sexual estrangement and
broken relationships--in our selves, our families, even with the animals and the earth, our physical
home. These problems can only be solved if we can find our way back into a trusting, child-like,
obedient relationship with YHWH God, where the tree of the lives is. Humanity has, because of
disobedience, been separated from that original child-like obedience and from that tree. We cannot
return, unless our lives and hearts are cut through by the word of God, and unless our doubt
and disobedience are thoroughly burned up and consumed by that word. The way to the tree is
still here--but it is closely guarded by the winged-animals and by the flame of the revolving sword.
So, Genesis 2:4-3:24 answers the question left unanswered by Genesis 1:1-2:3. Did
humanity enter into God's rest? Did they turn from God's good gifts to rejoice in God the Giver, to
share in his rest, to love and trust God in child-like obedience?
This biblical story gives a negative answer. They (we) did not; they (we) failed the test.
Rather, they (we) chose to listen to the alluring voice of YHWH God's good gifts, instead of His
voice of command. And so, instead of sharing in God's life-giving rest and peace, they (we) have
brought suffering and pain and death into YHWH God's good creation.
Still, in spite of that failure, YHWH God has not forsaken wayward humanity. He still cares
for them (us), and walks with them (us) out into the difficult future.
Westermann states, "The death sentence which was announced is not carried out. The
curse does not touch the couple directly, but only in passing. The alienation of the man and the
woman from God does not mean a definitive separation. God drives them out of the garden, but
leaves them life, and by giving them a commission outside the garden, God gives meaning to their
alienated existence. Guilt and death are now stark realities that keep them shackled, but even so
they remain creatures of God." (P. 277)
And, we add, they also still have the possibility of returning to the tree of the lives, and eating,
and living forever. But they can only do so by returning to their Divinely intended child-like
obedience and trust in their Creator.
Genesis 1-3, with its profound and challenging teaching, is only the beginning of the biblical
story--a story that leads to Abraham, who is called for the sake of the nations of humanity; it
leads then to Mosheh and to the spokespersons (both the early and the later), who give and
interpret God's Torah, which enables humanity to choose again the way of life (see especially
Deuteronomy 30:11-20); and then leads finally to the great descendant of Abraham, Jesus the
Christ, Who has come to enable all of humanity once again to partake of the tree of the lives.
The universal work of Jesus Christ (who is the “Word of God”) is the fulfillment of the deep need
of humanity which is described in this chapter, Genesis 3.
82

Genesis 3:1-24, Hebrew Text with English Translation
3.1 ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> hf'[' rv,a] hd,F'h; tY:x; lKomi ~Wr[' hy"h' vx'N"h;w>
`!G"h; #[e lKomi Wlk.ato al{ ~yhil{a/ rm;a'-yKi @a; hV'aih'-la, rm,aYOw: And the
serpent was clever–above every live animal of the field which YHWH God made. And it said to
the woman, Is it so that God said, You people shall not eat from every tree of the garden? 3.2
`lkeanO !G"h;-#[e yrIP.mi vx'N"h;-la, hV'aih' rm,aTow: And the woman said to the serpent,
From (the) fruit of the tree(s) of the garden we will eat. 3.3 -%AtB. rv,a] #[eh' yrIP.miW
`!WtmuT.-!P, AB W[G>ti al{w> WNM,mi Wlk.ato al{ ~yhil{a/ rm;a' !G"h; And from fruit of
the tree that (is) in (the) middle of the garden, God said You people shall not eat from it, and
you shall not touch it–or else you will die. 3.4 tAm-al{ hV'aih'-la, vx'N"h; rm,aYOw:
`!WtmuT. And the serpent said to the woman, You people will surely not die. 3.5 [;deyO yKi
bAj y[ed>yO ~yhil{aKe ~t,yyIh.wI ~k,ynEy[e Wxq.p.nIw> WNM,mi ~k,l.k'a] ~AyB. yKi ~yhil{a/
`[r'w" Because God is knowing that on (the) day of your eating from it–and your eyes will be
open, and you will become like Gods, Ones knowing good and evil. 3.6 yKi hV'aih' ar,Tew:
xQ;Tiw: lyKif.h;l. #[eh' dm'x.n ~yIn:y[el' aWh-hw"a]t; ykiw> lk'a]m;l. #[eh' bAj
`lk;aYOw: HM'[i Hv'yail.-~G: !TeTiw: lk;aTow: Ayr>Pimi And the woman saw the tree–that
the tree (was) good for food, and that it (was) desirable to the eyes, and the tree (was) desirable
to make wise; and she took from its fruit and she ate; and she also gave (it) to her husband with
her, and he ate. 3.7 hle[] WrP.t.YIw: ~he: ~Miruy[e yKi W[d>YEw: ~h,ynEv. ynEy[e hn"x.q;P'Tiw
`trogOx] ~h,l' Wf[]Y:w: hn"aet. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that
they (were) naked; and they sewed (together) fig-leaves, and they made for themselves skirts.
83

3.8 aBex;t.YIw: ~AYh;x;Wrl. !G"B; %Leh;t.mi ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> lAq-ta, W[m.v.YIw
`!G"h; #[e %AtB. ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> ynEP.mi ATv.aiw> ~d'a'h': And they heard the voice of YHWH
God, walking in the garden at the day’s breeze; and the human being hid himself, and his wife,
from YHWH God’s presence, in (the) middle of the tree(s) of the garden. 3.9 hw"hy> ar'q.YIw:
`hK'Y rm,aYOw:
`lkeaow" And YHWH God said to the woman, What (is) this you did? And she said–the woman–
The serpent deceived me, and I ate.
3.14 -lK'mi hT'a; rWra' taZO t'yfi[' yKi vx'N"h;-la, ~yhil{a/ hA'hy> rm,aYOw:
`^yY-lK' lk;aTo rp'['w> %lete; ^n>xoG>-l[; hd,F'h; tY:x; lKomiW hm'heB.h; And
YHWH God said to the serpent, Because you did this, you are cursed more than all the cattle,
and more than all wild animal(s) of the field; upon your belly you will move; and dust you will eat,
all your life’s days. 3.15 H['r>z: !ybeW ^[]r>z: !ybeW hV'aih' !ybeW ^n>yBe tyvia' hb'yaew>
84

`bqe[' WNp,WvT. hT'a;w> varo ^p.Wvy> aWh And I will place enmity between you and the
woman, and between your descendant(s) and her descendant(s). He will strike you (on the)
head, and you will strike him (on the) heel.
3.16 ~ynIb' ydIl.Te B.C.,[,B. %nErohew> %nEAB.C..[ihB,r>a; hB'r>h;rm;a'hV'aih'-la,
`%B'-lv'm.yI aWhw> %teq'WvT. %veyai-la,w> To the woman He said, I will surely multiply your
pain and your conception; in pain you will bear children, and your desire will belong to your man,
and he will rule over you.
3.17 ^ytiyWIci rv,a] #[eh'-!mi lk;aTow: ^T,v.ai lAql. T'[.m;v'-yKi rm;a' ~d'a'l.W
ymey> lKo hN"l,k]aTo !AB.C.'[iB. ^r,Wb[]B; hm'd'a]h' hr'Wra] WNM,mi lk;ato al rmoale
`^yY and thorn(s) and thistle(s) it will sprout for you; and you shall eat
vegetation of the field; 3.19 yKi hm'd'a]h' -la, ^b.Wv d[; ~x,l, lk;aTo ^yP,a; t[;zEB.
`bWvT' rp'['-la,w> hT'a; rp'['-yKi T'x.Q'lu hN"M,mi with perspiration of your face you will eat
bread, until your return to the ground. Because from it you were taken; because you (are) dust,
and to dust you will return!
3.20 `yx'-lK' ~ae ht'y>h' awhi yKi hW"x; ATv.ai ~ve ~d'a'h' ar'q.YIw: And the
human being called out a name for his woman, Eve–because she was mother of all living. 3.21
`~veBil.Y:w: rA[ tAnt.K' Atv.ail.W ~d'a'l. ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> f[;Y:w: And YHWH God made for
Adam and for his woman robes of skin, and He dressed them.
3.22 [r'w" bAj t[;d;l' WNM,mi dx;a;K. hy"h' ~d'a'h'. !he ~yhil{ahw"hy> rm,aYOw:
85

`~l'[ol. yx;w" lk;a'w> ~yYIx;h; #[eme ~G: xq;l'w> Ady" xl;v.yI-!P, hT'[;w>/ And YHWH God
said, Look–the human being became like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, in order that
he will not stretch out his hand and will also take from (the) tree of the lives–and he will eat, and
he will live to long-lasting time– 3.23 -ta, dbo[]l; !d,[e-!G:mi ~yhil{a hw"hy> WhxeL.v;y>w:
`~V'mi xQ;lu rv,a] hm'd'a]h' and YHWH God sent him from (the) garden of Luxurious Place,
to work the ground from which he was taken. 3.24 -!g:l. ~dw:
`~yYI)x;h;( #[eî %r

The Origin of Suffering and Death in God’s Good World
What Went Wrong? And Can Humanity Return to the Tree of Lives?
Genesis 3:1-24, Hebrew Text with Translation and Footnotes
3.1 ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> hf'[' rv,a] hd,F'h; tY:x; lKomi ~Wr[' hy"h' vx'N"h;w>
`!G"h; #[e lKomi Wlk.ato al{ ~yhil{a/ rm;a'-yKi @a; hV'aih'-la, rm,aYOw: And the
8 9 10 11
serpent was clever –above every live animal of the field which YHWH God made.
8
The snake (or “serpent”) is one of YHWH God's creatures, included among those "animals of
the field" which YHWH God shaped and brought to the human for naming (2:19). In this way, the
biblical story refuses to place the blame for the origin of evil upon fallen angels from the heavenly
world, but places the blame squarely upon the creatures of this world, and upon humanity--female
and male.
Later Jewish writings, such as those found in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Two
Volumes, edited by James Charlesworth; published by Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City,
New York, 1983), often find the origin of evil in the story of the fallen angels in Genesis 6:1-4--
see for example, 1 Enoch 6-36–thereby relieving humanity from bearing the central responsibility
for the origin of evil. But not so, the Genesis story!
The biblical story emphasizes that the snake is YHWH God's creature, placed in the garden
by YHWH God Himself.
Christian interpreters are quick to read "satan" into the story at this point, even though
there is no satan or devil or “great deceiver” in the Book of Genesis.
ESVSB , for example, comments that “...More than a simple snake is at work here; an evil
power is using the snake...As indicated by [the] declaration that ‘everything He had made...was
very good’ (1:31), clearly evil entered the created world at some unknown point after God’s work
of creation was completed.” (P. 55)
NIVSB likewise comments that “The great deceiver clothed himself as a serpent, one of
God’s good creatures.” (P. 10)
These comments easily lead to the assumption of another, different story of the origin of
evil, in the fall of an arch-angel in heaven, and his being cast down to earth–something Christian
interpreters sometimes read into Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19--passages concerning
the king of Babylon and the prince of Tyre. But such an assumption negates the importance of
Genesis 3 in its story of the origin of evil.
We believe the snake can validly be interpreted in terms of "the satanic," or "demonic”
power at work in the world (compare Revelation 12:9). There is evil in God’s good world–but it
comes from God’s creatures, not from someone or somewhere else. The text makes it explicit
(continued...)
87

8
(...continued)
that the snake / serpent is one of YHWH God’s creatures, intentionally made and placed in the
garden by YHWH God. There is no religious "dualism" here, with two Gods--one good, the other
bad, as in Persian religion with its God of Light ("Ahura-Mazda") and God of Darkness ("Ahriman"),
or as in some Christian theologies, in which the devil / satan is made into a second, superatural
being, with a Divine power comparable to (or sometimes even greater than) that of God
Himself.
Of course, if God created the snake, and placed the snake in the garden, that implicates
God as the Creator of evil–exactly what Isaiah 45:7 claims that YHWH states He is the One Who:
‘rAa rcEïAy
%v,xoê arEäAbW
~Alßv' hf,î[o
[r"_ arEAbåW
hw" ßhy> ynIïa]
hL,ae(-lk' hf,î[o
Forms light (like a Potter),
and creates darkness;
makes peace (or ‘prosperity’),
and creates evil–
I, YHWH–
One Who does (or “makes”) all these things!
What do you think? Does your theological position cause you to reject such biblical
teachings as this? Those who agree with YHWH’s words in Isaiah 45:7 are armed to face the
very worst of evils in history with the conviction that no matter how great the evil, YHWH God is
working out His purposes through it. See footnote 3.
Sarna comments that "The serpent has always been a creature of mystery. With its venomous
bite, it can inflict sudden and unexpected death. It shows no limbs, yet it is gracefully and
silently agile. Its glassy eyes--lidless, unblinking, strangely lustrous--have a fixed and penetrating
stare. Its longevity and the regular, recurrent sloughing of its skin impart an aura of youthfulness,
vitality, and rejuvenation. Small wonder that the snake simultaneously arouses fascination and
revulsion, awe and dread. Throughout the ancient world, it was endowed with Divine or semi-
Divine qualities; it was venerated as a symbol of health, fertility, immortality, occult wisdom, and
chaotic evil; and it was often worshiped. The serpent played a significant role in the mythology,
the religious symbolism, and the cults of the ancient Near East...
"This background is essential for an understanding of the demythologizing that takes place
in the present narrative. Here the serpent is introduced simply as one of 'the creatures that the
(continued...)
88

8
(...continued)
Lord God had made.' In the wording of the curse imposed on it in verse 14, the phrase 'all the
days of your life' underlines its mortal nature. Of the three parties to the transgression, the serpent
alone is summarily sentenced without prior interrogation--a token of God's withering disdain
for it. Further, the voluble creature does not utter a word--a sure sign of its impotence in the presence
of the Deity. In sum, the serpent is here reduced to an insignificant, demythologized stature.
It possesses no occult powers. It is not demonic, only extraordinarily shrewd. Its role is to
lay before the woman the enticing nature of evil and to fan her desire for it. The serpent is not the
personification of evil; in fact, its identification with Satan is not encountered before the first century
B.C.E., when it appears for the first time in the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 2:24
[‘through the devil’s envy death entered the world...’].
We believe that interpretation of the story should proceed along the following lines: there
is a subtle way in which God's good creatures tempt and seduce humanity, enticing human beings
to trust their voice rather than trust the voice of YHWH God; their voice subtly invites humanity
to allow them to take God's rightful place. And YHWH God has made it this way. Evidently,
He wants His human creatures to be tested and tried on the basis of whether or not they will listen
to His voice, above the voices of His creatures.
Is this not the profound truth concerning our own experiences, and our own relationship to
God? What tempts us and seduces us away from God is not something other-worldly, not some
"supernatural force" that enters into us from without. Rather, our temptation and seduction comes
from the good things and pleasures and creatures which God Himself has given to us.
For example, we easily let our possessions, or our power, or our pleasures, take over the
rightful place of God. We all too easily let their "voice" speak to us with more authority than the
voice of the true and living God. We let the very things that could be useful and powerful tools in
the service of God gain demonic control over our lives. Is this not the real struggle in which all of
us are daily involved? What do you think? What has been the source of your temptations?
The noun vx'N"h;, hannachash, “the serpent,” is found in verses 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 in
exactly this same definite form.
The noun is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible at:
Genesis 49:17 (used symbolically; the tribe of Dan will be a “serpent upon the road”);
Exodus 4:3 (the staff in Moses’ hand becomes a serpent); 7:15 (same);
Numbers 21:6, 7 (fiery serpents are sent against the rebellious people of Israel by YHWH);
Numbers 21:9, 9, 9 (Mosheh makes a tv,xoên> vx;än>, nechash nechoseth, a bronze serpent,
which, when looked on by the Israelites, imparts life); 2 Kings 18:4;
Deuteronomy 8:15 (the fiery serpent is characteristic of the wilderness of Israel’s wanderings).
1 Samuel 11:1, 1, 2, 12:12; 2 Samuel 10:2; 17:25, 27; 1 Chronicles 4:12; 19:1, 2 (in all of
these passages, the noun is used as a personal name);
Isaiah 14:29 (from the “root of the serpent” will come an adder);
(continued...)
89

8
(...continued)
Isaiah 27:1, 1 (the “fleeing serpent” is identified with!t'y"w>li, liwyathan, “Leviathan,” which is
also equated with the dragon in the sea–obviously a mythological, symbolical use of
“serpent”);
Isaiah 65:25 (in the good times coming, the serpent will eat dust–and no longer be harmful to
human beings);
Jeremiah 8:17 (YHWH is punishing the people by sending serpents among them);
Jeremiah 46:22 (Egypt makes a sound like a serpent gliding away);
Amos 5:19 (a man rests his hand against a wall, to be bitten by a serpent);
Amos 9:3 (at the bottom of the sea, YHWH will command the serpent, and it will bite them);
Micah 7:17 (nations will lick dust like a serpent);
Psalm 58:5 (wicked people have venom like a serpent);
Psalm 140:4 (the tongue of evil-doers is sharp as a serpent’s, with venom beneath);
Job 26:13 (another mythological use of “serpent”–it is YHWH’s hand that pierced the fleeing
serpent–compare Isaiah 27:1; in the New Testament compare Revelation 12:9, 15;
20:2);
Proverbs 23:32 (wine, so pleasant at first, at last bites like a serpent);
Proverbs 30:19 (one of four things too wonderful for the wise teacher–the way of a serpent upon
a rock);
Ecclesiastes 10:8 (whoever breaks through a wall will be bitten by a serpent);
Ecclesiastes 10:11 (if a snake bites before it is charmed, there is no advantage for the charmer).
Westermann gives five possible interpretations of the serpent:
(1) it is satan in disguise (Wisdom 2:24, “through the devil’s envy death entered the world”;
compare Revelation 12:9; 20:2);
(2) it is purely symbolical (“the serpent presents a metaphor, representing anything in God’s good
creation that could present options to human beings, the choice of which can seduce them
away from God,” Fretheim, p. 360)
(3) it is a mythological entity, taken from Israel’s surrounding cultures, and reduced to an animal
in the Israelite story;
(4) it is only an animal, but a particularly clever animal;
(5) it is an animal taken from the realm of magic, meaning life and wisdom, representing the
Canaanite fertility religion.
Westermann holds that the serpent has been chosen for its role in the biblical story because
it was considered to be the most clever of animals, and its depiction as being able to talk
“...is characteristic of the tale or fable. By resuming this fairy tale trait the narrator points the way
into the realm of primeval event, beyond the here and now, and so into the cycle of narratives
about the creation of humanity...The African narratives often speak of the clever animal in just this
way [as do the Navajo Indian stories of creation–for example, the coyote]. An animal (that can
also talk) has almost always a role to play in the narrative cycle of ‘how death came into the
world.’ It is the bearer of a message that promises humankind (eternal) life, but which is always
delayed or does not come at all (J. G. Frazer, H. Baumann).” But, Westermann holds, “One
should not compare the function of a trickster of this sort with that of the serpent...
(continued...)
90

8
(...continued)
“What is the significance of the serpent for the question of the origin of evil? Any basically
dualistic notion according to which the serpent is seen as the embodiment of evil, as satan who
leads people to evil and sets them apart from God, is excluded for ‘J’ [the ‘Yahwist’]...Evil, or the
power of temptation, of which Genesis 3 speaks, must be a human phenomenon, just like human
sin, the transgression...
“When ‘J’ allows the man and the woman to be led astray by the clever snake, creature of
God, he is saying that it is not possible to know the origin of evil. We are at a complete loss in
face of the fact that God has created a being that can lead people to disobedience. The origin of
evil remains a complete mystery. The most important thing that ‘J’ has to say here is that there is
no etiology for the origin of evil...I agree then with W. Zimmerli when he says: ‘The temptation...
stands as something absolutely inexplicable; it appears suddenly amid the good that God has
created. It will remain there as a riddle.’” (P. 239)
We disagree with both Westermann and Zimmerli. The text clearly teaches its reader concerning
the origin of evil, and it is no mystery. Evil originates when human beings allow one of
YHWH God’s (good) creatures to stand in the place of God, and listen to the voice of the creature
rather than to the voice of YHWH God.
That is not difficult to understand, and is profoundly true to human history and experience.
Good things, created by YHWH God, and placed in our world by God, have a subtle way of tempting
us, His human creatures. If we understand the serpent in a symbolical way, we will let it stand
for possessions, or power, or pleasure, or any of a thousand of the “goods” that surround us in
this life, and that we can and do easily allow to take the place of YHWH God upon the throne of
our heart. We listen to the subtle voice of the creature, assuring us that possessions, or power,
or pleasure, etc., etc., will give us the truly happy and fulfilling life, apart from, even in rejection of,
the word of our Creator. That’s what causes us to “miss the mark,” and tragically distorts our
lives, making the God-given creature our Authority, rather than the Creator.
And the reason for YHWH God’s allowing this to happen to us, or causing it to happen, is
likewise easy to understand. YHWH God wants His human creatures to be tested concerning
their loyalty to Him and His command–He has created the world in this way. But still the responsibility
for listening to the voice of the creature rather than to the voice of the Creator rests with
humanity. So this story teaches.
What do you think?
Fretheim comments on chapter three and the serpent that “Inasmuch as God made the
serpent, the text raises the issue of God’s responsibility for what happens. God holds ultimate
responsibility in the sense that God did not create puppets, but made human beings in such a
way that they could resist the will of God (human beings would not be commanded not to eat if
they were unable to [eat])...
“The first human beings are presented as individuals who are not sinful, but with clear
choices available to them, with no response coerced or inevitable; they live in a world where
(continued...)
91

8
(...continued)
choices count and God has not programmed the Divine-human relationship.” (P. 365)
We agree with Fretheim–do you?
Genesis 3 teaches that human beings have been given freedom of choice by their Creator,
and that they are responsible for their choices–choices that have brought devastating evil into
God’s good world. We are not puppets!
Nowhere does our freedom of choice appear more clearly than when we are tempted, and
know deep within us that it is our decision whether to go to the right or to the left. We can be honest,
or we can be dishonest; we can be obedient to the Divine voice, or we can be disobedient, we
can refuse the siren voice, or we can respond to it. It is our choice!
9
The masculine singular adjective ~Wr[', (arum, is ambiguous. It sometimes means “crafty,”
“shrewd,” in a bad sense; at other times, it means “sensible” in a good sense. It does not necessarily
imply anything evil or wrong, and for the large majority of its usages, it implies a very commendable
trait. See:
Job 5:12, the crafty, whose plans God frustrates;
Job 15:5, a person’s iniquity teaches his mouth, and he chooses the language of the crafty /
sensible (perhaps meaning he hypocritically talks like he is someone better than he is);
Proverbs 12:16, a sensible / crafty person covers over dishonor, while a fool’s annoyance is
quickly made known;
Proverbs 12:23, a crafty / sensible covers over knowledge, while the heart of stupid people cries
out folly;
Proverbs 13:16, every sensible / crafty person acts with knowledge, while a stupid person
spreads out or scatters folly;
Proverbs 14:8, wisdom of a sensible / crafty person gives thought to his way, while stupid people
folly is deceit / treachery;
Proverbs 14:15, a simple, “open-minded” person believes every word; but a sensible / crafty
person gives thought to his steps;
Proverbs 14:18, simple, “open-minded” people inherit folly, and others crown sensible / crafty
people with knowledge;
Proverbs 22:3, a sensible / crafty person sees evil / danger, and takes refuge; simple, “openminded”
people pass by, and are punished / fined; Proverbs 27:12, identical.
See, in the New Testament Matthew 10:16, where the wisdom of the serpent is commended
to the followers of Jesus, “Be as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves.”
Wenham notes concerning this ambiguity, “On the one hand it is a virtue the wise should
cultivate...but misused it becomes wiliness and guile...The choice of the term ~Wr[', (arum,
92
(continued...)

9
(...continued)
‘shrewd’ here is one of the more obvious plays on words in the text; for the man and his wife have
just been described as ~yMiêWr[], (arummiym, ‘nude’ (2:25)...” (P. 72)
We may believe that a high I.Q. is a gift from God; but we also should be very careful to
know that unless high intelligence is saturated with goodness and godliness, dedicated to doing
the will of the Creator God, it can easily and quickly become a powerful force for evil. The serpent
is depicted in the ancient story as being one of YHWH God’s creatures, indeed as having the
highest discernment of all the animals. But as the story proceeds, it is obvious that this ability is
misused in questioning and twisting and denying what YHWH God has commanded.
Attempts to interpret such an ancient story literally quickly run into grief; but when the story
is interpreted as the story of Everyman and Everywoman, and the serpent is seen as one of the
creatures of God, whose voice, if listened to in the place of God’s voice, brings destructive consequences
into the world, the story takes on profound truth and offers guidance to the people of
God, still today in the modern, twenty-first century.
Yes indeed, the good creatures of YHWH God (including those with the highest degrees of
intellect) can quickly wield an influence over human beings, causing them to doubt and disobey
the Divine command. To take the story literally, as if there was a time when serpents could walk
and talk with human beings is to refuse to take seriously the nature of this kind of story. To take
the story symbolically (as the “true myth”), as it was intended by its author, is to find rich depths of
theological insight and instruction.
What do you think?
10
The prepositional prefix of ‘lKomi, mikkol is !mi, miyn, literally, “from (every), but meaning
“more than.” For the manifold possible meaning of the preposition, see Brown-Driver-Briggs,
pp. 577-83, and for this particular meaning, see their # 6 on p. 582.
Hamilton translates “the most...” (P. 186); JPS 1919, “more subtle than any beast of the
field”; Tanakh, “the shrewdest of all the wild beasts”; King James, “more subtil than any beast of
the field”; New American Standard, “more crafty than any beast of the field.”
11
Once again the author of the biblical story uses the verb hf'[', (asah, “He made,” in
description of the Divine activity in creation.
We agree with Hamilton that “Regarding the serpent’s origin, we are clearly told that he
was an animal made by [YHWH] God. This information immediately removes any possibility that
the serpent is to be viewed as some kind of supernatural, Divine force. There is no room here for
any dualistic ideas about the origins of good and evil. Clearly Genesis 1-3 makes no room for the
idea that in the beginning there were two [i.e., a good God over against an evil God, as in Persian
Dualism].” (P. 188)
93
(continued...)

12 13 14
And it said to the woman, Is it so that God said, You people shall not eat from every tree
11
(...continued)
Westermann comments that “The narrator emphasizes explicitly by means of the relative
clause that the serpent is not outside the circle of those already mentioned in the narrative; it is
one among the animals created by God...” (P. 239)
If Christian interpreters of Genesis had paid closer attention to this fact, they would not
have been led into interpreting the serpent as being the devil or satan in the garden; or, at least,
they would have been led into understanding whatever evil forces there are in the universe, they
are all originally the creatures of God, but whose voice is allowed to take the place of the Divine
voice, and who have a subtle way of substituting themselves for God, questioning, even denying
His command.
Wenham comments on verses 1-5 that this section “opens with a circumstantial clause
describing the snake as ‘more shrewd than all the wild animals of the plain which the Lord God
has made.’..Explicit characterization of actors in the story is rare in Hebrew narrative, so it seems
likely that in noting the snake’s shrewdness the narrator is hinting that his remarks should be examined
very carefully. He may not be saying what he seems to be saying. Perhaps we should not
take his words at their face value as the woman did...
”Early Jewish and Christian commentators identified the snake with satan or the devil, but
since there is no other trace of a personal devil in early parts of the Old Testament, modern writers
doubt whether this is the view of our narrator. It is often asserted that the serpent is the symbol
of the Canaanite fertility cults, and that therefore Genesis 3 illustrates the choice before Israel
–should they obey Yahweh or follow Baal? But as Westermann observes, it hardly seems likely
that Genesis 3 would have mentioned the Lord God’s creating the snake if it was supposed to
represent the archenemy of the true faith. It has also been pointed out that in the ancient orient
snakes were symbolic of life, wisdom, and chaos...all themes that have points of contact with the
present narrative, though whether this is sufficient explanation of a snake’s presence here is
doubtful.
“It may be that we have here another transformation of a familiar mythological motif. The
Gilgamesh Epic relates how Gilgamesh found a plant through which he could avoid death. Unfortunately
while he was swimming in a pond a snake came out and swallowed the plant, thereby
depriving him of the chance of immortality. Here in Genesis we have a quite different story, but
once again a snake, man, plants, and the promise of life are involved, though here man loses
immortality through blatant disobedience, whereas in the epic that loss seems to be just a matter
of bad luck...
“Within the world of Old Testament animal symbolism a snake is an obvious candidate for
an anti-God symbol, notwithstanding its creation by God...So for any Israelite familiar with the
symbolic values of different animals, a creature more likely than a serpent to lead man away from
his creator could not be imagined.” (Pp. 72-73)
12
Here the author of Genesis introduces a dialogue that takes place between the woman and
the serpent (verses 1b-5), a dialogue which sets the stage for the human disobedience that fol-
(continued...)
94

12
(...continued)
lows. We ask, why does the serpent choose the woman to speak to instead of the man?
Interpreters have thought the text means to describe the woman as the originator of evil,
rather than the man:
Ben Sirach, 25:24, From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die;
1 Timothy 2:14, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor”;
Thus the serpent made the woman its target of the evil suggestion, since she is the
“weaker sex.”
But today, female interpreters have given the choice a quite different meaning–the woman
is the more appealing, the more intelligent, while the man is much more “brutish,” “beyond reason.”
Phyllis Trible states that “If the serpent is ‘more subtle’ than its fellow creatures the woman
is more appealing than her husband...She is the more intelligent one, the more aggressive one,
and the one with greater sensibilities.” (Quoted by Hamilton, p. 188)
Whatever we may make of this, it is obvious according to this ancient story that the woman
is depicted as giving far more thought to the matter than the man–who simply at the woman’s offer,
without any question or hesitation, violates the Divine commandment.
Male chauvinist interpreters (including Paul), who have been quick to put women down on
the basis of this ancient biblical story, need to take this element in the story much more seriously.
What do you think?
Bereishis 1, p. 114, notes that “The commentators differ on whether there was literally a
communication–either by the serpent or an angel acting through him–through spoken words or
some other manner intelligible to Adam and Eve, the ‘products of God’s hands’; or whether this is
to be understood allegorically...Ibn Ezra interprets the verse literally: The serpent actually spoke.
Before he was cursed he also stood erect, and God Who gives wisdom to man, gave it to the serpent,
too. For, if it was not the serpent itself that spoke but an angel, why was the serpent punished?
“...According to Abarbanel, the serpent did not actually speak...The explanation, rather, is
that the snake spoke by his actions. By continually crawling up the tree and eating its fruit–he
demonstrated that no harm came to him–and Eve deduced from this, as if he were actually
speaking to her, and say: ‘See, you will not die.’”
13
The phrase in Hebrew, yKi @a;, )aph ki, literally “indeed, that...” is difficult to translate. The
Greek translation is ti, o[ti, ti hoti, probably meaning “Why (is it) that...?” Brown-Driver-Briggs
(continued...)
95

15
the garden? 3.2 `lkeanO !G"h;-#[e yrIP.mi vx'N"h;-la, hV'aih' rm,aTow: And the woman
13
(...continued)
states it means “indeed, that God has said...?”, i.e., “has God really said...?” Skinner, p. 73, says
that it is “a half-interrogative, half-reflective exclamation,” and translates it “Ay, and so God has
said.” Von Rad notes that Martin Luther could not translate the passage either into German or
Latin, saying “The serpent uses the word yKi @a;, aph-ki as though to turn up its nose and jeer
and scoff at one.” Westermann suggests “Well now” or “look here.” (P. 239).
English translations vary from “Yea, has God said...?”, to “So God has told you...?”, to
“‘Really,’ he asked...?”, to simply “Did God say...?”, to “Did God really...?”, to “Is it true...?” Hamilton
thinks that it is “a feigned expression of surprise,” and translates “Indeed. To think...” (P.
186)
Whatever our translation, it is apparent that the phrase introduces a critical, questioning
attitude towards the Divine commandment, seemingly sympathetic to the humans, and leading
the woman to consider the nature of that commandment, and question its validity, as if her understanding
and moral discernment were on a level with God’s. Such a question easily enters into
the mind whenever a Divine commandment comes into conflict with something that seems reasonable
and good to us. The question is an example of the serpent’s “cleverness” and “subtlety.”
What do you think? When a Divine command comes to us, should we simply obey it, no
matter what our reason tells us? Is this not what Muslim jihadists do? Is this not akin to the
bumper-sticker that says, “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!”? Is this not what the
“simple / open minded” persons described in Proverbs do? See footnote 9, and Proverbs 14:15.
Or to put it another way, should we leave our intellects at the door when we come to church? We
think we need to make very sure that it is indeed God’s command that we are hearing, and that
we understand what God intends by that command, before rushing head-long into obedience.
14
The serpent does not use the normal phrase for this story in speaking of God (i.e., “YHWH
God”). Instead, the serpent only uses the impersonal ~yhil{a/, )elohiym “God,” or “Gods.”
Many commentators have commented on this that it reflects the Hebrew Bible’s conviction
that the name YHWH belongs only to the context of covenantal relationship between YHWH and
His people, and is totally inappropriate in the mouth of any other creature.
For example, Wenham states that “...In describing God simply as God (~yhiêl{a/, )elohiym)
instead of as the Lord God (~yhi_l{a/ hw"åhy., YHWH )elohiym)>, which is characteristic of the rest
of Genesis 2-3, there is a suggestion of the serpent’s distance from God. God is just the remote
Creator, not Yahweh, Israel’s covenant Partner...” (P. 73)
Of course, this comment is anachronistic–at the time presupposed by the story in Genesis
3, there was no such thing as Israel, much less a covenant Partner with Israel.
96

15
Fretheim emphasizes that “The ‘you’ is plural in Hebrew [Wlêk.ato) al{å, ‘you people shall not
eat’] so that both the man and the woman are implied (the man stands ‘with her,’ verse 6, and so
acts as a silent partner in the entire conversation).” (P. 360)
Commentators commonly point to the fact that the serpent exaggerates the Divine prohibition,
making it seem that God has forbidden access to all of the trees of the garden. But, the text
depicts how there is in fact a great “permission” that precedes the prohibition–all the trees of the
garden are allowed to the humans for food, except for this one tree.
The humans are given a “vast freedom of access”–but the serpent twists and distorts the
commandment to make it appear that God doesn’t want the humans to eat from any of the trees.
Instead of being a loving Creator, who has provided His people with all they can possibly need for
food, and Whose commandment is intended to protect them from harm, the serpent’s question
implies that God is against His human creatures. He doesn’t want them to enjoy potentially healthy
and enjoyable food–but why? Is He spiteful, jealous of the happiness of His human creatures?
Instead of a beneficent Provider, is He an oppressive Tyrant?
By entering into this dialogue initiated by the serpent, the woman becomes a partner in
what Bonhoeffer has aptly called “the first conversation about God.” Instead of being the trusting,
obedient child of YHWH God, the Creator and Father, the woman becomes a critical theologian–
standing in judgment over God and His command.
Think about this–it is a profoundly challenging thing for every believer in God and His Divine
commandments to meditate upon. If we honestly and deeply believe that “God is for us,” we
will not hesitate to trust His commandment!
Do you agree?
Fretheim comments that “The primal sin may be best defined as mistrust of God, which
manifests itself in disobedience...Can the human trust that God has their best interests at heart
even if they do not know everything? Even more, can the humans trust that God will be able to
discern that not all such ‘benefits’ are in their best interests, that true creaturely freedom entails
acknowledging limits?” (Pp. 366-67)
Has the serpent ever whispered in your ear such a suggestive questioning of God’s command?
If you are a married person, and are sent by Uncle Sam to serve in a foreign country for
thirteen months, surely you don’t think that the prohibition of sexual intercourse with someone
other than your covenanted mate applies in such a situation as that?
If you have used drugs all your life to protect your health, and now there are new “recreational
drugs,” easily accessible, surely, can just an occasional use of them be that harmful? Surely
God doesn’t mean to stop all your enjoyment, all your fun. What kind of God is He, anyway–an
Ogre God, jealous of your happiness?
(continued...)
97

16 17 18
said to the serpent, From (the) fruit of the tree(s) of the garden we will eat. 3.3 yrIP.miW
-!P AB W[G>ti al{w> WNM,mi Wlk.ato al{ ~yhil{a/ rm;a' !G"h;-%AtB. rv,a] #[eh'
19 20
`!WtmuT. And from fruit of the tree that (is) in (the) middle of the garden, God said You people
15
(...continued)
If you work for people who have made millions of dollars, and who pay you only what
seems to you a minimal wage, and you have worked for years to enrich your employers, how can
it be wrong to use your position to secure your own future, just as you have theirs, without their
knowing it, and without their suffering any noticeable harm?
No, the serpent’s question is still not out of date. We all need to seriously think about this.
If God is God, our Creator and beneficent Father, who has revealed Himself through His word /
event (embodied in the exodus of Israel from Egypt, and in Jesus of Nazareth), then do we dare
to “put God in the dock,” and question His commandment, as if we are His equals, who know the
truth about good and evil, about right and wrong, better than our God?
What do you think?
16
Where the Hebrew text reads yrI ïP.mi, mipperiy, literally “from fruit of,” the Greek translation
of Codex Alexandrinus reads avpo. pa,ntoj karpou/, “from every fruit of.” This variant reading
hardly changes the meaning of Genesis.
17
The Syriac translation interpolates the word “all” into the text before the word “tree(s).” This
interpolation does not change the meaning of Genesis.
18
Literally, “we will eat.” Fretheim notes that “In quoting God, she uses the plural ‘you,’ understanding
that the prohibition applies to her...though God’s original prohibition was in the singular
(2:16-17).” (P. 360)
The woman’s reply to the serpent is correct. The command is not nearly as broad as the
serpent has implied, and the fact is that the humans have been given permission to eat from
every tree of the garden except one–which would be fatal to them. YHWH God has not only provided
for their physical needs, He has also provided for their protection from harm.
19
The Samaritan Pentateuch interpolates the adjective hzh, literally “the this (tree)” into the
text at this point. This interpolation does not change the meaning of Genesis.
20
That is, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. See our comments at 2:9.
98

21 22
shall not eat from it, and you shall not touch it –or else you will die. 3.4 la, vx'N"h; rm,aYOw:
21
The woman here overstates the Divine commandment, which said nothing about prohibiting
the “touching” of the forbidden fruit–it is in line with the serpent’s subtle suggestion. “Why, we
can’t even touch it.” What can be wrong with just touching it?
Wenham comments that “These slight alterations to God’s [commandment] suggest that
the woman has already moved slightly away from God toward the serpent’s attitude. The Creator’s
generosity is not being given its full due, and He is being painted as a little harsh and repressive,
forbidding the tree even to be touched.” (P. 73) The serpent has first exaggerated the
Divine command; now the woman follows his lead, exaggerating what God has commanded.
Westermann states that “...A command that is questioned is no longer the original command,
as the continuation of the narrative makes even clearer. One who defends a command
can already be on the way to breaking it.” (Pp. 239-40)
We disagree with Westermann. We think that it is a God-given part of human nature to
ask the reason “Why?”, even with reference to the Divine commands. Remember the agony of
Jesus Christ in the garden of Gethsemane over whether or not to go to His death, as God had
clearly commanded Him--and the question of Psalm 22:1, quoted by Jesus as He died, “My God,
My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Is that not questioning the Divine command?
When that question is asked by the believer who deeply trusts God, the answer will be
quickly forth-coming. The believer will not exaggerate the Divine commandment as the woman
has done here, but will state the commandment fully and accurately, without exaggeration. And
then, the believer will be led to find the Divine reason for giving the commandment–it is for our
protection, it is intended to give us life–not to harm us, not to oppress us, even if we have to die
obeying it. Jesus’ death was essential for the fulfillment of His Divine destiny–only the fulfillment
of the Divine command could lead to ultimate victory over death.
What do you think? Do you agree with Westermann that “A command that is questioned is
no longer the original command,” but is on the way to being broken?
And do you not wish that devout Muslims who believe Allah has commanded them to blow
themselves up to destroy the enemies of Islam would question that command?
When it hears the seventh commandment, “You shall not be sexually immoral,” the modern
world immediately asks, Why should we not be sexually immoral, and break our covenants of
marriage, since there is so much momentary excitement and physical pleasure in sexual immorality)?
Is it because God is jealous of our happiness, that He is oppressing us, wanting to limit our
freedom? The trusting believer quickly finds an answer. “Not at all–our God is protecting us, and
our homes, and our hopes for future happiness, leading us to build homes filled with trust and
self-giving loyalty; He is protecting us from the scourge of venereal disease and life-threatening
epidemics such as HIV / AIDS; He is insuring that our children will know who their parents are,
and have a home filled with covenant love, loyalty and trust in which to grow up.” We will not
exaggerate the Divine command, making it mean that God doesn’t want His human creatures to
enjoy the pleasures of sexual love; but we will realize that the good gifts of our God can easily be
(continued...)
99

21
(...continued)
perverted and become the enemies of our genuine good if they are not subject to the Divine
commandment.
We think that such reasoning as this is not on its way to breaking the commandment, but
rather on the way to undergirding that commandment, and showing its great practicality and necessity
for those who want to find the good and meaningful life that the Creator God intends for His
people.
What do you think? Do you hold that true believers should simply read the commandments
given in the Hebrew Bible–for example, those demanding capital punishment, and then
mindlessly obey them, without honestly examining and questioning their meaning and application?
Limiting ourselves to occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of the phrase tm'(Wy tAmï, moth
yumath, literally “dying he shall be put to death,” see:
Genesis 26:11, Abimelech the Philistine decrees the death sentence for anyone molesting
Isaac and Rebekah (the sentence of capital punishment is not by any means peculiar to
Israel; it is known throughout the ancient Near East and its law-codes);
Exodus 19:12, anyone touching Mount Sinai will surely be put to death (if archaeologists
finally determine which mountain is the original Mount Sinai, and people go on
pilgrimage to it, should they be put to death for touching it?);
Exodus 21:12; Leviticus 24:17, anyone striking a man and killing him will surely be put to
death;
Exodus 21:14, anyone boiling up in anger, killing with craftiness will surely be put to death;
Exodus 21:15, anyone attacking father or mother will surely be put to death (would this
include little children, who “throw a tantrum”?;
Exodus 21:16, anyone stealing and selling a human (“kidnaping”) will surely be put to death;
Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9, anyone cursing father or mother will surely be put to death;
Exodus 22:18, a sorceress / witch will surely be put to death (remember the Salem, Massachusetts
trials and executions);
Exodus 31:14, 15; Numbers 15:35, a man gathering wood on the day of rest will surely be put
to death (what about sports stars who play on the day of rest?);
Leviticus 20:2, any temporary resident or Israelite who sacrifices a child to Molech will surely
be put to death;
Leviticus 20:10, anyone having sexual intercourse with another’s wife (“sexual immorality”)
will surely be put to death;
Leviticus 20:11, anyone having sexual intercourse with his father’s wife (his step-mother) will
surely be put to death;
Leviticus 20:12, any male who lies with a man as with a woman–i.e., any practicing homosexual
will surely be put to death;
Leviticus 20:13, the man who marries both a woman and her mother--both he and they will
surely be put to death;
Leviticus 20:15, a man who has sexual intercourse with an animal–both he and the animal
will surely be put to death;
100
(continued...)

21
(...continued)
Leviticus 20:16, a woman who approaches an animal for sexual intercourse with it–both she
and the animal will surely be put to death;
Leviticus 20:27, every male or female who attempts to speak a Divine message by “magical”
means will surely be put to death;
Leviticus 24:16, the one cursing YHWH’s name will surely be put to death;
Leviticus 27:29, a person who has been “devoted to destruction” by the authorities will surely
be put to death;
Numbers 35:16, 17, 18, 21, 31, anyone striking another person with an iron object, or a stone,
or a wooden weapon, or who shoves someone, or throws something intentionally, or
hits with a fist, causing death, will surely be put to death by the avenger of blood;
Numbers 35:30-31, the murderer must be put to death, based on the testimony of more than
one witness; he cannot be ransomed;
Judges 21:5, anyone who fails to assemble before YHWH at Mizpah will surely be put to
death;
Ezekiel 18:13, a man who eats at the mountain shrines, defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses
the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not return what he took in pledge, looks to
the idols, does detestable things, lends at interest will surely be put to death–a very
broad basis for capital punishment!
What do you think? Do you believe these Divine commandments mandating capital
punishment? Why? Why not? Do you believe intentional murder should be subject to the
death penalty? What about stealing a human being, or kidnaping?
And then, what about cursing parents? What about practicing witchcraft (sorcery)?
What about cursing God’s name? What about violating the day of rest? What about failing to
attend a called assembly for worship? What about the death penalty for all of the sexual
violations of Leviticus 20? Especially, what about all of these things mentioned in Ezekiel
18:13–including oppressing the poor and needy, committing robbery, not returning a pledge,
even lending money at interest?
Add to these the law of Deuteronomy 22:20-21, that a woman who cannot be proven to
have been a virgin when she married shall be stoned to death–that is, girls who have engaged
in premarital sex face the death penalty! Do you agree with that?
Should the Bible believer just obey all of these commandments without questioning?
Do you agree that these are all ‘good’ laws? Or do you dare to say, as YHWH does in Ezekiel
20:25, that some of the Divine laws are “not good”?
~ybi_Aj al{å ~yQIßxu ~h,êl' yTit;än" ‘ynIa]-~g:w>
`~h,(B' Wyàx.yI) al{ï ~yjiêP'v.mi’W
101
(continued...)

21
(...continued)
And also, I (YHWH) gave to them statutes–not good ones;
and judicial decisions–they will not live by them.
Does not this mean that we need to examine the statutes / judicial decisions attributed to
YHWH in the Hebrew Bible? Does it not mean that it is not enough simply to quote a statute in
the Torah, or a judicial decision from the Torah, as the absolute truth and will of YHWH?
YHWH Himself, through Ezekiel, states that some of those statutes are not good ones, and
that there are judicial decisions within the Torah that will not promote life. This is a very disturbing
statement for those who insist that everything in the Bible has come directly from God, and
must not be questioned. It means that we must approach the Torah with caution, recognizing the
human element involved in the giving of those laws, asking whether or not the given statute or
judicial decision in fact reflects the true will of YHWH–or whether elements of nationalism and the
views of prejudiced judges who “sat in the seat of Moses” are reflected there.
A simple-minded response such as “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” means
that all of the aforementioned acts should be punished by the death penalty. Do you really
believe that anyone who lends money at interest to a fellow believer, or who oppresses the
poor, or who commits robbery should be put to death? Do you believe that any young woman
who has engaged in premarital sex, or who cannot prove that she was a virgin when she married,
should be put to death?
How will you deal with these questions? Simply quoting the biblical text will not solve
the problem. Would you completely abolish the death penalty–going against these explicit
apodictic laws of the Hebrew Bible, especially in the Covenant Code in Exodus 21, and in the
Holiness Code of Leviticus 20? Would you limit the death penalty to only what you consider
to be the most heinous of crimes, such as intentional murder, or kidnaping? If you believe that
every word in the Bible has come directly from God, how can you pick and choose like that?
These are not easy questions, and simple answers simply won’t do! But this is the kind
of question that serious Bible study must ask. Does your religious community ask such questions?
Are you allowed to question? Or, are you forced to squelch your honest questions?
Genuine Christian education cannot, and will not want to avoid the hard questions!
And if you do agree that all of these laws demanding capital punishment should be
enforced, what do you make of Jesus’ failure to refer to or enforce those commands for capital
punishment, instead forgiving and offering new life and hope to the guilty–for example, the thief
on the cross beside Him (Luke 23:39-43), and the the woman accused of sexual immorality in
John 8:1-11? What do you make of Jesus’ rejection of the “law of retaliation” in Exodus 21:23-
25, which demands “an eye for an eye”? See Matthew 5:38-48. Is Jesus guilty of questioning
the Divine command–or simply guilty of rejecting it?
Returning to the story in Genesis 3, and this matter of the woman’s questioning the Divine
command, we ask:
(continued...)
102

21
(...continued)
Do we have any right to question the Divine command (repeated over and over by Jesus)
that we should give freely and generously of our possessions and earnings? Is God jealous of
our having good things for ourselves? Does He want to deprive us of the things we could buy
with the money He asks us to give to the needy, or for the proclamation of the good news?
When we question that command, the answer comes, No, our God loves us, and He
knows the great danger that we have of selfishness, of self-centeredness, of becoming materialists,
who worship money and the things money can buy, and who put our trust in money, or possessions,
rather than in God. God doesn’t need any of our money or things–He already owns the
entire universe. But He wants us to learn to trust Him to provide our needs, and to learn the great
Hebrew / Christian characteristics of generosity, and stooping to serve others, in such a way that
we will make a definite break with materialism and selfishness. He doesn’t need us to give, but
we need to give–we need to follow His word, that is given for our good.
The person who gives generously to help others, identifies with others, and becomes able
to understand and love in a way that is impossible without giving. The person who gives generously
soon becomes a part owner in the works that his gifts are accomplishing, and his life and
love become a part of those works. The divine command hasn’t been given to hurt us, but to
protect us, and help us to be the kind of people He created us to be.
The Divine command is that we should stoop to serve others, even to risk our lives in
helping others. But the serpent’s voice claims that this is all foolishness. “Stooping to serve
others will get you nowhere. The real way to life is to seize power, to force others to serve you.
Don’t be mislead by these so-called ‘spiritual people.’ That’s the way for cowards. Be strong–
take charge–do your own thing! That’s the way to real life.”
And when we achieve our careless, momentary victories, and enjoy power, we think we
have arrived. But soon we have made enemies all around us, and our hearts have become
hardened and stone-dead. We have missed the joys and the learning and the love that serving
others could have given us.
What do you think? Can you give examples of how God’s commands don’t hurt us, but
help us? Is that true of every command in the Bible, or do we have to use our minds to examine
the meaning and application of the commands, using our intellect to choose between laws that
are good and “not good”?
22
This part of the woman’s statement is true, based upon the Divine warning found in Genesis
2:17, where the double verb is used from the same root word as is found here, tWmT' tAm,
nd
moth tamuth, literally “dying you (singular) will die.” Here the 2 person masculine plural imper-
fect qal form of the verb is used, !WtmuT., temuthun, “you people will die.” The woman is not
changing the Divine warning, but only applying it to herself as well as to her husband.
103
(continued...)

`!WtmuT. tAm-al{ hV'aih'- And the serpent said to the woman, You people will surely not
23
die. 3:5 ~t,yyIh.wI ~k,ynEy[e Wxq.p.nIw> WNM,mi ~k,l.k'a] ~AyB. yKi ~yhil{a/ [;deyO yKi
22
(...continued)
What do you think? Was the woman using her mind to decide that the command given to
the male applied also to herself, the female? We think this is an example of the proper use of the
intellect with regards to the Divine command. Could she not just as easily have reasoned that
“the command was given to my husband, but not to me”?
23
Here the serpent’s language is an even more exact quotation from the Divine command
found in Genesis 2:17, only where the singular form of the verb is found there, the serpent uses
the plural form, and the command is explicitly denied as untrue:!WtmuT. tAm-al, lo) moth
temuthun, literally “not dying will you people die.” The serpent bluntly denies the truth of the
Divine warning. Fox translates by “Die, you will not die!”
In terms of our footnote 21, the serpent claims that sexual immorality wont hurt us, but will
make our lives fuller, healthier and happier; the serpent claims that giving away our money is utter
foolishness, and will deprive us of much pleasure and enjoyment; the serpent tells us that stooping
to serve others is likewise foolish, and will only diminish our stature.
But the serpent’s statement was a lie in the garden of Luxurious Place, and it is still a lie
today.
The use of the double verb in Hebrew, here the infinitive with the imperfect (“future”) is a
standard way of making a statement emphatic. It is the recurring biblical theme of the “life or
death” nature of the Divine commandment, which comes to its hearers offering long-lasting life,
but threatening with death if rejected or disobeyed.
Compare especially Deuteronomy 30:15-16:
30:15 ~AYëh; ‘^yn

23
(...continued)
`[r")h'-ta,w> tw-ta, hb'úh]a;l.
wyk'êr"d>Bi tk,l,äl'
wyj'_P'v.miW wyt'ÞQoxuw> wyt'îwOc.mi rmo±v.liw>
t'ybiêr"w> t'yyIåx'w>
#r

23
(...continued)
them, just as He did Adam and Eve in the garden!]. Cut off from the source of life and the tree of
life, they are in the realm of the dead. What they experience outside of Eden is not life as God
intended, but spiritual death.” (P. 55)
Wenham likewise comments that “...Greatly to our surprise (for biblical narratives generally
adopt a Divine or prophetic perspective), [the serpent’s] remarks are apparently vindicated. The
man and his wife do not die, at least not until Adam reached the ripe age of 930 years (5:5)!...On
first reading at least, God seems to have tried to deceive His creatures by issuing threats He subsequently
did not fulfill. The snake told the truth, not the Lord God.”
Wenham goes on to add that “...As commentators have often pointed out, the snake was
uttering half-truths...The snake’s promises have come true but in a very different way from the
way one might have expected, had they come from God...
“If to be expelled from the camp of Israel was to ‘die,’ expulsion from the garden was an
even more drastic kind of death. In this sense they did die on the day they ate of the tree: they
were no longer able to have daily conversation with God [but does the story really say this? Does
not the story depict God’s continuing conversation with and care for the couple’s offspring after
expulsion from the garden? Are we to conclude that communication with God ended outside the
garden? See Genesis 4:6, 10-12, 15; and see the continuous communication with God to be
found in the Psalms!], enjoy His bounteous provision, and eat of the tree of life; instead they had
to toil for food, suffer, and eventually return to the dust from which they were taken...
“A parallel to this idea of death before death is to be found in the story of Saul. As far as
Samuel was concerned, Saul ‘died’ when he rejected the word of the Lord at Gilgal. So Samuel
mourned for him (1 Samuel 15:35-16:1)...Saul was as good as dead, though his physical death
was to be delayed for some years...Seen in this light, the snake was indeed shrewd. He told no
outright lies, merely highly suggestive half-truths. At face value they contradicted God’s warnings
about the inevitability of death, but at a deeper level the latter were vindicated.” (Pp. 73-75)
What do you think?
Does the sexually immoral person suddenly drop dead?
Does the selfish person, who hoards his earning for himself instead of generously giving for
others, immediately die?
Does the power-hungry person who tries to gain advantage over others suffer such a fate?
No, of course not. But the sexually immoral person is planting the seeds of destruction in
his marriage, his family, and his own physical body. The selfish person is killing his spiritual person,
the image of God planted within him, destroying any possibility for becoming the kind of loving,
generous person God wants him to be, in spite of his wise smirk and conviction that he has
outwitted the do-gooders. The spiritual being of the power-hungry soon withers and disappears,
(continued...)
106

`[r'w" bAj y[ed>yO ~yhil{aKe Because God is knowing that on (the) day of your eating from
24 25
it–and your eyes will be opened, and you will become like Gods, Ones knowing good and evil.
23
(...continued)
and they miss the true meaning and purpose of life that God has intended for them. On the day
we make those decisions to disobey the Divine command, the cancer of death begins to eat its
way into our personalities.
Do you agree?
Or should we understand that the enforcement of the threatened Divine punishment is
much more merciful than we expected? That even though God has threatened death, He may in
mercy and compassion withhold its execution?
What do you think? How would you compare this with the lengthy parable-like story of
Jerusalem the faithless prostitute-wife of YHWH in Ezekiel 16, who deserves the announced
capital-punishment which is commanded in the Torah’s laws with reference to a wife guilty of
adultery? The death-sentence is passed on Jerusalem, and in historical fact, the city was destroyed
by the Babylonians–yet the passage depicts YHWH as returning both Samaria (the capital
city of Northern Israel, destroyed by the Assyrians who were YHWH’s destructive “tools”) and
Sodom (the notoriously wicked city where Lot lived, and which was destroyed by YHWH’s fire and
brimstone from heaven) to their former estate, and as making an everlasting covenant with the
fallen prostitute-wife of YHWH, Jerusalem. We think that like Ezekiel 16, the failure of YHWH
God to inflict the threatened punishment may also be depicting YHWH’s grace as greater than His
judgment.
What do you think? Do you believe that Sodom has a future in YHWH’s plan?
Ezekiel 16 dares to claim that YHWH, Who has decreed the destruction of Sodom and
Samaria and Jerusalem–has a future for them, that reaches out beyond their capital punishment.
Is that the kind of God you believe in? Is your God’s grace greater than His judgment? In terms
of New Testament teaching, can it be that Jesus, in death, not only went to those who were disobedient
in the days of Noah, but also went to those from Sodom, Samaria and Jerusalem who
were disobedient, to proclaim good news? See 1 Peter 3:18-20.
24
Fretheim comments that “The serpent speaks a key phrase: ‘God knows.’ It claims that God
has not told them the full truth about the matter, that God keeps something back. In this, the serpent
acts not as a deceiver but as a truth-teller.” (P. 361)
When we hear the voice of the serpent speaking in our ear, it speaks just such a word. It
tells us that the real truth is that so-called “spiritual values” are in fact worthless; religious teachings
and morality are little more than an “opiate of the masses” as the Communists Marx and
Engels claimed. That’s the real truth–so the serpent claims. But the serpent is deceiving us.
(continued...)
107

24
(...continued)
The only true and lasting values are spiritual in nature. When we lose them, we lose real
life! The end of atheistic Communism in eastern Europe is a telling proof of that fact.
What do you think?
Bereishis 1, p. 118 notes that “The translation of ~yhi êl{aKe, ke)lohiym as ‘like God’ [or,
‘like Gods’] follows the inference of Rashi and the Midrash...According to Onkelos, Yonasan, Rav
Saadiah Gaon, Lekach Tov, Ibn Ezra, Radak, and most others, however, ~yhiêl{a/ here is to be
interpreted ‘angels’–‘Divine beings’...”
The participle that follows immediately is plural, indicating that ~yhiêl{a/ is to be understood
as “Gods.” The Greek translation has qeoi. ginw,skontej, “Gods, Ones knowing.”
25
Fretheim comments that “The serpent...is correct in saying the humans would become like
God(s), knowing good and evil, and that eating in itself would not necessarily mean death in at
least some sense...
“The serpent makes it sound as if God’s motivation is Self-serving; [He is fearful that] the
humans will become like God. Has God, in keeping the full truth from them, Divine interests more
at heart than interest in humans? The issue of knowledge thus becomes at its deepest level an
issue of trust. Is the Giver of the prohibition One Who can be trusted with their best interests?...
“The word of the serpent ends up putting the word of God in question.” (P. 361)
The truth about God, according to the serpent, is that God is neither good nor trustworthy–
instead, God is jealous of His position, afraid that the human beings will share in His nature and
position. That’s the reason for the commandment–God doesn’t want the human beings to share
in His knowledge, or to become like Him.
But it is a lie. If the couple had obeyed the Divine commandment, they would have stayed
in close fellowship with and obedience to God, and in that fellowship would have rapidly grown in
maturity and wisdom and knowledge and understanding, being nourished on God’s gifts, truly
becoming more and more like God, becoming able to rule the world for God. By disobeying the
command, they experience the momentary thrill of taking charge of their lives, breaking the Divine
law, acting as if they were God. But the outcome is tragic, not at all what they expected or
thought. They have become afraid of God, and are not able to rule their world, but are subject to
its demands. Creatures of the dust, they no longer have access to the tree of the lives.
It is quite true that the sexually immoral person learns some things about human sexuality
that they would have never known otherwise–but can we call that knowledge true wisdom?
The miser and the power-broker learn certain things about piling up riches, and exercising
control over others, that the generous and those who stoop to serve hopefully never learn or ex-
(continued...)
108

25
(...continued)
perience. But what kind of knowledge or wisdom is that? And though for a while it may seem
wise, it shrinks the spiritual brain, and leads to the death of the Divinely intended personality. It
promises to be the way to real life, but in reality it is the way to certain death!
What do you think? Do you agree? Why? Why not?
B’chor Shor and Radak place the following words in the serpent’s mouth: “Fool! God did
not prohibit this tree out of any great love for you! It is not poisonous or harmful to you and you
won’t die from it! He threatened you with death so you should exercise greater restraint regarding
it, because He does not want you to attain more than He already allotted to you”...
“Ha’amek Davar comments that “With this statement, the serpent introduced doubt into
[Eve’s] mind. He convinced her that God threatened them with death merely to intimidate them
so they would not eat thereof. As Hirsch comments: He has forbidden you to eat only to keep
you in childish dependence on Himself. Eat, and your eyes will be opened! You will gain understanding,
be able to know for yourselves what is good and what is bad. With this understanding
you will become independent of God and thus, yourselves Godlike.” (Bereishis 1, pp. 117-18)
Hamilton comments on the serpent’s claim that the human beings can become like God
that “Deification [becoming Divine] is a fantasy difficult to repress and a temptation hard to reject.
In the woman’s case she need give in to both only by shifting her commitment from doing God’s
will to doing her own will. Whenever one makes his own will crucial and God’s revealed will irrelevant,
whenever autonomy displaces submission and obedience in a person, that finite individual
attempts to rise above the limitations imposed on him by his Creator.” (P. 190)
What do you think? Is Hamilton right? Does such a thing happen in our own lives? Is this
really the story of Everyman and Everywoman?
Westermann notes that Job 15:7-8 [Eliphaz scolding Job, ‘Are you the first man ever born?
Were you brought forth before the hills? Do you listen in on God’s council?...] and Genesis 2-3
“both link the creation of human beings with a grasping after wisdom to which the creature has no
right.” (P. 245).
He states that “As J. Pedersen has shown, [commenting on Ezekiel 28, the story of the
prince of Tyre, the Adapa Myth and the Gilgamesh Epic, that they all] are concerned with a conflict
between God and His creatures which derives from the fact that people are created with a
strong aspiration after life and knowledge...(or wisdom) in the general, comprehensive sense.
Any limitation of the meaning of ‘the knowledge of good and evil’ is thereby excluded. It can
mean neither moral nor sexual nor any other partial knowledge, but only that know-ledge which
includes and determines human existence as a whole...The promise ‘to be like God’ is not something
over and above knowledge, but describes it and all that it is capable of. It is concerned with
a Divine and unbridled ability to master one’s existence.” (Pp. 247-48)
In interpretation of this story in Genesis 3, we think it very important to bring out the subtle
but very real way in which God’s good gifts that surround us test us and tempt us–primarily by
(continued...)
109

26
3.6 #[eh' dm'x.n ~yIn:y[el' aWh-hw"a]t; ykiw> lk'a]m;l. #[eh' bAj yKi hV'aih' ar,Tew;
25
(...continued)
making us think that if we use them to their full, and exercise control over them, apart from consideration
of and obedience to the will of God, we will be “in charge,” we will truly be little Gods,
ruling over our world, “mastering our existence.” It is our “heady,” exhilarating declaration of independence
from any controlling authority above and beyond ourselves, and the willingness to enter
into life on our own, with no higher guidance than that of our own instincts and minds. Refusing to
acknowledge, or be obedient to, the command of our Creator God, as if He could possibly know
better than we do ourselves, we make of ourselves the highest moral authority in our world, who
can do what we please, what we think best, without regard to any higher power or authority or
“Divine law.”
Think of the way pleasure, possessions, and power argue with our innermost beings– telling
us that if we have enough of them, we can do anything we want, we will have reached the
zenith of possibilities, we will be genuinely happy, we will truly be “like God.”
Think of how the enticing voice of power, and nationalism, have spoken to the hearts of
people around the world in the twentieth century and now continues in the twenty-first century–
persuading us that if we can only gain more and more power over others, and be “in control,” we
will find true life and meaning and purpose.
Think of how the seductive voice of pleasure leads so many millions of people astray every
day–telling us that if we only can have all the sexual relationships we want (think of Tiger Woods,
the world’s premier golfer, and his sexual escapades), or enjoy all the “highs” that narcotics can
give us, or spend a life-time of engagement in exciting tours and adventures, living in luxurious
surroundings, we will know everything there is to know, and will have arrived at the “summum
bonum,” the “highest good” in life–regardless of the consequences to our families and homes and
to others.
Yes, such a “(serpent-like) testing” constantly confronts us throughout our life-times. And
this ancient story tells us that it is a Divinely ordained “testing,” such as our Creator wants us to go
through–He is the One Who placed the serpent in the garden. It is God’s desire that we should
choose to say no to the seductive, enticing voice, and choose instead to love and obey our Creator,
even if it means giving up many or all of these earthly creatures, “goods,” that surround us.
And so this ancient story teaches us that we human beings must exercise our free-wills in
choosing God and His commandment, rather than in listening to and obeying the other voices of
God’s creatures. If we do not exercise this choice, we will bring down disaster upon ourselves.
Again we say, there is great profundity in this ancient story of Everyman and Everywoman.
What do you think? Is this ancient story profoundly true, or simply nonsensical, “silly”?
26
Wenham comments on verses 6-8 that “Here...the narrative reaches its climax. Here Hebrew
prose style is seen to be at its most effective. With remarkable brevity, compared with the
(continued...)
110

`lk;aYOw: HM'[i Hv'yail.-~G: !TeTiw: lk;aTow: Ayr>Pimi xQ;Tiw: lyKif.h;l. And the woman saw
27 28
the tree–that the tree (was) good for food, and that it (was) desirable to the eyes, and the tree
29 30
(was) desirable to make wise; and she took from its fruit and she ate;e and she also gave (it) to
26
(...continued)
long-winded descriptions that precede it and the recriminations that follow, the fatal steps are
described in a series of eleven waw-consecutive clauses that suggest the rapidity of the action.”
(P. 75)
27
The feminine singular noun used here, hw"a]t;, ta)awah, means “a desire,” “a wish,” or “a
thing desired,” “a thing desirable.”
28
The definite noun #[eh', ha(ets, “the tree,” is omitted by both the Greek translation and the
Latin Vulgate. The omission does not change the meaning of Genesis.
TNISB comments that “The woman is the active participant in the debate with the snake, a
fact which has been used to emphasize her guilt [compare Paul in 1 Timothy 2:14, ‘Adam was
not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner’], on the one
hand, or her intelligence and initiative, on the other [see Trible’s comment in footnote 12].” (P. 12)
What do you think?
Do you agree with Paul’s comment on this story? Is it basically the woman who is at fault,
and the man is only an innocent victim? Do you think it is a legitimate conclusion to draw from
this story in Genesis 3 that women should not be allowed to teach men? Does Adam’s having
been formed first mean that he, the male, and all males to follow, are superior to women, and
should have authority over women? Or, are Paul’s (or the author of 1 Timothy’s) conclusions
concerning this story highly questionable, even illegitimate?
29
The use of the niphal participle dm'Ûx.n

30
(...continued)
make wise.” The Greek translation is kai. w`rai/o,n evstin tou/ katanoh/sai, “and beautiful it is to
observe.” Tanakh has “was desirable as a source of wisdom.”
It is a powerful temptation, rooted in the woman’s “desires.” We are reminded of how
Jesus in Mark 7 roots the origin of human uncleanness in the thoughts and desires of the human
heart. Compare also Jacob (“James”) 1:13-15, which traces human temptation to evil desire,
which conceives in the human heart and gives birth to sin and death. And human desire makes a
powerful argument, saying things like:
The tree in the garden of Luxurious Place can satisfy the appetite for food, for
nourishment. How then can it be wrong to eat from its fruit?
The tree can also satisfy the longing for beauty, for things that please the eye. What can
be more beautiful than a tree, laden with delicious fruit? How can it be wrong to make full use of
it?
In addition, this particular tree can impart wisdom and knowledge–that’s what God says.
What can be wrong with gaining wisdom and knowledge? Didn’t God commission humanity to
rule the earth? How can you rule over anything if you are ignorant of it? How can you ever learn
to know the difference between good and evil if you have never experienced (“tasted”) it?
No, the serpent is right–God is simply jealous; He doesn’t want us to fulfill our potential, but
wants to arbitrarily limit us.
So the woman is led to conclude.
Westermann comments that “It is a case of the general human phenomenon of the attraction
of what is forbidden. The prohibition itself fixes attention on what is forbidden, making it in a
mysterious way seductively and irresistibly attractive...”
We think of Augustine’s experience of wanting to steal fruit from his neighbor’s orchard,
when he had plenty of his own in his family-orchard. We also think of young people today who
use banned narcotics simply for the thrill of disobeying the law.
Westermann continues: “What is meant here is desire (covetousness) as formulated in the
[Ten Commandments], Exodus 20:17; it belongs to the very nature of the human state. The
senses of sight and taste work together to arouse this desire. But the desire as such is neither
bad nor suspect nor sinful (this is the beginning of the complete misunderstanding of the passage
by Augustine [which led to the rejection of sensual desire itself as wrong, and therefore to asceticism]).
It is rather the completely natural, normal and God-given reaction to the fruit of the trees
in the garden: the woman and the man ought to find it pleasing, and it ought to taste good. The
desire of the sense is part of God’s gift.” (P. 249)
112
(continued...)

30
(...continued)
All of this is very important for our meditation and thoughtful consideration. Our Creator
has placed desire within us; it is a good gift, apart from which we would quickly die, for lack of
nutrition, and for lack of propagating our race. The desire is not wrong–it is only the failure to
place desire within its God-given limits that causes the problem. Do you agree?
As Westermann goes on to point out, “The narrator is speaking of the well-known phenomenon
of the heightening of desire when faced with a prohibition...What is described is not the
extraordinary, the shocking, the ‘unthinkable and terrible,’ but the completely natural and perfectly
human.” (Ibid.)
How true this is. The woman is not tempted to commit murder, or to destroy the garden.
She is only tempted to eat fruit which is nourishing and beautiful, and which seemingly can cause
no real harm–other than break the Divine commandment.
Joined to this seemingly innocent desire for food and for beauty is the desire to be made
wise, and this introduces the element of u`,brij, hubris, “insolence,” “arrogance,” that wants something
more than is given to human beings by their Creator.
Westermann comments that “This motif joins the attraction to what is forbidden with something
else that is attractive and which no longer has anything to do with the desire of the senses,
namely the capacity to strive which enabled one to rise above oneself...the longing for a new and
hitherto excluded dimension to life. With the greatest restraint and reserve [the author] is saying
here that at bottom what entices a person to transgress a limit is not the sensual pleasure heightened
even more by the prohibition, but the new possibilities of life that are apparently opened by
the transgression. The narrator wants to point to the inscrutable riddle which is always part of
human existence wherever and as long as it is lived, namely, that people have the urge to transcend
themselves by overstepping the limits set for them.” (Ibid.)
But, we add, God has set no limits for exploring and conquering the universe; the human
beings are commanded to do just this. The problem is that this innocent, perfectly human desire
for something obviously good, has been forbidden by YHWH God–and the woman lets her desire
take priority over the Divine command, realizing that in so doing she is exercising a God-like power,
becoming something more than she was by creation. This is the origin of sin, and suffering,
and death in YHWH God’s good world. Instead of choosing life as an obedient, trusting child of
YHWH God, the Creator, Whose commandment is given for her and her family’s good, she
chooses to act as if she knows better than her Creator, as if she can find the good life for herself
and her mate apart from obedience to God. That’s the root of sin, and suffering, and death.
What do you think? Do you claim this as your personal truth?
Do later “Eves” and “Adams” (“Every Woman,” and “Every Man”) sometimes encourage
their children to make power, and wealth, and pleasure their highest goals in life? Do later “Eves”
and “Adams” sometimes push their mates to make more and more money so that they can engage
in more and more luxury and pleasure, while completely overlooking or stifling any thought
of obedience to the Divine command? Are we still bringing suffering and death into our world
(continued...)
113

31
her husband with her, and he ate. 3.7 ~he: ~Miruy[e yKi W[d>YEw: ~h,ynEv. ynEy[e hn"x.q;P'Tiw
30
(...continued)
because of this?
31
Both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Greek translation change the third person singular
verb lk;(aYOw:, wayyo)kal, “and he ate,” to the third person plural wlkayw, wayy)okelu, “and they
ate.” This variant reading does not change the meaning of Genesis.
The woman is depicted as going through an extended testing; the male is depicted as immediately
giving in, without any questioning, without any examination. This is a good text for women’s
liberationists to base their argument on for female superiority to males!
Hamilton comments that “The woman does not try to tempt the man. She simply gives and
he takes. He neither challenges nor raises questions. The woman allows her mind and her own
judgment to be her guide; the man neither approves nor rebukes.” (P. 191)
The one is observant and calculating; the other takes no thought, but simply accepts what
is offered, without question or examination. But both the man and his wife, in their own way, disobey
the Divine commandment. Having, and knowing the Divine command is of no benefit, unless
it is accompanied by trusting obedience. But the story depicts how influential one’s mate can
be in this life or death matter.
Bereishis 1, p. 120, makes the man more responsible than we are taking the story as
implying: “He was HM'Þ[i, (immah, ‘at one with her’ [but all this Hebrew phrase means is ‘with
her’], and not blameless (i.e. he was not hopelessly tempted or unreasonably deceived) and
therefore liable to punishment (Radak; Ibn Ezra).”
Westermann points out that “[The author of Genesis 2:4b-3:24] shows...the other side of
the community of man and woman expressed in the ‘jubilant welcome.’ [Genesis 2:23; see our
footnote.] Because people are subject to error, mutual support in community can also be mutual
support in sin. It is very important for [the author] that human community in its basic form as community
between man and woman is ambivalent; it can lead to fulfillment together and to sin together.”
(P. 250)
ESVSB comments that “This is not merely an act of disobedience; it is an act of treachery.
Those who were meant to govern the earth on God’s behalf instead rebel against their Divine
King and obey one of His creatures...
“The fact that Adam was ‘with her’ and that he knowingly ate what God had forbidden indicates
that Adam’s sin was both an act of conscious rebellion against God and a failure to carry
out His Divinely ordained responsibility to guard or ‘keep’ (Genesis 2:15) both the garden and the
woman that God had created as ‘a helper fit for him’ (2:18, 20). The disastrous consequences of
Adam’s sin cannot be overemphasized, resulting in the fall of mankind, the beginning of every
kind of sin, suffering, and pain, as well as physical and spiritual death for the human race.” (P.
(continued...)
114

`trogOx] ~h,l' Wf[]Y:w: hn"aet. hle[] WrP.t.YIw: And the eyes of both of them were opened, 32
33 34 35
and they knew that they (were) naked; and they sewed (together) fig-leaves, and they made
31
(...continued)
55)
But does the text in fact say that Adam was ordained by God to guard and keep the woman?
The verses referred to say nothing of the sort, but rather describe the male and female as
closely corresponding to each other, as sharing equally in flesh and bone. The text does depict
the disastrous consequences that came upon humanity and the earth because of the first couple’s
sin–but those consequences can be overemphasized, as Augustine, Calvin and Luther (and
ESVSB) have done–the consequences do not include complete alienation from God, or the impossibility
of some of their immediate descendants knowing YHWH and walking hand in Hand
with Him, for example Enoch and Noah (and don’t overlook Abel, whose sacrifice was pleasing to
YHWH)!
What do you think?
Again we express our appreciation of this ancient story, which is, we believe, the story of
Everyman and Everywoman. How wonderful and joyous the great gift of a life-long mate, to share
with sexually, and in every other aspect of life, making life whole, meeting each other’s needs,
nursing one another in times of sickness. But how terrible when that relationship is perverted, to
lead one or the other away from loving relationship and obedience to the Creator.
We have often heard it said that unless God is Master of the home, the home is close to
deterioration and destruction. Do you agree?
32
Rashi holds that “This is not to be taken literally. The verse refers to their eyes being ‘opened’
with new-found intelligence and awareness...What man saw previously and what he saw now
were precisely the same; there had been no blindness which was now removed, but he received a
new faculty whereby he found things wrong which previously he had not regarded as wrong (Moreh
1:2).” (Bereishis 1, p. 120, 121)
Wenham comments that “The snake’s prediction is literally fulfilled, but their vision is
somewhat of a let-down.” (P. 76)
Yes, their eyes are opened to see new things they had not previously seen. But what a
disappointment those new things are: nakedness, shame, and being afraid of God!
33
What the serpent predicted would happen happens, while what YHWH God said would happen
does not happen. Their eyes are opened, and they gain knowledge–the knowledge of their
own nakedness. The serpent has apparently won!
NIVSB states that “No longer innocent like children, they had a new awareness of themselves
and of each other in their nakedness and shame.” (P. 10)
(continued...)
115

33
(...continued)
Westermann comments that “The two people suddenly experience shame. It does not
mean that they become conscious of sexuality (this is already presumed in 2:23); however this
consciousness is something different from what it was before; it is something new, something
strange, and it causes them embarrassment...Something has been lost by the transgression
which cannot be replaced, the state of unaffected innocence in which people were not yet conscious
of their nakedness. What was right beforehand is now wrong.” (P. 251)
Hamilton states that “What was formerly understood to be a sign of a healthy relationship
between the man and the woman (2:25) has now become something unpleasant and filled with
shame.” (P. 191)
Bereishis 1, p. 121, quotes Hirsch to the effect that “Man need not be ashamed of his
body as long as it stands in the service of God...But when this condition is not entirely there he
feels shame in his nakedness. This shame awakens the voice within us, the voice of conscience
that reminds us we are not meant to be animals.”
What do you think? Do you agree with these comments? Why? Why not? How do you
feel when you are naked in public?
The Muslim Koran describes the first couples’ feeling of shame in nakedness. See Sura
7:2 and 20:121.
At first sight it seems that the serpent is right, and YHWH God is wrong. So it seems when
we human beings choose to put God’s good creatures in the place of God, as our authority, our
guide, our highest authority and goal in life. Our possessions seem sweet to our taste. The power
we gain and use makes us feel good; we become giants in our own eyes. The pleasures we
devote ourselves to are in fact pleasant and enjoyable, and promise us unending satisfaction.
We have arrived. We have found the good life, not death.
But as time passes, our possessions begin to lose their value; as those possessions grow
old and corrode, we have to constantly replace them with newer, more expensive possessions.
The conquests we have made are soon forgotten, and we urge ourselves on to newer, greater
conquests, at the very time our strength is beginning to fail. The pleasures which have seemed to
satisfy in the past become boring, no longer able to satisfy with the same intensity, and we search
for higher, more enjoyable forms of sexual satisfaction, or for stronger drugs to enable us to reach
our “highs.” But as we do so, our bodies begin to fail to respond in the same way; the thrills and
highs become increasingly more difficult to reach. And, if we dare to admit it, the fact is, we are
growing older and older, and our nakedness and emptiness becomes more and more shamefully
apparent as death draws closer. Possessions reveal themselves to us as impermanent and soon
to be parted from; power fails us, causing us to be hated by those we have domineered; we have
to live in fear of those we have dispossessed or walked over to achieve our goals; physical pleasures
begin to lose their allurement. What the serpentine voice has promised has seemed true for
a while; but in the long run, its promises begin to fail, and we begin to see that God’s warning is
(continued...)
116

33
(...continued)
true.
On the other hand, we believe, whenever we put God on the throne of our hearts, and take
His commandment seriously and with trusting obedience, then we begin to share in His life and
nature–we are surrounded by His good creatures and creations, which He gives us to enjoy, as
we become “clothed in right relationships.” As life passes, we learn to accept and enjoy all of His
gifts with thankfulness and moderation; we are filled with spiritual power to love, and serve, and
give; and as death draws closer, we know the certain confidence that not even the dissolution of
our physical bodies will separate us from our God, but will only be a change in condition from this
finite, limited condition of the present into the glorious future planned for us by our God, a being
“clothed upon by immortality”–not shame, but lasting joy.
Again we ask, what do you think of this ancient story? Is it telling the truth about ourselves,
our mates, and our relationship to our Creator God? Or is it simply an ancient myth, without
meaning for our modern world?
We choose to believe the story as profoundly true–as our story!
34
For the Hebrew Bible’s use of this verb rPt, thaphar, “to sew,” see:
Genesis 3:7, here, the plural, hithpael form, WrP.t.YIw:, wayyithperu, “and they sewed”;
Ezekiel 13:18, the “sewing” has to do with wrist-bands and veils sewn by female prophetesses
(sacred prostitutes?) as religiously significant;
Job 16:15, Job states that he has sewn sack-cloth over his skin, an expression of his extreme
weakness and mourning;
Ecclesiastes 3:7, there is a time to sew as well as a time to tear.
The sewing together of fig-leaves is a vain attempt by the human beings to “cover up” their
nakedness, with skirts.
Hamilton comments that “...They attempt to alleviate the problem themselves. Rather than
driving them back to God, their guilt leads them into a self-atoning, self-protecting procedure:
they must cover themselves.” (P. 191)
Do you think this ancient story means that, rather than approaching God in open honesty
and confession and admission, we seek to cover up our guilt by all sorts of flimsy, self-made
“coverings” or “atonements”?
What about you? Do you have no guilts, nothing to be ashamed of in your past? And if
so, can you imagine that somehow you are covering up the truth about yourself and your world?
Or, are you blind to your own faults, perhaps hidden to others, or perhaps obvious to others while
unacknowledged by yourself?
35
The phrase is hn"aet. hle[], (aleh the)enah, literally “leaf (of) fig,” using the singular cons-
(continued...)
117

36
for themselves skirts.
35
(...continued)
truct form of the noun. Several Hebrew manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek
translation, Sperber’s Targum, the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and the Latin Vulgate read the
plural construct form of the noun, yleä[], (aley, “leaves of (fig)” This is obviously the easier reading,
and indicates that it is most probably a later correction of the more difficult original text. The
variant reading does not change the meaning of Genesis. We think the use of the singular is
because of its being used collectively.
The noun hn"aet., the)enah, “fig,” or “fig-tree,” occurs 39 times in the Hebrew Bible, but
none of these passages throw any light on this text in Genesis.
Hamilton comments that “the fig tree produces the largest leaves of any tree that grows in
Palestine, and if such large-leafed trees were in the garden, then the couple would choose those
that provide most coverage.” (P. 191)
Such a comment assumes, of course, that this story had its origin in Palestine–which may
be probable, but is by no means certain, especially if it is rooted in prior stories told throughout the
ancient Near East.
However we may decide this matter, what the text pictures is at best a very pitiful attempt
at “cover-up.” The attempt may be successful in hiding their nakedness from each other, but not
from YHWH their God. And the “cover-up” garments will not last for long, as the leaves wither.
So it is with all our pitiful human attempts to hide the truth about ourselves from our God.
What do you think? Do we still seek to make “cover-up garments” for our nakedness, to
hide our broken relationship with God? Is this one of the roots of alcoholism and drug addiction?
Are we seeking to hide from ourselves, and from God? What about the workaholic, or the fanatic
sports-fan, who never stops to look deep within, to evaluate the meaning of life and ask concerning
their responsibility to God? What about the person who refuses to see what consequences
his or her actions, or failures to act, have had on others?
36
The feminine plural noun trogOx], chaghoroth, means “girdles,”or “loin-coverings,” or “belts.”
The root word is found some four times elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:
2 Samuel 18:11, evidently meaning a “(warrior’s) belt,” awarded for killing an opponent along with
money;
1 Kings 2:5, David tells Solomon that Joab stained the “(soldier’s) belt” around his waist with the
blood of innocent fellow-commanders, Abner and Amasa;
2 Kings 3:21, the person in Moab who was able to fight against the advancing kings of Northern
Israel and Judah is described as one who ‘hr"gOx] rgEÜxo, “belting a (warrior’s) belt;
Isaiah 3:24. In this last passage it clearly means an article of woman’s dress, while in the other
passages it refers to a part of a soldier’s battle-dress.
(continued...)
118

3.8 aBex;t.YIw: ~AYh;x;Wrl. !G"B; %Leh;t.mi ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> lAq-ta, W[m.v.YIw;
`!G"h; #[e %AtB. ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> ynEP.mi ATv.aiw> ~d'a'h': And they heard the voice of YHWH
37 38 39
God walking in the garden at the day’s breeze; and the human being hid himself,
36
(...continued)
The Greek translation here in Genesis 3:7 is perizw,mata, perizomata, which means
literally “things put on around,” and is used for “aprons,” whether worn by athletes, priests, cooks,
or iron-smiths.
Wenham thinks that the description of the immediate actions of the man and woman
“...suggest urgency and desperation; the innocent serenity of 2:25 is shattered.” (P. 76)
Fretheim comments that the man and the woman “realize that, now having to decide for
themselves what is in their own best interests, everything looks somewhat different. Having decided
to be on their own, they see the world entirely through their own eyes. They now operate
totally out of their own resources.” (P. 361)
And, we add, such an operation is a failure! The story is, we think, a description of humanity’s
feeble attempt to hide from the Creator, in what Westermann calls “primeval time,” the time
before human history and civilization. We think that humanity would have made much greater
progress in civilization by walking hand-in-hand with the Creator, obeying His command, than they
did by attempting to be masters of their own existence, seeking to follow their own desires rather
than His word. Already in the garden, the beginnings of “science” and “civilization” had occurred,
with the human’s naming of the animals. Surely, if the woman and her husband had trusted the
Divine command, and refused to listen to the voice of the creature instead, great advances in
knowledge and “civilization” would have rapidly followed.
Compare footnote 104, with its reference to Immanuel Kant and D.R.G. Beattie’s praise of
the woman’s disobedience as contributing to the “rise” of humanity, not its “fall.”
37
In an apparent attempt to lessen the anthropomorphism (depiction of YHWH God in human
terms) of the text, Rashi (according to Levush), Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Radak and others hold that “It
is the sound, not God, that is being modified by the verb ‘walking.’” (Bereishis 1, p. 122)
In fact, the verb (hithpael masculine singular participle) may be used for either the voice, or
much more likely, for God–both of which are masculine singular nouns in Hebrew. But surely it is
better to think in terms of God walking, rather than the Divine voice walking!
38
Fox translates by “at the breezy-time of the day.l”
This is the very height of “anthropomorphism”–the depiction of the transcendent God in
terms of human limitations. The voice of YHWH God is heard, as He walks, strolls through the
garden in the afternoon breeze. Fox comments that “The ‘face’ or presence of God is a domin-
(continued...)
119

38
(...continued)
ating theme in many biblical sources and in Psalms. People seek God’s face / presence or hide
from it; God reveals it to them or hides it from them.” (P. 22)
What do you think? Do you picture God as literally talking or singing to Himself, taking
refreshment from the heat of the day, as the late afternoon breeze blows?
The voice of YHWH God is not heard by the guilty couple in a threatening thunderstorm
and lightning, but in the cool breeze of the afternoon. We ask, when and where can we today
hear that Divine voice?
See footnotes 7, 11 and 16 for this two-fold description of God as transcendent in chapter
1, and as immanent in chapters 2-4. We are not wise to understand such depictions literally; but
neither are we are wise to reject the understanding that the all-powerful, transcendent God is also
our Companion, Who is always close to us, seeking to reveal Himself and communicate with us.
So, we think, the Hebrew Bible delights to inform its readers–and this depiction of YHWH God as
deeply personal and human-like lays a strong foundation for the New Testament understanding
of Jesus as YHWH in human flesh. Do you agree?
Fretheim comments that according to this story, “The Creator of the universe and all creatures
chooses not to relate to the world at a distance, but takes on human form, goes for a walk
among the creatures, and personally engages them regarding recent events. The writer presents
no naive theology, but a deeply profound understanding of how God chooses to enter into the life
of the world and relate to the creatures. Even more, this God comes to the man and the woman
subsequent to their sin; God does not leave them or refuse to walk [in their presence because of
their guilt].” (P. 362) Do you agree with Fretheim?
Oftentimes Christian theologians such as Augustine, Calvin and Luther have depicted God
as having abandoned humanity as “hereditarily depraved” following their “fall,” and separated from
God by “original sin.” But in our view, this is not true to the Genesis story. As the biblical story
develops, God remains close to His human creatures, clothing them, speaking to them, warning
them, accepting their worship (Cain and Abel, in Genesis 4), walking Hand in hand with individuals
(Enoch, Genesis 5:22, and Noah, Genesis 6:9), saving them in their hours of need, judging
and destroying them for their continued sinfulness, but still leading them out into a better future,
calling an individual (Abraham, Genesis 12:1-3) to be the founder of a nation through which
blessings will come to all the families of the earth, forgiving them when asked in humble penitence
(David, compare Psalm 51). It is an on-going story that continues throughout the Hebrew Bible,
and continues on into the New Testament.
The God of the Bible is humanity’s Judge; but He is at the same time humanity’s Friend
and Savior!
The New Testament writer, Paul, in Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 and 1
(continued...)
120

38
(...continued)
Timothy 2:11-15 reflects on the damaging consequences of the first humans’ disobedience–how
the disobedience of one brought death and condemnation upon all humanity, comparing that one
decisive act with the even more decisive act of Jesus Christ, Whose death brings the free gift of
forgiveness and justification to all humanity.
But the Bible, and Paul himself, join in teaching that the descendants of Adam and Eve
have repeated that initial transgression time and again themselves–perhaps partially as a result of
heredity–but also as a result of their conscious choice to disobey the Divine commandment, whether
given through the voice of conscience or through the Mosaic Torah–see Romans 1-3, where
Paul does not say the world is under condemnation because of what Adam did, but because of
what the world–both Jews and non-Jews–have themselves done, especially because of humanity’s
choice to worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator (i.e., “idolatry”).
To assume that Paul excludes humanity’s responsibility for its condemnation, whether in
Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15, is, we believe, mistaken. Paul teaches that Jesus Christ’s gracious
gift of justification is for all humanity. But here again, it must not be taken to mean that there
is no human choice or responsibility involved, for Paul (along with the entire New Testament)
teaches that the Divinely offered gift must be received in obedient faith, if it is to result in salvation.
Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 reflects, we believe, Paul’s battle with Greek religion
such as played a dominant role in Ephesus, with its temple of Diana–in which women were
viewed as the unique messengers of the Mother Goddess, and men were excluded from such a
role (think of the oracle of Delphi). He calls on Christian women to allow men to take leadership–
but overstates his case, implying that having been created first, the male is superior to the female
who was deceived, not the male.
But in fact, the biblical story depicts both Eve and Adam as equally guilty, and as both
sharing in the Divine judgment that followed their transgression. See footnote 28. In the first
creation-story of Genesis, the two sexes are depicted as having been created at the same time
by one Divine act, and as equally called to rule over God’s good creation–not as if the male were
superior to the female.
What do you think?
We insist that to condemn all humanity throughout the ages because of one single misdeed
of their common ancestor is not only completely unreasonable and unjust (we ask, with
Abraham, Will not the Judge of all the earth do what is right? Genesis 18:25); it is also contrary
to the teaching of Ezekiel 18 that the children shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers. Of
course, if the children act like their fathers, committing the same or similar misdeeds, their condemnation
is both reasonable and just–and the condemnation of the fathers passes down to
them--and that is what humanity as a whole, and we still today, both have done and continue to
do.
Neither Judaism nor Islam have any such doctrine as “the fall,” or “hereditary depravity.”
(continued...)
121

40
and his wife, from YHWH God’s presence, in (the) middle of the tree(s) of the garden.
38
(...continued)
They both agree that while death came into the world through the first human couple’s disobedience
to the Divine command, their descendants are able, through penitence and prayer, to receive
forgiveness, and learn to walk with God with hope for a better future. See Wikipedia on the
Internet, “The Fall of Man,” and “Original Sin.”
39
Wenham notes that the Samaritan Pentateuch omits the definite article, reading “Adam” (as
a personal name, instead of “the human being.” (P. 48)
40
NIVSB notes that the garden, “once a place of joy and fellowship with God...became a place
of fear and of hiding from God.” (P. 10)
As Westermann notes, “By eating the forbidden fruit they have become different. The two
are now ashamed in each others presence and cover themselves. The disruption is now heightened:
the garments of fig leaves are ineffective at the sound of God’s footsteps. They now realize
that despite the covering they are exposed before God; they are afraid and hide.” (P. 254)
Fretheim comments that these reactions of the humans “could be viewed as a consequence
of achieving autonomy; the man could not handle the new ‘knowledge.’ He appears
fearful, insecure, and ashamed, seeking to justify himself and deflecting blame, both to God for
giving him the woman and to the woman for giving him the fruit to eat...This situation attests to a
breakdown in inter-human relationships as well as in the relationship with God, Whom he does
not engage in a straightforward manner.” (P. 362)
Hirsch states, “They had lost the worthy status of human beings, and slunk away in hiding
among the lower creatures.” (Bereishis 1, p. 123)
Wenham comments that “The trust of innocence is replaced by the fear of guilt.” (P. 76)
Here we find the first mention of the biblical theme of “hiding from God.” For a profound
treatment of this subject see Psalm 139, with its challenge to any and every attempt of human
beings to hide or escape from YHWH:
O YHWH, You have searched me and known me.
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You discern my thoughts from far away.
You search out my path and my lying down,
and are acquainted with all my ways.
Even before a word is on my tongue,
O YHWH, You know it completely.
You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay Your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is so high that I cannot attain to it.
Where can I go from Your Spirit?
(continued...)
122

41 42
3.9 `hK'Y

43 44
the human being, and He said to him, Where (are) you? 3.10 yTi[.m;v' ^l.qo-ta, rm,aYOw:
41
(...continued)
What do you think?
Is this ancient story depicting YHWH God as a condemning Judge, Who pronounces the
sentence of expulsion from His presence on the guilty couple, or as God, the Redeemer, seeking
His lost children? If He is their Redeemer, seeking the lost, why does He not forgive them, then
and there, and refuse to pronounce sentence upon them?
Our response is that YHWH God is being depicted as both their Judge, Who pronounces
their sentence, and at the same time, their Redeemer, Who wants them and their descendants to
take His hand, and walk with Him out into the future. Do you agree?
42
Wenham quotes Cassuto (P. 155), “Nevertheless, the brusque ‘the Lord God called’ suggests
the Judge of the whole earth is calling man in order to demand an account of his conduct.”
(P. 76)
Fretheim notes that “Yet, even in the sentencing, God remains in relationship with the
creatures involved, connected and concerned enough to identify further what has just happened.”
(P. 362)
43
Abarbanel comments that “God addressed His call to the man, and not to the woman because
it was Adam who had originally been commanded.” (Bereishis 1, p. 123)
ESVSB similarly states that “God thus confronts Adam first, holding him primarily responsible
for what happened, as the one who is the representative (or ‘head’) of the husband-and-wife
relationship.” (P. 55)
We think that this comment is reading New Testament theology into the Hebrew Bible,
which says nothing of Adam as “head” of his wife. In the punishments that follow, the wife’s punishment
precedes that of the husband; and the two are held equally responsible for their disobedience.
Included in the woman’s punishment is the fact that her husband will “ruler over her”–but
that is a change in the former relationship, which included no such domineering. What do you
think? If Adam already ruled over her, how can that be a punishment of Eve?
Westermann comments that “It is crucial to the understanding of the narrative that God’s
call introduces what follows. The call alone articulates the disruption that has entered into an
offense against God; at the same time it makes clear that the succession of events which follows,
leading finally to punishment and expulsion from the garden, comes from God’s concern for His
people...The God Who punishes is the God who cares for people.” (P. 254)
What do you think?
What if YHWH God, according to the story, had simply overlooked, or benevolently pardoned
what the first woman and man had done, failing to hold them responsible for their actions?
What would they have done then, if their disobedience went unnoticed and unpunished? What
(continued...)
124

43
(...continued)
happens to our children if we don’t pay enough attention to know what they are doing? What
happens when they violate the law (through stealing, or vandalizing the property of others) and we
refuse to confront them, facing them with the consequences? What kind of parenting is that?
What about the parents of the two high-school students in Littleton, Colorado, who were
making bombs and gathering together an arsenal in their family-garage, right under their parents’
noses, but who were not confronted or stopped? Was there nothing more they could do than
what they did? Was it merciful and kind for them to allow their sons to go on in their head-strong,
angry plans and actions? Do you agree with Westermann that “The God who punishes is the
God who cares...”? Would you agree that “The parent who punishes is the parent who cares”?
And if not, why not? Do you have the courage to confront and punish your children? Where is
the “grace” in that? Better still, where is the “grace” in not punishing?
Again, what kind of parenting is it if at the first violation of the law by our child, we cast
them out of our home, and condemn them and their descendants as “hereditarily totally depraved,”
and have nothing more to do with them? What chance do children with parents like that have
of succeeding in life?
We have remarked again and again concerning the profundity of this ancient story, and its
relevance to our modern world. What do you think? Will you just laugh at this biblical story, with
its walking and talking snake, and refuse to find any meaningful guidance in it?
44
As if YHWH God did not fully know the human beings’ whereabouts!
Hamilton comments that “The Lord addresses a question rather than a command to the
secluded man, for God ‘must draw rather than drive him out of hiding.’ (Quoting Kidner) He is the
Good Shepherd Who seeks the lost sheep. Such a context calls for a display of tenderness rather
than toughness. Had God asked, ‘Why are you hiding?’ instead of ‘Where are you?’, His question
would have drawn attention to the silliness, stupidity, and futility of the couple’s attempt to
hide from Him...” (P. 193)
There are similar questions asked Cain concerning where his brother Abel is (Genesis 4:
9); and asked Hagar concerning where she had come from, and where she was going (Genesis
16:8).
What do you think? What does it mean when the Divine voice addresses us in our nakedness
and guilt, asking us where we are–especially when in fact we are seeking to hide our true
selves and our actions from God? Is God trying to find out? Or is He seeking to draw us into
communication with Himself, for our own good?
Rashi and Ibn Ezra hold that “God knew where he was, but the question was merely a
means of initiating a dialogue with him so he would not be terrified to repent (or to reply) as he
would be if God were suddenly to punish him. God acted similarly with Cain (Genesis 4:9); with
Balaam (Numbers 22:9 ‘who are these men with you?’); and with Hezekiah (Isaiah 39, where the
spokesperson asks concerning the men from Babylon who had come to Hezekiah, and what they
(continued...)
125

`abex'aew" ykinOa' ~roy[e-yKi ar'yaiw" !G"B; And he said, I heard Your voice in the garden, and I
45 46 47
was afraid, because I (am) naked, and I hid myself. 3.11 yKi ^l.dyGIhi ymi rm,aYOw:
44
(...continued)
said).” (Beresheis 1, p. 123)
Ralbag notes that “Moralistically, God’s conversation with Adam and Eve teaches that before
a human judge condemns someone he should first confront him personally to ascertain whether
he has an explanation. For though God was fully familiar with all the facts, He did not punish
them until He conversed with them and afforded them the opportunity to reveal any excuse they
might have had.” (Ibid., p. 124)
The editors of Bereishis comment that “It was apparently obvious, even to Adam, that
God’s question ‘Where are you?’ was but rhetorical and introductory. He does not answer by
identifying where he is hiding; he explains only why he is hiding.” (Ibid.)
Hamilton also notes that the Divine question is addressed only to the man, perhaps subsuming
the woman in addressing the man.
But we think that whereas the man has hitherto failed to take responsibility for his action,
and has only haphazardly gone along with his wife’s offer, now the Divine voice calls the man to
take full responsibility for what he has done.
Is this question addressed to the man as “the head of the household,” who must take responsibility
for what has happened in his home? What do you think? Is the male more responsible
for what happens in the human family than the female? Is this a remnant of male chauvinism?
And if it is, how is it that the woman is treated in what follows as equally responsible to the
man? Compare footnote 12 with Phyllis Trible’s statement concerning the woman’s being more
intelligent than the man, according to this story.
45 st
Where the Hebrew text reads the 1 person singular qal imperfect with waw-conversive /
st
consecutive, ar'²yaiw", wa)iyra), “and I was afraid,” the Syriac reads the qal future, 1 person
singular, also with waw-conversive / consecutive, ar,aew", wa)ere), “and I saw.” This eliminates
the depiction of the human’s being afraid before the Divine presence, and thus slightly changes
the meaning of Genesis.
In the garden, the couple has chosen not to tremble in obedience before YHWH God’s
command; they have heedlessly taken it upon themselves to follow their own desires (or, the
voice of the serpent; or, the voice of the woman), heedless of that Divine command. Now, that
refusal to tremble before YHWH God’s word becomes a different kind of “fear.” They no longer
live in a close, trusting relationship with YHWH God, trembling before, respecting the Divine
command; but now they are possessed by a different kind of “fear”–they are afraid of YHWH God,
(continued...)
126

ì T'l.k'a' WNM,mi]-lk'a] yTil.bil. ^ytiyWIc rv,a] #[eh'-!mih] hT'a' ~roy[e And He said, Who
48
told you that you (are) naked? Have you eaten from the tree which I commanded you not to eat
45
(...continued)
and seek to hide themselves from His presence.
What do you think? What does the Bible mean when it teaches us to live in “the fear of
God”? Is there any difference between “trembling awe,” and “being afraid”?
46
The man does not answer YHWH God’s question, “Where are you?” directly, but rather,
indirectly, as he begins to explain why he is where he is–hiding from the Divine presence.
Wenham comments that “In language reminiscent of verse 8, man first mentions his hiding
among the trees. ‘He does not dare lie before his Creator, but he is not yet willing to avow his sin;
hence he strives to turn the conversation to another subject, the last thing that happened after his
transgression.’” (P. 77, quoting Cassuto)
Westermann comments that “These words encompass something much broader and much
more basic than what we call sin or guilt, consciousness of sin or consciousness of guilt. It is the
couple’s fear of being naked before God, of being unmasked before God, in spite of their selfmade
protective covering. The profound insight of the narrative is this, that the couple’s nakedness,
their exposure before God, is represented as something that is new, as that which is different.”
(P. 253)
We might say that the question means “Where are you in relation to Me?”, much more than
simply “Where are you physically?” And the answer means, “We are no longer the same as we
were before–formerly, we were able to freely communicate with You, our God. Something has
gone wrong within us; we see ourselves differently; we are afraid to be in Your presence. We are
filled with shame because of what we have done. This is what is new; this is what is different.
Loving You, trusting You, obeying Your command, we could live joyously and openly in Your presence,
delighting to share our lives openly with You, constantly growing and learning, becoming
more and more accustomed to Your presence, able to exercise dominion over the earth. But
now, we are no longer the same as before. Having pretended to be Your equals, able to act like
little Gods, we are filled with fear and shame; we are no longer able to act like Your loving, confident
children. Something has gone radically wrong with us!”
47
Simpson comments on verse 11 that “The impression conveyed by the record of the questioning
which follows is not that God had to make an inquisition to find out what had happened,
but rather that He at once knew the cause of man’s shame and was compelling him and his wife
to convict themselves. This is in agreement with the clear though implicit representation in the
account of the sentencing of the serpent, the woman, and the man–that God was in complete and
enduring control of the situation which confronted Him.” (P. 508)
48
Abarbanel puts words into God’s mouth: “You were always naked until now, and yet you
never hid. Who revealed something to you that you were never aware of before?” (Bereishis 1,
(continued...)
127

49
from it? 3.12 #[eh'-!mi yLi-hn"t.n" awhi ydIM'[i hT't;n" rv,a] hV'aih' ~d'a'h' rm,aYOw:
48
(...continued)
pp. 124-25)
“God knew the answer, but He wanted to elicit Adam’s response (Radak)...
“God opened the dialogue to give Adam the opportunity to acknowledge his sin and be
pardoned. But Adam did not confess. Instead, as the next verse shows, he hurled against God
the very kindness which God had shown him, the gift of Eve, by implying that God had caused
him to sin by giving him that woman (Midrash Aggadah).” (Ibid., p. 125)
49
Wenham comments that the Divine questions “...are not those of an ignorant inquirer. Their
very formulation suggests the all-knowing detective who by his questioning prods the culprit into
confessing his guilt.” (P. 77)
Westermann comments that “The purpose of the trial scene is to make clear to the man
and the woman what they have done...What is said does not imply any judgment; it is merely to
establish the facts.” (Pp. 254-55)
The man’s somewhat evasive answer to YHWH God’s first question is responded to by two
further questions, which make it perfectly clear that YHWH God knows exactly what the man has
done, even though the Divine response is framed in questions. He has eaten the forbidden fruit,
and has come to a certain kind of knowledge of good and evil–he knows that he is naked, whereas
previously his nakedness was accepted as natural, and nothing to be ashamed of. But now
things have changed. What he has learned through disobedience makes him feel ashamed, and
afraid of God, rather than allowing him to approach God in loving adoration or fellowship.
YHWH God’s second question is in Hamilton’s words, the question of a prosecutor. Still,
rather than directly charge the man with his disobedience, the question is intended for the purpose
of leading the man to examine himself, and acknowledge what he has done. The question is
then, not intended to condemn, but rather to lead to recognition and confession.
What do you think? Can there be forgiveness of human disobedience apart from acknowledgment
and confession? Cannot God, in His loving kindness, simply forgive His wayward children,
and refuse to confront them and punish them?
What about in human relationships? Can there be genuine forgiveness of crimes committed
against us and our families (such as rape, kidnaping, murder, extortion, betrayal, etc.) apart
from genuine acknowledgment, confession, and sincere seeking of forgiveness?
What is the difference between “true grace” and “cheap grace”? What does Jesus mean in
Luke 17:3 when he says, “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive
him”? Can there be genuine forgiveness without genuine repentance? Can, or does, or should
God forgive apart from genuine acknowledgment and confession?
128

`lkeaow" And the human being said, The woman whom You placed with me, she, she gave to me
50
from the tree, and I ate. 3.13 rm,aTow: tyfi[' taZO-hm; hV'ail' ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> rm,aYOw:
50
The guilty, shame-filled human being is not condemned without a word; he is not refused the
right to make the strongest self-defense possible. He is obviously in the wrong–but YHWH God
allows him to explain, to give reason for what he has done. YHWH God treats His human creature
with great respect, and summons him to give answer before Him. We are reminded of
YHWH’s summons to Job to give answer to his questions, to defend himself.
But, instead of being a “reasoned defense” (an “apology” in the Greek sense of the word),
the human’s response is little more than an exercise in “passing the buck,” or “placing of blame”–
and that, ultimately on God Himself. The man could have easily answered in the affirmative–
“Yes, I have done what You have said–I have broken Your command, I have eaten from the forbidden
fruit, and I have brought shame upon myself.” But no, the human being chooses to point
his finger at the woman who gave the fruit to him to eat, and then goes even further to point the
finger of blame at YHWH God, for after all, it was YHWH God who gave him the woman.
Ramban has Adam saying, “You gave her to me as a helpmate and I was justified in assuming
that her counsel was good”; Chizkuni adds, “And I didn’t even know from which tree she
had taken the fruit! I trusted her and accepted it.” (Bereishis 1, p. 125)
As Hamilton notes, “Through rationalization the criminal becomes the victim, and it is God
and the woman who emerge as the real instigators in this scenario. Adam plays up their contribution
in his demise and downplays his own part. By postponing his own involvement until the last
word in the verse, Adam attempts to minimize his part in this sin.” (P. 194)
Wenham comments that as people commonly do in such situations, “the man tries to excuse
himself by blaming the woman and implying that it was really God’s fault for giving him this
woman. Here the divisive effects of sin, setting man against his dearest companion (compare
2:23) and alienating him from his all-caring Creator, are splendidly portrayed. ‘This too is characteristically
human: people are inclined to justify their conduct by pointing to the circumstances and
fate that God has allotted them in life’ (Cassuto, p. 157).” (P. 77)
And, the fact is, according to the ancient story, the man is right. The woman gave him the
fruit to eat; and YHWH God had given him the woman. So, as you think about it, you realize that
YHWH God is the One to blame, if blame is to be assessed–not the human being.
What do you think? How modern is this kind of response? Who is the Author of human
sexual desire anyway? Who placed all of these hormones in my body, who gave me eyes to see,
who made other women than my mate, with such beautiful bodies, so desirable to my senses?
If alcohol or mind-altering drugs are so sinful, where did they come from? Who created the
grapevine, and the marijuana and the coca tree and the poppy plants in the first place? Who
gave all of these things to us? Who made us the way we are, with all of our desires and longings?
If our Creator didn’t want us to desire these things, why did He make us this way? We are
not criminals, we are victims; if blame is to be assessed, let the Creator God be the first One to be
(continued...)
129

`lkeaow" ynIa;yVihi vx'N"h; hV'aih' And YHWH God said to the woman, What (is) this you
51 52
did? And the woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate.
50
(...continued)
found guilty!
What about you? Have you ever made such excuses for your conduct?
Ibn Latif notes that “God does not reply to Adam’s puny rationale; silence conveys His
rejection.” (Bereishis 1, p. 126)
51
The first question to the male in verse 9 is “Where are you?” Here, the question to the woman
is, “What have you done?,” assuming that the woman has already heard the first question and
her husband’s reply, “passing the buck,” placing the blame on her and on YHWH God.
This is “Another rhetorical question, the answer of which He already knew from Adam’s
statement, but which He posed anyway to urge Eve toward repentance (Sforno; Aderes Eliyahu)...God
turned to Eve saying ‘what is this that you have done?’ in the hope that she would confess
so He could forgive them both. But she did not do this; instead she attempted to exonerate
herself by thrusting responsibility on the serpent (Midrash Aggadah).” (Bereishis 1, p. 126)
52
The “passing the buck” game goes on. The woman admits what she has done, but refuses
to take responsibility for her disobedience, pointing the finger of guilt at the serpent. She could
have well added, and it is probably understood by the ancient story as being implicit, that YHWH
God had made the serpent and placed it in the garden (see verse 1). So, if anyone is to blame, it
is ultimately YHWH God Himself–not the woman. So she implies in an answer that is somewhat
more straight-forward and honest than the man’s–in that she admits that she has been deceived,
and has therefore acted mistakenly.
Wenham comments that “Once again the guilty party attempts to shift the blame onto
someone else, this time the serpent: ‘The snake fooled me and I ate.’ Already the peace that
characterized man’s original relationship with the animals is shattered. Sin has put alienation
between God and man, between men and women, and between animals and men.” (P. 78)
Westermann strangely comments that “The intention of the narrator is clear: the origin of
evil cannot be explained. The sentences of punishment which follow immediately are ultimately
inexplicable, thus plumbing the depths of human responsibility.” (P. 256)
We disagree–believing that the passage very profoundly and truthfully explains the origin
of evil–which lies in the decision taken by the woman and the man to listen to the voice of YHWH
God’s creature, rather than to the voice of YHWH God himself. The story clearly teaches, we
think, that God has given His creatures (the serpent, and the woman) the ability to test and try
human loyalty in just this way.
We are reminded of the motif of “testing in the wilderness” in Exodus and Numbers, which
(continued...)
130

53
3.14 -lK'mi hT'a; rWra' taZO t'yfi[' yKi vx'N"h;-la, ~yhil{a/ hA'hy> rm,aYOw:
`^yY-lK' lk;aTo rp'['w> %lete; ^n>xoG>-l[; hd,F'h; tY:x; lKomiW hm'heB.h; And
52
(...continued)
depicts YHWH’s testing Israel by giving her His commandments, to see whether or not Israel
would obey Him. We are also reminded of the 40-day period of testing of Jesus, the beloved
Son, in the wilderness, where He is stringently tempted to disobey the Divine commandment and
call in His life.
What do you think?
Is this our story, the story of Everyman and Everywoman? Have you personally been tried
in this way? How so?
53
Sarna comments that "Human beings have arrogated the right to make decisions concerning
human welfare independently of God and in defiance of His norms. They have lost their innocence
and must assume full responsibility for their actions." (P. 27)
There is a broken relationship now, says this story, between humanity and snakes (perhaps
intended as representatives of the animal kingdom). The original "peace" of the Luxurious
Place has been shattered, and hostility now stands where humanity's responsible rulership over
the animals should have been. The text quickly moves from the individual actors of the story to a
universal application.
Westermann claims that verses 14-19 contain a later addition to the original story which
depicted the expulsion from the garden and alienation from God as the only penalty inflicted upon
the human couple. He states that “The punishments in verses 14-19 on the contrary have no
direct relationship with the offense: they describe factually the present state of existence of
serpent, woman and man which by way of after-thought are explained as punishments.” (Pp.
256-57)
This is certainly possible, as far as speculation concerning an earlier form of the story is
concerned–but the story in its canonical form–the only story that we have, with which biblical
interpretation has to be concerned, includes these punishments alongside the expulsion from the
garden, and they are, we think, most appropriately fitted to the crime.
Fretheim comments on these same verses that “every conceivable relationship has been
disrupted: among the animals; between an animal and humans; between the ground and humans;
between human beings and God; between an animal and God; within the individual self (e.g.,
shame). More abstractly, one could speak of humiliation, domination and subordination, conflict,
suffering, and struggle. The sentences touch every aspect [we would say, many aspects] of human
life: marriage and sexuality; birth and death; work and food; human and nonhuman. In all of
these areas, one could speak of death encroaching on life. Disharmony reigns supreme.” (P.
363)
131

54 55 56
YHWH God said to the serpent, Because you did this, you are cursed more than all the
54
“The Midrash notes that with Adam, God first discussed the matter [before pronouncing sentence];
with Eve He first discussed the matter [before pronouncing sentence]; but with the serpent
He entered into no discussion (but immediately cursed him).” (Bereishis 1, p. 127)
55
The qal passive participle rWra', )arur, “cursed,” or “under a curse,” is translated into Greek
by evpikata,ratoj, epikataratos, which is a strengthened form of kata,ratoj, kataratos, “accursed,”
“abominable,” and means “yet more accursed,” “even more abominable.” Fox translates by
“damned be you.”
For the verb rra )arar, “to curse,” see Josef Scharbert’s article in Theological Dictionary
of the Old Testament I, pp. 405-18. The ancient Near East with its magical religions was
filled with “curses,” and it was widely believed that such curses were highly effective, and very
difficult to counteract. This is the background of the Divine curses placed upon creatures and
persons in the Hebrew Bible–but here there is no magic–and the Divine “curse” can be avoided
by means of penitent seeking of YHWH’s forgiveness.
For example, see Genesis 5:29 where it is stated by Noah’s father that he (Noah) will “give
us rest” from the Divine curse placed upon the ground.
Hamilton translates, “banned shall you be from all cattle...”, holding that the traditional translation
which we have followed “...Makes little sense, for it implicates all the animals in the serpent’s
sin...What is imposed on the serpent is alienation from the other members of the animal
world...” (P. 194)
We think however, that the text means that the entire animal world is under a Divine curse,
because of what one of its members has done–causing humanity to listen to its voice rather than
to the voice of YHWH God–and that the serpent is “especially cursed,” more than any other of the
animals. We think that Hamilton is attempting to eliminate this idea from the text, because of its
theological consequences, and his failure to understand the ancient story in symbolical terms–as
if all serpents (and all other animals) were in reality “cursed.” In biblical pictures of the “good
times coming” the curse is removed from the serpent (as well as all other animals)–see, for example,
Isaiah 11:6-9. Also, see Paul’s teaching in Romans 8:18-24 concerning the whole creation’s
being “under bondage to decay,” eagerly awaiting being set free.
56
We are tempted to translate the phrase hm'êheB.h;-lK'mi, mikkol-habbehemah by “(cursed)
from or by all of the cattle,” in the sense that the curse will be visited upon the serpent by the other
living creatures (the cattle) that will hate and seek to destroy the serpent. Compare the later
use of the phrase “cursed from” in Genesis 4:11, where Cain is “cursed from the ground,” which
may well mean that the curse on Cain will proceed “from the ground,” as it refuses to yield its
strength to him. But we think that the preposition !mi, min, literally “from,” means “more than” in
contexts such as this; thus we translate “cursed more than all the cattle.”
132

57
cattle, and more than all wild animal(s) of the field; upon your belly you will move; and dust you
58
will eat, all your life’s days. 3.15 !ybeW ^[]r>z: !ybeW hV'aih' !ybeW ^n>yBe tyvia' hb'yaew>
57
The text says simply %lete ^n>xoG>-l[;, (al gechoneka thelek, “upon your belly you will
move (literally, ‘walk’),” but the Greek adds a phrase: evpi. tw/| sth,qei sou kai. th/ | koili,a| poreu,-
sh|, epi to stethei sou kai te koilia poreuse, literally “upon the chest of yours, and upon the
belly, you will go.”
The literalistic way of interpreting this part of the ancient, highly symbolical story, is to understand
that serpents / snakes originally had legs, and were able to move stand upright and walk
on their feet or paws, like the other cattle and land-animals. But now, as a part of the Divine
curse, the serpent / snake loses its legs, and instead of walking and running across the earth, has
to glide upon its belly. This is the kind of understanding that leads to the belief that women have
one more rib than do men. But taking symbolical stories literally, and understanding parables /
allegories (as in Ezekiel 16) / fables (as in Judges 9:7-15) / myths (as in the opening chapters of
Genesis) as historical realities, leads to nonsense, and is not the manner in which such symbolical
language and stories are intended, but is, in fact, misinterpretation.
We think it much better to understand the ancient story as depicting the universal situation
of “groaning” and “bondage to decay” such as Paul mentions in Romans 8:21-23, and to see the
serpent as representative of the animal kingdom which has shared in the consequences of human
disobedience.
58
The ancient story holds that the serpent is additionally cursed by YHWH God to “eating dust”
throughout its entire life, and it seems obvious that the ancient story-teller thought that serpents /
snakes actually had a diet of “dust” or “dirt.” Herpatologists today know that reptiles have a different
diet than that–they eat rodents and other mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, insects,
and eggs.
But literalistic interpretation of the story as Divinely true in all its details has to think in terms
of reptiles “eating dirt”–in the same manner that they have to think of men as having one less rib
than women, and of the original reptiles as walking on legs that YHWH God removed as part of a
literal curse. Such problems point to the obvious truth that the ancient story, if it is to have any
meaning for modern understanding, must be understood in terms of symbolism –i.e., not literally,
but rather as a parable / myth, intended to explain the origin of suffering, pain, and death, in a
world created “all good” by the great Creator God.
The literal understanding of this story, and of any such literature is both unfortunate and
grossly inadequate. Parables and allegories and symbolical stories must be understood for what
they are, not as literal, factual, historical statements. Stories such as these in Genesis 1-4 are
not intended to be taken literally in this manner, nor should we ask such questions of them (for
example, “Where did Cain get his wife?” Or, “Who was Cain afraid might kill him?”)
Hamilton states that “Obviously, snakes do not eat dust, and no ancient writer ever thought
they did. One has to take this passage symbolically, not literally. Therefore, it is fruitless to see in
(continued...)
133

59
`bqe[' WNp,WvT. hT'a;w> varo ^p.Wvy> aWh H['r>z: And I will place enmity between you and
60 61 62
the woman, and between your descendant(s) and her descendant(s). He will strike you (on
58
(...continued)
this particular verse an etiology of why snakes no longer walk on legs and why they lost their
legs.” (P. 196)
We agree with this, but are not sure that ancient writers did not think serpents ate dust, or
once had legs and walked upright on feet (as Rashi holds, see Bereishis 1, p. 128).
Radak states that “The serpent tried to entice man to sin by eating; he was punished in the
same way.”
Hirsch states that “Actually, snakes do not eat earth, but feed on living creatures. The ‘eating
of dust’ may be a figurative picture of creeping about on its belly...” (Ibid.)
Hirsch and Malbim hold that “The whole world, including its animal life, had been doomed
by man’s sin to suffer as a means of his betterment, but the serpent most of all.” Rashi adds that
“According to the greatness of the serpent so was his downfall; because he was ‘cunning beyond
all the beasts of the field (verse 1), he is ‘cursed beyond all.’” (Ibid., p. 127)
59hb'yae, )eybhah, means “hostility,” “enmity,” “hatred.” It is translated into Greek by e;cqran,
echthran, which has the same meaning. This kind of statement is oftentimes described as an
“aetiology,” that is, as an attempt to explain something in human experience by some specific
earlier cause, especially as is explained in stories describing origins–such as can be seen time
and again in the Navajo Dine Bahane. Here, the reality that is experienced by everyone, is that
there is “estrangement” among the creatures of the one God. They may well have all been created
“good” (as is affirmed in Genesis 1:1-2:3), and it may be that at one time there was peace on
earth. But this is not the reality that we find in the world surrounding us. The “real world” is a
world filled with conflict between animals and human beings (nowhere more explicitly demonstrated
than in the hostility that exists between reptiles and humans). We live in a world that we
dream of as being a world of peace, where there is no such thing as hostility, or hatred, or war.
But such a world is only a dream–the real world is a threatening, war-filled, hostile world, with
(especially in ancient times), wild animals ferociously threatening human life, and human beings
killing animals for food, especially killing reptiles just to get rid of them.
60
As Westermann notes, "The enmity will work itself out by humans and the serpent continually...trying
to kill each other; the person by crushing the head of the serpent, the serpent by biting
the person on the foot from behind." (P. 259)
The woman will suffer in childbirth. If YHWH God is going to multiply the woman's pain
and pregnancy as a part of her punishment, the implication is that, according to this ancient story,
(continued...)
134

60
(...continued)
the woman could have become pregnant and borne children prior to this, and that relatively painlessly.
It is also the implication of the story that sexual intercourse, as originally intended by
YHWH God, was not so intimately related to the conception and bearing of children as it was now
to become as a result of humanity's disobedience. Rather, it was originally simply an expression
of the male-female relationship of being "one flesh."
The punishment is not that the woman will become pregnant, or bear children, but that she
will become pregnant much more often, and that the delivery of her children will be much more
painful. And, in spite of this pain, still the woman will long for her husband sexually. This will be
true, even though he dominates her, ruling over her like a king.
Male supremacy over the female is viewed by this story as a consequence of humanity's
broken relationship with YHWH God. It is not viewed as the way YHWH God intended the relationship
between woman and man. Thus it is mistaken to interpret this biblical story as teaching
that male supremacy is the unchangeable will of YHWH God for husbands and wives. Rather, the
story teaches that such a relationship of dominance is the consequence of humanity's broken relationship
with God.
Sarna holds that "It is quite clear from the description of woman in 2:18, 23 that the ideal
situation, which hitherto existed, was the absolute equality of the sexes. The new state of male
dominance is regarded as an aspect of the deterioration in the human condition that resulted from
defiance of Divine will." (P. 28)
To take the story as demanding male dominance over females would lead to likewise taking
the story as condemning contraception, anesthesia in child-birth, the use of weed-killers by
farmers, or any form of life-saving or life-prolonging drugs. What the story sets forth is the miserable
condition of women--which is contrary to the original will of YHWH God for women, but which
has come upon them as a result of their disobedience to the Divine voice.
Brueggemann is correct in noting that "In God's garden, as God wills it, there is mutuality
and equity. In God's garden now, permeated by distrust, there is control and distortion. But that
distortion is not for one moment accepted as the will of the Gardener." (P. 51)
As it is with the punishment of the woman, so it is with the punishment of the man. His
punishment is not to "work the ground"--this was YHWH God's original commission to the man.
But his punishment consists of the hard, back-breaking labor associated with non-productive soil,
and the quick growing, crop-destroying thorns and thistles that the earth will produce as a result of
the man's disobedience to the voice of YHWH God. Thus, according to this story, because of the
breaking of humanity's relationship with YHWH God, something has gone wrong with nature--with
the earth, and its life-giving capabilities. See Romans 8:20-21 for a Christian reflection based on
this passage.
The masculine singular noun ^[]r>z:, zar(aka, “your seed,” or “your descendant(s),” is used
for both the descendants of the woman and the descendants of the serpent / snake. It is a sing-
(continued...)
135

60
(...continued)
ular noun, but is also a generic plural (that is, it is a “collective noun”), meaning “sowing,” “seed”
or “offspring.” The statement means that the hostility between reptiles and humans will be perpetual,
unending, in all generations of the serpent’s and of the woman’s descendants.
We agree with Westermann, who states that “The parallelism makes it clear that ‘seed’ refers
to a line of descendants and not to an individual...The enmity will work itself out by humans
and the serpent continually...trying to kill each other; the person by crushing the head of the serpent,
the serpent by biting the person on the foot from behind.” (P. 259)
Bereishis 1, p. 129 comments that “‘He’ (i.e. the descendants of the woman) will pound
your head, and you will bite (literally hiss at) his heel.”
Wenham comments that “The human race, ‘her offspring,’ and the serpent race, ‘your
offspring,’ will be forever at loggerheads. Those who had been in league against their Creator will
from now on be fighting against each other...” (P. 79)
It is for this reason that we do not agree with the interpretation of the “seed of the woman”
as referring directly and specifically to Jesus Christ–a view of the passage that evidently began
with Justin and Irenaeus in the second century A.D., and which continues to be held by many
Christian interpreters of the Hebrew Bible--a possible, but not an unquestionable interpretation of
the passage.
We believe that Christian faith does not need such questionable, artificial supports. Of
course, when the passage is understood symbolically of the constant conflict between human
beings and temptation and evil (symbolized by the serpent), it can be understood as being fulfilled
in Jesus, who was in fact put to death by evil forces, but in His death was victorious over all
evil–and through that victory, all humanity can become victorious over the powers of evil.
61
The third person masculine singular pronoun aWh, hu), “he,” (most probably the meaning
here, since “seed” in Hebrew is masculine), “it,” “she” (in the Pentateuch), or even “they,” is referring
to the “seed” or “offspring” of the woman. Dogmatic conclusions based on the use of the
singular pronoun “he” are unjustified.
62
The verb ^p.Wvy. >, yeshupheka, “he will bruise you...” is rarely found in the Hebrew Bible. It
occurs twice in this verse, and then at Psalm 139:11 and Job 9:17. We suggest the meaning
“strike,” and think this fits well at Job 9:17, where Job speaks of a tempest or storm “striking” him;
and may be explained at Psalm 139:11 in terms of the psalmist, in his flight from YHWH, wanting
the dark night to strike him (i.e., dead), so that he can be out of the Divine presence–but the fact
is, even the darkest night is light to YHWH. The Greek translation of Psalm 139 (138) is katapath,sei,
katapatesei, “will trample down.”
In the present context the verb ^p.Wvy., yeshuphka, “will strike you,” obviously means
something that a serpent can do to the heels of the woman and her descendants, and something
(continued...)
136

the) head, and you will strike him (on the) heel. 63
62
(...continued)
that they can do in return to the serpent’s head. Obviously some such meaning as “strike” is called
for, as serpents strike the heel of humans with their fangs and venom, and as the humans
strike or stomp serpents on their heads. Here the Greek translation is auvto,j sou thrh,sei kefalh,n
kai. su. thrh,seij auvtou/ pte,rnan, “he will watch for your head, and you will watch for his
heel,” evidently meaning, “watch for it (to strike it with force).”
63
Christian exegesis of the Hebrew Bible has oftentimes insisted that this passage (verse 15)
is the protoevangelium, the “first good news,” which has in mind the serpent’s / satan’s striking
Jesus in the heel, by putting Him to death on the wooden execution-post, and the victory of Jesus
over death, thereby striking the serpent / satan in the head, winning eternal victory over the devil
and evil through His death.
ESVSB, for example, states that “While many commentators interpret this part of the curse
as merely describing the natural hostility that exists between men and snakes, it has traditionally
been understood [by Christian interpreters] as pointing forward to the defeat of the serpent by a
future descendant of the woman, and this interpretation fits well with the words and the context.
This defeat is implied by the serpent’s being bruised in the head, which is more serious than the
offspring of Eve being bruised in the heel. For this reason, verse 15 has been labeled the Protoevangelium,’
the first announcement of the gospel. This interpretation requires that the serpent
be viewed as more than a mere snake, something which the narrative itself implies, given the
serpent’s ability to speak and the vile things he says...” (P. 56)
The passage does predict an on-going battle between serpents (symbolic of evil) and human
beings, with the serpents striking at the heel(s) of human beings, and the human beings responding
by stomping on the head(s) of serpents. But the text says nothing concerning who will be
victorious in this on-going conflict, and in our view, the death of Jesus on Golgotha was much
more severe than being “struck in the heel.”
Bowie comments on verse 15, in what we think is much truer to the meaning of the text,
taking it symbgolically: “It is the call to the kind of moral conflict which promises victory. The
serpent may bruise man’s heel, but ultimately man is meant to crush the serpent’s head. The
religion of the Old Testament has in it always a virile optimism. It is not blind to the tragedy of
life, but all the while it looks forward to triumph. Men and nations in their struggles against temptation
and in their warfare against evil are meant not to surrender but to prevail. Phillips Brooks
had a great sermon which he entitled ‘The Giant with the Wounded Heel.’ In it he expressed, as
all of us ought to express, the essential dignity and greatness of man. Man is subject to the poisonous
fangs of sin but he can crush sin if he is so determined.” (P. 509)
Understood in this way, Jesus Christ is the greatest Exemplar of such a victory over evil,
and His victory enables our victory.
137

64
3.16 ~ynIb' ydIl.Te B.C.,[,B. %nErohew> %nEAB.C..[i hB,r>a; hB'r>h; rm;a'hV'aih'-la,
65 66
`%B'-lv'm.yI aWhw> %teq'WvT %veyai-la,w> To the woman He said, I will surely multiply
67 68 69 70
your pain and your conception; in pain you will bear children, and your desire will belong
64
Wenham comments that “It should be noted that neither the man nor the woman are cursed:
only the snake (verse 14) and the soil (verse 17) are cursed because of man. The sentences on
the man and woman take the form of a disruption of their appointed roles.” (P. 81)
65
Where our text reads the preposition la,, )el, “to,” the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek
translation, the Syriac translation and the Latin Vulgate all interpolate waw, “and,” before the
preposition, law, we)el, “and to.”
66
Fox translates by “I will multiply, multiply...”
67
The noun used here, %nEAB.C..[i, (itsebonek, “your pain,” is found only three times in the
Hebrew Bible, and all three occurrences are in Genesis: 3:16, 17, and 5:29, perhaps an indication
of common authorship of these stories. The Greek translates by ta.j lu,paj sou, tas lupas
sou, “the pains of yours.”
If God has multiplied the woman’s pain, is it irreligious and sinful for woman to take painkillers?
Should a woman simply endure pain stoically, refusing to do anything to alleviate the
pain?
68
The noun %nErohe, heronek, apparently meaning “your conceiving,” “your pregnancy,” is
found only here in the Hebrew Bible. It may be a contraction of the noun heryonek, the spelling
found at Hosea 9:11 and Ruth 4:13. The Greek translates by to.n stenagmo,n sou, ton stenagmon
sou, “the groaning of yours,” which probably translates the Hebrew %nEyog.h,w., wehegyonek,
”and your musing.” The Samaritan Pentateuch reads %nEwoyr.h,w., weheryonek, with the
same meaning, but with the longer spelling, not contracted.
If God has multiplied woman’s conception, is it irreligious and sinful for women to use birthcontrol
pills, or other methods of contraception, such as the Roman Catholic recommended “rhythm
method”?
69
Where our text reads B.C.
longer noun !wB.C.[ib., be(itsebon, with the same meaning.
,[,
ÞB., be(etsebh, “in pain,” the Samaritan Pentateuch reads the
Here, another noun from the same root is used, B.C. ,[,B., be(etsebh, “in pain,” which the
(continued...)
138

71 72
to your man, and he will rule over you.
69
(...continued)
Greek translates by evn lu,paij, en lupais, “in (or ‘with’) pains.” Compare footnote 67.
70
The noun %teq'WvT., teshuqathek, “your desire,” “your longing,” is found elsewhere in the
Hebrew Bible only at:
Genesis 4:7, apparently the ravenous hunger of a crouching beast to devour Cain;
Song of Solomon 7:11, the male lover’s longing for his female lover.
Here, in Genesis 3:15, it apparently means the sexual desire of a woman for her husband.
But strangely, the Greek translates by h` avpostrofh, sou/, he apostrophe sou, literally “the
turning away of yours,” which does not seem to be a translation of the Hebrew, but a change to
another meaning. In the Song of Solomon, the Greek translates by h` evpistrofh. auvtou/, he
epistrophe autou, literally “the return of his,” or “the attention of his.” This has lead some students
to change the Hebrew text to read teshubathek, “your returning” here in Genesis 3:16.
We think this change in the Greek may simply reflect an inability of the translator to read this rare
noun, or perhaps a desire to eliminate the overt sexual implications of the original text.
Both the Midrash and the Talmud, Niddah 31b hold that “When a woman is in the throes
of labor she declares: ‘I will henceforth never fulfill my marital duties,’ whereupon God says to her:
‘You will return to your craving; you will return to the craving for your husband.’” (Bereishis 1, p.
131)
We agree with Westermann in his statement that “...Just where the woman finds her fulfillment
in life, her honor and her joy, namely in her relationship to her husband and as mother of
her children, there too she finds that it is not pure bliss, but pain, burden, humiliation and subordination.”
(P. 263)
Sarna comments that “Intense pain in childbearing is unique to the human species and
generally unknown to other female mammals...Modern biology traces the woman’s condition to
the enlargement of the human skull that was entailed by the evolutionary increase in the size of
the human brain, especially that part of the brain, the neocortex, that is associated with human
intelligence.” (P. 28)
If God has decreed that child-bearing will be “in pain,” is it irreligious and sinful for women
to use anesthesia during child-birth?
71
For the phrase here at Genesis 3:16, %B")-lv'm.yI aWhßw> %teêq'WvåT. ‘%veyai-la,w., literally,
“and to your man your desire; and he will rule over you,” compare the very similar phrase at Genesis
4:7, `AB*-lv'm.Ti hT'Þa;w> Atêq'WvåT. ‘^yl,’aew>, “and to you its desire, and you will rule over
it.” Fox translates by “Toward your husband will be your lust...”
139
(continued...)

71
(...continued)
Geneva Bible translates by “and thy desire shal be subiect to thine husband, and he shall
rule ouer thee.” Most other Jewish and Christian translations follow the King James, “and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
The phrase “to your man your desire” evidently means “your desire will be for your man,” or
possibly “desire for you will belong to your man.” What do you think the text means?
Does it mean that the husband will be in control of his wife’s desires, telling her what she
can and cannot want?
Or does it mean that in spite of his domineering treatment, she will still desire him?
In fact, the text is somewhat ambiguous. The question is, “Why should the woman desire
the man, if all she gets from him is pregnancy, and pain, and being domineered?” And the fact of
life is that in spite of all the suffering through child-birth which the woman endures, her husband
still desires her sexually, and continues to cause her to become pregnant.
What do you think? Does this text teach that it is the will of God for women to be ruled
over by their husbands throughout history?
Fretheim suggests that “The ‘rule’ of the husband could be a more general reference to
patriarchy, which would be a departure from what God intended in creation (see 2:18-23).
“Trible states that the rule of the male ‘is neither a Divine right nor a male prerogative. Her
subordination is neither a Divine decree [but does not the text depict YHWH God passing this
decree?] nor the female destiny. Both their positions result from shared disobedience.’ (Rhetoric,
p. 128) The ‘rule’ of the man over the woman is part and parcel of the judgment on the man
as much as the woman. This writer understood that patriarchy and related ills came as a consequence
of sin rather than being the Divine intention.” (Ibid., p. 363)
Do you agree with Trible?
ESVSB comments that “The ongoing result of Adam and Eve’s original sin of rebellion
against God will have disastrous consequences for their relationship:
(1) Eve will have the sinful ‘desire’ to oppose Adam and to assert leadership over him,
reversing God’s plan for Adam’s leadership in marriage. But
(2) Adam will also abandon his God-given, pre-fall role of leading, guarding, and caring for
his wife, replacing this with his own sinful, distorted desire to ‘rule’ over Eve.
“Thus one of the most tragic results of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God is an ongoing,
damaging conflict between husband and wife in marriage...” (P. 56)
But where does the text say anything about Eve’s desire to oppose Adam and to assert
(continued...)
140

71
(...continued)
leadership over him? We see nothing like this in the text. Likewise, we do not see anything in the
text about Adam’s “pre-fall” role of leading, guarding, and caring for his wife. We think this comment
is unjustifiably reading New Testament teaching such as that in Ephesians 5:21-32 into the
Hebrew Bible. What do you think?
Literalistic interpretation of the Genesis story leads to such conclusions as that male
dominance over females is Divinely intended by God; that birth control is a sin; that weed-killers
are wrong; that pain-killers in child-birth are wrong, little more than seeking to avoid Divine decrees.
Do you agree with kind of interpretation?
Is it wrong to seek to alleviate the harsh consequences of human sinfulness? Remember
Lamech’s statement concerning Noah at Genesis 5:28, that Noah will bring relief from work and
the toil of human hands. Are we to understand Noah as avoiding Divine decrees?
72
It seems clear from the biblical stories in Genesis 1 and 2 that the original condition of the
man and woman is depicted as one of mutual help and inter-dependency, with both of them “ruling”
(at least according to the earlier story in Genesis 1:26, and the depiction earlier in this present
story at 2:18, 23). But now, because of their disobedience to the Divine command, the result
will be a broken relationship between the woman and the man, in which he rules over, or domineers
the woman, and she is subordinate to him.
We agree partially with Hamilton in his statement that “Far from being a reign of co-equals
over the remainder of God’s creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, with each
party trying to rule the other. The two who once reigned as one attempt to rule each other.” (P.
202)
The text, however, says nothing concerning the woman’s attempt to rule over the man. We
agree with Simpson in his comment that “Most significant is the fact that [the author of this story],
far in advance of his time, sees that this domination of woman by man is an evil thing. The implication
is that the relationship between husband and wife was intended by God to be a mutual and
complementary relationship of love and respect, not a relationship in which one dominates the
other.” (P. 510)
Hamilton had earlier commented on verse 16 that, “The point that is apparent is that sin
and disobedience do not go unchecked and unchallenged. Is it not surprising in a chapter of the
Bible so widely accepted as mythical that we find the classical outline of salvation history rather
than myths? God acts and speaks, man rebels; God punishes; God protects and reconciles.” (P.
201)
But this introduces confusion into the interpretation. Cannot an outline of salvation history
be given in mythical, parabolic, symbolic form? For example, does not Jesus’ story of the “Prodigal
Son” (Luke 15:11-32) give a marvelous picture of salvation history? Does not Jesus’ parable
of the vineyard (Mark 12:1-12) likewise give a graphic, pointed picture of salvation history?
Hamilton himself holds that this material cannot be taken literally and at face-value (see
(continued...)
141

73
3.17 rv,a] #[eh'e-!mi lk;aTow: ^T,v.ai lAql. T'[.m;v'-yKi rm;a' ~d'a'l.W
hNl,k]aTo !AB.C. '[iB. ^r,Wb[]B; hm'd'a]h' hr'Wra] WNM,mi lk;ato al{ rmoale ^ytiyWIci
74 75
`^yY lKo And to Adam He said, Because you listened to your woman’s voice, and you
ate from the tree concerning which I commanded, saying, You shall not eat from it, the ground is
76 77 78 79
cursed for your sake; in pain you will eat (from) it all your life’s days; 3.18 rD;r>d;w> #Aqw>
72
(...continued)
footnote 58), and must be understood symbolically (at least at some points). We insist that the
story is in fact the biblical “myth” or “symbolical story” in which the human predicament is depicted
in dramatic terms–which should not be taken literally, but which should certainly be taken very
seriously. No one would venture to assert that Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” (Republic, 7.1) one
of the most profound philosophical teachings ever given, should be understood literally; but likewise,
it would be very foolish to think that Plato did not mean it seriously as a basic description of
the human predicament.
Ramban holds that “Woman’s punishment is measure for measure. She influenced her
husband and he ate at her command; her punishment was that she would now become subservient
to him.” “Hirsch notes that the new condition of life, that sustenance will be drawn only
through hard labor, makes woman more dependent on man, the breadwinner. Obedience to
Torah makes man and woman equally God-serving priests and restores the wife to her role as
‘crown of her husband’ and ‘invaluable pearl of his life (Proverbs 12:4; 31:10).” (Bereishis 1, p.
131)
73
Wenham comments on verses 17-19 that “The sentence on the man is the longest and fullest,
since he bore the greatest responsibility in following his wife’s advice instead of heeding
God’s instructions personally given to him.” (P. 82)
74
Or, “And to the human being...” The Hebrew text is ambiguous, and can be read with the
definite article or without it (the Massoretes pointed the text without it).
Wenham comments that “Many commentators believe this is the first instance of ‘Adam’
being used as a personal name.” (P. 82)
75
Chizkuni comments, “Because you listened to the voice of your wife–and not to Mine...Adam
was not primarily blamed for eating of the tree, because he was unaware; he was accused of
‘listening to the voice of his wife’–for accepting his wife’s counsel blindly without investigation. He
succumbed to her ‘voice’ without examining the content of her words (Or HaChaim).” (Bereishis
1, pp. 131-32)
76
The qal passive participle, feminine singular hr'Wra], )arurah, means “cursed.” Fox
translates by “Damned be the soil.” The human being is not “cursed,” but rather, the ground
(continued...)
142

76
(...continued)
(which is feminine in Hebrew) from which he must gain a living is cursed, because of what he has
done.
Sarna notes that “The man himself is not cursed, only the soil. The matter from which he
sprang turns against him...This notion of moral ecology is a major biblical theme; it is explicitly
formulated in Leviticus 18:24-28 and 20:22 [the land itself vomits out its inhabitants because of
their immorality], and it underlies the great exhortations of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28
[both of which have to do with the curses that will come upon Israel and its land because of their
failure to keep YHWH’s covenant].” (P. 28)
Rashi states that “It [the ground] will produce for you accursed things such as flies, fleas,
and ants...It will yield its harvest, but only in scant measure; many of the seeds sown will never
sprout forth (Ibn Ezra; Radak)...It will no longer yield up its crop effortlessly and without toil
(Sforno).” (Bereishis 1, p. 132)
Fretheim likewise notes that “The man’s work does not receive a curse (he still does in
3:23 what he was called to do in 2:15), but it has become more difficult and more energy has to
be expended to gain a living from the soil.” (P. 364)
77
Compare footnote 66. The same Hebrew noun, !AB.C.'[i, (itstsabon is used here, and the
Greek translates in the same manner at both places.
Midrash Aggadah and Radak comment that “‘Through suffering shall you eat of it.’ No
longer shall you be able to sit idly by and eat of the land’s produce [but where in Genesis 2-3 is it
ever said that the human beings could ‘sit idly by’ and still eat? Rather, the story insists that the
human beings were placed in the garden of Luxurious Place to ‘tend’ it]. Henceforth you will
obtain and eat the fruit of the earth only through your own hard labor and suffering.” Abarbanel
states that “When man was in the garden he knew no grief and anguish. It was when he was
driven out and had children, one of whom murdered the other and in turn was condemned to
become a wanderer, that Adam experienced the grief of this world. This is the sentence imposed
upon him: May all his days be grief-filled.” (Bereishis 1, p. 133)
Wenham comments that “As the woman is doomed to suffer in her fundamental role as
wife and mother, man will be similarly afflicted in his basic role as farmer and food-producer (compare
2:15).” (P. 82)
Again we ask, if God has decreed that the man’s working of the earth is to be accompanied
by pain, does this mean it is irreligious and sinful for farmers to use labor-saving devices such as
plows, tractors, combines and weed-killers?
78
The Hebrew says literally “you shall eat it,” i.e., the ground–but obviously means “shall eat
from it.” Compare the earlier statement to the serpent concerning “eating dust”–see 3:14 with its
footnote.
143
(continued...)

80
`hd,F'h; bf,[e-ta, T'l.k;a'w> %l'x;ymic.T; and thorn(s) and thistle(s) it will sprout for you;
81
and you shall eat vegetation of the field; 3.19 ^b.Wv d[; ~x,l, lk;aTo ^yP,a; t[;zEB.
`bWvT' rp'['-la,w> hT'a; rp'['-yKi T'x.Q'lu hN"M,mi yKi hm'd'a]h, '-la with perspiration of
82 83 84
your face you will eat bread, until your return to the ground. Because from it you were taken;
78
(...continued)
Hamilton comments that “In response to the man’s trespass of eating, God speaks no less
than five times of eating in His word to the man (verses 17 [3 times], 18, 19). Thus the penalty on
the man parallels the penalty on the serpent. To both God says a word about their eating.” (P.
202)
79
Wenham comments that “‘All the days of your life’ hints at their limited life-span made explicit
in verse 19.” (1, p. 82)
80
Fox translates by “Thorn and sting-shrub...”
81
The ancient story assigns a “vegetarian diet” to humanity, just as previously in the story of
Genesis 1:29-30. According to these ancient stories, it was not until after the flood that Noah
and his descendants were assigned a diet consisting of more than vegetables (see Genesis 9:3-
4).
Sarna holds that the “thorns and thistles” refer to the “weeds that rob the cultivated plants
of light, water, and the soil’s nutrients and that require much effort to control. And this occurs in
the face of mankind’s need to subsist on the grasses of the field. Humankind is once again viewed
as being vegetarian, and agriculture is taken to be man’s earliest occupation.” (P. 28)
Again we ask, if God has decreed that the ground will produce thorns and thistles, does
this mean that it is irreligious and sinful for farmers to use weed-killers in their farming?
82
Wenham comments that “Work itself is not a punishment for sin. Man was placed in the
garden to cultivate it (2:15). Rather it was the hardship and frustration that attended work that
constitutes the curse.” (P. 82)
Von Rad writes, “As for man, his punishment consists in the hardship and skimpiness of
his livelihood, which he must now 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.” (Pp. 93-94)
Again we ask, if God has decreed that only with “the sweat of his brow” shall bread be
produced from the earth, does this mean it is irreligious and sinful for farmers to have air-condi-
(continued...)
144

ecause you (are) dust, and unto dust you will return! 85
82
(...continued)
tioners in their tractor-cabins?
83
In a rather strange example of interpretation, Hamilton holds that the background of this story
must be in Israel, not in Mesopotamia (“in the east”), since that land is much more fertile than is
the land of Israel. (P. 202).
But the story is not localized to one particular land, and is meant to be understood as the
universal condition of humanity–in which, regardless of what area of the earth may be considered,
the growth of food from the ground is confronted with great obstacles–and we should note that
thorns and thistles grow in more fertile areas of the earth, just as well as in the less-fertile regions.
Westermann notes that “...A person’s work is always joined in some way with toil, trouble,
even with sweat and thorns. There are thorns and thistles in every field of work; every harvest
demands sweat...To acknowledge this fact and to reflect upon it has nothing to do with pessimism.
It is sober realism which excludes any idealization of human work. People can do nothing to
get rid of the difficulty of work, toil and sweat accentuated by ‘thorns and thistles’; it belongs and
will always belong to the human state. If this is what is meant, and not the work itself, then the
curse is in no wise altered by the fact that work brings human life to fulfillment. Nor does it alter
the fact that God’s commission to the man to work, 2:15, was received as and remains a gift. The
ground is burdened with the curse, but it will still give people bread.” (P. 265)
But, is it not over-statement to say that “people can do nothing to get rid of the difficulty of
work”?
Westermann adds that “The toil which is joined with work will accompany one through the
whole of one’s life right up to death. This is saying that toil is not something that can be overcome
by a person’s industry. It is not over and done with when the house is built, the ground prepared,
the institution founded. This toil cannot be confined to one period of life only; it is part of human
existence and is with us to the end...Only with death will there be an end to toil...” (Pp. 265-66)
Sarna comments that “The sentencing ends on an ironic note. Human beings had attempted
to elevate themselves to the level of the Divine. All that they achieved was to condemn themselves
to a ceaseless, brutal struggle for subsistence, with the consciousness of the fragility of life
ever hanging over them.” (P. 29)
84
The man, ~d'a'h', ha)adham, has been taken from hm'd'a]h', ha)adhamah, “the ground.”
The play on words is obvious in the Hebrew text, much more so than in translations. The Greek
uses the personal name “Adam,” and then says he has been taken from th.n gh/n ten gen, “the
earth.” Compare footnote 13 on Genesis 2:6.
85
The man, who has reached out to take upon himself the role of a God, is no God at all. He is
a human being, ~d'a'h', ha)adham, “the man,” taken from hm'd'a]h', ha)adhamah, “the ground.”
He is no God--he is only dust, and to the dust he shall return. Thus the sentence of physical
(continued...)
145

85
(...continued)
death, and the death-dealing circumstances of the human condition, are brought upon humanity
as a result of disobedience to YHWH God's voice of command.
It is a misunderstanding of the ancient story to interpret it as speaking of "spiritual death"
rather than "physical death" and the painful circumstances of human existence that constantly
remind humanity of its mortality. If "spiritual death" means "separation from God," then it is clear
that according to this story, no such separation resulted from humanity's disobedience. For
YHWH God is pictured as remaining just as near to, and just as concerned for humanity's ongoing
welfare after their being cast out of the garden as before. Only, humanity is separated from
the garden (that is, from the condition originally intended by YHWH God in creation), and from the
"tree of the lives" (which would have enabled humanity to "live forever"), and instead, lives under
the sentence of death. In the Hebrew Bible, compare:
Ecclesiastes 3:19-20, Because the chance happening to children of humanity, and the chance
happening to the beast–and there is one chance happening to them–as this one’s death,
so this one’s death. And (there is) one breath / wind / Spirit belonging to them all. And
preeminence of the human over the beast(s)–there is none, for all is vanity. All are going
to one place. All came from the dust, and all are returning to dust;
Ecclesiastes12:7, And the dust will return to the earth like it was, and the breath / wind / Spirit
will return to the God Who gave it.
The wise teacher of Ecclesiastes has learned this, not only from observing nature, but
also from this passage in the Torah. The man has been taken from the ground–and his nature is
that he is dust, and to the dust he eventually will return. The idea that humanity has been created
“immortal,” and only following disobedience is changed from immortal to mortal, will simply not
square with the biblical story.
No, the biblical story teaches that humanity has been created from the ground, out of the
dust, and through obedience to YHWH God has the possibility of immortality (“living forever,”
verse 22)–that is, through staying in the garden, and eating from the tree of the lives. But once
disobedience to YHWH God enters into the picture, and the humans are put out of the garden
where the tree of the lives grows, and then the possibility of immortality is only a distant, very
difficult possibility.
Westermann comments that “This sentence, which is so like a wisdom saying, is a fitting
conclusion to the sentence of punishment in verses 14-19. The statement itself does not qualify
the punishment, but says something about human existence now affected by the preceding pronouncements.
In their origin and in their destiny human beings belong to the dust. Everything
noble and great that can be said of a person and of one’s capabilities must be circumscribed by
this limit which has been set to all that is human.” (P. 266)
Wenham comments that “Man’s lifelong struggle for survival will eventually end in death.
Most commentators have taken this curse as confirmation of the death-threat announced in 2:7
on those who eat of the forbidden tree...
146
(continued...)

85
(...continued)
“However, some have disputed this (notably Skinner and Westermann, and more guardedly,
Gunkel and Jacob). They argue that the parallels between this verse (3:19) and 2:7 suggest
that death is ‘part of the natural order of things–the inevitable ‘return’ of man to the ground
whence he was taken’ (quoting Skinner, p. 83). They point out that the story does not say man
would have lived forever if he had not eaten [from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil].
‘Death is therefore not punishment for man’s transgression; it is the limitation of the toil of human
work.’” (quoting Westermann, p. 267).
“...It is doubtful whether Skinner and Westermann are justified in this instance...It is nevertheless
striking that life and death are not mentioned in so many words in Genesis 3:17-19; the
return to dust is presented as inevitable, rather than as an immediate consequence in the death
penalty which 2:17 led us to expect...
“Obviously man could expect to live forever if he were free to eat of the tree of life. It may
be then that the narrator avoids life-and-death language in this verse, because for him only life in
the garden counts as life in the fullest sense. Outside the garden, man is distant from God and
brought near to death. The warnings about returning to dust eventually hint that a drastic change
will shortly overtake the man.” (P. 83)
But does the story say that outside the garden man is distant from God? To the contrary, it
depicts how YHWH God accompanies the human beings outside the garden, continuing to act as
the Guide and Counselor of their offspring.
Fretheim comments on the overall sentence given to the man and the woman that they
“reap the consequences of their own deeds. They wanted control over their own lives; they now
have control in grievously distorted and unevenly distributed forms. They wanted to transcend
creaturely limits, but they have found newly intensified forms of limitation. They now have the
autonomy they so desired, but neither the perspective nor the wherewithal to handle it very well...
“The toil of the man and the pain of the woman are not such that no effort should be made
to relieve them. In fact, the intense efforts, particularly in recent years, to overcome these effects
of sin harmonize with the creational intentions of God. At the same time, continuing human sinfulness
impedes these efforts, and other forms of the distorting effects of sin break out among us
with extraordinary regularity. We have a smoldering forest fire on our hands.” (P. 369)
We ask, did the couple now “have the autonomy they so desired”? We think not. They are
not in control of their destiny, but are completely subject to the Divine sentence of expulsion. Is
this not the truth–that no matter how hard we may try to be autonomous, self-governing, we are
still subject to the Divine decree in our lives?
What do you think?
Sarna comments that "The garden of Eden incident is...a landmark in the development of
the understanding of the nature of man, his predicament and destiny. Man is a free moral agent
and this freedom magnifies immeasurably his responsibility for his actions...Man is free to disre-
(continued...)
147

86
3.20 `yx'-lK' ~ae ht'y>h' awhi yKi hW"x; ATv.ai ~ve ~d'a'h' ar'q.YIw: And the
87 88 89
human being called out a name (for) his woman, Eve –because she was mother of all
85
(...continued)
gard the moral law, should he wish to, though he must be prepared to suffer the consequences.
In short, we are being told by the garden of Eden story that evil is a product of human behavior,
not a principle inherent in the cosmos." (Understanding Genesis, p. 27)
We add that the story includes both male and female, and the woman is held to be as responsible
as the man. Also it must be insisted that the story implies that there is a "demonic" or
"satanic" element inherent in the cosmos. YHWH God's good creations subtly test humanity's
relationship with God. According to this story, the kind of world that YHWH God has created for
humanity to live in is nothing less than a world wherein their loyalty to the Divine command will be
tested by God's Own good creations, which are not Divine, but are demonic.
Bowie comments that “In the story of the garden of Eden there is revealed the eternal truth
that there is right and wrong, a true choice and a false choice; an obedience to the voice that represents
the highest, and a willful disobedience; and that when man has sinned, no matter with
what plausible excuse, there is that within him which shrinks away and hides, naked and ashamed
before the light.” (P. 498)
86
Westermann is very pessimistic concerning verses 20-24, holding that they do not form a
unity, but that instead, “There have been gathered together in the conclusion all sorts of end
pieces which happen to have been lying about and which could not be fully integrated.” (P. 267)
As a result of this view, Westermann does not take these verses very seriously, and they
have little to contribute to his interpretation of the overall meaning of the story in Genesis 2-3.
We would not claim that the verses are well united, but doubt that this picture of an author gathering
up scraps lying around his study, and carelessly piecing them together is correct.
It seems obvious that every tradition is treasured by the biblical authors, and they do not
want to lose any part of that tradition. But we also sense that the biblical authors were powerful
theologians, who sought to impart the Divine message through their writings, rather than simply
piecing together scrap-books.
If these verses are treated as genuine parts of the original story, they can effect its interpretation
in a very powerful way, especially with regards to the understanding of the tree of the
lives, and the possibility of immortality on the part of humanity.
87
The feminine proper name hW"x;, chawwah, “Eve,” sometimes means “tent-village,” but evi-
dently is taken from the verb hyx, chayah, “to live,” and, as a personal name, means “Life.” Fox
translates by “Havva / Life-giver!”
(continued...)
148

87
(...continued)
The Greek translation of the woman’s name is Zwh, Zoe, “Life.” In cognate Semitic
languages (Ugaritic and Phoenician), there is a similar exchange between waw and yodh as the
second radical in the verb “to live.”
Hirsch comments that “Individuals die, mankind lives; and it is through woman that man
lives on in children. Adam could well have castigated his wife for causing the loss of paradise, yet
he names her by the loveliest calling of woman!...She became the savior from death, the dispenser
of life, the guarantor of mankind’s immortality.” (Bereishis 1, p. 136)
But is giving birth to descendants what 3:22 means by “living forever”? We think not.
Westermann holds that the name at least “echoes the word ‘life,’ however it is explained...
The man names the woman saying by means of the name what she means for him, namely life–
she is the bearer of life. The name is really the husband’s response to the first birth; it is to be
understood as the result of reflection on the event of the birth...
“The purpose of the name and the title, and so of the naming and its explanation, is to
express joy over motherhood whereby life is protracted into the future.” (P. 268)
Many different explanations have been given for the meaning of the woman’s name, including
“Serpent Goddess,” who is the Goddess of life; and simply “Woman.” Sarna comments
that “Previously [she had been given] a generic name (2:23). Now she acquires a personal one
that expresses her nature and destiny positively and sympathetically...The man’s act is thus an
affirmation of life.” (P. 29)
Sarna also comments on Adam's naming his wife "Eve," because she was "the mother of
all living," that "This description is closely paralleled in Near Eastern mythology, where it belongs
to the Mother Goddess. Here it is demythologized and naturalized to express the biblical concept
of the unity of the human race and of woman's role--motherhood." (P. 29)
We agree with Sarna’s comment, and take this as another instance of the biblical demythologizing
of the religious views of the ancient Near East. See footnote 88.
88 rd
Somewhat strangely, in the Pentateuch (or “Five Books of Moses”) the 3 person pronoun,
awh, hu), is used for both masculine and feminine, and the pronoun is spelled hiy), the normal
way of saying and spelling “she,” only 11 times (this is one of them). The Massoretes sought to
conform to the usage of the rest of the Hebrew Bible by pointing hu) with the hireq-yodh, so that
it would be pronounced hiy), even though their text had the middle radical waw. The same phenomenon
occurs in some other parts of the Hebrew Bible in certain manuscripts. See Brown-
Driver-Briggs, pp. 214-15.
89 rd
The qal perfect 3 person feminine verb ht'y>h', hayethah, obviously means “she was,” or
“she became,” but Hamilton holds that here the verb is used as a “prophetic perfect,” meaning
(continued...)
149

90
living. 3.21
`~veBil.Y:w: rA[ tAnt.K' Atv.ail.W ~d'a'l. ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> f[;Y:w: And
91 92 93 94
YHWH God made for Adam and for his woman robes of skin, and He dressed them.
89
(...continued)
“she will be,” since there has been no indication of births to this first human couple, and it is only
in Genesis 4:1 that the narrator tells of the birth of Cain, and then of Abel.
We cannot agree with this subtle grammatical ploy to get around difficulties in the text, and
think that where the perfect tense is used it should be understood as perfect in meaning, unless it
is used in conjunction with clearly future tense verbs. It is true that the use of the perfect tense
here raises difficulties for understanding the story, if we take the story literally as a precise, chronological
description of all people and every birth. But as the language stands, we can well understand
the author to mean that already before the expulsion of the couple from the garden the man
and his wife had given birth to children (and this can help biblical literalists who ask concerning
where Cain could have gotten a wife, 4:17, and concerning who it was that Cain was afraid of,
4:14. What do you think?
90
As we have seen, Sarna sees a contrast between this biblical picture of a human being’s wife
as “the mother of all living,” over against the commonly held view in Near Eastern mythology in
which the “Mother Goddess” was considered the universal Mother of all living beings. Here that
ancient view is “demythologized.”
According to the biblical story, all human beings have one common human mother. There
is no such thing as a “special race,” made up of people who have a superior ancestry to all others
(including the Jews). This is a very important theological affirmation–the unity of the human race,
as a result of having one common mother. Modern anthropological study and genetic research
have reached a similar conclusion, even though there are those who question their conclusion.
91
Again the author uses the verb (asah (here, X[;y;w:, wayya(as, “and He made”) in his
description of the Divine activity in the creation story.
92
Or, “for the human being.” Compare footnote 74. The same comment applies here.
93
Sarna comments that the “tn

93
(...continued)
Wenham comments that “As God’s final kindness toward man in the garden (compare 2:8,
15, 19, 22), His provision of clothes is obviously of great significance...Whereas the human couple
could only produce inadequate [leaf] loincloths (3:7), God provided them with a proper outfit.”
(P. 84)
94
The man and the woman have made skirts for themselves out of fig-leaves, seeking to cover
up their nakedness and hide from YHWH God. But now YHWH God, who has pronounced Divine
judgment upon the pair, mercifully comes to their aid, furnishing much more durable and protective
clothing for them, as they leave the garden to go out into the world filled with hostility and difficulty.
We think it proper to understand this statement in terms of continuing Divine care and
provision for the transgressors.
As Fox puts it, “Once punishment has been pronounced, God cares for the man and the
woman. Both aspects of God comprise the biblical understanding of His nature, and they are not
exclusive of each other.” (P. 23)
Fretheim comments that “Here God is imaged as a Tailor, using animals skins...God acts
to cover their shame and defenselessness.” (P. 364)
“Though they were sinners, God had compassion upon them and clothed them [Midrash
Aggadah; Rabbi Bachya]...God Himself clothed them to demonstrate that although they had
sinned, His great love for them did not wane [Rabbi Bachya].” (Bereishis 1, pp. 136-37)
Hamilton notes that it would be reading too much into the text to interpret it in terms of the
animal sacrifices of the Levitical system of religion, in which animal blood is poured out for the
forgiveness / cleansing of human sinfulness. (P. 207)
Westermann emphasizes that the verb hf[, (asah, “to make,” which earlier has been
used of God’s creative work, “is used here–and only here in the Old Testament–of ‘manual work’
on God’s part; He fabricates something out of material at hand to Him...[It is] an independent
primeval tradition according to which God and His people not only occupy the same living space,
but where one also spoke of God’s action in the same way as of human work.” (P. 269)
But this is to overlook the earlier depiction of YHWH God as stooping to take the clay from
which to form the human being, in the same way that humans manufacture pots.
Westermann goes on to say that “This anthropomorphic talk is saying that here God and
His people are still side-by-side. The statement retains its meaning in the context; the last action
of the Creator toward His creature before expelling him from the garden is an action of care and
concern. It is just this primitive anthropomorphic language that is such a wonderful expression of
this concern: the Creator ‘protects’ His creatures while putting them at a distance, and the protective
action accompanies them on their way.” (Ibid.)
151
(continued...)

95
3.22 [r'w" bAj t[;d;l' WNM,mi dx;a;K. hy"h' ~d'a'h'. !he ~yhil{a/ hw"hy> rm,aYOw:
`~l'[ol. yx;w" lk;a'w> ~yYIx;h; #[eme ~G: xq;l'w> Ady" xl;v.yI-!P, hT'[;w> And YHWH God
94
(...continued)
This is a helpful comment, but needs correction. The Creator of Genesis is depicted as
being “side-by-side” with His human creatures (at least, their offspring) after their expulsion from
the garden, just as He was before their expulsion. The expulsion is not “separation from God,”
but separation from the garden and from the tree of the lives, i.e., their loss of ready access to the
source of immortality. For Biblical Theology, the entire creation is God’s, and there is no place in
all of creation where human beings can go to escape the Divine presence–see Psalm 139
(quoted in footnote 40).
Wenham quotes John Calvin to the effect that “In this context God’s provision of clothes
appears not so much an act of grace, as often asserted, but as a reminder of their sinfulness
(compare Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, p. 182). Just as man may not enjoy a direct vision
of God, so God should not be approached by man unclothed.” (P. 85)
But Calvin is reading all of this into the text, which says nothing concerning the clothing
God makes for them being a reminder of their sinfulness. The Divine action on behalf of the guilty
couple is an act of grace–not an act of judgment.
95
Wenham comments on verses 22-24 that here the opening scene in chapter 2 is recalled,
and that these verses “give a roundness and completeness to the narrative, but...also serve to
point up more sharply and poignantly just what man has lost.” Here, “man’s expulsion from the
garden is described almost abruptly, as we learn that he will no longer have access to the tree of
life; instead of man guarding the garden, armed winged-animals will be stationed there to keep
him out [where does the text say anything about the winged-animals being ‘armed’? Wenham’s
assumption is that the winged-animals are bearers of the flaming sword, but this is not stated in
the text]. Finally, he who was appointed to till the garden will till the land instead, thereby
foreshadowing the fulfillment of the curse ‘until you return to the land from which you were taken,
for you are dust and to dust you must return’ (3:19).” (1, p. 85)
152

96 97
said, Look–the human being became like one of Us, to know good and evil; and now, in order
that he will not stretch out his hand and will also take from (the) tree of the lives–and he will eat,
98
and he will live to long-lasting time– 3.23 ta, dbo[]l; !d,[e !G:mi ~yhil{a hw"hy> WhxeL.v;y>w:
96
The plural used here, “one of Us,” is to be understood of YHWH God speaking to His heavenly
council, surrounded by innumerable servants (i.e., the heavenly messengers, as in Job), but
not in terms of polytheism.
Wenham comments that “They [the human couple] may not have become ‘like God’ Himself,
but they have become like ‘one of Us,’ that is, like the heavenly beings, including God and
the angels...insofar as man now knows good and evil...In no other regard has man become like
God or the angels. In particular, he does not possess immortality.” (P. 85)
97
Compare Genesis 3:5 with its footnote. What the serpent has claimed to be the truth, is in
fact, what has happened. Their eating from the forbidden fruit has not resulted in their death, but
has opened their eyes, and enabled them to be like YHWH God and His surrounding council,
“knowing good and evil.” The ancient story-teller makes no effort to disguise or cover up this fact
--and we think that this is important for our understanding.
The voice of the creatures that speak to humans seems at first to be speaking the truth.
The promises made by pleasure, possessions and power do quickly bring fulfillment, and the feeling
that we have arrived at the true meaning of life, of good and evil. But that feeling will not last
for long. It is a momentary, but not long-lasting truth.
98
Wenham comments that “The sentence ends in mid-air, leaving the listener to supply the rest
of God’s thoughts...Here the omission of the conclusion conveys the speed of God’s action. He
had hardly finished speaking before they were sent out of the garden.” (P. 85)
See the discussion in previous footnotes where we have argued that the two trees in the
garden must be understood symbolically, certainly not literally. And we have argued that according
to the ancient story of “Everyman and Everywoman,” the possibility of eating from the “tree of
the lives” and living on into long-lasting time is given to humanity, but only if humanity respects
and obeys the Divine commandment.
YHWH God is depicted as not wanting disobedient humanity to be able to live into longlasting
time, acting as if they are Divine, and not subject to their God. Thus YHWH God, although
providing for His disobedient creatures, causes them to go outside the garden, and separates
them from the “tree of the lives.” That means, humanity has deprived itself of the source of longlasting
life, and has become subject to death, to “return to the dust.”
Westermann comments on verse 22 that the last phrase: ~l'[ol. yx;w", wachay le(olam,
“and he will live to long-lasting time,” is a new addition to the original story, made by this added
fragment of text. “The new motif is best comprehended in these two words: God will prevent His
creatures from living forever...What is emphasized is that the fruit is unattainable. This corresponds
to the motif of the tree of life in the Gilgamesh Epic, and is the point of the guard that bars
(continued...)
153

99
`~V'mi xQ;lu rv,a] hm'd'a]h'- and YHWH God sent him from (the) garden of Luxurious
100
Place, to work the ground from which he was taken. 3.24 !Kev.Y:w: ~d'a'h'-ta, vr,g"y>w;
98
(...continued)
the way to the tree of life. We have here the situation of a man setting out to acquire the fruit of
the tree of life exactly as in the Gilgamesh Epic.” (P. 272)
The fact is that the Gilgamesh Epic is much older than Genesis itself, and was probably
well known in ancient Israel, along with other myths such as those of Etana and Adapa–all three
of which have as one of their central motifs the quest for immortality, for a “plant of life” that will
insure the over-coming of death. For Westermann and other scholars to simply eliminate this
motif from the Genesis story, or relegate it to the position of being a “scrap” of tradition only added
onto the story at a later time, is in our opinion extremely arbitrary and unwise, changing the
story from what, in its canonical form, it is intended to say.
We also point out that the story as read in its canonical form does not say that the fruit is
unattainable. Rather, it depicts the fruit as being attainable, although only by a very difficult way
that is guarded by the ~ybi ªruK., kerubhiym, “cherubim,” our “winged-animals,” and the flaming
sword that turns in every direction. This type of symbolical language calls for interpretation, of
course–but it is not saying that the fruit is unattainable. To attain that fruit, the humans will have
to pass by way of the winged-animals and the flaming sword. It is a guarded way, but it is not an
impossible way.
What do you think?
99
The text here only states that YHWH God “sent” the man out from the garden--WhxeL.v;y>w:,
wayeshalechehu, “and he sent him forth,” but it is obvious from the story that the man’s wife was
included in that “sending out.” This Hebrew verb xlv, shalach is the same verb used for “sending
away” a wife in a divorce, and for the “sending forth” of YHWH’s people demanded from Pharaoh.
In the very next verse, the much stronger verb is used, “and He drove them out.”
Wenham comments that “God forestalls man’s next step towards self-Divinization by His
Own preemptive first strike (compare 11:7-9).” (P. 85)
100
We have seen how what the serpent said was true–but only in a temporary, deceptive way.
But what YHWH God has said (see 3:18-19) concerning the man’s punishment, is also true–but
in a long-lasting, undeniable way.
Westermann holds that verse 23 is the original ending of the story of Genesis 2-3, which
gives the basic conclusion of the story. “‘Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden...’
This is the proper and the original punishment for the transgression of God’s command. It
touches human existence as a whole, and indeed the life of the man as well as of the woman,
(continued...)
154

%r,D,-ta, rmov.li tk,P,h;t.Mih; br,x,h,; jh;l; taew> ~ybiruK.h;-ta, !d,[e-!g:l. ~d,Q,mi
101 102
`~yYIx;h; #[e And He drove out the human being; and caused to tent on the east side of the
100
(...continued)
and as such is different from the punishments in verses 16-19 which are directed to particular,
limited aspects of the existence of the man and the woman separately...It is in this verse that the
narrative really reaches its goal, as becomes clear from the structure: it begins, the man created
by God is put into the garden, 2:8; it ends, he and his wife are driven out of the garden, 3:23. The
purpose of the narrative is to explain the present state of human existence as an existence on
earth which is limited by earth, i.e., as an existence which is at the same time a state of alienation
from God. The division that people experience as they live out an existence that they are aware
is created, and at the same time their experience of their limitation as fallible and destined to
death, is narrated here as a state. Human existence in history begins with this, that the person is
where God is not.” (P. 270)
We strongly disagree. The Genesis story does not go on to depict humanity as living in a
world where God is not–not at all. We do not understand how this kind of interpretation can be
read into the biblical story–unless it is the influence of the Christian doctrine of “hereditary total
depravity” taught so powerfully by Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and numerous others. As the biblical
story continues, both in Genesis and the rest of the Hebrew Bible, it goes to great lengths to
depict God as the Lord of history, who is constantly with His people, guiding them into the future,
caring for them, punishing them, renewing them, even when they are disobedient and rebellious
against Him. We think Westermann’s interpretation has been read into the text, and only by neglecting
verses 22 and 24, which are part of the text of Genesis as we have it, and should not be
overlooked or slighted in this way.
What do you think?
101
Here the verb used is vr,g"y>w:, wayegaresh, “and He drove (the human being) out,” a much
stronger verb than the previous “and He sent out.”
This verb is also found at:
Genesis 4:14, Cain has been driven out from the face of the ground, yet still builds a city;
Genesis 21:10, Sarah tells Abraham to “drive out” Hagar and Yishmael;
Exodus 2:17, where shalach and garesh are used as synonyms; shepherds drive Jethro’s
daughters away;
Exodus 6:1; 10:11; 12:39, both verbs, shalach and garesh are used to describe how Pharaoh
will send or drive out the Israelites from Egypt;
Exodus 23:28, 29, 30, 31; 33:2; 34:11, all concerning the “driving out” of the inhabitants of
Palestine before the Israelites;
Leviticus 21:7, 14, priests cannot marry the “driven out,” divorced wife of another man;
Leviticus 22:13, the divorced daughter of a priest may eat priestly provisions;
Numbers 22:6, 11, Balak wants Balaam to curse Israel, so that perhaps he can “drive them out”;
(continued...)
155

103 104 105
garden of Luxurious Place the winged-animals, and the sword’s flame that turns every way,
101
(...continued)
Numbers 30:10, divorced or “driven out” woman;
Deuteronomy 33:27, YHWH drove out Israel’s enemies.
Similar usage is found in numerous places throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
Wenham quotes Cassuto to the effect that “God did not just send him forth, an act that
would not have precluded all possibility of his returning, but He drove him out–completely” (Pp.
85-86; Cassuto, P. 173).
But this is overstatement. Israel has been “driven out” of its land, but later is able to return;
“driven out” women, are able to return to their husbands. See the passages referred to above.
102
The Greek translation interpolates the personal pronoun auvto,n, i.e., “caused him to tent...”
at this point in the text. The Hebrew underlying this pronoun is wotao, )otho, “him.” The Hebrew
text makes it unmistakable that it is the winged-animals and the flaming sword that are caused to
dwell at the entrance to the garden.
103
The Greek translation interpolates the phrase kai. e;taxen, kai etaksen, “and he appointed”
at this point in the text.
104
The masculine plural noun ~ybiruK.h;, hakkerubhiym, “the winged-animals,” is transliterated
into Greek as ta. ceroubim, ta cheroubim (with different spellings–cheroubin and cheroubein;
sometimes capitalized, sometimes not). Fox translates by “the winged sphinxes.”
The major passages where the noun occurs (both singular and plural) are:
Genesis 3:24, here, winged-animals placed at the east side of the garden where the tree of lives
is;
Exodus 25, 26, 36, 37,17 occurrences, all with reference to the gold-covered winged-animals on
the lid of the ark / chest of the covenant );
Numbers 7:89, Moses hears the voice of YHWH speaking from between the two winged-animals
on the ark / chest of the covenant;
1 Samuel 4:4, the ark / chest of the covenant, where YHWH is enthroned between the two
winged-animals, is returned from Shiloh; 2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 13:6, similar; only
here being returned after being captured by the Philistines;
2 Samuel 22:11; Psalm 18:11, verse 10 in English, YHWH mounted the winged-animals and
flew; He soared on the wings of the wind;
1 Kings 6, 7, 8; 2 Chronicles 3. 5, 11 occurrences, all with reference to their presence in
Solomon’s temple, carved into the walls, and two placed above the ark / chest of the
covenant;
(continued...)
156

104
(...continued)
2 Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16, Hezekiah prays to YHWH the God of Israel, enthroned between the
two winged-animals; Psalm 80:2; 99:1,, similar;
Ezekiel 9:3, God’s glorious radiance “went up” from above the winged-animals, preparing to
depart from the temple in Jerusalem; Ezekiel 10, 21 occurrences), detailing YHWH’s
departure, and how beneath the wings of the animals could be seen something like human
hands, distributing fire for destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and their bodies full of
eyes, with four animal-like faces; 11:22, similar;
Ezekiel 28:14, 16, the king of Tyre was anointed as a guardian winged-animal, who was
blameless / perfect when created, but who became filled with violence, and was expelled
from the mountain of God;
Ezekiel 41:15-26, 6 occurrences, Ezekiel’s vision of a new temple included carved wingedanimals
with two faces, one human, one animal, along with carved palm trees, all around
the whole temple;
1 Chronicles 28:18, which describes the ~yfiêr>poæl‘bh'z" ~ybi ÛrUK.h; hb' ªK'r>M,h; tynIåb.t;
hw")hy>-tyrIB !Arïa]-l[; ~ykiÞk.sow>., pattern of the chariot, the winged-animals of gold, for
spreading out and covering over (the) ark / chest of YHWH covenant. Here, instead of the
depiction of the winged-animals as a “throne,” it is the depiction of them as a “chariot.”
Westermann states that here in Genesis 3, “the narrator is relying on non-Israelite traditions.”
(P. 274) But these passages just enumerated demonstrate that the ~ybiruK., kerubhiym,
“winged-animals,” certainly do play an important role in Israelite tradition. We would not deny that
similar figures are found in non-Israelite religious traditions, in which winged animals such as bulls
or lions or sphinxes stand at the entrances to sanctuaries, just as Westermann notes: “Mythical
guardians who protect access to a place forbidden to humans, guardians at the door to the underworld,
guardians of a sanctuary” (p. 274); but it is simply mistaken to describe this matter as “non-
Israelite.”
We summarize as follows: the winged-animals are depicted in the major passages of the
Hebrew Bible as part of the imagery connected to the chest / ark of the covenant. Shaped in the
form of golden winged-beings (what their bodies looked like is a matter of conjecture–perhaps
partly human, partly animal), with wings outstretched and faces looking downward, they were
placed on the lid or covering of the chest / ark, which contained the Ten Commandments. Here
was the symbolic heart of the Jewish religion, which imagined the invisible YHWH as speaking to
His people from above the winged-animals, which served as a sort of “royal throne,” or “chariot,”
for YHWH, Who was acknowledged to “fill heaven and earth,” but Who made Himself known
through this symbolic representation.
YHWH is known as the “Rider of the bWrK., kerubh, ‘winged-animal,’” a phrase wellknown
in the Ugaritic tradition, the One Who comes with the clouds in judgment upon wicked
oppressors, bringing deliverance His afflicted poor who call upon Him. See 2 Samuel 22:11 and
Psalm 18:10 (verse 11 in Hebrew):
(continued...)
157

104
(...continued)
@[o+Y"w: bWrK.â-l[; bK;är>YIw:
`x:Wr)-ypen>K;-l[; ad

104
(...continued)
What do you think?
105
What can this ancient story mean by its symbolism of tk,P,h;t.Mih; br,x,h; jh;l;, lahat
hachereb hammithhapeketh, literally “flame of the sword, the one turning every way” (in Greek,
th.n flogi,nhn ròmfai,an th.n strefome,nhn, “the fiery sword, the one turning around”)?
We believe that while the winged-animals symbolize the heart of Israel’s moveable sanctuary
/ stationary temple worship, with its infinite demand (the Ten Commandments) and its
offering of infinite grace (on the day of coverings / atonement), this second part of the symbolism
adapted from Israel for this ancient story of humanity, depicts the “prophetic word,” which came to
historical Israel like a burning fire, through both the “former spokespersons” (Joshua through 2
Samuel) and the “latter spokespersons” (the writing spokespersons, from Hosea to Malachi) to
burn up all evil and distortion of the covenant, a Divine word which cuts into every nook and
cranny (turning first in this direction, then in that direction, letting nothing escape) of Israel’s life
and heart, demanding the kind of ethical and moral purity that YHWH God wants from His people,
and denials of which call forth YHWH God’s burning wrath. We believe that this prophetic word
was embodied and powerfully restated by Jesus.
Westermann rejects the concept as “an independent image stemming from a different tradition,”
stating that “These guardian beings are not required in the basic narrative; the expulsion of
the man and the woman from the garden by God is in itself definitive.” (Pp. 274-75)
However, Westermann admits that “the personification of a weapon is common, and even
the Old Testament speaks of ‘the avenging sword of God’ (Jeremiah 46:10; Isaiah 34:5; Zephaniah
2:12).” (P. 275)
For this kind of “fire” symbolism, see:
Deuteronomy 32:22, For a fire is kindled by my anger, and burns to the depths of Sheol; it
devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains;
Isaiah 42:25, So (YHWH) poured upon (disobedient Israel) the heat of his anger and the fury of
war; it set him on fire all around, but he did not understand; it burned him, but he did not
take it to heart;
Joel 2:3, the fire that burns in the locust invasion symbolizing YHWH’s “day”;
Malachi 3:19, the fire of YHWH’s day;
Psalm 97:3, fire goes before YHWH, consuming his adversaries on every side;
Psalm 104:4, YHWH’s messengers / ministers are “flames of fire”;
Psalm 106:18, fire burns up the wicked.
For the “sword” element of the symbolism, see:
Isaiah 34:6, YHWH has a sword (which descends from heaven upon Edom); it is sated with blood
(making a huge offering in the land of Edom);
Jeremiah 12:12, the sword of YHWH devours from one end of the land to the other;
(continued...)
159

to guard (the) way (to the) tree of the lives. 106
105
(...continued)
Jeremiah 7:6-7, YHWH’s sword cannot be quiet when YHWH has given command against
Ashkelon;
Deuteronomy 32:40-42, YHWH’s “flashing sword” takes vengeance, devouring flesh.
There can be no question but that these symbols of fire and sword are used for the Divine
judgment that comes in history, and if people will only let that fire burn them, and that sword cut
them to the depths, it will mean their salvation rather than their destruction.
See this same motif in the Exodus story of the ten plagues on Egypt, in which the slightest
inclination of Pharaoh to receive the Divine word means the plague comes immediately to an end.
But more specifically, the imagery of fire and sword are used concerning the word of
YHWH that acts as a judging, creative power in history. See the following passages:
Jeremiah 5:14, YHWH responds to the claim of the disobedient people that the word of the
spokespersons is only an empty wind, ...Because they have spoken this word, I am now
making My words in your mouth a fire, and this people wood, and the fire shall devour
them! Yes, the word of YHWH in the mouth of His servants such as Jeremiah is a devouring
fire–but if people will let it burn them to the depths, it will mean their salvation, not
their destruction;
Jeremiah 23:28-29, Let the spokesperson who has a dream tell the dream, but let the one who
has My word speak My word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? says
YHWH. Is not My word like fire, says YHWH, and like a hammer that breaks a rock in
pieces?
In the New Testament, see especially Hebrews 4:12-13, “For the word of God is alive and
powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as a separation between life
and spirit, and both joints and marrow, and is able to judge the heart’s reflections and thoughts.
And there is not a creature that is hidden from before it, but all are naked and exposed to its eyes
–we must answer to it.
If, according to New Testament theology, Jesus is the Embodiment of that word of God
(see John 1:1-18), and is the Judge of all people, there can be little question as to why it is insisted
that all people must come to Jesus, in order to gain the life that death cannot conquer.
This is directly in line with our interpretation of this symbolism at the close of Genesis 3;
indeed this biblical symbolism is embodied and fulfilled in Jesus. Compare Revelation 1:16,
where the risen Lord Who is present with, walking in the midst of His suffering churches of Asia is
depicted as having a sharp two-edged sword coming out of His mouth.
Wenham shares in this view, at least partially, as he states, “Thus in this last verse of the
narrative there is a remarkable concentration of powerful symbols that can be interpreted in the
light of later sanctuary design...The garden of Eden was a type of archetypal sanctuary where
God was uniquely present in all his life-giving power. It was this that man forfeited when he ate
the fruit.” (P. 86)
160

106
Here, then, in the ancient story in Genesis, the author depicts YHWH God as stationing the
winged-animals, and in addition the flame of the revolving sword, outside the garden, to guard the
way back to the tree of the lives. He means that humanity, even though cast out of the garden,
still has the possibility of access to that tree of the lives–but only, if humanity will come by the way
of the infinite demand and infinite grace of YHWH God (symbolized by the winged-animals, with
the Ten Commandments beneath them, and the sacrificial blood of the day of coverings /
atonement upon them); humanity must let the Divine word (spoken by YHWH’s servants, the
spokespersons) cut into their innermost beings, and with its Divine fire burn up all that is evil
within them (symbolized by the fiery, turning sword). If humanity is willing to come by this way,
and pass through such demanding, rigid examination, it can still return to that source of longlasting
lives.
We think the story of Enoch is an example of one individual who succeeded in returning
upon that path–see Genesis 5:24.
Hamilton, along with others, holds that “...Man does not leave the garden of his own will.
Nor is he gently escorted to the garden’s edge. In fact, he is thrown out. Sin separates from God.
Intimacy with God is replaced with alienation.” (P. 210)
But we think this view is greatly overstated, and misrepresents the overall meaning of the
story of Genesis 3-4. It is true that disobedience to the Divine command results in humanity’s
being thrown out of the garden, and becoming no longer able to eat from the tree of the lives. But
it does not say or mean that humanity is “separated from God,” for as the story continues, it depicts
YHWH God as continuing to be with His disobedient creatures outside the garden, warning,
guiding, protecting them, even though they have brought upon themselves such disastrous consequences
by their disobedience, and at least some unique individuals (Enoch, Noah) have unique
access to YHWH God.
But in fact, humanity is no more “separated from God” in its life outside the garden than it
was before. Humanity’s sin results in being cast out of the garden; but it does not result in their
being cast out of God’s continuing inescapable presence and care. Do you agree?
Hamilton concludes that “So then, man leaves the garden, and the opening behind him is
barred. Paradise has been lost and forfeited. Christian theologians traditionally refer to this event
as ‘the fall.’” (P. 210)
They add that only through Jesus Christ can humanity return to the life-imparting tree:
“Only through God’s redemption in [Jesus] Christ does man have access again to the tree of life.”
(NIVSB, p. 11) See:
Revelation 2:7, To the one who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which
is in the paradise of God;
Revelation 22:2, the tree of life grows on each side of the river of the water of life in the new
Jerusalem;
(continued...)
161

106
(...continued)
Revelation 22:14, those who wash their robes have the right to the tree of life;
Revelation 22:19, those who take away from the words of the Book of Revelation will have their
share in the tree of life taken away from them.
What do you think? Do you see the symbolism of Genesis 3:23-24 pointing to the fact that
“only through God’s redemption in Jesus Christ” can humanity return to the tree of the lives?
We think that the symbolism of this passage implies that only those can return who come
to YHWH God’s meeting-place in humble penitence, vowing honestly to keep His command, and
letting their hearts and lives be cut through and purified by the Divine message of the prophets /
spokespersons. That doesn’t mean “only through Jesus Christ,” but includes those who share in
the kind of penitence that was symbolized on Israel’s day of coverings / atonement (see Leviticus
16, where full forgiveness and renewal are proclaimed to worshipers).
What happened in Israel on that yearly day of coverings / atonement has, we believe, been
embodied and fulfilled in Jesus Christ in even greater measure, since it is proclaimed for all humanity,
not just for Israel. Jesus Christ offers all who come to Him in humble penitence, a new covenant–with
that same infinite demand (the Divine command must be obeyed), but also with that
same infinite grace (full forgiveness and the gift of living forever).
It seems clear from the symbolism of this text that “the way to the tree of the lives” is still
open to humanity, if only they will come by the way of the winged-animals, and let the fiery turning
sword (symbolizing the word of YHWH, spoken by the spokespersons of Israel, then embodied in
Jesus) cut and burn them, destroying immorality and evil. That means, the so-called “fall” can be
reversed. It is not an easy way to walk upon–but according to the biblical picture, it is a way that
is still open to humanity; it is not “barred,” in such a way that access is impossible. It is “guarded,”
in such a way that humanity cannot return to the source of immortality without deep, heart-searing
penitence and forgiveness; but with such penitence and forgiveness, the way is still open.
What do you think? How do you interpret the symbolism of the story?
Hamilton notes that “...It is...surprising that the Old Testament says virtually nothing about
Adam or Eve after Genesis 5. For example, the prophets do not hesitate to draw on the catastrophe
at Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate the consequences of disobedience, but they never
use the story of the expulsion from Eden to draw a similar analogy. As a matter of fact, one must
wait until Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 for an extensive discussion of Adam.” (Pp. 210-11).
We hold that the biblical story is not meant as an example of “history,” as is the story of
Sodom and Gomorrah, with the coming of YHWH’s “day” of destruction upon immorality. Rather,
the story of Adam and Eve is meant as the story of Everyman and Everywoman, and is the biblical
way of summing up in a powerful, symbolical story, all of humanity’s disobedience and choice
that has brought the kind of historical punishments that are represented by such stories as that of
Genesis 18-19, and especially the rebellion of Israel in the wilderness.
What do you think?
(continued...)
162

106
(...continued)
Hamilton mentions the view of Immanuel Kant, who holds that Genesis 3 does not describe
a “fall,” but rather, a “rise”:
“Kant praises Adam for his willingness to make his own moral judgment rather than blindly
following the dictates of another, even if that other is God. For Kant, Genesis 3 is an account of
the ‘transition from an uncultured, merely animal condition to the state of humanity, from bondage
to instinct to rational control–in a word, from the tutelage of nature to the state of freedom.’” (P.
211; Hamilton is quoting from the book entitled Kant on History, ed. L. W. Beck, Indianapolis:
Liberal Arts, 1963, p. 60).
“According to Kant it is essential for a moral being to have ‘the power of choosing for himself
a way of life and not being bound without alternative to a single way, like the animals.’” (Ibid.)
Hamilton also quotes D.R.G. Beattie in an article in Expository Times (1980 / 81), pp. 8-
10, “Thank God, says the story-teller, that Adam and Eve didn’t eat of the tree of lives lest mankind
become immortal morons.” (1, p. 211)
We respond to Kant (and Beattie) that according to the biblical story, YHWH God wants
His human creatures to make that choice, and the entire story is centered in just this matter of
human freedom and choice with its consequences. YHWH God places the forbidden tree and the
serpent in the garden with them. That means, YHWH wants His creatures to freely choose to
obey His voice, giving them both opportunity and testing to do the opposite. They are not intended
to be either puppets or morons. It is only through the terrifying ordeal of choosing disobedience,
and experiencing YHWH God’s “casting out,” that these human creatures can learn what it
is to relate to their God in terms of infinite demand and infinite grace, allowing His word to burn
out their evil.
This story depicts humanity intentionally created by YHWH God in a “state of freedom,”
where the necessity of choice confronts them, by Divine design. In this very fact lies the difference
between the animals and the humans; the animals evidently have little freedom of choice;
the humans have to choose their course of life from the very beginning. YHWH God did not by
any means intend to create a human race of “immortal morons.” Rather, He has created humanity
to be a people who can only attain immortality by freely choosing to trust and obey their Creator
and His command.
We agree with Hamilton in his statement that “...There is little celebration in Genesis 3.
Adam and Eve do not exit the garden in a doxological frame of mind. 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...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.
“...It may well be that Genesis 3 lends its imprimatur to the concept of man who has always
been given the capacity to make his own independent moral choice. But it goes much further
than that. It says, quite strongly, that one’s choices should not be made in the interests of the
(continued...)
163

106
(...continued)
self. Rather, such choices should be made within the range of God’s directives. What has God
said on the matter? Is my choice pleasing and obedient to Him? Adam always has the capacity
to choose. But he lacks complete control over the consequences of that choice. Freedom is not
something Adam gains. It is something he forfeits. A truly liberated Adam now becomes an
Adam in bondage. He has willed to be his own God, which is, of course, a sin on which he has no
monopoly.” (Pp. 211-12)
What do you think?
Westermann discusses the “purpose and thrust” of Genesis 2-3, stating that the biblical
story “...concerns the human race. It is one of the few biblical stories that is known to the whole
world even to this day. General talk about Adam and Eve, paradise, the serpent and so on shows
that the narrative still lives even outside the Christian ecclesiastical tradition. This in turn accords
with the fact that the basic motifs of the narrative did not begin in Israel, but belong to the traditions
of the human race which stretch both geographically and chronologically into the far distance
and whose origins cannot be determined. But there is the widest of chasms between the
broad sweep of the original meaning of these narratives and the restricted dogmatic meaning given
them in their traditional Christian explanation. This is illustrated by the description ‘the fall’
which has become the title of the story in all Western languages...The description implies that the
narrative has a dogmatic teaching on the Primeval State, Fall and Original Sin.” (P. 275)
Westermann rejects this understanding of the story, saying that its origin is to be found in
late Judaism–specifically in the Apocrypha at 2 Esdras (also known as 4 Ezra) 7:118-126 (see
Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I, p. 541) a document dated about 100 A.D.,
which states,
O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not
yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants. For what good is it to us, if an
immortal time has been promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring death? And
what good is it that an ever-lasting hope has been promised to us, but we have miserably
failed? Or that safe and healthful habitations have been reserved for us, but we have lived
wickedly? Or that the glory of the Most High will defend those who have led a pure life, but
we have walked in the most wicked ways? Or that a paradise shall be revealed, whose
fruit remains unspoiled, and in which are abundance and healing, but we shall not enter it
because we have lived in perverse ways? Or that the faces of those who practiced selfcontrol
shall shine more than the stars, but our faces shall be blacker than darkness? For
while we lived and committed iniquity we did not consider what we should suffer after
death.
Compare also 2 Esdras / 4 Ezra 3:20-27:
...For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome,
as were also all who were descended from him. Thus the disease became permanent, the
law was in the people’s heart along with the evil root, but what was good departed, and the
evil remained ...The inhabitants [of Jerusalem] transgressed, in everything doing as Adam
(continued...)
164

106
(...continued)
and all his descendants had done, for they also had the evil heart...
It is obvious that 2 Esdras / 4 Ezra does not make the fall completely dependent on Adam
–but rather joins the subsequent generations with Adam as alike sinful and disobedient to God,
bringing down the Divine punishment upon themselves, just as we have interpreted Paul as
meaning in Romans 5.
Westermann discusses the theme of sin and death as found in the Pauline writings, and
his comparison between the first Adam and the second Adam (Jesus Christ). But he holds that
“The full development of the teaching on original sin” is first found in Augustine, which became
determinative for later Christian teaching in the West. (P. 276). We agree.
Westermann, by contrast with Augustine (and Calvin and Luther), holds that “The narrative
of Genesis 2-3 does not speak of a fall. One should avoid therefore a description which differs
so much from the text and is so inaccurate and deceptive.” (Ibid.)
We think that this is hypercritical, and that whether we speak of Genesis 2-3 as depicting a
“casting out from the garden,” or “a fall,” is largely a matter of semantics. Westermann himself
thinks the story depicts “alienation from God,” and that can certainly be summed up in terms of “a
fall from grace.”
But, as we have insisted, the on-going story does not depict the descendants of the original
couple as so “alienated from God” as to have no more Divine presence or communication–for
God is depicted as present with their descendants, continuing to warn, punish and deliver them,
leading humanity out into a future of blessing through the descendants of Abhraham. No one can
read the Psalms and conclude that the psalmists lived in total or complete alienation from God as
depicted by Augustine, Calvin and Luther–but instead, lived in intimate and blessed, hope-filled
interpersonal relationship with YHWH God, the great Shepherd–see for one example, Psalm 23.
We hold that the view expressed in 2 Esdras / 4 Ezra is very true to the original story–
Adam did it, but we ourselves have done it as well. The story of Genesis 2-3 is given in order to
explain the origin of suffering and death in the God-created good earth–and it roots that origin in
the original human couple’s choice to follow their own desires, heedlessly disregarding the Divine
commandment. But that original couple, we think, stands for Everyman and Everywoman–it is our
story. What that original couple did, we ourselves have done and continue to do. Compare Romans
5:12, evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton, “because / on this basis, all missed-the-mark / sinned.” Also,
see Ephesians 4:17-24:
17 Tou/to ou=n le,gw kai. martu,romai evn kuri,w|( mhke,ti u`ma/j peripatei/n( kaqw.j kai.
ta. e;qnh peripatei/ evn mataio,thti tou/ noo.j auvtw/n( 18 evskotwme,noi th/ | dianoi,a| o;ntej(
avphllotriwme,noi th/j zwh/j tou/ qeou/ dia. th.n a;gnoian th.n ou=san evn auvtoi/j( dia. th.n
pw,rwsin th/j kardi,aj auvtw/n( 19 oi[tinej avphlghko,tej e`autou.j pare,dwkan th/| avselgei,a| eivj
evrgasi,an avkaqarsi,aj pa,shj evn pleonexi,a|Å 20 u`mei/j de. ouvc ou[twj evma,qete to.n Cristo,n(
(continued...)
165

106
(...continued)
21 ei; ge auvto.n hvkou,sate kai. evn auvtw/| evdida,cqhte( kaqw,j evstin avlh,qeia evn tw/| VIhsou/(
22 avpoqe,sqai u`ma/j kata. th.n prote,ran avnastrofh.n to.n palaio.n a;nqrwpon to.n
fqeiro,menon kata. ta.j evpiqumi,aj th/j avpa,thj( 23 avnaneou/sqai de. tw/| pneu,mati tou/ noo.j
u`mw/n 24 kai. evndu,sasqai to.n kaino.n a;nqrwpon to.n kata. qeo.n ktisqe,nta evn dikaiosu,nh| kai.
o`sio,thti th/j avlhqei,ajÅ
17 This therefore I say and testify in (the) Lord: no longer should you people walk about
like the nations walk, in purposelessness of their mind(s), 18 being darkened in the(ir) understanding,
having been alienated from the life [living forever!] of the God through the ignorance that
exists in them, through the hardening of their heart; 19 who, having become dead to all feeling,
handed themselves over to licentiousness [lack of self-control] to working all (sorts of) uncleanness
with constantly wanting more and more. 20 But then you people were not taught the Christ
in this way, 21 if indeed you heard Him and were taught in Him, just as truth is in the Jesus– 22
(that) you (should) put aside what was true of (your) former way of going about, the old person,
the one being corrupted according to the desires of the deceitfulness; 23 but then to be renewed
in the spirit of your mind(s), 24 and to clothe yourselves with the new person, the one that according
to God (is being) created in right-relationship and devoutness of the truth.
Paul’s language is difficult to translate accurately, but his meaning is crystal clear. Alienation
from God (and separation from the tree of life) is not something simply inherited from our
ancestors Adam and Eve, but is something that comes through our own willing ignorance and
hardening of heart. People hand themselves over to such a life of alienation and uncleanness.
But the teaching of Christ causes people to put away that old manner of life, and to be renewed
and re-clothed in the kind of life-style that unites them with God (and therefore with the hope of
eternal life).
Westermann points out that “There is no tradition of the narrative of Genesis 2-3 throughout
the whole of the Old Testament...It is not quoted and is never mentioned. It is never included
in the syntheses of the acts of God (Credo [‘I believe’]). The reason for this is that Israel never
considered it to be a historical incident side-by-side with other historical incidents.” (P. 276)
We think that this undeniable fact is rooted in Israel’s understanding of the biblical story as
the story of “Everyman and Everywoman.” It is depicting what we all do in our lives, breaking a
trusting, obedient relationship with God, resulting in suffering and death. Thus the story of Israel’s
suffering and destruction in captivity is a depiction of the same thing–only historicized in specific
people and times, while the Genesis story is meant to apply to every people and every time.
Westermann states that “A careful distinction must be made between the event described
in Genesis 2-3 and what can only take place in a history between God and His people: the disobedience,
apostasy, disloyalty of this people which presumes a meeting in history. The basis of
the difference is the universal character of Genesis 2-3; what is said here holds for all people.”
(P. 277)
(continued...)
166

106
(...continued)
Again Westermann writes, “The narrative of Genesis 2-3 will always retain its meaning for
humankind. Something basic is said about humanity which no religious or ideological, no scientific,
technical or medical development or change can or will in any way alter. It is part of human
existence that a person is fallible. One cannot be a human being other than a fallible human being...”
(P. 277)
We agree–but also insist that fallible human beings can genuinely repent, and turn to
YHWH God, to obey His command. If this is not true, why all the calls to penitence that characterize
the biblical message in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament?
In this way, the Genesis story sets the stage for the future coming and work of that great
Descendant of Abraham, through Whom all the nations of the earth (so fallible, so needy), will
receive Divine blessings.
What do you think? Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Wenham sums up his comments on Genesis 2-3 by saying, “In this...story...Hebrew narrative
art is seen at its highest. The exquisite charm with which the tale unfolds serves only to
deepen the tragedy that is related, while the apparent naivete of the style disguises a richness of
theological reflection that philosophers and theologians have not exhausted. And perhaps this is
the greatest tribute that can be paid to the writer: he communicates to all–young and old, the
educated and the unsophisticated. He describes God’s relations with men, not in high-flown, abtract
theological jargon that needs special linguistic aptitudes and a long training to acquire, but in
a simple vocabulary drawn from peasant life [and, we add, from Israel’s experience in its moveable
sanctuary and stationary temple]...
“Genesis 2-3, then, offers a paradigm of sin, a model of what happens whenever man
disobeys God. It is paradigmatic in that it explains through a story what constitutes sin and what
sin’s consequences are...As a paradigm of sin this model would be equally at home in any of the
great theological traditions of the Old Testament...” (Pp. 86, 90)
We agree! Do you?
167

Continuing Story of Rebellion–Sibling Rivalry and Murder--
alongside the Development of Civilization, Life and Worship
Genesis 4:1-26, Introduction
The student is asked to read Genesis 4 carefully from NIVSB, TNISB, and ESVSB, along
with their notes, before beginning to use this translation with its footnotes. Be continually in
prayer for Divine guidance as you study!
Continuing story of humanity's rebellion and death: Cain and Abel--brother murders brother, over
religious offerings--(4:1-16) 1
Human responsibility for control of jealousy and anger, and for keeping life "on target"
YHWH questions Cain, who defiantly responds that he is not his brother's "keeper"
YHWH "hears" and responds to the murderer’s voice crying out
Divine discipline of, yet care for and protection of the murderer
The descendants of Cain are responsible for the beginnings of civilization–with its cities, bigamy,
animal husbandry, music and work with metal--(4:17-22)
Lamech and the terrible "blood-feud"--(4:23-24)
Birth of Seth, and beginning of worship, the calling on YHWH by name--(4:25-26)
1
To say that chapter 4 is "the continuing story of humanity’s rebellion and death" is based on
the conviction that the biblical story of what Christian theologians have called (we think, somewhat
mistakenly) "the fall" is not confined to Genesis 3, but is continued here in chapter 4, and indeed
beyond (we suggest, to the very end of the “Deuteronomic History” at the close of 2 Kings, where
Judah goes into Babylonian captivity). But the story that continues in verses 17-26 is not all negative–here
we also witness the beginnings of civilization, the birth of new life, and the worship of
YHWH.
Westermann states, "Genesis 3...deals with crime and its punishment; and there is every
sign that the course of the narrative in 4:2-16 follows closely the pattern of Genesis 3. Just as in
Genesis 3, so too here, the trial takes place face to face, verses 9-10, and punishment is expressed
in the form of a curse, verses 11-12. Again, as in Genesis 3, the punishment is tempered,
verses 13-15, and it is God Himself Who is responsible for the action which protects the transressor
from the full consequence of his crime, 4:15b and 4:21; as in Genesis 3, the punishment
consists in alienation--expulsion...The parallels between Genesis 4 and 3 are so striking and
thorough as to make the intention...unmistakable, namely, to construct in chapter 4 a narrative of
crime and punishment corresponding to that in chapter 3." (P. 285)
168

Genesis 4:1-26, Hebrew Text with English Translation
4.1 ytiynIq' rm,aTow: !yIq;-ta, dl,Tew: rh;T;w: ATv.ai hW"x;-ta,[d;y" ~d'a'h'w>
`hw"hy>-ta, vyai And the human being knew Eve his woman, and she conceived; and
she gave birth to Cain. And she said, I acquired a man–YHWH! 4.2 ta td,l,l'@s,Tow:
`hm'd'a] dbe[o hy"h' !yIq;w> .aco h[ero lb,h,-yhiy>w: lb,h'-ta wyxia'-,, And she continued to
give birth–to his brother, to Abel. And Abel became a shepherd of small animals; and Cain
became a worker (of the) ground. 4.3 hm'd'a]h' yrIP.mi !yIq; abeY"w: ~ymiy" #Qemi yhiy>w:
`hw"hyl; hx'n>mi And it happened as time passed; and Cain brought from the ground’s fruit, an
offering for YHWH. 4.4hw"hy> [v;YIw: !h,bel.x,meW Anaco tArkoB.mi aWh-~g: aybihe lb,h,w>
`Atx'n>mi-la,w> lb,h,-la, And Abel, he also brought from his flock’s first-fruits, and from their
fat-portions. And YHWH paid attention to Abel and his offering. 4.5 Atx'n>m-la,w. !yIq;-la,w>
`wyn"P' WlP.YIwdaom. !yIq;l. rx;YIw: h['v' al{ And He did not pay attention to Cain and his
offering; and it made Cain very angry, and his countenance fell. 4.6 !yIq'-la, hw"hy> rm,aYOw:
`^yn Atq'WvT. ^yl,aew> #bero taJ'x; xt;P,l;] byjiyte al {~aiw> If you do
good, will not there be lifting (of countenance)? And if you do not do good, missing-of-the-mark is
lying at the door, and its desire is for you–and you, you must rule over it!
4.8 lb,h,-la, !yIq; ~q'Y"w: hd,F'B; ~t'Ayh.Bi yhiy>w: wyxia' lb,h,-la, !yIq; rm,aYOw:
`WhgEr>h;Y:w: wyxia' And Cain said to Abel his brother...and it happened, while they were in the
169

field–and Cain arose against Abel his brother, and he murdered him. 4.9 hw"hy> rm,aYOw:
`ykinOa' yxia' rmevoh; yTi[.d;y" al{ rm,aYOw: ^yxia' lb,h, yae !yIq; la, And YHWH said to
Cain, Where (is) Abel your brother? And he said, I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper? 4.10
`hm'd'a]h' !mi yl;ae ~yqi[]co ^yxia' ymeD. lAq t'yfi[' hm, rm,aYOw: And He said, What did
you do? (The) voice of your brother’s bloods are crying to Me from the ground. 4.11 hT'[;w>
`^d,Y"mi, ^yxia' ymeD>-ta, tx;q;l' h'yPi-ta ht'c.P' rv,a] hm'd'a]h' !mi hT'a' rWra' And
now you are cursed from the ground, which opened its mouth to take your brother’s bloods from
your hand. 4.12 hy rteS'a, ^ynqi dAn-#r,a,B. bv,YEw: hw"hy> ynEp.Limi !yIq; aceYEw:
And Cain went out from before YHWH’ presence, and he lived in the land of wandering, east of
the Delightful Place.
4.17 ar'q.YIw: ry[i hnw: %Anx]-ta, dl,Tew:rh;T;w: Atv.ai-ta, !yIq; [d;YEw:
170

`%Anx] AnB. ~veK. ry[ih' ~veAnd Cain knew his woman, and she conceived; and she gave
birth to Enoch. And he was building a city / town; and he named the city / town’s name like his
son’s name, Enoch. 4.18 laey"Wxm.-ta, dl;y" dr'y[iw>dr'y[i-ta, %Anx]l; dleW"YIw:
`%m,l'-ta, dl;y" laev'Wtm.W laev'Wtm.-ta, dl;y" laey"Yxim.W And to Enoch was born Iyrad;
and Iyrad gave birth to Mechuyael; and Methiyyael gave birth to Methushael; and Methushael
gave birth to Lamech.
4.19 `hL'ci tynIVeh; ~vew> hd'[' tx;a;h' ~ve ~yvin" yTev. %m,l, Al-xQ;YIw: And
Lamech took for himself two women; the one’s name Adhah, and the second’s name, Tsillah.
4.20 `hnr;h' vyai yKi
`ytir'Bux;l. dl,y
And Lamech said to his women, Adhah and Tsillah,
Listen to my voice, women of Lamech,
171

hearken (to) my words.
Because I murdered a man for wounding me,
and a boy for injuring me.
4.24 !yIq'-~Q;yU ~yIt;['b.vi yKi
`h['b.viw> ~y[ib.vi %m,l,w>
Since Cain will be avenged seven times–
and Lamech seventy seven times!
4.25 yKi tve Amv.-ta, ar'q.Tiw: !Be dl,Tew:ATv.ai-ta, dA[ ~d'a' [d;YEw:
`!yIq' Agr'h] yKi lb,h, tx;T; rxea; [r;z< ~yhil{a/ yli-tv' And Adam knew his woman
again, and she gave birth (to) a son; and she called his name Sheth, because God set for me
another descendant in the place of Abel, for Cain murdered him. 4.26 aWh-~G tvel.W
`hw"hy> ~veB. aroq.li lx;Wh za' vAna/ Amv.-ta, ar'q.YIw: !Be-dL;yU And to Sheth, he also
was given birth (to) a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began calling on YHWH’s name.
172

2 3
Continuing Story of Rebellion–Sibling-Rivalry & Murder
Alongside the Development of Civilization, Life and Worship
Genesis 4:1-26, Hebrew Text with Translation and Footnotes
4
4.1 ytiynIq' rm,aTow: !yIq;-ta, dl,Tew: rh;T;w: ATv.ai hW"x;-ta,[d;y" ~d'a'h'w>
2
TNISB has an excursus entitled “Sibling Rivalry in Genesis,” which states that “The conflict
between Cain and Abel introduces a theme that runs throughout the Book of Genesis: the rivalry
between brothers. Such a rivalry occurs among Noah’s sons (9:20-27); between Abraham and
Lot (13:1-18), who are uncle and nephew but are called brothers (13:8), and between Isaac and
Ishmael (21:8-21). But the primary examples are the rivalries between Jacob and Esau (chapters
25-36) and between Joseph and his brothers (chapters 37-50). In the majority of these
cases, conflict is introduced when a younger son is favored over an older son who is the legitimate
heir...The greatest internal threat to social stability is the conflict introduced by sibling rivalry
for authority in the family, and the most pressing need is to resolve this conflict without the violence
that could destroy the family...The most fundamental social conflicts cannot be resolved
through violence [such as Lamech proposes] but must be negotiated by peaceful means [such as
happens between Joseph and his brothers].” (P. 13)
3
ESVSB notes that chapter four “shows mankind plunging further into sin, with Cain murdering
his brother and his descendant Lamech taking indiscriminate revenge.” (P. 57) This is true, but
the chapter also details the development of civilization along with worship of YHWH. It is not an
unmixed depiction of deepening sin, nor of untainted worship.
4
Sarna comments that “This narrative [Cain and Abel, 4:1-16] has often been interpreted as a
reflection of the traditional conflict between the farmer and the nomad, and its supposed bias in
favor of the latter is seen as representing a nomadic ideal in Israel. This is unlikely. The evidence
for such an ideal in biblical literature is extremely flimsy. Further, there is not the slightest
suggestion in the text of any comparative evaluation of the vocations of Cain and Abel, nor is
there the slightest disparagement of the tiller of the soil. On the contrary, agriculture is regarded
as the original occupation of man in the [garden of Luxurious Place] as well as outside it. The
sentence upon Cain is restricted to him alone; his sons are not made into vagrants or stigmatized
in any way. Finally, the three pillars of semi-nomadic culture, as set forth in verses 20-22, are
actually said to have originated with the descendants of Cain.
“The narrative, which is extraordinarily terse and sketchy here, gives no explicit reason for
the unacceptability of Cain’s offering and no explanation for the manner by which this is revealed.
Cain lived in an unpopulated world. Of whom was he afraid? And who was there for him to marry?
The presumption is inescapable that an independent narrative, in which these details presented
no problem, was once well known in Israel. The difficulties now apparent arose when the
Torah chose only the bare bones of the story as a vehicle for the expression and inculcation of
certain fundamental truths about some of life’s most perplexing problems.” (P. 31)
Wenham comments that “Throughout the Pentateuch, the sevenfold use of Divine speech
formulae is commonplace...and within this chapter the number seven is clearly significant (compare
verses 15, 24)...Various keywords in the narrative appear a multiple of seven times. Within
(continued...)
173

5
`hw"hy>-ta, vyai And the human being knew Eve his woman, and she conceived; and she
4
(...continued)
4:1-17, ‘Abel’ and ‘brother’ occur seven times, and ‘Cain’ fourteen times. Within the whole of 2:4-
4:26, #ra ‘earth,’ not ‘land of,’ is mentioned seven times, hmda ‘land’ fourteen times, and
‘God’ ‘the Lord’ or ‘the Lord God’ some thirty-five times, exactly matching the thirty-five occurrences
of ‘God’ in 1:1-2:3.” (P. 96)
Such observations are interesting, but of little value for understanding the text. What do
you think?
5
For the Hebrew Bible’s use of the verb [d;y", yada(, “he knew,” i.e., “he knew her sexually,”
“he had sexual intercourse with her,” elsewhere, see: Genesis 4:17, 25; 19:5, 8; 24:16; 38:26;
Numbers 31:17, 18, 35; Judges 11:39; 19:22 (homosexual knowledge), 25 (multiple rape); 21:
11, 12; 1 Samuel 1:19, and 1 Kings 1:4.
The translation given in Bereishis 1, p. 141 is “Now the man had known...”, and on this
basis Rashi holds that “the conception and birth of Cain had occurred before the sin and expulsion
of Adam and Eve from Eden.” Rabbi Bachya holds differently, that the perfect verb refers to
what happened after expulsion from the garden: “Seeing that he was expelled from the garden,
and as a result of his sin would not live forever, Adam decided to perpetuate the race.” (Ibid.)
This use of the verb “to know” as a description of sexual intercourse reveals how for the
Bible, the ideal relationship between a man and his wife is that they truly come to “know” each
other, in a deeply personal self-giving intimacy that is unique to them alone.
Contrast this with our modern use of a four-letter word to describe sexual intercourse–and
you will begin to see how cheap and empty our modern self-understanding has become, and how
far superior the biblical understanding is.
Haamek Davar states that “The verb implies ‘recognition’ of one’s partner as his married
mate. It raises marriage to sanctity rather than promiscuity in contrast to animals who mate with
any partner out of instinct and desire.” (Ibid.)
Sarna comments that “‘Knowing’ in the Bible is not essentially intellectual activity, not simply
the objective contemplation of reality. Rather, it is experiential, emotional, and, above all,
relational.” (P. 31)
However, even within the Bible itself, this word “to know” becomes twisted, being used not
only for the genuine, intimate relationship intended by the Creator for his human creatures, but
also for homosexual relationships, and the terrifying experience of rape, demonstrating how even
the most precious and personal of relationships can be perverted and abused. That’s the human
condition.
174
(continued...)

6 7 8 9 10
gave birth to Cain. And she said, I acquired a man –YHWH! 4.2 -ta,' td,l,l @s,Tow:
5
(...continued)
Hamilton thinks that the use of this verb indicates that “Rather than being an end in itself,
cohabitation is a means to an end, and that end is a deeper, more intimate knowledge of each
other. In other words, expressing oneself sexually is not just a glandular function.” (P. 220)
Westermann had already commented that the use of this verb “...shows that the bodily
relationship of man and woman is not thought of primarily as physiological, but as personal. It is
not the generation of a child that is primarily in mind but rather an event between husband and
wife which has its real meaning in community.” (P. 289)
God has created male and female in the Divine image–and God wants His human creatures
to live in the exclusive, intimate relationship of becoming “one flesh” with each other–in a
personal bonding that will last throughout this life. That’s the Divine intention–no matter how far
we human beings may stray from it.
What do you think? Do you think our modern world has improved on this evaluation of
sexual intercourse?
6
Fretheim comments that “The rather abrupt transition to life outside the garden appears
initially positive, with the intimacy between wife and husband and the birth of a child; these
themes recur in the chapter (verses 1, 17, 25). Eve lives up to her name (3:20), and the Divine
blessing of creation (1:28) develops appropriately. In addition, Cain and Abel, in their professions,
take up the creational commands to have dominion over the animals and to subdue the
earth (1:28).” (P. 372) Indeed, this is a picture of humanity living in conformity to the Divine
commands, not one of humanity’s being “totally, hereditarily depraved,’ completely incapable of
fulfilling the Divine will.
7
The name !yIq;, qayin, “Cain,” occurs 20 times in the Hebrew Bible, and 16 of those oc-
currences are here in Genesis 4 (1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 8, 8, 9, 13, 15, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25–all of which
are referring to the first-born son of the original couple). Elsewhere, see:
Numbers 24:22, the name of a people, the “Qenites”; Judges 4:11, same;
Joshua 15:57, the name of a village in the hill-country of Israel;
2 Samuel 21:16, the reading is uncertain.
In biblical studies, this name has been given importance through its relationship to the
“Kenite Hypothesis,” and the claim that Cain is used as a name for the Qenite tribe south of
Israel, from which it is claimed Israel’s knowledge of YHWH was derived, a view made famous by
H. H. Rowley. See Westermann, pp. 282-84 for the history of interpretation of Genesis 4.
We think that while there may be some truth to this hypothesis, it is of no value for the
understanding of this biblical story in Genesis 4, where the story, we believe, has nothing to do
with the Qenite people, but rather is part of the biblical story of humanity, told in order for us to
understand who we are.
(continued...)
175

7
(...continued)
Cain is the biblical picture of the human being as a murderer of his brother. As Umberto
Cassuto has insisted: “Cain, who killed his brother, is the prototype of the murderer. All human
beings are brothers and whoever sheds human blood sheds the blood of his brother.” (Quoted by
Westermann, p. 284)
The terrifying reality of this story is that of the universal human condition–which is that
every brother is potentially a brother-murderer, as “sibling rivalry” leads to angry depression, and
to bitter jealousy and resentment, and easily ends in murder–a fact shockingly demonstrated in all
its reality by the killing of fellow students by young students all across America especially during
the 1990's into the present (2010).
Yes, says our Bible, we are all the sons and daughters of one common family and ancestry;
we are all made in the image and likeness of God, the Creator. But we are also capable of
getting so jealously resentful of our brothers and sisters who apparently are more favored than we
are, that we will take their life with impunity. We take up fire-arms, and manufacture explosives,
and instead of loving and honoring our brothers and sisters, take their lives. How relevant do you
think this biblical story is?
We say, It’s as relevant as the latest television newscast, or the Dallas Morning News, or
the terrorist bombings of the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington,
D.C., and now the continued murders of innocent people throughout the world, especially in Iraq,
Afghanistan, India and Israel, by terrorists and suicide bombers.
8
There is a similarity in sound between the verb used here, ytiynIq', qaniythi, “I have acquired,”
and the name give to this son, !yIq;, qayin, “Cain.” Sometimes the verb hnq, qanah means
“create,” and Westermann holds that this is the preferable meaning for the verb as used here.
Eve is jubilant over the fact that she has “created” a man–just as YHWH God created the
first man. Westermann quotes Cassuto in holding that “The first woman, in her joy at giving birth
to her first son, boasts of her generative power, which approximates in her estimation to the
Divine creative power.” (P. 290)
9
Westermann points out that by using the word vyai, )ish, “a man,” and not a word for a newborn
child, it is obvious that the meaning of the woman’s outcry is that “She sees in the child she
has borne the (future) man; she boasts therefore that she has brought forth a man in a way that
corresponds to the creation of the man by the Creator.” (P. 290)
Wenham notes that vyai, )iysh, “a man,” is “used nowhere else to describe a baby boy.”
(P. 101)
Fretheim comments that Eve’s words “refer to Adam’s cry that woman was taken out of
man...(2:23); now the woman cries out that she has produced an vyai, )iysh (the link explains the
(continued...)
176

9
(...continued)
unusual use of this word for a child).” (P. 372)
10
The text is very ambiguous. hw" )hy>-ta,, )eth-yhwh can be translated literally “I have
acquired (or, ‘created’) a man– YHWH.”
Or, it can just as well be translated “I have acquired (or ‘created’) a man with (the help of,
or, ‘from’) YHWH” (the Greek translates by the phrase dia. tou/ qeou/, dia tou theou, “through the
God”).
Fretheim agrees with this Greek translation, stating that “Eve’s word implies human-Divine
cooperation in fulfillment of 1:28 (see 16:2; 17:16)...expressing gratitude to Yahweh (a woman
first speaks this name) for the child and acknowledging Divine participation, which probably refers
generally to God’s blessing of fertility and child-bearing capability.” (P. 372)
Or perhaps this is simply a cry uttered directly to YHWH, “I have acquired (or ‘created’) a
man, O YHWH!”--but if this is the case, there is no use for the sign of the direct object, -ta,, )eth
(YHWH).”
Such a cry of jubilation is not meant to be a clear, carefully polished sentence--and this is
not. But the first mother is depicted by the text as calling out the Divine name YHWH in the experience
of child-birth–that much is clear–and she becomes the first human being in the Bible to
utter the name of God, YHWH. (Compare Sarna, p. 32)
Wenham notes that some have repointed the sign of the direct object ta, to read tao,
“sign,” i.e., meaning “sign of YHWH.” (P. 102)
“The Midrash suggests: ‘I have acquired the lasting love of my man [through the birth of
Cain] with the help of Hashem’...’My husband and I were created by God alone, but in the birth of
Cain we are partners along with Him’ (Rashi)...Abarbanel explains similarly and suggests that the
woman was boasting by attributing this birth to herself and not Adam. It was as if she was saying:
‘Although woman originally came from man, now, with the help of God, man has come from woman.’
‘If I am guilty of having brought about the death of one man [Adam], I have, at least,
brought about the completion of another’ (B’chor Shor).” (Bereishis 1, p. 142)
Westermann comments that “The sentence which explains the name Cain is a cry of
triumph or praise...” (P. 289)
This cry of joy is to be compared with the “jubilant cry of welcome” given by the first man
upon receiving his mate in Genesis 2:23. The man without the woman is lonely and inadequate;
and when he receives the woman from YHWH God, his heart is filled with a joyful exclamation.
Likewise, the woman without her child is incomplete, lacking that which can give meaning and
fulfillment to her life. When birth occurs, the mother is filled with a sense of joy, and acknowledges
the name and the reality of God in the midst of her joyful exclamation.
(continued...)
177

11
`hm'd'a] dbe[o hy"h' !yIq;w> !aco h[ero lb,h,-yhiy>w: lb,h'-ta wyxia', And she continued to
12 13
give birth–to his brother, to Abel. And Abel became a shepherd of small animals; and Cain
10
(...continued)
We ask in the light of this text, is there not a multitude of women who, upon the safe delivery
of their first-born child, have felt similar deep stirrings of joy, and acknowledgment of a Divine
role in that experience?
The preposition -ta,, )eth-, which is normally the sign of the direct object (accusative), can
be taken to mean that she believes she has given birth to YHWH. Such an interpretation is not at
all likely, and it may only mean that she wanted to name her son for God, i.e., “YHWH.”
But -ta,, )eth-, is also used as a preposition meaning “with,” or “together with,” or even
“from” (especially when used with the verb hnq qanah, i.e., “acquire from”–see Brown-Driver-
Briggs, pp. 85-87). With this meaning, the sentence can be understood to mean “I have acquired
a son together with YHWH,” i.e., with YHWH’s help, or “from YHWH”–as this first human mother
acknowledges the birth of her child as a Divine blessing and gift,” i.e., directly as result of His gift
of the power of fertility (so, Hamilton, p. 221).
This is the way the Greek translation understands the text.
Cassuto thinks that the woman’s statement is made in pride, boasting of her generative
power, and means that she has created a man “equally with YHWH.” But this is reading a great
deal into the text that is not truly apparent. The fact is, the statement is ambiguous, and can be
taken with different meanings.
11
Literally, “And she added...”
12
The name of the first woman’s second son is lb,h, hebhel, “Abel,” which means “vapor,”
“breath,” or that which is evanescent, unsubstantial, worthless, “vanity”–as is so well known from
its use in Ecclesiastes (some 31 times).
Jewish commentators affirm that the name means “futility,” “vanity,” or “breath,” and state
that “He was therefore called ‘Hevel’ because: man’s hold on earth is but ‘vanity’ (Ramban; Radak);
his life ended in futility (Midrash HaGadol); in contrast to his more robust brother, Abel was
insignificant; vanity (Hoffman); Hirsch cites the view that Cain was born before the dismissal from
paradise, but that Abel was born after the expulsion. Thus Abel was born into a post-Eden world
where a child can be considered a burden instead of a blessing. Eve’s heart was heavy when she
called her second son...’transitoriness.’” (Bereishis 1, p. 143)
Hamilton asks whether a mother would call her son “Vanity,” but we think this is taking the
story too literally, and that it is perfectly understandable how in stories like this children are given
symbolical names, to indicate the meaning of the role they play in the story.
(continued...)
178

14 15
became a worker (of the) ground. 4.3 hm'd'a]h' yrIP.mi !yIq; abeY"w: ~ymiy" #Qemi yhiy>w:
12
(...continued)
Hamilton notes that “It is true that Abel does play a very small, brief role in this chapter, primarily
as Cain’s victim. He acts, but he never talks. Perhaps his name represents his marginal
role in the narrative.” (P. 222)
Westermann comments that “Genesis 3 describes one’s state as a human being as ‘dust’;
Genesis 4 adds another aspect by using the name lb,h,, Abel. It looks to a person’s contingency
and nothingness and also to what can happen to those who live together in the human state.
Nothing much more is said about Abel in the narrative other than that he was born and murdered.
This is expressed in the name and the name is saying something which is essential to the very
existence of humanity.” (P. 292)
But in fact more is said concerning Abel in this story–it is that Abel was a shepherd of small
animals, and that he offered the best that he had in worship of YHWH, and that his worship was
accepted by YHWH–a very important thing to be said about any human being.
See in the New Testament Matthew 23:35 (where Abel is called “rightly-related” by
Jesus), Luke 11:51 (from the first murder, that of Abel, to the last murder in the Hebrew Bible,
that of Zechariah, 2 Chronicles 24:20-22) and Hebrews 11:4 (by faith Abel offered up a more
acceptable sacrifice than Cain, and was commended by God Who spoke well of his offerings) and
12:24 (Jesus’ sprinkled blood speaks a better word than does the blood of Abel–a word of forgiveness
and hope, rather than Abel’s blood which cries out to YHWH for condemnation of his murderer).
13
Hamilton notes that “Abel, unlike his brother, is a keeper of flocks, a shepherd, which suggests
at least the existence of domesticated animals. He is followed in that vocation by such
notables as Jacob (30:36), Joseph (37:2), Moses (Exodus 3:1), and David (1 Samuel 16:11;
17:34).” (P. 222)
Indeed, it is out of this imagery of sheep- and goat-herding that the great biblical teaching
concerning the role of leaders among the people of YHWH’s being “shepherds” (Ezekiel 34) develops,
with its embodiment in Jesus, the great “Shepherd of the Sheep,” and His followers being
called to act as “pastors,” “shepherds” of the people of God.
Bereishis 1, p. 143, notes that “Because he feared the curse which God had pronounced
against the ground, he turned to caring for sheep and herds (Midrash; Rashi)...Meat was still prohibited
to them (being permitted only in the days of Noah, see Genesis 9:3). Nevertheless, milk,
butter, wool, and the skins of dead animals were permitted to them. Abel’s work, thus, consisted
of shearing the sheep for their wool, and milking the cows (Mizrachi).”
We think it is a mistake to force the stories in Genesis 1-11 to all conform to one another,
as Mizrachi’s comment does, making Abel’s sheep- and goat-herding exclusively for milk and
wool, but not for the eating of meat.
179

14
The Greek translation of verse 2 is about as accurate a translation as is possible.
Some interpreters have placed emphasis on the difference in occupation of the two brothers,
and have interpreted the entire story in terms of the conflict between two different groups in
society--nomads and farmers. But this is certainly not the central emphasis, and may well be a
misreading of the story. As Cassuto points out, these two occupations are the natural occupations
into which brothers enter--the two primary occupations of humanity over a long period of
history.
Westermann states, "It is saying that the division of labor has its origin in the variety in
humankind that is there at the beginning and is described as two brothers living side-by-side. The
Creator gave the man the commission to work, 2:15; the natural consequence of the multiplication
and division of humankind is the division of labor. Human existence in variety demands variety in
work and occupation. Existence side-by-side demands work side-by-side." (P. 293)
This first human son takes up the occupation of his father–see Genesis 2:15 and 3:23.
There is nothing inferior, or evil in such an occupation–it is one of the basic forms of labor, given
by the Creator to His human creatures, by which they are able to provide a living for themselves
and for their families. Not only is Jesus pictured in the New Testament as the “Good Shepherd”;
he is also depicted as the great “Sower of the Seed.”
Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer notes that they [Cain and Abel] would exchange with each other the
products of their respective pursuits.” Radak adds that “Thus the system of bartering goods and
services was instituted by God from the very beginning of creation.” (Bereishis 1, p. 144) All of
this is, of course, being read into the text.
Hamilton notes that “Earlier commentators were fond of suggesting that in its original form
this biblical story served as an illustration of the clash in ancient civilization between two conflicting
life-styles, one agricultural and the other pastoral or nomadic, with the Deity preferring the latter.
Two problems militate against this identification of the original form of the Cain-Abel story.
First, clashes in ancient times were not between agricultural and pastoral peoples, but between
urban agricultural societies (with their livestock) and steppe nomads (with their livestock). Second,
how could this suggestion ever fit the contours of the narrative, for in it the husbandman
(Cain) is driven to nomadism, but only to end up as the founder of culture and of the first city?”
(P. 222)
We should not seek to understand this biblical story in terms of this supposed ancient
cultural clash between rival life-styles, or forms of productivity, i.e., between farmers and ranchers--but
rather, in terms of the human problem that has surfaced in every generation throughout
history–that of “sibling rivalry.” Especially in our contemporary shocking realization that young
people can easily become murderers of their fellow young people–such as happened in 1999 at
Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and has been tragically followed by similar incidents
on numerous campuses. Yes, the biblical story is about the long-time problem of sibling
rivalry, which can easily lead to brother-murder, as well as to the equally long-time problem of
religious jealousy, which has led to so many wars and killings in human history.
180

16
`hw"hyl; hx'n>mi And it happened as time passed; and Cain brought from the ground’s fruit, an
15
Sarna comments on verses 3-5 that “The two sons, unlike their parents in Eden, subsisted
through the toil of their hands [but we must remember that the couple in Eden also had work to
do]. In the fruits of their labors they recognized Divine blessing, and they felt gratitude to God for
His bounty. Their offerings were spontaneous, not a response to Divine command.” (P. 32)
We note that this is hardly a depiction of “hereditarily, totally depraved people”! Do you
agree? Or, are we think that such totally depraved people feel the need for worship and
thanksgiving to God, in spite of their nature?
Fretheim comments that “The text initially focuses on their worship, thereby placing the
reality of worship within a creational context, distinct from God’s revelation to Israel. They bring
offerings without any command to do so [at least, no such command is mentioned in the text].
The writer assumes that human beings worship and conduct sacrifices. No altars or cult personnel
are evident, and it seems unlikely that later Israelite regulations would apply...God clearly
could accept both kinds of offerings (as in Israel’s worship [where both animal and grain offerings
were mandated and common]); neither appears inherently right or wrong.” (P. 373)
Yes–but one offering is more pleasing to YHWH than the other. Why?
NIVSB comments that “The contrast is not between an offering of plant life and an offering
of animal life, but between a careless, thoughtless offering [but the text says nothing about Cain’s
offering being either careless or thoughtless] and a choice, generous offering... Motivation and
heart attitude are all-important, and God looked with favor on Abel and his offering because of
Abel’s faith (Hebrews 11:4).” (P. 11)
But, we ask, is it fair to read New Testament interpretations into the Hebrew Bible as final
and determinative? See footnote 28 on Genesis 3:6. This New Testament text characterizes
Abel’s sacrifice as plei,ona, “more” than Cain’s, reading this into the text of Genesis; neither is
anything said in the Genesis story about Abel’s making his sacrifice “by faith.”
What do you think? Is every New Testament interpretation of the Genesis story or any
other text in the Hebrew Bible to be accepted as “inspired interpretation,” and therefore as excluding
any other understanding? Or is this specific instance only an example of a first-century
Christian minster / writer’s interpretation, which is of value for the development of the Book of
Hebrew’s teaching, but not meant to exclude any other interpretation, as if this author had an
inspired and authoritative understanding of Genesis?
16
This note of time, ~ymiy" #Qemi, miqqets yamiym, is literally “from end of days”; it is transla-
ted into Greek as meqV h`me,raj, meth’ hemeras, literally “after days,” and is one of many biblical
references to time-periods, and “ends” that come in human history, and that are incapable of being
made the basis for chronological calculations, due to their indefiniteness.
181
(continued...)

17 18
offering for YHWH. 4.4> [v;YIw: !h,bel.x,meW Anaco tArkoB.mi aWh-~g: aybihe lb,h,w>
16
(...continued)
Rabbi Hirsch comments that “After the passage of a significant period of time during which
Cain’s fields and Abel’s flocks flourished under God’s blessing, the brothers came to acknowledge
God’s goodness to them.” (Bereishis 1, p. 144)
17
The noun hx'n>mi, minchah, means “gift,” or “offering.” It is used of a secular “gift,” or “present.”
It is also used of “tribute,” or a “tax” paid to a government. But its most common usage is
for a religious “offering,” made to God, of any kind, whether grain or animals, but primarily of the
grain-offering made from raw or roasted grain, or grain that had been ground to flour, and perhaps
prepared as bread or cakes. This kind of “offering” played a large role in the Levitical ritual, and
was certainly not considered an inferior type of offering.
Bereishis 1, p. 144-45 notes that “From the subtle contrast between the simple description
of Cain’s offering and the more specific description of Abel’s offering in the next verse (‘from the
choicest firstlings of his flock’) the Sages derive that Cain’s offering was from the inferior portions
of the crop, while Abel chose only the finest of his flock...Cain brings to God...some of the produce
of the earth, but without troubling to choose the finest. He is content with a minimum. Such a
person devotes only spare time to God; donates only ‘the lame and the sick,’ and whatever is
expendable (Hirsch).”
Hamilton comments that “Each [meaning, Cain and Abel, the two brothers] brought an
offering (hx'n>mi, minchah) appropriate to his occupation. One would expect a farmer to bring an
offering from the vintage of the ground, and a shepherd to bring the sucklings of his flock...There
seems to be no obvious distinction between the two offerings. A fruit or vegetable offering is neither
superior nor inferior to an animal offering.” (P. 223)
But we agree with the Jewish commentators just quoted, that there is some distinction between
the two offerings–the distinction between just offering something, and offering the very best,
along with the notice of the Divine favoring the one offering, and not favoring the other.
The Greek translation uses qusi,an, thusian, “sacrifice,” for the Hebrew hx'n>mi, minchah,
with reference to Cain’s offering. This Greek noun normally implies the “slaughtering” or “sacrifice”
of the animal being offered to God, and it seems somewhat inappropriate to use it for a grain
offering, but nothing is made of this in the biblical story.
Westermann holds that “The narrative presumes that there cannot be human life in common
without sacrifice. B. Jacob...writes: ‘There is no Divine institution of sacrifice; it grew and
continues to grow out of human labor in which the people themselves create, but the utterly
amazing growth and blessing of which they must ascribe to a Higher Power. They feel themselves
under pressure to express this in the offering of sacrifice.’” (P. 295)
Do you agree?
182
(continued...)

19
`Atx'n>mi-la,w> lb,h,-la, hw"hy And Abel, he also brought from his flock’s first-fruits, and
17
(...continued)
We ask, “Why is it that people ordinarily feel the need to give when they acknowledge God
in worship?” Our answer is that when we think about the meaning of our lives, and what has happened
to us in our work, we quickly come to the realization that we are the recipients of great gifts
from a Higher Power, and that we owe everything we have and are to that Power. We cannot
acknowledge that fact, without bringing a gift in our hands. At least, according to this biblical
story, this was true of these two brothers, with regards to their occupations.
What do you think? Is it true of you? Do you have a thankful heart, that compels you to
make offerings to God?
18
Humanity, represented now by Cain and his brother Abel, has been cast out from its original
childlike relationship with YHWH because of personal decisions for disobedience to the Divine
command. But the human beings still live in relationship with YHWH--certainly not in total alienation
as Augustine’s doctrine of the “fall” implies. They acknowledge their relationship by bringing
religious offerings to YHWH in worship, and YHWH both acknowledges and accepts Abel’s sacrifice,
and counsels Cain concerning his attitude towards Abel following the sacrifices.
As YHWH’s words to Cain show, this high act of relating human life to YHWH through the
offering of sacrifice can also at the same time become an occasion for jealousy that leads to the
murder of one's brother. What a tragic, but historically accurate, picture of the human condition!
Even sacrifice--the earliest expression of religion, is ambiguous, and may well be the source of
murderous jealousy.
We should think of the manifold illustrations that world history offers of religious wars and
jealous conflict between the devotees of differing forms of Divine worship, including the history of
Christianity along with the other world religions.
What do you think? Do you think this ancient story has relevance today?
19
The plural noun tArkoB.mi, mibbechoroth, means “from (or ‘some of’ the) first-born ones,”
and implies a choice on Abel’s part to offer the best he had in worship. A synonym, ~yrI ßWKBi,
bikkuriym, “first-fruits,” is also used in the Levitical legislation to describe the kind of grain-offerings
that should be offered to YHWH–and it is noticeable in this story in Genesis 4 that this word
is not used to describe the offerings of Cain.
We think that this offering of the best that he had is by far the most probable reason for
YHWH’s being pleased with Abel’s offerings, and not being pleased with Cain’s. However, the
biblical story does not draw any such conclusions explicitly, and all of this is left to the imagination
of the reader and commentators on the text.
What do you think is the reason for YHWH’s paying attention to Abel’s offering over that of
Cain? Is it a matter of Divine favoritism?
183
(continued...)

20 21 22
from their fat-portions. And YHWH paid attention to Abel and his offering. 4.5 !yIq;-la,w>
19
(...continued)
Can you conceive of Abel as being “hereditarily, totally depraved,” and yet worshiping
YHWH and having his sacrifice accepted by YHWH?
20
Three of the Hebrew manuscript fragments in the Cairo Geniza and the Samaritan Penta-
teuch spell the word !h,_bel.x,me( , mechelbhehen, with an additional letter (y, yodh), !hyblxm,
mechelbheyhen, which does not change the meaning of Genesis, and both which mean “from
their fat portions.”
This phrase, !h,bel.x,me, mechelbhehen, whether spelled with the additional y, yodh or
not, means “from (or ‘some of’) their fat-portions,” a word that is prominently used in the Levitical
legislation for the kind of offerings that should be made to YHWH, and implying something like
“choice,” “best” portions. See, for example, Leviticus 3:3, 3, 4,, 9, 9, 9, 10, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17;
4:8, 8, 8, 9, 19, 26, 26, 31, 31, 35, 35; 6:5; 7:3, 3, 4, 23, 24, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33; 8:16, 16, 25, 25,
25, 26; 9:10, 29, 20, 20, 24; 10:15; 16:25 (some 47 occurrences).
It is obvious from this story that "worship is rooted in work," that is, the means of worship
are determined by the means of productivity available. Commentators have speculated concerning
the nature of the difference between the two offerings, and the reason for YHWH's "regarding"
the one with favor, while "disregarding" the other. The only indication that the text offers for the
different Divine evaluation is that Abel brings the "firstborn," that is, the very best, and the "fat,"
that is, the choicest parts, while Cain is pictured as simply bringing an offering--nothing special.
But the biblical story does not make much of this distinction, and concentrates rather on the attitude
of Cain towards his brother, following his brother’s successful sacrifice.
Hamilton comments that “Here are two brothers at worship. Eden is off-limits to humanity,
but God is not restricted to Eden’s compound.” (P. 222) We agree, and think it is very important
to realize this fact when discussing the matter of humanity’s “alienation” from God. The text depicts
YHWH God as fully present in humanity’s world outside Eden, providing for His human creatures,
counseling them, inspecting their worship with either favor or disfavor.
21
The verb [v;YIw:, wayyisha(, “and He favored,” is literally “and He gazed at,” or “and He reg-
arded (with favor), or “and He paid attention to.” The root is [vy, ysh(; the verb is found in the
Hebrew Bible at:
Genesis 4:4, 5, here; YHWH gazes at or pays attention to Abel’s offering, but does not do so to
Cain’s;
Exodus 5:9, Pharaoh orders the taskmasters to make the Israelites slaves work harder, so that
they will not pay attention to lies, i.e., to what Moses and Aaron are saying;
2 Samuel 22:42, David’s enemies gazed, looked for someone to help, but there was no savior;
Isaiah 17:7, 8, people will pay attention to their Maker, not to the Asherah poles;
(continued...)
184

21
(...continued)
Isaiah 22:4,Isaiah mourns the destruction of his people, and says, Don’t gaze at me, don’t pay
attention to me; don’t try to console me as I weep;
Isaiah 31:1, woe to those who gaze, pay attention to horses for help;
Isaiah 32:3, eyes of “seers” will not gaze, pay attention, but listening ears will be inclined (to
hear);
Psalm 39:14, verse 13 in Engish; cause Your gaze / attention to turn away from me;
Psalm 119:117, I will gaze at, pay attention to Your statutes constantly;
Job 7:19, Job asks why God will never turn His gaze / attention from him;
Job 14:6, similar; Job asks God to turn His gaze / attention away from a man, to let him put in his
time like a hired hand.
The story itself gives no stated reason for YHWH’s favorable attention to Abel’s offering,
over against His lack of attention to Cain’s, and this has led to speculation:
that animals make more appropriate sacrifices than grain or vegetables or fruit;
that the life of sheep-herding is Divinely approved, while the sedentary life-style of the
farmer is disapproved;
that Cain’s offering was small and inadequate–
none of which are mentioned in the story. The only difference that the story allows is the difference
between “first-fruits” and simply “fruits,” between the “choice” parts, and just ordinary elements.
But even so, the story itself draws no conclusions from this fact, such as we are tempted
to draw (Cassuto comments that “While Abel took pains to choose the best from what he had,
Cain was indifferent. In other words, Abel endeavored to fulfil his religious obligation perfectly,
while Cain on the contrary was satisfied merely to get by.” (Quoted by Westermann, p. 296)
Westermann disagrees sharply with this view, stating that “...The text does not say this...
The distinction between a better and worse attitude on the part of the one offering is a modern
intrusion [we disagree, holding that the Hebrew Bible teaches that it is the heart, and sincere
intention that lie at the very center of Divinely accepted worship]. It is also an intrusion when
many interpreters speak of election and rejection; this is particularly the case among those of a
reformed [Calvinist] tradition like W. Vischer and K. Barth...” (Pp. 296-97)
Jewish commentators speculate that “A fire descended and licked up his offering (Rashi)...
Another indication of God’s acceptance was that Abel’s affairs prospered, while Cain’s languished
(Lekach Tov; Ha’amek Davar)...Abel was accepted because of his lofty deeds, while his brother
was rejected because of his despicable ways (HaK’sav V’haKabballah).” (Bereishis 1, pp. 145-
46)
As Wenham points out, “As early as Theodotion (who translates [vyw by evpu,risen, ‘He
burnt’) it has been understood that Divine fire burnt up Abel’s offering but not Cain’s (compare
Leviticus 9:24; Judges 6:21; 1 Kings 18:38). This explanation is as good as any, but Genesis
is more interested in the fact of Divine approval than in how it was shown.” (P. 103)
(continued...)
185

`wyn"P' WlP.YIw: daom. !yIq;l. rx;YIw: h['v' al{ Atx'n>m-la,w. And He did not pay attention to 23
21
(...continued)
The fact is that for this story, the reason for the Divine acceptance or non-acceptance is
simply not stated. But what the story makes abundantly clear is that YHWH makes a choice with
regards to what He will accept and what He will not accept as genuine worship from His human
creatures. Not all worship is equally acceptable; and those who desire to worship YHWH must be
deeply concerned to make their offering something truly favorable, genuinely acceptable to God.
YHWH looked with favor upon Abel’s offering; but he did not do so with Cain’s offering.
That’s where the story leaves the matter. Most interpreters of the story are uncomfortable with
this, and quickly attempt to rescue YHWH God from being guilty of showing favoritism, seeking
indications from the story as to why the one offering was looked upon with favor, and the other
was not. But the biblical story is content to simply leave the matter with the statement that YHWH
favored Abel’s offering, and did not favor Cain’s.
The Greek phrase used here is evpei/den o` qeo.j, epeiden ho theos, “the God looked
upon...” Here the Divine name YHWH, instead of being given by the Greek translators as o`
ku,rioj, ho kurios, “the Lord,” is given as o` qeo.j, ho theos, “the God.”
22
Westermann comments that “The conflict does not arise from the difference between the occupations
and the narrative does not set them in opposition. The conflict arises from the acceptance
and non-acceptance of the offerings of the produce...This means then that the real critical
area of the narrative does not lie in the conflict of occupations, but somewhere else, namely in
God’s decision in favor of Abel and against Cain manifested in the acceptance and rejection of
the offerings.” (P. 294)
The text, however, does not say that YHWH “rejected” Cain’s offerings; only that YHWH
showed favor to Abel’s offering, while he did not show such favor to Cain’s offering. That’s the
basis of the problem according to the ancient story.
B’chor Shor and Tur state that “God detested both Cain and his offering, because Cain did
not offer his sacrifice until he filled his own belly, and then gave of the leavings; whereas Abel
gave of the firstlings, before enjoying any personal benefit.” Bereishis 1, p. 146)
Of course, all of this, except for firstlings, is being read into the text.
23
Compare footnote 21. The same Hebrew verb is used here, h[' _v' al{, lo) sha(ah, “He did
not gaze at, or regard with favor, or pay attention to.” But the Greek translation changes from the
verb evpei/den, epeiden, “looked upon,” used in verse 4 to ouv prose,scen, ou proseschen, “he did
not turn attention to,” which we think is a better translation of the original Hebrew.
186

24 25 26 27
Cain and his offering; and it made Cain very angry, and his countenance fell. 4.6 rm,aYOw:
24
Where the Hebrew has the singular noun, the Greek translation uses the plural, tai/j qusi,aij
auvtou/, tais thusiais autou, literally “to the sacrifices of his.”
Fretheim comments that it “...comes as something of a surprise that God accepts Abel’s
offering but not Cain’s. Two puzzles emerge:
(1) We are not told how Cain discovered that nei-ther he nor his offering was accepted...
(2) No rationale is given, hence God’s action appears arbitrary (to readers and probably to
Cain).” (P. 373)
25
The Hebrew text reads daom. !yIq;l. rx;YIw:, wayyichar leqayin me)odh, literally, “and it
burned to Cain exceedingly,” meaning his nose burned–an idiom for becoming angry. The Greek
translation has kai. evlu,phsen to.n Kain li,an, kai elupesen ton Kain lian, “and it distressed (or
‘pained’) Cain exceedingly.” To be pained or distressed is a different matter from becoming angry,
although Hamilton thinks that sometimes the idiomatic “to burn towards” means something like
being depressed. (Pp. 224-25)
Sforno holds that Cain became angry “Through jealousy of his brother’s acceptability.”
(Bereishis 1, p. 146).
Wenham comments that “‘very’ indicates the intensity of Cain’s passion; being ‘very angry’
is often a prelude to homicidal acts.” (P. 104) Compare:
Genesis 34:7, Jacob’s sons, upon learning of the rape of their sister Dinah, leading to mass
murder;
1 Samuel 18:8, Saul, upon hearing the people’s song praising David as a greater warrior than
himself, leading to his attempt to kill David;
Nehemiah 4:1, Sanballat, upon learning that the returning Jews were rebuilding the wall successfully,
leading to efforts to stop them from building);
Numbers 16:15, Moses, against Dathan and Abiram, leading to their destruction;
2 Samuel 3:8, Abner, upon hearing Ish-Bosheth’s accusation of his sexual immorality with his
father (Saul’s) concubine, leading Abner to turn away from Saul and favor David.
The question is automatically raised in reading the text, “How did Cain or Abel know
whether or not YHWH was pleased or displeased with their offerings?” In fact, the text does not
answer the question, telling that one offering was consumed by fire, while the other was not--or
anything like that.
We wonder if it was the constant blessings received by Abel in subsequent days, over
against Cain’s lack of those same blessings. Was it that Abel was filled with gladness and joy,
and his life was transformed because of his intimate relationship with YHWH, while Cain’s life
remained unchanged, with no joy, no evident blessings? The text tells us nothing.
187
(continued...)

25
(...continued)
Wenham comments that “At least five different types of explanation have been offered.
(1) God prefers shepherds to gardeners (Gunkel)...
(2) Animal sacrifice is more acceptable than vegetable offerings (Skinner, Jacob)...
(3) God’s motives are inscrutable: his preference for Abel’s sacrifice reflects the mystery of
Divine election (von Rad, Vawter, Golka)...
(4) Inspired by Hebrews 11:4, ‘By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice
than Cain,’ some commentators (e.g., Calvin, Dillmann, Driver, Koenig) suggest that
it was the differing motives of the two brothers, known only to God, that accounts for
their different treatment...
(5) The most common view among commentators, ancient and modern, is that it was the
different approach to worship that counted and that this was reflected in the quality
of their gifts. Whereas Cain offered simply ‘some produce of the land,’ Abel offered
the choicest animals from his flock, ‘firstlings’ and ‘their fat portions.’ The sacrificial
law underlines frequently that only perfect, unblemished animals may be offered in
sacrifice (Leviticus 1:3; 22:20-22, etc.). ‘I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord...
that cost me nothing’ (2 Samuel 24:24). Since this is the first account of sacrifice in
the Old Testament, we might well expect an allusion to this fundamental principle in
this story.” (P. 104)
How would you answer this question today? How do you know whether or not your worship
is looked upon with favor by God (or, for that matter, with disfavor)? Do we not see that
some people have joyful, deeply meaningful relationships with God, constantly rejoicing in worship,
finding their lives blessed and transformed–while others get nothing out of synagogue or
mosque or church, and never experience any sign of Divine favor, as their worship deteriorates?
Many of us have asked in modern times why God has so richly blessed one part of our
world, e.g., some sections of North America, while seemingly failing to equally bless other areas
of the world, e.g., North Africa, with its Sahara Desert. Or we may look at different families–and
see that some families seem to always get the very best of everything, while other families are
constantly mired in poverty, or sickness, or accidents? Why is that? Does God love certain people
more than others?
The biblical story does not answer the question which it raises in its readers’ minds. It simply
states it as a matter of fact that Abel’s offering was looked upon with favor, while Cain’s was
not. And the one whose offering was not favored, became jealously angry and depressed over
that difference.
Westermann comments that “What is meant is the experience of being rejected by God
[we would change this language to ‘not being equally favored by God’] however it may be conceived.
Cain experiences this rejection in the presence of his brother whose offering God regards
and who is confirmed and commended in his work by God.
“We see here the basic motif of the narrative of Genesis 4:2-16. It speaks of the existence
of human beings as brothers...of the life in common of those who have equal rights. There
(continued...)
188

25
(...continued)
come to the surface here those difficulties that endanger human community, when one has more
than the other, when one is successful and the other not. Inequality enters where there should be
equality. This is what the story is all about.
“The point of departure is equality; both have the means of subsistence in the division of
labor. Both recognize the Giver in their gifts and therefore both are linked with the Power which is
the Source of blessing. Now inequality enters in; it has its origin in the regard of God. Blessing or
its absence depends on the regard of God...
“It is a misunderstanding of the real meaning to look for the reason for the inequality of
God’s regard. The narrator wants to say that in the last analysis there is something inexplicable in
the origin of this inequality...When such inequality between equals arises, it rests on a decision
that is beyond human manipulation. The reason why God regards Abel’s sacrifice and not Cain’s
must remain without explanation. And the narrator wants to make clear that this is one of the
decisive motifs for conflict wherever there are brothers.” (P. 297)
We add, so it is in life, and in history; we are all ultimately siblings, children of the same
parents; but we are not all equal. Not all receive the same gifts, the same opportunities, the same
“Divine blessings.” Some are obviously ‘more favored’ than others–think only of the children born
in prosperous modern-day America, in contrast to the children of the refugees from Kosovo or
Rwanda or Afghanistan or Iraq or Liberia, or Haiti. Think of the large-framed, muscled athletic
sports star, over against the slightly built youth, who seemingly cannot “star” at anything, but is
considered a “nerd” by his or her contemporaries, and oftentimes bullied by those larger and more
athletic. Think of the rage that can arise in their heart–as has been expressed so violently in the
shootings in Littleton, Colorado in 1999.
Yes, wherever there are siblings, there are inequalities. Life is simply that way. We human
beings have to learn to live with such inequalities. One sibling has a higher I.Q. or Intelligence
Quotient. One sibling is born into a well-to-do family, while another sigling’s family has next to
nothing, and has to struggle just to get by every day of its life. One sibling gets educational opportunities,
and job-offers that enable the rise to wealth and fame; while another sibling has to
drop out of school at an early age, and work in minimum wage jobs throughout life, seemingly
apart from any personal fault. And whenever, instead of accepting those inequalities, and making
the best of them, we become sullen, and resentful, and turn in jealousy and hatred to a life of
crime perpetrated against those seemingly more favored than ourselves, we become the modernday
“Cains,” whose hearts become the breeding-grounds for brother / sister-murder.
What do you think? Do you agree with this line of interpretation? We think it is profoundly
true and deeply important for our understanding of ourselves and our role in history.
26
The Hebrew is literally “and his countenances fell,” using both the plural verb and a plural
noun. But this is simply a Hebrew idiom, and should be translated in the singular in English. The
Greek translation reads kai. sune,pesen tw/ | prosw,pw|, kai sunepesen to prosopo, “and he
collapsed on the face,” which is obviously an attempt to translate the Hebrew literally, but not an
189
(continued...)

28
`^yn

29
(...continued)
Westermann insists that YHWH is pictured here as the Divine "Avenger of blood." (P. 303)
But it is much better to see him as the Divine Judge and Counselor, who still holds the murderer
in His concern, even though reproving him for his murderous action. No, YHWH does not avenge
Abel’s blood by taking Cain’s life.
Westermann comments, "The subject is a man created by God: he is capable of revolt
and crime even as far as murder; but even though a criminal and a murderer he is still God's
creature and deserving that his deed be expiated (‘atoned for’) [where does the text say anything
about this? Rather than the crime’s being expiated / atoned for, the crime is punished by banishment].
While the crime is punished it remains a human crime. The criminal is acknowledged to
be a human being in the punishment." (P. 303)
Cain's cynical, defiant, lying rejection of moral responsibility goes beyond the evasive replies
of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:7-13. Cain states that he doesn't know where his brother is,
and why should he? "Am I my brother's watchman (or, guardian, overseer)?" The question
means, "My fellow family member's whereabouts are not my business. I am not responsible for
what I have done to him."
Westermann points out that "There is a subtlety in Cain's retort that can only be grasped
from the whole context of the [Joseph story] in Genesis 37-50...(which) deals with fraternal responsibility
[Joseph’s brothers deny their knowledge of his whereabouts to Jacob, his and their
father]. What is said here is: surely a brother should not normally be the keeper of his brothers.
However a situation can arise where a brother must be his brother's keeper and where he is responsible
for his brother's fate. Genesis 37 portrays such a situation." (P. 304)
Here the Greek translates the Hebrew’s “it burned to him,” by peri,lupoj evge,nou, perilupos
egenou, “you became exceedingly sorrowful.”
Westermann holds that Cain’s reaction to what has happened in worship is “an outburst of
envy.” (P. 297) We think it truer to the text to say that it is an expression of anger and depression–he
burns with anger, and as a result is depressed (his countenance has fallen). This is a
profound thought–when we become angry and depressed, we easily enter into thoughts of suicide,
of self-murder–or, as in this passage, of brother-murder, thinking that somehow the destruction
of our self, or of our brother will alleviate our depression.
Westermann comments that “Cain’s reaction is normal and justified; without reason he is
disadvantaged and rejected [or ‘less favored’]. His outburst and his sullenness are the corresponding
reactions.” (P. 298)
This evaluation seems correct at first sight. But the fact of life is that human beings,
though equally God’s children, are not equally favored–there are all sorts of massive differences
with reference to Divine blessings and opportunities (think only of the difference in advantages or
blessings of the child born to an unwed mother in an urban ghetto, or an orphan in Haiti, over
against the child born to a wealthy family with a good marriage and solid home; or think of the
difference between a child born with an exceptionally healthy, athletic body, who easily excels in
(continued...)
191

29
(...continued)
sports, and a sibling who has chronic asthma and a weakened body, unable to succeed at any
sport. Or think of the child with Down’s Syndrome, or mental (and physical) retardation. We cry
out, “It isn’t fair.” And, it isn’t. Life isn’t fair.
And the fact is, that any person who wants to allow it to happen, can easily become angry
and depressed, reaching out to strike at others who are more favored, seeking to take their better
land, or destroy their advantages, or, as in this ancient biblical story, even to kill them. But as the
biblical story goes on to teach, such a response to life’s inequalities is a “test”–when we become
depressed and angry at the success or favored condition of others, sin–“missing-of-the-mark”--is
crouching at the door of our hearts, and can easily overcome us. It is our task to rule over it, not
to let it rule over us.
We are glad that the biblical story does not make the reasons for the Divine favor explicit–
thereby allowing our understanding of this story to include all the inherent differences and inequalties
that we all experience, and that we must learn to deal with in peaceful, constructive ways,
rather than allowing them to control us, bringing upon us depression and anger, leading us to
even become brother or sister-murderers.
30
Even though the human family has been cast out of the garden, it is not separated from
YHWH. YHWH is still present with the angry, depressed Cain, observing his innermost emotions,
and challenging Cain to examine his motivations. The story depicts YHWH as seeking to enter
into dialogue with Cain, acting as his Counselor (just as he did in the garden with Eve and Adam).
Even though YHWH has favored his brother’s offering over that of Cain’s, it does not mean in any
way that YHWH thinks any less of Cain, or doesn’t any longer provide for him and take care of
him.
With Cain, we cry out, “It isn’t fair.” And our God speaks to us, asking us, “Why should we
feel that way?” “Why should we think that we are any less God’s children, with our own particular
abilities and tasks, just because they are not the same as our fellow human being’s?” God, acording
to this ancient biblical story, wants us to think about that.
Fretheim states, “That God responds at all reveals a Divine concern for Cain; and God’s
questions (verse 6)–repeating the description of verse 5b–disclose an insightful empathy for his
situation. They imply that God’s decision should not be the occasion for dejection, that a further
response from Cain can put the situation right.” (P. 373)
Sforno comments, “When a fault can be remedied, one should not grieve over what has
passed, but rather concentrate on improving matters for the future.” (Bereishis 1, p. 146)
Do you agree with Sforno?
31
Fretheim notes that “Structurally, verses 7-15 are similar to chapter 3, moving from temptation
to sinful deed to Divine interrogation and response to Divine sentence and its mitigation to
expulsion to the east...What happens in the garden in chapter 3 and begins to manifest itself in
192
(continued...)

hT'a;w> Atq'WvT. ^yl,aew> #bero taJ'x xt;P,l;] byjiyte al {~aiw> taef. byjiyTe-~ai
32 33
`AB-lv'm.Ti If you do good, will not there be lifting (of countenance)? And if you do not do
31
(...continued)
disharmonious relationships of all sorts accompanies the history of humankind outside the garden
in chapter 4.” (P. 372)
Concerning verse 7, Hamilton states that “It is fair to say that this is one of the hardest
verses in Genesis to translate and to understand.” (P. 225) Westermann, in like manner, says of
verses 6 and 7, that “No satisfactory explanation of these two verses has been proposed as
yet...” (P. 298)
We agree that verse 7 is somewhat difficult, but feel that its overall meaning is fairly clear.
Sometimes we biblical students with our grammar books expect the biblical authors to follow our
grammatical rules, written thousands of years after the original text, and if they fail to do so, we
want to re-write their texts. But is that fair? We think not. It is better simply to admit that they do
not always follow what we presume to be the appropriate rules for writing.
32
The infinitive verb taef., se)eth, from the root af'n", evidently means “lifting up,” or perhaps
“taking away.” The verb is commonly used in terms of taking away guilt, i.e., “forgive.” Perhaps
there is a two-fold meaning here–there will be a “lifting up” of Cain’s fallen countenance (i.e., his
angry depression), if he does good--because of his not having guilt to bear. F. Delitzsch (along
with many others) sees this question of YHWH to Cain as a “Divine warning which tries to bring
him to reflection, and self-examination.” (See Westermann, p. 299) See footnote 60.
Westermann holds that this is still the most probable explanation, but states that “...It presumes
an understanding of what has preceded which passes a moral condemnation on Cain; the
question implies a reproach and does not see that Cain’s resentment is justified.” (P. 299)
We disagree with Westermann. The fact that the individual is not as highly favored as his
brother does not justify his angry depression. We human beings must not ask why our brother is
more favored than we are–but must accept whatever inequalities there are, and whatever disadvantages
we may perceive ourselves as having, and go forward to do good, whatever the circumstances.
Otherwise, we are going to “miss-the-mark,” we are going to sin. So this ancient story
teaches its readers.
And, we think, it is a very wise and important lesson for all of us to learn. If we fail to learn
it, we will waste a great deal of our lives in resentment, and fail to use what we do have in a proper,
helpful way.
“The commentators note that this [verse 7] is one of the most obscure biblical passages.
In fact, the Talmud (Yoma 52b) lists this among the five most indeterminate phrases because of
the obscurity of the syntactic relationship of the word taef., se)eth.” (Bereishis 1, p. 147)
193
(continued...)

34 35 36 37
good, missing-of-the-mark is lying at the door, and its desire is for you–and you, you must
32
(...continued)
Among the various meanings given to the word are “forgiveness,” as in Exodus 34:7; “lift
up your countenance”; and “dignity, eminence of rank,” as in Genesis 49:3.
Situations like this betray the commonly-held saying, “The Bible says it, I believe it, that
settles it!” But what does the Bible say? Which one of these proposed meanings is correct?
The fact is that sometimes the Bible’s sayings are ambiguous, and we cannot be certain as to
their meaning. What do you think?
33 The Greek translation of the Hebrew text of verse 7 has: ouvk eva.n ovrqw/j prosene,gkh|j
ovrqw/j de. mh. die,lh|j h[martej h`su,cason pro.j se. h` avpostrofh. auvtou/ kai. su. a;rxeij auvtou/,
literally, “(Is it) not (the case), if you have offered correctly, but then you have not divided correctly,
you missed-the-mark / sinned? Be silent. The turning away of his (is) towards / with you;
and you, you shall rule over him / it.”
This is quite different from the Hebrew text, which we have translated by “If you do good,
will not there be lifting (of countenance)? And if you do not do good, missing-of-the-mark is lying
at the door, and its desire is for you–and you, you must rule over it.”
It may well be that this is an instance of the Greek translators working with a Hebrew text
that is very different from that of the later Massoretes. Or, it may be that the Greek translator
simply did not know what to make of the Hebrew text. Wenham notes that the Greek translation
“points to difficulties in the Hebrew, but does not offer a superior text.” (P. 94)
YHWH’s question implies that when a human being does what is good, the result will be
seen in the countenance–in the absence of angry depression (or, guilt, or fear). Doing good with
what we have, and who we are, regardless of perceived inequalities or disadvantages, leads to
happiness, to a smiling, joyful countenance, rather than to a grimacing, depressed countenance.
The ancient story seems to say, “Quit looking at how ‘favored’ your brother may be, and look at
the task that lies at hand–get busy and do good with what you have.” It is very wise counsel.
What if the two young men who conspired to commit murder in Littleton, Colorado in the
high school shooting of many fellow students in the fall of 1999, because of their being rejected
and looked down upon as “nerds” by the “jocks,” had instead used their combined abilities to build
rocket ships instead of bombs–as is seen in the story of the four sons of coal-miners in West Virginia,
in the 1999 Movie October Sky? The young man who became a NASA engineer, training
astronauts to go into outer space, could have resented his football hero brother, and given up any
dreams of his own to become a coal-miner. Instead, he looked into his own heart, and found the
desires and abilities to succeed at something else–not being a star athlete, or repeating his fathr’s
career as a coal-miner, but rather in joining with his nerd friends, becoming able to build rockets–a
career that brought him and his friends national fame and successful careers.
What do you think?
194

34
This is the first mention in the Hebrew Bible of the noun taJ'x;, chatt)ath, “missing-of-themark,”
normally translated “sin,” which occurs some 297 times.
The text pictures missing-of-the-mark as a beast, crouching / lying at the door. The Greek
translation changes the noun to an aorist verb, h[martej, hemartes. “you sinned / missed the
mark.”
Westermann comments that "The terrible thing that took place is put before the listeners
with sparse brevity as stark fact. There is no appeal to emotion...His intention is merely to state
what happened. Man kills man, a brother kills a brother...What is so shocking about the whole
event is that a man like him, who does his work and presents his offering to God, is capable of
this. It is not [just] Cain, but everyone who can become the murderer of one's brother.” (P. 303)
Westermann also notes with regards to YHWH’s preference of Abel’s offering to that of
Cain, “It is a question of preference which belongs to God; that alone arouses the envy that leads
to murder. When brothers live side-by-side, equal and with equal rights, then inequality is a possibility.
The one is accepted, the other is not. Because this inequality is conditioned by God's
regard, then humankind must live with it and also with the possibility of the murder of a brother."
(P. 303)
Do brothers and sisters still have to live with inequality of gifts, of looks, of talents, of
opportunities, even though related by blood? Do we not still have to control jealousy, even in the
context of religious worship? We think this is a profound, important matter! What do you think?
35
NIVSB comments that “The Hebrew word for ‘crouching’ is the same as an ancient Babylonian
word referring to an evil demon crouching at the door of a building to threaten the people inside.
Sin may thus be pictured here as just such a demon, waiting to pounce on Cain.” (P. 12)
But nothing is said in the Genesis story about a “demon”–rather the text deals with the
problem of “missing-the-mark” / sinning in the human heart. What do you think?
For the occurrences of this root verb #b;r', rabhats, “lie down,” “stretch out,” elsewhere in
the Hebrew Bible, see:
Genesis 29:2, flocks of sheep lying around a well;
Genesis 49:9, a lion, returning from the prey, crouches and then lies down–who dares to wake
him up?;
Genesis 49:14, Issachar is compared to a donkey lying down;
Exodus 23:5, a donkey that is lying beneath its load;
Numbers 22:27, Balaam’s donkey lies down underneath him;
Deuteronomy 22:6, a mother bird sitting on her eggs in a nest;
Deuterohomy 29:19, YHWH’s curse will lie upon the disobedient;
Deuteronomy 33:13, Joseph’s land is blessed by YHWH; from the waters above and from the
depths lying below;
(continued...)
195

35
(...continued)
Isaiah 11:6, the leopard will lie down with the young goat, 7, the young of cow and bear will lie
down together;
Isaiah 13:20, 21, shepherds will not cause their flocks to lie down in Babylon; only desert
creatures will lie down there;
Isaiah 14:30, weak and poor will lie down in security;
Isaiah 17:2, the oracle foresees flocks lying down in the cities of Aroer;
Isaiah 27:10, calves lie down in the abandoned former fortress-city;
Isaiah 54:11, YHWH will cause the afflicted city’s stones to lie down in beautiful black eyeshadow;
Jeremiah 33:12, in all the forsaken towns of Judah once more flocks will lie down;
Ezekiel 19:2, the mother of Israel’s princes was a lioness, that lay down among the young lions
and reared her cubs;
Ezekiel 29:3, Pharaoh is a crocodile lying among his Nile-streams;
Ezekiel 34:14, 15, YHWH will shepherd his flock, causing it to lie down in good pasture-land;
Zephaniah 2:7, the remnant of the House of Judah will find pasture and lie down in the
houses of Ashkelon,
Zephaniah 2:14, flocks and herds will down in desolate Nineveh;
Zephaniah 3:13, the remnant of Israel will eat and lie down, with no one to make them afraid;
Psalm 23:2, YHWH makes the psalmist lie down in green pastures;
Job 11:19, Zophar tells Job that if he puts away his missing-of-the-mark / sin, all his trouble will
go away; he will lie down, and no one will make him afraid;
Song of Solomon 1:7, the dark but lovely woman asks her lover where he causes his sheep to
lie down at mid-day.
Rabbi Hirsch states: "...This verse [Genesis 4:7] has been twisted into a theory that there
is an element of evil lurking in the world, like a wild beast, lying in wait for men, eager to spring
upon them, overpower them, and 'bring about their fall.’ He continues that mature reflection
shows that the sentence implies the opposite...
“Wherever#bero, robets is found, it always refers to peaceful undisturbed resting, with no
premeditation to attack or molest; never does it imply a lying-in-wait attitude...But the power of
taJ'x;, chatt)ath, sin, the appeal of the senses, should not be underestimated. While it is powerless
to overpower you, it remains quietly behind your door. It does not enter uninvited. If it is
comfortable with you, finally to become master of your home, you must have invited it in...By itself
it remains quietly before your door hoping that you will master it; only by your own weakness can
you succumb to it." (Bereishis, 1, p. 148)
On the basis of the passages where the verb #br, rabhats occurs in the Hebrew Bible,
we think Rabbi Hirsch is vindicated in this view, and that interpretations that see missing-of-themark
here as being a crouching, ready-to-leap beast are far overstating the meaning. Rather,
missing-of-the-mark lies quietly at the door of the human heart, awaiting its invitation to enter, very
196
(continued...)

35
(...continued)
similar to the statement concerning Jesus in Revelation 3:20, Who stands at the door and
knocks, but will only enter in if invited.
Compare the New Testament passage, 1 Peter 5:8, which states “Be self-controlled and
alert. Your enemy the slanderer / devil prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to
devour.” This warning to “be alert,” fits into the warning of YHWH to Cain here in Genesis 4. And
we are reminded that the lion that is going about roaring has already taken its victim; when it is
coming to attack, it comes silently, stealthily–in accord with YHWH’s statement here. Compare
Jacob (“James”) 4:7, “Resist the adversary / devil and it / he will flee from you.”
What do you think? Do these New Testament passages contradict Hirsch’s contention?
If Genesis 3 emphasizes human responsibility, as we have seen so clearly in 3:7-19, no
less does this additional story make that same emphasis. Humanity is not the helpless victim of
its jealousy and anger; these deep emotions are dangerous, and can wreck interpersonal relationships,
even leading to the extreme act of murder. Yes, but humanity is not their helpless victim–
the human being can control them. So this story teaches. Missing-of-the-mark cannot overwhelm
and force entry into the human heart–it lies quietly at the heart’s door–and it is the human being’s
responsibility to not allow it entrance.
In precisely the high moment of religious worship, of offering sacrifice to YHWH, "missing
of the mark" can easily be invited in. If Cain allows jealousy and anger to enter his heart, they will
issue in murder, and destroy the human family--and that, according to this ancient story, is a
"missing of the mark"--the "mark" is family love, living side-by-side in peace!
Surely if YHWH says Cain must, that implies that he can rule over the sin at his door. As
the Jewish commentator Malbim states, "It lies within man's province to conquer his baser instincts
by exercising the freedom of will given to him." (Bereishis, p. 149)
But sadly, the story tells its readers that Cain did not "rule over" the missing of the mark
that was lying at the door. As a result, there ensued the first murder recorded in the Hebrew
Bible. YHWH God had warned humanity of the fact that the consequences of disobedience
would be death. Now the first recorded death comes–but it is not something that YHWH inflicts
upon humanity; rather, it is what results from humanity's misuse of its God-given freedom.
Murder is not YHWH's will for humanity, but rather, it is the terrifying reality of humanity's
freedom of will–and it leads inexorably to the terrible loneliness, isolation, and fierce, war-like attitude
of "blood-feud” and vengeance that has so cursed and marred human history. So the story
as a whole tells its readers.
36
The phrase #be_ro taJ'äx; xt;P,Þl;, lappethach chatta)th robhets, “at the door missing-of-
the-mark is lying / crouching,” is translated by the Greek as die,lh|j h[martej h`su,cason, dieles
hemartes hesuchason, “(but if you have not) distributed, you missed-the-mark; keep silent...”
Again we wonder what Hebrew text is being translated by the Greek. See footnote 33.
(continued...)
197

36
(...continued)
The Hebrew text causes the reader to ask, “What door?” Rashi holds that “At the entrance
to your grave, your sin will be kept, i.e., punishment will await you in the future world unless you
repent.” But Sforno holds that the statement means, “If you succumb to your evil inclination, punishment
and evil will be ever-present as if they lived in the very doorway of your house.” Targum
Yerushalmi, however holds that it means “...If you do not make your deeds good in this world,
your sin will be retained until the day of the great judgment, and at the door of your heart it lies.”
Malbim comments that “God explained to him that the evil inclination is ever ready and man
should study his motives and not allow his baser instincts to overpower him since they always lie
ready to poison his behavior.” The Talmud, Sanhedrin 91b “derives from this verse that the evil
inclination holds sway over man from birth rather than from the formation of the embryo, as it is
written, ‘sin rests at the door’ (of man’s entrance into the world).” (Bereishis 1, pp. 147-48)
If this phrase, "crouching at the door," is interpreted as meaning at the "door of Cain's
heart," or perhaps implying that his facial expression is the "door" of his inner emotions, through
which they can be clearly seen, then YHWH is pictured as "observing the heart," the inner emotions
of those who worship Him.
YHWH is depicted as fully aware of Cain's deepest emotions, and gives him Fatherly advice
concerning his responsibility for the control of his emotions. If Cain seeks to do good, he will
be able to overcome his depression; if he does not seek to do good, then he will become the willing
victim of "missing of the mark" that he has allowed to enter his heart. Humanity has been cast
out of the garden, but YHWH has lost none of His intense interest in, and Fatherly concern for,
and presence with, His human creatures.
Instead of being “hereditarily, totally depraved,” a part of the massa damnata (mass of
perdition, condemned crowd), as Augustine taught, totally incapable of doing good, Cain is depicted
as capable of overcoming sin / missing-of-the-mark if he is willing to do so.
We think the best interpretation is to understand the “door” to be “the door of Cain’s heart”
(compare Revelation 3:20, “Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and
open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me”). Only here, in the Genesis
story, it is not the Lord standing at the door, but missing-of-the-mark. Still, YHWH is also
standing there, counseling Cain as to what course of action he should take.
Nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible do we find this symbolism used. However, it seems
obvious that the story is using the word “door” in a figurative, symbolic way, and that YHWH is
warning Cain of the anger that is welling up inside his mind, or heart, leading to his fallen countenance,
and capable of leading him to kill his brother.
That’s the area where the danger lies–it is within us, within our hearts and minds, within our
self-understanding. If we go wrong there, we will truly go wrong.
Westermann is very negative toward this verse, stating that this is “a sentence which is incomprehensible:
‘at the door (literally towards the door) a crouching one, (the) sin.’ All explanations
or attempts at emendation of the text have failed. It must be admitted that the text is very
(continued...)
198

ule over it. 38
36
(...continued)
corrupt...A particular difficulty is that #be _ro, robets [‘a crouching one’] is masculine, while chatt)-
ath [sin] is feminine.” (P. 299)
We consider such a comment as hypercritical. The sentence, while difficult, is not incomprehensible;
and this will not be the last time in biblical literature where a grammatical incongruity
is encountered--think only of the many grammatical corrections made of the Hebrew text by the
Samaritan Pentateuch, and the notorious grammatical problems found in the Book of Revelation.
Did we expect ancient Hebrew or Greek writers to be perfect grammarians in the light of
grammar books written centuries later?
Westermann goes on to suggest the meaning is an indication of “a belief in doorstep demons.”
(P. 299) We think this is rather far-fetched, but that the statement is closely akin to the
teaching of Jesus in Mark 7 with regards to evil thoughts residing within the human heart, leading
to all sorts of moral uncleanness such as murder.
Westermann argues that the text is too early in Israel’s history to bear such a meaning, and
that there is “nothing like it anywhere in the Old Testament.” (P. 300) That the statement is unique
for the Hebrew Bible, we would not deny–but that does not mean that it could not therefore
be found there. (Are we to accept the argument that “If it can’t be found elsewhere, it can’t be
found here”?)
We have noted the deep, profound teachings concerning human relationships found in the
“Succession Document” (2 Samuel 11-1 Samuel 2), and think that this story may well reveal a
similar profundity in just such a statement as this. Why should the biblical student reject such a
profound statement, suggesting that it may have originally meant that “Cain is warned by the
ghost of the one who was murdered that it will haunt him”?
37
The noun Atq'WvT.., teshuqatho, “its (missing-of-the-mark’s) desire,” “its affection,” “its long-
ing,” is a rare word in the Hebrew Bible, found only three times:
Genesis 3:16, the woman’s “desire” will be for her husband, even though she suffers great pain
in child-bearing;
Genesis 4:7, here, missing-of-the-mark’s desire is for Cain–it longs to enter into Cain, to be
intimate with him, i.e., to “seduce” him;
Song of Solomon 7:11, the romantic woman states she belongs to her beloved, and his desire,
or longing, is for her.
38
For this phrase, AB*-lv'm.Ti hT'Þa;w> Atêq'WvåT. ‘^yl,’aew>, we)eleyka teshuqatho we)attah
timshol-bo, literally “and to you its desire; and you, you will rule over it,” is to be compared with
the very similar language at 3:16.
199
(continued...)

38
(...continued)
Cain’s innermost being, his heart, or mind, where anger resides, and which expresses itself
in depression and in a “fallen countenance,” has become a battle-ground. Lying at its door is missing-of-the-mark,
desiring to enter into Cain, to know him intimately, to take control of him.
But Cain is not the helpless victim of that missing-of-the-mark; YHWH tells Cain that he
“must rule over it.” And, if Cain must, that means he can. As Rashi comments, “Yet you can conquer
it–i.e., you can prevail over it if you wish.” “Thus God taught Cain about repentance, and
that it lies within man’s power to repent whenever he wishes and God will forgive him (Ramban)...
It lies within man’s province to conquer his baser instincts by exercising the freedom of will given
to him. Man is only free when he conquers the bestial portion of his instincts, and not when he
permits it to conquer him (Malbim).” (Bereishis 1, p. 149)
Hamilton, having discussed the grammatical problems within this sentence, concludes that
“Cain does have a choice. He is not so deeply embedded in sin, either inherited or actual, that his
further sin is determined and inevitable. The emphasis here is not on Cain as a constitutional sinner,
one utterly [or ‘totally,’ i.e., in the Augustinian / Calvinist / Lutheran view] depraved, but on
Cain as one who has a free choice. When facing the alternatives, he is capable of making the
right choice. Otherwise, God’s words to him about ‘doing well’ would be meaningless and comic.
Should he so desire, Cain is able to overcome this creature [missing-of-the-mark / sin] who now
confronts him. The text makes Cain’s personal responsibility even more focused by its use of the
initial emphatic pronoun: ‘you, you are to master it.’” (P. 228)
As ESVSB notes, “The Lord’s words challenge Cain to do better. He still has the possibility
of turning, evidently with God’s help, to please God.” (P. 57)
Fretheim comments that “In view of Cain’s rejection and dejection, God graciously lays out
Cain’s options and their consequences...The reality of temptation is portrayed as something active,
close at hand, predatory, eager to make inroads into Cain’s life; it can consume his life, take
over his thinking, feeling, and acting. Cain must not let it rule his life; he (the pronoun ‘you’ is
emphatic) can or must master it.” (P. 373)
Fretheim again states, “Cain now knows that God understands him. Cain knows how God
relates to people in the midst of such struggles; God will not intervene and force Cain to decide
one way or another. Cain must decide how to respond, with the help of the knowledge God has
given him. More generally, Cain ought not to view even such a Divinely generated moment in life
as devastating; God wills people to move on from such moments and be on with life...The text implies
that human beings are able to make decisions about specific matters of temptation...God
clearly speaks an ‘if’ and an ‘if not’; what human beings decide to do makes a difference regarding
the shape of the future.” (P. 376)
Do you agree? We think it is a truly profound, important teaching.
Whenever human beings (all the children of God, all brothers and sisters) are faced with
obvious inequalities–inequalities that seem to indicate Divine favoritism and blessings given to
others but not to ourselves–missing-of-the-mark / sin is lying at the door of our hearts, ready to
(continued...)
200

39
4.8 -la, !yIq; ~q'Y"w: hd,F'B; ~t'Ayh.Bi yhiy>w: wyxia' lb,h,-la, !yIq; rm,aYOw:
40 41
`WhgEr>h;Y:w: wyxia' lb,h, And Cain said to Abel his brother... and it happened, while they
38
(...continued)
enter in and take control. We must not let perceived inequalities lead us into anger and depression,
and its consequences. We must take control of our minds and hearts, “doing good” with
what lies at hand, rather than letting our lives become twisted and perverted into becoming murderers
of our brothers and sisters.
We appreciate Hamilton’s comment concerning Cain’s not being an “utterly depraved”
sinner, i.e., incapable of doing good, as a consequence of the “fall” of Adam and Eve in the
garden. No, he is still capable, in spite of his parents’ “fall,” of doing good--but he is faced with
the necessity for making that choice.
Is that not in fact where we all stand? The so-called “fall” of the first human beings (our
parents, our ancestors) does not eliminate the necessity for choice by all of their descendants!
39
Wenham comments on verse 8 that “This is the central scene, with Cain and Abel the only
actors. The awfulness of the deed is accentuated by the stark brevity of the description and the
twice-repeated ‘his brother.’” (P. 106)
Fretheim notes that “Cain does not attend well to God’s warning...Although God warns that
the violation of the command will lead to death (2:17), the fact that a human being and not God
[brings] death into the world introduces an ironic note.” (P. 373)
40
Or, possibly, “spoke.”
Many Hebrew manuscripts and editions of the Hebrew Bible, along with the Samaritan
Pentatuech, the Greek translation, the Syriac translation and the Latin Vulgate supply the missing
words of Cain, by interpolating into the Hebrew text the brief sentence, die,lqwmen eivj to. pedi,on,
dielthomen eis to pedion, “let us go through, into the open country,” which relieves the difficulty
felt in reading the original Hebrew. Compare the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and Ginsburger’s
Targum Fragments, which have “let us go down into the valley.”
Westermann (among many commentators) holds that “At the beginning of verse 8 something
that Cain said to his brother is introduced, but does not appear. We must reckon here with
an omission in the text.” (P. 301)
We ask: Can it be that the ancient author is “toying” with his readers, asking them to supply
the kind of words we speak to our brother (and sister) when angry depression leads us to miss
-the-mark and stand on the brink of taking their life? At any rate, the reader of the story, as it now
appears in Genesis, has to supply what it is that Cain said.
Guesses as to what it is that Cain said to Abel include (in addition to the Greek statement
quoted above) his telling him what had happened to make him so depressed; or that he fixed a
(continued...)
201

42 43 44
were in the field –and Cain arose against Abel his brother, and he murdered him. 4.9 `ykinOa'
40
(...continued)
place for meeting; or that he “spoke in a friendly way”; or, according to Philo of Alexandria, he
summoned his brother to the field of philosophical-theological disputation. See Westermann, p.
302.
Tanchuma states, “Cain said to Abel, Let us divide the world. I am the oldest and I get a
double share. According to Rabbeinu Nissim: Cain related to Abel what God had said to him.
Perceiving that Abel was apprehensive, Cain engaged him in conversation to draw him away from
their parents. Repeating everything that God had said, Cain lulled Abel into thinking that he was
no longer angry. But when he got him in the field alone, Cain killed him.” (Bereishis 1, pp. 149,
150)
What is your guess?
41
Six times in verses 8-10 it is emphasized that Abel is Cain’s “brother.” This kind of repetition
in a biblical story is a pointer to its basic motif–this is a story about how angry depression over
perceived inequalities or differences in Divine blessings easily turns brother into “brother-murderer.”
Fretheim comments that “These two persons are not strangers, they grew up in the same
household, had the same family environment, were exposed to the same family values over many
years. Yet, even such deep commonalities do not prevent hatred and violence. If sin can have
this kind of effect on those who are so close and who share so many values, it presents a deep
and pervasive problem for all human beings.” (P. 377) See:
1 John 3:11-15, ...We should not be like Cain...(who) murdered his brother...because his own
deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous...Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer;
Matthew 5:21-25, If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother
has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar. And go. First be reconciled
to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
“This story sets a key theme for the rest of...Genesis, with intrafamilial conflict moving from
an exception to the norm. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are filled with the
legacy of the relationship between Cain and Abel...” (Fretheim, p. 377)
42
Westermann holds that their being in the field simply means “outside,” i.e., “where there are
no witnesses.” (P. 302)
43
ESVSB comments that “The brevity of the report of Abel’s murder underlines the coldness of
Cain’s action. Jealousy, probably coupled with anger at God, causes him to slay his own brother
without pity. The heinousness of this spiteful murder reveals that sin has mastered Cain.” (P. 58)
44
Westermann points to the parallelism between the story in chapter 3 and the story here in
chapter 4. Both chapters have the same structure. “Much of what holds for the narrative of 3:9-
(continued...)
202

yxia' rmevoh; yTi[.d;y" al{ rm,aYOw: ^yxia' lb,h, yae !yIq; la, hw"hy> rm,aYOw: And YHWH
45 46
said to Cain, Where (is) Abel your brother? And he said, I don’t know. Am I my brother’s
44
(...continued)
24 holds too for 4:9-16...
“The subject is a man created by God: he is capable of revolt and crime even as far as
murder; but even though a criminal and a murderer he is still God’s creature...While the crime is
punished it remains a human crime. The criminal is acknowledged to be a human being in the
punishment. W. Zimmerli writes: ‘The dignity of human beings is disclosed in that they are called
to answer for what they have done.’” (P. 303)
No, the human being cannot hurt and destroy, and walk away without any further ado. The
human being is held accountable by YHWH God–and cannot escape that responsibility. But
YHWH’s punishment is tempered with grace and care for the murderer.
Do you agree? Do you think this biblical story should have any impact on modern cases of
murder, and the kind of punishment inflicted? Is it the role of criminal courts to show mercy?
45
Where our text spells the interrogative yae, )ey, “where?”, the Samaritan Pentateuch has a
longer spelling, hya, )eyh, “where?” (according to Wenham, P. 94).
46
The Divine question is not intended to gain information, as if YHWH did not know where Abel
was. Instead, it is the beginning of YHWH’s examination of Cain, intended to force him to face
the reality of what he has done, in what Hamilton calls “the Divine investigation.” (P. 230)
Compare Genesis 3:9-13, for YHWH God’s questioning of Adam and Eve.
As Rashi, Radak and Sforno point out, the question is “A rhetorical question. God knew
full well where he was–He entered with him into gentle conversation to give him the opportunity to
confess and repent.” (Bereishis 1, p. 151)
Westermann states that “‘The man’ does not exist as a human being on his own; there is
One there Who questions him. Neither does the brother as brother exist alone. The question,
‘Where is your brother?’ presumes that the brother knows where his brother is; the two are linked
together be it in friendship or in enmity. Cain betrays this in his answer, as did Adam, by rejecting
gruffly this quite normal familiarity with his brother.” (P. 304)
This ancient story, just as in its kindred story of Joseph and his brothers (chapter 37) implies
that there is in fact brotherly responsibility for one another, and that it is just there, in those
inter-sibling relationships that the Divine will is being worked out, even though hiddenly, deeply,
often unrecognized.
Do you think this is true in our modern world and our families?
203

47 48
eeper? 4.10 `hm'd'a]h' !mi yl;ae ~yqi[]co ^yxia' ymeD. lAq t'yfi[' hm, rm,aYOw:
47
NIVSB comments that Cain’s reply is “a statement of callous indifference–all too common
through the whole course of human history.” (P. 12) ESVSB adds that “Cain shows no sign of
remorse.” (P. 58)
Fretheim notes that in contrast to Adam in the garden, “Cain takes the road of denial rather
than hiding from God; even more, he turns the question back to God (‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’),
implying impropriety in God’s question.” (Pp. 373-74)
Foolishly, Cain attempts to lie to YHWH, Who knows what has happened. Then he follows
his lie by a statement that attempts to deny responsibility for his brother’s whereabouts or
welfare. As Hamilton notes, “Thus [Cain] is a liar, evasive and indifferent, when questioned by
Yahweh.” (P. 231)
Bereishis 1, p. 151, gives Akeidas Yitzchak’s view of the meaning of Cain’s reply: “You
imply that he is the important one and I am merely his guardian!”
Cain’s answer is, as Gunkel said, “a disdainful witticism.” There is a certain truth in his
answer–in that Cain [or any other individual] has his own life to live, and cannot be responsible for
knowing his brother’s whereabouts at every instant. But there is a terrible evasion in that answer–
it is the implication that Cain can live his own life, all alone, doing whatever he pleases, without
taking thought or responsibility for what happens to his brother, especially that he can harm his
brother and simply dismiss it, taking no responsibility for his own actions.
As Fretheim states, “‘Keeping’ is not something human beings do to one another in the Old
Testament; only God keeps human beings (see Numbers 6:24; Psalm 121:3-8); hence God
should know the answer to the question. In effect, if God does not know Abel’s whereabouts,
God has not been ‘keeping’ him and should be blamed for his present situation.” (P. 374)
Wenham comments that “When Adam was challenged, he at least told the truth if not the
whole truth (3:10), but Cain tells a bare-faced lie, ‘I do not know,’ and follows it up with an impertinent
witticism, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?...It may well be that Cain is overstating his responsibility
toward his brother in order to deny it completely, for no man is called on in the Old Testament
to act as another’s keeper...’To keep’ a man would involve keeping an eye on him all the
time, which could be somewhat intrusive. Yet biblical law expects a man’s brother to be the first
to assist him in time of trouble (Leviticus 25:48)...His outright denial of responsibility shows he is
‘much more hardened than the first human pair’ (von Rad, p. 106).” (Pp. 106-07)
The story is very profound and demanding. It means that every son of Adam is a brother
(and so, we human beings are all brothers and sisters to one another). And it means that while
we are not intended by YHWH the Creator to be “watch-dogs” of our brothers and sisters, we
must take responsibility for whatever we have done, or failed to do, that harms them. It is a responsibility
that we cannot escape.
Bowie, in commenting on this text, says that “Sooner or later men must recognize that any
cruelty to any human being, yes, any careless or flippant unkindness, brings them face to face
(continued...)
204

47
(...continued)
with the judgment of God. When the large-hearted William H. Taft was governor of the Philippine
Islands, he made public reference to ‘our Filipino brothers,’ and was answered in a derisive song
by somebody who thought himself better than any Filipino: “He may be a brother of William H.
Taft, But he ain’t no brother of mine”...
“All the same,” says Bowie, “he is [our brother]; and whoever looks at the Orient in the aftermath
of World War II is bound to see that whenever brotherhood is violated the blood of the
victims will cry out from whatever ground the victor treads.” (P. 519)
How easily we today fall into the attitude of Cain. We say, “America cannot police the
world.” “What affair is it of ours if there is ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, or in Rwanda, or in any
other of the far-off places of the world?” “That’s their concern, not ours.” Think about all of the
implications of this line of thought. It is mind-boggling in its consequences for ethics and morality,
in business, and in politics, and in foreign relations. It is as close to us as our own homes and
families; but it forces us to reach out to all our brothers and sisters of every race and tongue on
the face of the earth. If our welfare, or luxury, or comfort, hurts our brothers and sisters, or causes
their early death, there is a Divine voice that rings through history and in our ears–“Where is
your brother?” The Divine voice demands that we take responsibility for our brothers and sisters.
A business report on national television reported that the billboards advertising cigarettes,
such as the large “Marlboro Country” signs, are coming down all across our nation, since tobacco
has been proven to cause cancer. But in that same television show, it was reported that the stock
in cigarette companies is climbing, and sales are up–as we ship cartons of cigarettes by the millions,
bearing that same “Marlboro Country” picture, to other countries, especially the poorer
countries of the “Third World.” The Divine voice that calls to judgment will not overlook this fact.
Do you agree?
48
The ancient story teaches powerfully that humanity can never escape responsibility for its fellow
family members--for their whereabouts, for their health and security, or for the harm which the
individual has inflicted on his / her own family. And the entirety of humanity is one human family.
Though Cain disclaims responsibility, YHWH holds Cain responsible: "What have you done?
The voice of your fellow family member's blood is crying out to me from the ground."
It is a technical word for the "crying" ~yqi[]co, tso(aqiym, that goes up to YHWH from the
oppressed, wherever and whenever oppression of any sort occurs. Here begins a motif of the
Hebrew Bible--that of YHWH's hearing and responding to every "cry" of oppression. Humanity
may disclaim responsibility, but there is no escape from ethical and moral responsibility for oppression
of any sort. The theological applications of this basic biblical teaching are many--including
all sorts of social, interracial, and international political consequences.
Those who claim to love the biblical message, but who at the same time refuse to listen to
the cry of the oppressed peoples of Central America, or South Africa, or East Asia, or Yugoslavia,
205
(continued...)

49 50
And he said, What did you do? (The) voice of your brother’s bloods are crying to
48
(...continued)
or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Rwanda, or Haiti--not to mention those of their own nation--must take
seriously the dynamic warning of this passage and its related biblical motif.
Westermann states that verse 10 "is one of the monumental sentences in the Bible. It
needs no explanation and retains its validity through the centuries for each generation...It is no
empty sentence that the blood of the victim cries out; there is Someone there to Whom it cries
out...The murderer has no escape when faced with this question because there is Someone Who
hears the victim's blood crying out. These words, valid for the whole history of humankind, protect
the person as a creature of God from other people. Murder is and remains a possibility; the
possibility of its success ('the perfect murder') in the sense of eliminating a human being, is thereby
definitively excluded." (P. 305)
Rabbi Hirsch comments, "The earth is the terrain entrusted to mankind on which to live a
life dedicated to God. But it does not belong to a murderer. The earth itself demands from God
that He should execute justice on one who destroys a man." (Bereishis, p. 152)
So, at least, Rabbi Hirsch maintains--but does this story actually teach this? Does it not
teach that while demanding justice, the Divine Judge still cares for and protects the murderer?
49
As Hamilton comments, “God now shifts his role from Interrogator to that of Prosecutor...God
is making an accusation, not seeking information.” (P. 231)
Ibn Janach calls it “A rhetorical question, implying rebuke.” (Bereishis 1, p. 151)
50
Somewhat strangely sounding in English translation, the Hebrew uses the plural noun
“bloods (of),” and the plural participle ~yqi[]co, tso(aqiym, “are crying.”
Perhaps to make better sense in English we should translate “your brother’s blood-drops
are crying...”
Midrash Aggadah comments that “The plural form...bloods, means: his blood and the
blood of his potential descendants...Seeing that Cain was being insolent, God challenged him
forthright by revealing that He was aware of Cain’s crime.” (Bereishis 1, p. 152)
Wenham comments that “Compressed into [these words to Cain] is a whole theology
whose principles inform much of the criminal and cultic law of Israel.” (P. 107)
For the use of this root word q[c, tsa(aq, “cry,” elsewhere in the Pentateuch, see:
Genesis 27:34, Esau’s great cry over Jacob’s trickery;
Genesis 41:55, the cry of the Egyptians to Pharaoh in the midst of famine;
Exodus 5:8, the Israelite slaves are crying out to their Egyptian taskmasters be allowed to go out
into the wilderness;
(continued...)
206

50
(...continued)
Exodus 5:15, the Israelite overseers cry out to / against Pharaoh for increasing their work-load;
Exodus 8:8, verse 12 in English; Mosheh cries out to YHWH;
Exodus 14:10, the Israelites, seeing Pharaoh and his armies pursuing, cry out to YHWH;
Exodus 14:15, YHWH asks Mosheh why he is crying out to Him;
Exodus 15:25, Mosheh cries out to YHWH concerning the poisonous water;
Exodus 17:4, Mosheh cries out to YHWH concerning the Israelites who may stone him;
Exodus 22:22, 22, widows and orphans cry out to YHWH because of oppression;
Exodus 22:26, the merciful YHWH will hear the cry of the poor person who has to sleep without
his covering;
Numbers 11:2, the Israelites cry out to Mosheh over the Divine fire in their midst;
Numbers 12:13, Mosheh cries out to YHWH to heal his sister Miryam;
Numbers 20:16, Mosheh reminds the Israelites how when they cried out to YHWH, He heard
their voice;
Deuteronomy 22:24, a virgin who does not cry out when being raped;
Deuteronomy 22:27, an engaged woman’s cry is not heard in the open country, when being
raped;
Deuteronomy 26:7, YHWH heard the cry of the oppressed Israelites in Egypt.
For the noun taken from this root, hq' ê['c., tse(aqah, “outcry,” see:
Genesis 18:21; 19:13, the outcry that goes up to YHWH from Sodom and Gomorrah;
Genesis 27:34, Esau’s outcry over Jacob’s trickery;
Exodus 3:7, 9, YHWH has heard Israel’s outcry in the midst of Egyptian oppression;
Exodus 11:6; 12:30, the unprecedented and never repeated outcry that will rise from Egypt over
the loss of her first-born sons;
Exodus 22:22, YHWH will hear the outcry of the oppressed widow and orphan.
See also the synonyms za(aq and ze(aqah, which occur in almost equal numbers throughout
the Hebrew Bible, and the article on these words by G. Hasel in Theological Dictionary of
the Old Testament IV, pp. 112-22.
Wenham comments that “The law, the prophets...and the psalms...unite with narratives
like this (compare 2 Samuel 23; 1 Kings 21) to assert that God does hear His people’s desperate
cries for help.” (P. 107)
Hasel states that “Genesis 4:10...speaks of crying to Yahweh in the context of a legal process
modeled after the practice of private revenge. When a murder goes unavenged and the perpetrator
is not arrested, the spilled blood of the innocent victim ‘cries’ from the earth, with which it
is not yet covered (compare Genesis 37:26; Isaiah 26:21; Ezekiel 24:4-8), to God the Avenger
of blood (compare Genesis 9:5; 2 Samuel 4:11; 2 Kings 9:7; Psalms 9:13 (12) Hosea 1:4), accusingly
demanding propitiation for the deed (compare Job 16:18; 34:28).” (P. 116)
207
(continued...)

51 52
Me from the ground. 4.11 h'yPi-ta, ht'c.P' rv,a] hm'd'a]h' !mi hT'a' rWra' hT'[;w>
50
(...continued)
See also the article on ~d, dham by Kedar-Kopfstein in Theological Dictionary of the
Old Testament III, pp. 234-50, where it is pointed out that the singular and plural forms are used
indiscriminately in the Hebrew Bible. It is noted that “Later Midrashic exegesis found in the plural
a point of departure, e.g., in the Mishnah Sanhedrin iv.5: ‘It is not written (Genesis 4:10), the
dham (blood) of your brother, but the dhamim (bloods) of your brother, i.e., his own blood and
that of his descendants.’” (P. 236)
51
NIVSB comments that Cain’s spilled blood “continues to cry out to God against all those who
do violence to their human brothers.” (P. 12)
Fretheim comments that “God ignores the counter-question and offers a sharp reply...God
asks Cain a question (actually more an accusation), prompted by Abel’s blood crying out to God
from the ground...This idea assumes that blood as the conveyor of life belongs to God and spilled
blood cannot be covered up, leaving the issue of exacting justice in Divine hands. God knows
Abel has been killed by Cain and seeks to elicit from him a confession to that end. God does not
wait for a response, but proceeds to sentence Cain for his crime.” (P. 374)
The article by Kedar-Kopfstein (see the preceding footnote) points out that in the Hebrew
Bible “shed blood could be seen as clinging to the ground and polluting it (Numbers 3:33; Psalm
106:38). As long as it remains uncovered (Genesis 37:26; Ezekiel 24:7; Job 16:18), it cries
from the ground for vengeance (Genesis 4:10; compare 4:12).” (P. 242)
Compare also the statement made in Hebrews 11:4, “By faith Abel offered God a better
sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of
his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.” (New International)
Hamilton comments that “The blood is not an autonomous, apotropaic [intended to ward off
evil] force that is targeted at Cain. The shed blood simply cries out to God and leaves the matter
with Him. Presumably it is for vindication that Abel’s blood cries out. For Cain is now bloodguilty;
he is liable for punishment for shedding blood. Implicit in this concept of blood-guilt is the idea
that acts generate consequences. A person cannot take another’s life with impunity. Cain’s sin
will find him out too.” (Pp. 231-32)
52
Sarna comments on verses 11-12 that “A breach of the moral law inevitably sets in motion
countervailing forces that must ultimately prevail because they are sustained by God Himself.
Cain, tiller of the soil, whose criminal act was the outcome of his offering the fruits of the soil,
stained the earth with his brother’s blood. It is fitting, then, that the earth be the instrument of his
punishment. It will no longer yield him its produce, and so he can no longer pursue his vocation.
He must perforce become a vagrant and an outcast...
“Genesis Rabba 22:26 notes that Cain is not condemned to death because death had not
yet been experienced, and he had no way of knowing that his blow would extinguish his brother’s
life. He is guilty of homicide, not murder.” (P. 34)
(continued...)
208

53
`^d,Y"mi ^yxia' ymeD>-ta, tx;q;l' And now you are cursed from the ground, which opened its
54
mouth to take your brother’s bloods from your hand. 4.12 -al{ hm'd'a]h'-ta, dbo[]t; yKi
52
(...continued)
Do you agree with Genesis Rabba? Why? Why not?
53
ESVSB notes that “Underlying these punishments is a principle that recurs throughout scripture:
human sin has a bearing on the fertility of the earth.” (P. 58)
Do you think this is true? Did Hitler’s evil hinder fertility of the soil in Germany? Was the
“dust bowl” in the 1930's in America a consequence of America’s sinfulness? Does being obedient
lovers of God have any influence on the crop-production of farmers? How will you answer
these questions?
See Deuteronomy 28:11 and Leviticus 26:3-5, where seasonal rain and large crop yields
are promised as a reward for obedience to YHWH.
On the other hand, do you think that morality has nothing to do with successful farming,
and that jealousy and murder will not have dire consequences?
54
In this way the Divine curse that began in Genesis 3:14-19 continues, and grows. The
ground itself, made the unwilling accomplice to murder, will no longer be productive for the murderer,
and Cain will live a fugitive-like existence in the earth, "unstable (faint, uncertain, tottering on
the brink of ruin) and wandering aimlessly (moving to and fro, wavering)."
For the murderer, for the one who disclaims responsibility for his fellow family member,
YHWH's good earth becomes the "Land of Nod (Wandering)," and humanity, instead of laying
claim to the earth as its ruler and possessor, becomes a vagabond, a homeless wanderer, filled
with fear and uncertainty. See “Land of Nod” in Wikipedia on the Internet.
In terms of the Hebrew Bible, this condition is the very opposite of the "rest" and "peace"
which YHWH God intends for and gives to His people.
Westermann comments that “In Genesis 3 neither the man nor the woman are cursed but
only the serpent. In Genesis 4 however the man, Cain, is cursed...A dogmatic presupposition
which had constructed ‘fallen man’ out of Adam must necessarily obliterate this difference...It is
not Adam but Cain who is cursed; that is, among those people who live alienated from God [we
would correct this to say, ‘alienated from the tree of lives’] and limited by mortality and fallibility
there is the exceptional possibility of life under the curse. This is embodied in Cain, the murderer
of his brother.” (Pp. 306–07)
The language of the text shows that the curse proceeds “from the ground.” As Fretheim
notes, “...The ground, which has opened its mouth and received Abel’s blood, mediates the curse
to him by rejecting his labors and no longer yielding its fruit...In effect, the earlier curse of the
ground (3:17) applies to Cain in an intensified way so that it does not yield produce at all (the
(continued...)
209

55
#r,a'b' hy

56
(...continued)
Rabbi Hirsch states, “When the man tears asunder the bond between himself and God,
then God tears asunder the bond between man and the earth.” (Bereishis 1, p. 153)
“The [medieval Jewish] commentators discuss why Cain was not sentenced to death like
any other murderer: Cain’s judgment shall not be as the judgment of other murderers for Cain
had no one from whom to learn (Midrash)...And since the death sentence was not imposed, he
was punished with exile, as prescribed by the Torah for unwitting killers (Akeidas Yitzchak)...
Since ‘the earth will not yield its strength,’ he would always strive to find new areas to cultivate.
Never finding blessing, he will wander aimlessly in search of more fertile land (B’chor Shor; Ralbag);
but the quest is futile; the land is accursed to him. He must wander about restlessly, knowing
no peace...” (Ibid., p. 154)
However, in the close of this chapter, this rootless wanderer is depicted as building a city
(verse 17)–quite a contrast to this dismal prospect.
57
Hamilton comments that “The reader may be surprised that God does not kill Cain for his
flagrant crime. Instead Cain is banned from the soil, which obviously means not that he is barred
from contact with the soil but from enjoyment of its productivity.” (P. 232)
We see no justification for this translation of the qal passive participle rWra', )arur as
“banned,” instead of its normal meaning, “cursed.” We think that it is more likely the curse proceeds
“from the soil,” in a similar way to the Divine cursing of the soil in Genesis 3:17.
The phrase dn"w" [n", na( wanadh, “a fugitive and a wanderer,” is not found elsewhere in
the Hebrew Bible other than this story (compare verse 14, where Cain restates his punishment
with this same combination). See the two articles by Ringgren in Theological Dictionary of the
Old Testament, IX, pp. 271-72, and pp. 293-95.
The two root verbs are combined in:
Isaiah 24:20, the earth [:WnÝT' [;Anæ, literally wavering will waver, like a drunkard, hd"ßd>Ant.hi(w>. it
moves itself to and fro, like a hut in the wind; so heavy upon it is the guilt of its rebellion
that it falls–never to rise again;
Lamentations 4:15, the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem are considered unclean, and
people cry out to them: Go away! You are unclean! Away, Away! Don’t touch us! When
W[n" +-~G: Wcßn" they fled and wandered about, people among the nations said, They can
stay here no longer!
Compare also Psalm 109:10, an “imprecatory psalm,” that calls upon God to curse the wicked:
W[Wnæy" [;AnÝ, wandering may his sons wander; may they be driven from their ruined homes!
211
(continued...)

58
4.13 `afoN>mi ynIwO[] lAdG" hw"hy>-la, !yIq; rm,aYOw: And Cain said to YHWH, My
57
(...continued)
Julius Wellhausen interpreted this as depicting the life of a "nomad," and understood the
entire story as an expression of the conflict between nomads and farmers. However, the two
verbs that are used to describe Cain's "fugitive" existence are not in any way expressive of the
"nomadic" way of life.
Westermann comments that "The name of the land of Nod where Cain now lives is...not a
geographical name; the description 'Land of the Restless Life' or ‘Land of Misery'..." is much truer
to this ancient story ...'East of Eden' is also to be understood in this sense. It is not a piece of
geographical information but a reference to life 'outside,' in a state of alienation from God." (P.
314) John Steinbeck's novel East of Eden is built on this description of the place of Cain's
wandering.
Westermann holds that “The meaning of the words dn"w" [n", na( wanadh is quite clear...
an existence that is hunted and hounded. Both verbs express well the ‘hither and thither,’ the
displaced wanderer...Neither of the two verbs ever describes the way of life of the nomads...J.
Skinner wrote: ‘The ordinary Bedouin could not be described as ‘fugitives and vagabonds on the
earth’.” (P. 308)
Wenham writes, “Cain is not being condemned to a Bedouin-like existence; the terminology
is too extreme to describe such a life-style. Rather it seems likely that the curse on Cain
reflects the expulsion from the family that was the fate in tribal societies of those who murdered
close relatives...’To be driven away from the land (compare verse 14) is to have all relationships,
particularly with the family, broken. Moreover, it is to have one’s relationship with the Lord broken’
(Coats, p. 65).” (P. 108)
We think this last statement by Coats is not supported by the text, which says nothing concerning
Cain’s relationship with the Lord being broken. What do you think? Does the text not intend
to say that YHWH is still watching over Cain, even in his vagabond state, protecting him?
Hamilton comments that “This, then, is Cain’s fate. In some ways it is a fate worse than
death. It is to lose all sense of belonging and identification with a community. It is to become
rootless and detached. Perhaps we, the readers, should at this point view Cain not so much as a
villain but as a tragic character. Cain, once a farmer, is now ousted from civilization and is to become
a vagabond. Rootlessness is the punishment and the wilderness is the refuge of the sinner.”
(P. 232)
Von Rad comments that “The relation of the fratricide to the mother earth is disturbed
much more deeply. It is so shattered, in fact, that the earth has no home for him. What remains
for him is an unstable and fugitive life.” (P. 106)
How then, we ask, is Cain later in this chapter able to build a city?
58
Verses 13-14 contain Cain’s “cry of lament.”
(continued...)
212

59 60
punishment / guilt is too great for bearing. 4.14 ynEP. l[;me ~AYh; ytiao T'v.r;GE !he
58
(...continued)
As Westermann notes, “The narrative of Cain contains the cry of the blood of the victim
and the lament of the murderer condemned for life. The cry and the lament are part of human
existence; they are a defensive reaction to life threatened. Just as in verse 10 the blood of the
one murdered does not cry in the void, so too the defensive lament of the murderer is heard. The
person is a creature, and no matter what one’s situation, remains within earshot of the Creator;
that is the meaning of the cry and the lament.” (P. 309)
What do you think? Do you agree that even the condemned murderer remains “within
earshot” of the Creator?
NIVSB comments that “Confronted with his crime and its resulting curse, Cain responded
not with remorse but with self-pity.” (P. 12)
Does YHWH, then, listen to the “sinner’s” prayer? And if Cain is a prime example of one
who is “hereditarily, totally depraved,” “alienated from God,” how then can it be claimed that he is
still heard by YHWH?
59
The word used here by Cain, ynIwO[], (awoni, “my guilt,” or “my punishment,” is inherently ambiguous,
and can mean either iniquity, guilt, or consequence of, or punishment for iniquity, guilt. In
this way both the act and its consequences are summed up in one word.
Westermann agrees with this, stating that “It is characteristic of the Hebrew !wOà[', (awon
that it describes an event which can include ‘sin’ and ‘punishment’...What is decisive for Cain’s
fate is that Yahweh does not take away his !wOà[', (awon, but lays the full burden of it upon him...
The narrative of Cain is saying that God has to do with the criminal and that the criminal has to do
with God: the appeal of the condemned murderer who is weighed down with the burden of his
!wOà[', (awon, is to be understood in this way.” (P. 309)
What do you think? Do you agree with Westermann? Do you think YHWH / Jesus Christ
is present with, listening to the prayers of condemned murderers on death row?
60
The text says literally, afoN>mi ynIwO[] lAdG, gadhol (awoni minneso), literally, “great my
punishment / guilt from to carry,” which we have taken to mean it is too great for me to bear. For
this last verb, compare footnote 32.
Bereishis 1, p. 155 translates as a question, “Is my iniquity too great to be borne?”, with
the explanation that “to be borne” means “to be forgiven,” “to be lifted up” (compare Exodus 34:
7). Other medieval Jewish commentators “read this not as a question but as a statement and
confession: ‘More heavy is my rebellion than that can be borne away; nevertheless Yours is the
power to forgive it (Targum Yonasan).”
(continued...)
213

`ynIgEr>h;y: yaic.mo-lk' hy"h'w> #r,a'B' dn"w" [n" ytiyyIh'w> rteS'a, ^yn

65 66
finding me will murder me. 4.15 ~yIt;['b.vi !yIq; greho-lK' !kel' hw"hy> Al rm,aYOw;
63
(...continued)
But is what the text says? Does it say that YHWH is located in the garden, but not outside?
Does it teach that there are locations on earth where YHWH God is absent, not present?
What do you think?
Bereishis 1, p. 155, translates in two ways: “(And) can I be hidden from Your Presence?”,
with the answer, “Surely not! For everything is known to You (Midrash Aggadah; Midrash). Others
render in reverse: ‘And from Your countenance I will be hidden’–i.e. You will detest me and
no longer watch over me (B’chor Shor); with the result that I will be exposed to all and unprotected
(Radak)...Thus Cain confessed that man is powerless to save himself by his own strength, but
only by the watchfulness of the Supreme One (Ramban)...My fear is that bereft of Your presence
and watchfulness I will be easy prey for anyone who wishes to molest me.”
Westermann asks what this can mean occurring in the same Bible that contains such
passages as Psalm 139:7-12 (quoted in footnote 40 on Genesis 3:22) and Amos 9:3-4, which
teach that there is absolutely “no escape from God.” His answer is that “To hide oneself, to cover
oneself before God (before His face) refers to the anger of God...The burden of Cain’s !wOà[', (awon,
is certainly not lifted from him; he remains under it, even though it is lightened. And that
means in Old Testament thinking that his very existence remains exposed to the anger of God.
This is but another way of describing the state of restless anxiety into which Cain is banished...
Cain laments that he must hide himself from God Who sees, Who has intervened as his brother’s
Avenger and Whose anger he must now fear.” (P. 310)
Fretheim comments that “Speaking theologically, [Cain] will be hidden from the face (i.e.,
presence) of God...God will no longer be available to him for care and protection, or even prayers
relating thereto.” (P. 374)
We think this is an expression of Cain’s fear, but an unjustified fear, since YHWH is depicted
as protecting him even in his wandering criminal condition, and the Hebrew Bible clearly
teaches that YHWH knows what every person on earth is doing, even the notorious Egyptian /
Assyrian / Babylonian rulers, and is present with rebellious Jonah even in the belly of a great fish
at the bottom of the Mediterranean! See footnote 71.
64
Compare Proverbs 28:17, “A man oppressed with life-blood, as far as a pit / cistern / prison
let him flee; they shall not support him.” Waltke translates by “A mortal oppressed by shedding
the blood of life will flee to the pit. Let no one restrain him,” which Waltke interprets as meaning
“no one should stay his execution.” (P. 422)
But here, in Genesis 4, YHWH, the One giving the sentence, promises to protect Cain.
What do you think?
65
Cain is depicted as describing his punishment in a three-fold manner. He states:
215
(continued...)

65
(...continued)
(1) that YHWH has driven him out from the face of the ground–which is not the case. Cain will
still live upon the face of the ground–only the ground will not yield its “strength” in his efforts
to farm it.
(2) that he will be hidden from YHWH’s presence–which is not the case, as is shown in the succeeding
story, in which YHWH protects Cain from his avengers.
(3) that he will be a restless wanderer, and everyone finding him will kill him. But YHWH assures
him that this will not happen, because YHWH will protect him.
We think that commentators have been too quick to agree with Cain’s assessment–stating
that just as Adam and Eve were cast out from the Divine presence, so also with Cain. But we
insist that neither is true, according to this ancient story–which depicts YHWH God as being just
as present with Cain, as he was with his parents in the garden. Whereas Cain states that he will
be “a wanderer and a fugitive,” which is in fact the Divine punishment pronounced against him, in
the subsequent story, Cain becomes the builder of a city. Cain’s last statement, that everyone
finding him will kill him, is not part of the Divine sentence upon him, and YHWH acts to prevent
this consequence from coming to pass.
What do you think?
Wenham comments on this last statement of Cain that “alienation from God leads to fear
of other men (compare Job 15:20-25 [Eliphaz describes the wicked man as writhing in pain all his
days, hearing dreadful sounds in his ears, convinced that destruction is near at hand]). Certainly
it is the fear of retribution that is the heart of Cain’s complaint. ‘Anyone who finds me will kill me.’”
(P. 108)
NIVSB notes that “These words seem to imply the presence of substantial numbers of
people outside Cain’s immediate family, but perhaps they only anticipate the future rapid growth
of the race.” (P. 12)
What do you think? Doesn’t this seems like an attempt to get around a difficulty?
Wenham states that “Whom he feared has perplexed commentators, since according to
the Genesis account there was no one else around but his parents...Most probably he envisaged
other descendants of Adam seeking to avenge Abel’s death.” (P. 108)
Fretheim comments that “Cain does not passively accept the Divine sentence...(When
faced with his own murder, the murderer laments!).” (P. 374)
The question concerning who it could be that would murder Cain calls for answer. How will
you answer it? We think it is clear that the story assumes there are other people inhabiting the
earth–which seems to conflict with the story which is apparently that of the first and only child of
the original couple on earth. A similar question is raised when we are told later in this story that
Cain married a woman. Whom could he marry, since the story has said nothing concerning other
children of Adam and Eve? And who were the people who would inhabit the city that Cain would
later build?
(continued...)
216

65
(...continued)
Fretheim comments that “...The story functioned, not as a straight-forward account of ancient
events, but as a mirror for human reality in every age. Cain may not have been threatened by
anyone, but he reflects a concern that would have been voiced by later generations. Cain may
not actually have built a city [who would live in its houses?], but urban existence was a reality with
which all subsequent generations lived.” (P. 378)
We think that such questions naturally arise when the stories are taken as historical, and
not seen as the ancient legends / myths / “stories” of humanity, which are not intended in terms of
exact, verifiable, historical happenings–but which are rather intended to describe the meaning of
human existence, and the reason for suffering, pain, and death in human experience.
We understand the story of Adam and Eve as the story of “Everyman and Everywoman,”
and the story of Cain and Abel as the story of humanity’s long history of “Sibling Rivalry,” rooted in
perceptions of Divine unfairness, and inequalities among equals.
It is just as reasonable to ask such historical questions and make such criticisms of the
parables of Jesus, or the allegories of Plato. The biblical author of this story is not interested in
such “historical problems.”
What do you think?
In the words of Westermann, “One should not apply criteria belonging to historical thought
patterns to the presentation of the primeval events.” (P. 311)
It is also to be considered that the story of Cain and Abel may have well been taken from
another document, torn from its original context, and placed in conjunction with the stories in
chapters 1-3 of Genesis. In that original context, such questions would not be raised, and they
are only raised here because of the new context. Do you think this is possible?
Hamilton takes up this question and states that “Critical scholars see in these details support
for the contention that the Cain-Abel story is originally independent of the Adam-Eve narrative,
and that the Cain-Abel story surfaced in a period when there was a sizable population. Only
later was it added to the Adam-Eve sagas, with the inconsistencies brought about by merger left
intact...
“Or we may suggest that Cain, Abel, and Seth are the only children of Adam and Eve specifically
mentioned and named. Cain’s wife would be his sister, and those who might kill Cain–assuming
a family proliferation that spreads over centuries–would be Cain’s siblings. If that is the
case, and it is the one we prefer, then the situation is even more freighted with irony. He who
turned on one of his relatives now must watch out for any of his relatives. The ‘avenger of blood,’
the one who seeks retributive justice against the criminal, may be a family member.” (P. 233)
We think that Hamilton is yielding to the temptation to understand the story as historical
narrative, rather than as a symbolical, theological story of the meaning of human existence. How
do you view this biblical material?
217

`Aac.mo-lK' Atao-tAKh; yTil.bil. tAa !yIq;l. hw"hy> ~f,Y"w: ~Q'yU And YHWH said to him,
67 68
Therefore everyone who murders Cain–he will be avenged seven times!” And YHWH placed
66
Wenham comments on verses 15-16 that “In this final scene God is active and Cain passive.”
(P. 109)
Sarna comments that “The manner in which God responds to Cain is of special interest.
The initial Hebrew ‘!kel', lakhen [‘therefore’]...frequently introduces a solemn declaration, while
the formulation of the reassurance derives from the realm of law. The unusually emphatic language
is directed first to Cain, in order to allay his mortal fear, and then to the world at large, as a
kind of royal proclamation that has the force of law. It states that despite his crime, Cain still
remains under God’s care.” (P. 35)
What do you think? Do you think the murderer on death row, awaiting execution, can take
comfort in this ancient story?
67 Where the Massoretic text reads !kel', lakhen, “therefore,” the Greek translation reads ouvc
ou[twj, ouch houtos, “not in this way.” So also Symmachus and Theodotian in their Greek translations
of the Hebrew, and also the Syriac translation and the Latin Vulgate, reflecting a Hebrew
text reading !ke aol, lo) ken, “not so.”
68
Surprisingly, YHWH's ears are not deaf to the convicted murderer's plea for mercy. He continues
to listen and speak to Cain; and, like an understanding Father, still cares for Cain and takes
thought for his future.
There is a Divine grace and mercy witnessed to here in this story--a mercy that transcends
law, and the strict demands of retributive justice, as YHWH warns that whoever kills Cain (in vengeance)
will bear the consequences seven times over.
This passage should be taken into serious consideration by those involved in the evaluation
of capital punishment. The statement may not mean that YHWH Himself will kill the avengers
seven times over; rather, it may mean that a seven-fold consequence will come upon those
people who refuse to break the cycle of blood-vengeance. What do you think?
Fretheim comments that “God disagrees emphatically, though without taking back the
basic sentence. Cain’s plea occasions a Divine amelioration of the sentence, reflecting a Divine
responsiveness to a human cry, an openness to taking a different way into the future in view of
what human beings have to say.” (P. 374) Compare:
Genesis 18:22-33, Abraham’s bartering with YHWH concerning the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah;
Exodus 32:9-14, Mosheh’s pleading with YHWH on behalf of sinful Israel.
218
(continued...)

68
(...continued)
Fretheim also states that “Cain, guilty of murder and standing outside the line of promise,
becomes the recipient of a promise from God (see also Ishmael, Esau)...God protects him from
an avenger. This incident raises questions about the appropriateness of later eye-for-eye legislation
(see Exodus 21:23-24) and capital punishment (see Genesis 9:6).” (P. 377)
Bereishis 1, pp. 153-54 states that “The verse which reads literally ‘therefore, anyone who
slays Cain sevenfold shall he be avenged’ is obscure and open to several translations. Our rendering
[‘Therefore, whoever slays Cain, before seven generations have passed will be punished’]
follows Rashi (and Ibn Ezra) who interprets this as an abbreviated verse with an implied clause:
‘Whoever slays Cain will be punished (this phrase unstated, but understood); as for Cain, only
after seven generations will I execute My vengeance upon him...Harav David Feinstein explains
that the postponement of the ultimate punishment of Cain is a manifestation of God as...long-suffering
and patient...Radak explains the verse: ‘Whoever slays Cain, I will avenge him seven-fold,’
be it man or beast. ‘Seven’ means several times over...God said: ‘Whoever slays Cain will have
sevenfold vengeance taken on him...”
None of the standard Jewish or Christian translations of Genesis have anything like
Rashi’s or Feinstein’s proposed translations, but are all in accord with Radak’s translation.
Wenham comments on the word “sevenfold” that “This could mean that Cain’s killer and six
of his relatives will die, but this seems unlikely with God as its Agent...It means to the seventh
generation from Adam (i.e., Lamech; compare verse 24) or the seventh from Cain, i.e., Tubal-
Cain and the flood...Most probably it is a poetic turn of speech meaning full Divine retribution...”
(P. 109)
Fretheim holds that “The story depicts not vengeance in the sense of revenge, but an effort
to stop the violence from spiraling out of control by intensifying the workings of the moral order.
The legal formulation gives it the force of law, hence applicability to all people. God will be Abel’s
brother’s keeper. God’s mercy embraces the murderer.” (P. 374) If Fretheim is right, this is
another example of torah-legislation in the Genesis story.
Hamilton notes that “We now encounter a drastic turnabout in the narrative. Cain, who has
been receiving words of judgment, now receives a word of Divine promise and an act of Divine
protection. God’s word of judgment (verses 11-12) and his word of promise (verse 15) are separated
from each other by Cain’s protest (verses 13-14)...
“There certainly is biblical precedent for the concept of a sovereign God who, nevertheless,
accommodates himself to the prayers and concern of His children (witness Abraham in Sodom
and Gomorrah, Genesis 18; and Moses at the golden calf incident (Exodus 34).” (Pp. 233-34)
As previously mentioned, we think this part of the ancient story demonstrates that the idea
of humanity’s (and Cain’s) “total separation / alienation from God” as a result of human disobedience
and sinfulness has been greatly overplayed, and read into the story, rather than being derived
from the story.
219
(continued...)

68
(...continued)
The Creator God is just as close to, and concerned for, His creatures outside the garden
as He was for them inside the garden; He is just as concerned for Cain and his future following
his brother-murder, as he was before that tragic act. We repeat: according to this story, human
sinfulness separates between humanity and the “tree of the lives,” or from the productive, yielding
ground, but does not separate between the Creator God and His creatures, disobedient and murererous
though they indeed are.
But what is the meaning of this Divine declaration? Is it not a rejection of the entire teaching
concerning blood-vengeance, of “a life for a life” (as is taught in Genesis 9:6 / Exodus 21:
23)? If not, why not? Is not this Divine declaration closely related to the teaching of Jesus in
Matthew 5:38-42?
Also, this Divine declaration must be compared with Lamech’s statement later in this chapter,
“If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech (will be avenged) seventy-sevenfold.” (verse 24)
Lamech’s statement is an expression of human arrogance and pride; but the Divine declaration is
an expression of Divine abhorrence of blood-vengeance, which easily leads to such arrogant
pride, and which calls forth and deserves Divine punishment.
Can we say in the light of the entire teaching of Genesis that not only is there Divine authorization
for blood-vengeance; there is also clear teaching that such vengeance leads to extremes
like that of Lamech, and is subject to the Divine warning that the execution of vengeance on others
is self-defeating, and must be mixed with mercy? If not, why not?
Certainly YHWH is depicted in this story as long-suffering, and caring for the guilty–not as
a harsh, vindictive Judge who demands His pound of flesh immediately. Does not the story now
found in John 7:54-8:11 depict Jesus as holding a very similar attitude to that of YHWH in this
story of Cain?
Hamilton comments that “...We hear in the narrative the voice of both law and grace. Sin
cannot be ignored or justified. Cain must pay a penalty for his actions. But the God who pronounces
the sentence also makes available to the criminal His protection and concern that he too
not become a victim of violence. Cain is banned and blessed. He is a marked man, in a positive
sense...What God would later say about Mt. Sinai–‘whoever touches the mountain shall be put to
death’ (Exodus 19:12)–he first said about Cain.” (P. 235)
Westermann comments that “The statement and the action which form God’s reply to
Cain’s lament protect him from being open game to any assassin; Cain, who from now on is an
outcast because of the curse, is protected.” (P. 311)
He adds that “This legal ordinance is to prevent a person, even a murderer, from becoming
a prey for other people [but is this not exactly what happens in the biblical laws concerning the
‘avenger of blood’? See Numbers 35:9-34 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13, according to which the
avenger of blood is to kill the intentional murderer.] The sentence is meant to forestall blood vengeance;
the ‘sevenfold’ is to act as a deterrent. The pronouncement presumes blood vengeance
among men where fratricide is possible; but God intervenes and forbids it. Cain, who is his broth-
(continued...)
220

69 70
a sign for Cain, so that everyone finding him should not strike him. 4.16 ynEp.Limi !yIq; aceYEw:
68
(...continued)
er’s murderer, stands under God’s curse; but no human being has the right to step in and execute
God’s decision.” (Pp. 311-12)
What do you think? Does this story of YHWH’s grace to the guilty have any relevance to
our world today, in its attempt to deal with crime and punishment?
69
There is no indication in the text of what the "sign set up for Cain" was. Commentators have
suggested tattoos, or circumcision, or other physical "signs"--but the text gives no basis for any of
these conjectures. All that can be clearly understood is that this ancient story insists that YHWH
continues to love and care for Cain, with a Fatherly concern, marking him out for protection.
Can humanity's concern for the criminal, including the convicted murderer, rightfully be any
less? How will you answer this question?
Westermann comments, "To prevent anyone from stepping in and carrying out God's sentence
on Cain, God 'puts' a mark on him...The mark is to protect Cain the cursed and the outcast
from being a prey to other people." (P. 312)
And so, the ancient story tells its readers, this "son of Adam," who should have been the
inheritor of the earth, and who should have lived as a king, conquering and ruling over the earth,
was reduced to the shadowy, fugitive-like existence of a hunted brother-murderer–not because he
was created in this way, but because he disobeyed the counsel of YHWH, and chose to murder
his brother.
Jewish commentators insist that this language must be understood symbolically, since it is
of course, impossible to actually depart from YHWH's presence. See Bereishis, p. 157.
Joined with the preceding story in Genesis 2-3, this story says that the terrible problems
which plague human existence are all rooted in humanity's broken relationship with God, which
has led to a broken relationship within the human family. Without loving obedience to YHWH,
and loving, responsible relationship within the family, there simply cannot be any real "roots" in
this world. In this way, the ancient story lays the basis for ethics and morality.
In the New Testament, Jude 11, the early Christian community is warned against "walking
in the way of Cain." We conclude from our study of Genesis 4 that "walking in the way of
Cain" involves two major ingredients:
(1) It means worshiping God with jealousy, anger, and hatred in our hearts for our fellow family
members;
(2) it means the denial of personal responsibility for the welfare of our fellow family members.
Jesus warns against this in many of His teachings--but in none so clearly as that recorded
in Matthew 25:31-46.
221
(continued...)

69
(...continued)
The overall theological teaching of Genesis 1-4 must then be seen in terms of the reason
for pain, suffering, death and evil in God's "good" created earth. It is a two-fold reason:
first, the breaking of humanity's child-like trust in and obedience to YHWH God;
second, the breaking of humanity's responsible relationship with its fellow family members,
due to the allowing of emotions such as jealousy and anger to rule over the human
heart.
Indeed, it is the violation of the two commandments upon which the whole law hangs,
according to Jesus--love for God, and love for neighbor–see Mark 12:28-34. Also, see Jacob
(“James”) 3:15-16, where envy and selfish ambition are described as "demonic" (the only place in
the New Testament where this adjective occurs).
70
The statement is ambiguous, and capable of being interpreted in many differing ways.
YHWH puts a “sign” or “mark” on Cain: Atao-tAKh; yTil.bil. tAa !yIq;l. hw"hy> ~f,Y"w;,
Aac.mo-lK', literally, “and YHWH placed for Cain a sign (or ‘mark’) so as not to strike him
everyone finding him.”
Hamilton, noting the many varied uses of the Hebrew noun tAa, )oth, holds that “The sign
identifies Cain as one who is especially protected by God.” (P. 235) But what was that “sign” or
“mark”?
Sarna insists that “The reference is not to a stigma of infamy but to a sign indicating that
the bearer is under Divine protection...[It] probably involves some external physical mark, perhaps
on the forehead...It is also possible, though less likely, that the ‘sign’ consists of some occurrence
that serves to authenticate the Divine promise as being inviolable. In that case, the text would be
rendered: ‘The Lord gave Cain a [confirmatory] sign that no one who met him would kill him.’” (P.
35)
Wenham agrees with Sarna, stating that since it is God who is placing the sign on Cain...
“the mark of Cain must be something about him that shows he has Divine protection, e.g., a
tattoo, special hairstyle, or the like.
“Bereishith Rabbah 22:12 ingeniously combines both ideas of the meaning of ‘sign’ by
suggesting that the sign for Cain was a dog that accompanied him on his wanderings: the dog
served to reassure Cain of God’s protection and scared off any assailants! But for this idea there
is as little proof as for any of the other suggestions...
“The simplest suggestion is...that the sign for Cain is simply his name (qayin, “Cain”),
which sounds somewhat like yuqqam ‘shall be punished’...His very name hints at the promise of
Divine retribution on his attackers...
222
(continued...)

70
(...continued)
“Nevertheless, the text here gives barely a hint that this was the writer’s intention. So the
precise nature of the sign remains uncertain, but its function...’As a protective device against potential
enemies it may stay death; in that sense, the anticipated punishment is softened. But at the
same time it serves as a constant reminder of Cain’s banishment, his isolation from other people’
(Coats, p. 65).” (Pp. 109-10)
Bereishis 1, p. 156, states that “He set a letter of His Name on Cain’s forehead...Ibn Ezra
records various opinions...as to the nature this sign...A horn (Midrash)...courage...Wherever Cain
wandered he had a sign from God indicating the safe way to go...He made Cain himself a sign or
warning for murderers or penitents (Midrash)...He made the sun shine upon Cain as a sign of
Divine benevolence.”
Brown-Driver-Briggs, pp. 16-17, gives the following possible meanings for this noun:
1. sign, pledge, token;
2. signs, omens, pledges of predicted events;
3. sign, symbol of spokespersons;
4. signs, miracles, as pledges or attestations of Divine presence and interposition;
5. signs, memorials, such as the memorial stones taken from the Jordan River, or a memorial
pillar left in Egypt;
6. sign, pledge of covenant, i.e., the rainbow, or circumcision;
7. ensigns, standards;
8. signs, tokens of changes of weather and times.
They think that Genesis 4:15 should be included under # 1, but this is a very broad definition,
and helps little. We might think in terms of # 6, with some permanent mark in the flesh of
Cain, that would be immediately obvious to all seeing him.
See Helfmyer’s article on this noun in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament I, pp.
167-88, in which Helfmyer describes this sign placed on Cain a “sign of protection.” “This sign
serves to protect Cain, and probably is to be understood as a tattoo, perhaps as a tribal sign...The
sign mentioned in Exodus 12:13...is also a sign of protection, by means of which Yahweh or the
‘destroyer’ recognizes the houses of the Israelites and thus ‘passes over’ them...” (P. 176)
However this is decided, the point of the sign is that Cain is under the protection of YHWH,
and must not be subjected to capital punishment by those finding him. Obviously, the exact nature
of the “sign” placed on Cain is not of importance to the author of this ancient story. See
Westermann’s inconclusive discussion of the question on pp. 312-14.
Von Rad notes that “...The narrative surprisingly does not conclude with this picture of the
condemned murderer. Indeed, one must say that only now does it reach its most important point:
Cain does not have the last word in this story, but rather God, who now places Cain’s forfeited life
under strict protection...
223
(continued...)

71
`!d,[e-tm;d>qi dAn-#r,a,B. bv,YEw: hw"hy> And Cain went out from before YHWH’s presence,
70
(...continued)
“Because of his murder, he is cursed by separation from God and yet incomprehensibly
guarded and supported by God’s protection. Even his life belongs to God, and he does not abandon
it.” (P. 107)
“That he still is not abandoned by God but lives expressly in a protective relationship is the
most enigmatic part of the narrative, for here God’s ordering and protecting will is revealed. The
spirit of murder which erupted in Cain [not in a condition of separation from God...but precisely at
the point where he lifts his hands to God...] is not to spread into wider and wider circles...and
punishment that God inflicted on Cain is not to be the occasion for barbarism among men.” (P.
109)
It is true, as Fretheim remarks, “The Divine blessing follows Cain through all his wandering.”
(P. 375)
71
It is important to note that this phrase hw"hy> ynEp.Limi !yIq; aceYEw:, wayyetse) qayin mill-
ipheney yhwh, “And Cain went out from before YHWH,” or “from before YHWH’s presence,”
does not mean that Cain was totally separated from YHWH, any more than the spokesperson
Jonah’s attempt to run away from before YHWH meant that he was actually separated from the
Divine presence (but was able to enter into His presence and worship in the belly of the big fish at
the bottom of the sea). See footnote 63.
This is the same phrase, hw"hy> ynEp.Limi, “from before YHWH,” that is used in the Levitical
code to mean removal of some object from the immediate presence of YHWH in the interior of the
sanctuary–see Leviticus 16:12; Numbers 17:24 (verse 9 in English); 20:9; 1 Samuel 21:7
(verse 6 in English).
In a religion that acknowledged the universal presence of YHWH, such a phrase can only
mean something like “from before YHWH’s immediate audience,” or “from before the center of
worship, with the symbols of His presence.” If the phrase is taken to mean “separation from
YHWH,” the only separation that there is has to do with Cain’s refusal to listen, or relate his life in
a conscious way to YHWH–but it certainly cannot mean in the religion of Israel that YHWH no
longer was present in Cain’s world, knowing his whereabouts, even protecting him.
Bereishis 1, p. 157 states that “since actual departure from God’s presence is impossible,
‘departure’ is interpreted figuratively: he departed spiritually...(Gur Aryeh).”
What do you think?
224

72 73
and he lived in the land of wandering, east of (the) Delightful Place.
74
4.17 ar'q.YIw:ry[i hnw: %Anx]-ta, dl,Tew:rh;T;w: Atv.ai-ta, !yIq; [d;YEw:
72
There is a play on words: Cain is to be a dn"ß, nadh, “wanderer,” and so he goes to live in the
land of dAn, nodh, “wandering land.” The noun has been formed from the verb.
73
Where this means geographically, is of course, impossible to determine, and even to ask the
question reveals our lack of understanding of the nature of these “primeval” stories. It is impossible
to locate the “garden of the Luxurious Place” geographically; how then can we know where
“east of the Luxurious Place” is? The one thing certain is that Cain, because of his brother-murder,
is wandering far from the condition that YHWH God intended for His human creatures.
74
The story of Cain and Abel, told in 4:2-16, is surrounded with genealogical materials in 4:1,
and 4:17-26. These ancient records of succeeding generations are to be understood as the ancient
writer's attempt to unite the prehistoric, "primeval" stories with human history, and with the
beginnings of civilization.
Westermann states that "4:17-26...is the history of cultural achievements. This shows an
awareness of the development of, or the history of civilization that goes far beyond the origin of
individual aspects or achievements...The strongly-developed historical sense of the Israelites
seized on this...and fashioned the seminal notion of a history of civilization...
“This family tree reflects a knowledge of the very great age of the inventions and discoveries
that are the basis of civilization. However there was no attempt to make Israel itself or its
ancestors sharers in this history. The author of this passage makes it clear that the basic achievements
of civilization belong to the primeval period and that in this area Israel is an heir to the
common patrimony of humankind." (P. 325)
We agree with Westermann, but believe that Sarna has pointed out something even more
important concerning this text. It is that "The list constitutes a silent polemic against the mythological
concepts of the ancient world, which attributed the advance of culture to Divine or semi-
Divine figures...
“Mesopotamian tradition knew of the seven Apkallu, or mythical sages, half-fish and halfman,
who rose out of the sea to reveal to man the sciences, the social system, writing, and art.
Enlil, the air God, created the mattock; Enki-Ea, God of watery chaos, was closely associated with
magic, wisdom, the arts and crafts and music...
“For Egyptians, it was the God Thot who invented the scales and the balances; Osiris who
taught humans agriculture and the arts of life; and Ptah who was the special patron of artists, artificers,
and men of letters...
“In the Ugaritic-Phoenician area, the God Koshar, the Divine artisan and smith, was credited
with the discovery of the use of iron and the fishing tackle...
225
(continued...)

75 76
`%Anx] AnB. ~veK. ry[ih' ~veAnd Cain knew his woman, and she conceived; and she
74
(...continued)
“In the Greek sphere, it was Athena who invented the plough and the rake and who taught
both the useful and the elegant arts, while Apollo founded towns and invented the flute and the
lyre.
"This phenomenon, known as euhemerism or the Divinization of the benefactors of humanity,
was common to the ancient world. In this chapter it is tacitly rejected. The development of
human culture is demythologized and historicized. The seven-day Divine creation of the cosmos
is paralleled by these seven generations of human creativity. Man became a co-partner with God
in the world of creation." (Pp. 35-36)
What do you think? Do you agree with Sarna? We certainly do.
Wenham comments on verses 17-24 that “Here the genealogical structure of the account
becomes apparent again. Verse 17 could have immediately followed verse 2 had not the long
digression about Abel’s murder been included at this point. Verses 17-24 include several brief
comments on the vocations of Cain’s descendants (e.g., 17b, 20b, 21, 22), but the only lengthy
digression is the song of Lamech (23-24) in which he shows that he has all the violent traits of his
forefather Cain...” (P. 110)
Wenham states that “...By linking urbanization and nomadism, music and metalworking to
the genealogy of Cain, he seems to be suggesting that all aspects of human culture are in some
way tainted by Cain’s sin: ‘By virtue of being Cain’s descendants, the people named in the genealogy
all inherit his curse. Thus the Cainite genealogy becomes part of the Yahwist’s account of
man’s increasing sin’ (quoting Wilson, Genealogy and History, p. 155).” (P. 111)
We think Wenham’s and Wilson’s view is highly speculative, and insist that there is nothing
in the text that mentions the curse on Cain being inherited by his descendants, or implying that
there is a “Godly line” of human beings over against an “un-Godly line,” that has been “tainted by
Cain’s sin,” and inherits his curse.
This view, though commonly accepted in the “Bible Belt” of America, is being read into the
text. According to the text, Cain, although a brother-murderer, is still YHWH God’s child, whom
He protects and cares for–and there is no real indication of a sinless, pure line of human beings
over against a sinful, un-Godly line.
What do you think?
75
Compare footnote 5 for discussion of the verb “to know.”
76
The question is commonly raised, “Where did Cain get his wife?” See footnotes 62 and 70.
ESVSB comments that “No explanation is given as to the origin of Cain’s wife. As is often
the case in Genesis, the limited and selective nature of the account leaves the reader with
unanswered questions...Presumably, Cain married his sister–a reasonable assumption, since the
(continued...)
226

77 78 79
gave birth to Enoch. And he was building a city / town; and he called the city’s / town’s
76
(...continued)
whole human race descends from Adam and Eve (and the laws later forbidding this practice, such
as in Leviticus 18:9, would not have been relevant at this stage.” (P. 58)
It is our opinion that such questions are out of place in such ancient stories, which are not
intended as historically accurate descriptions, but symbolical stories with great theological and
pastoral concerns. Of course, if these ancient stories are taken literally and as presenting actual
events in chronological history, rather than ideal events, the answer will have to be that already
Adam and Eve had many other children and Cain married one of his sisters. See Genesis 5:4
which states that in addition to Seth, Adam “had other sons and daughters.”
77 rd
The 3 person masculine singular pronoun “he” could easily refer to Enoch, but the
continuation of the verse makes this impossible, since Enoch is named as the son of the builder,
Cain.
Wenham comments that “The major problem posed by this verse is the identity of the
builder: is it Cain or Enoch?...The supposition that Cain built the first city comes, strangely, after
his condemnation to a wandering life in the immediately preceding verses. And were it not for the
mention of Enoch at the end of verse 17, the subject of ‘he was building a city’ would naturally be
Enoch...
“For this reason, various emendations have been proposed to smooth the text [e.g., removing
the name Enoch from the verse, and causing it to read ‘He was building a city and he called
the city after his son’s name, i.e., Irad, not Enoch; Mesopotamian tradition held Irad to be the
oldest city in the world]...” (P. 111) Such emendations of the text are speculative in nature, and
of no help to understanding.
78
A number of Hebrew manuscripts spell the participle hn

80
name like his son’s name, Enoch. 4.18 -ta, dl;y" dr'y[iw>dr'y[i-ta, %Anx]l; dleW"YIw:
79
(...continued)
It seems somewhat strange that if Cain built the city, he would name it after his son instead
of giving the city his own name.
“Radak comments that the phrase means ‘and it happened that he was building a city’–i.e.
when his wife gave birth to Chanoch he was in the midst of constructing a city, which he named in
honor of his newborn son.” (Bereishis 1, p. 159)
Obviously, this information is not of great importance for the author of Genesis, since he
does not clear up any of the ambiguities.
Hamilton notes that the Divine reassurance that has been given Cain proves to be true.
Instead of being an outcast and hounded to death, Cain builds a city, and has a long posterity...
There is no evidence that God is ‘visiting the inequities of the fathers upon the children to the third
and fourth generation ‘ (Exodus 20:5). Cain was in no way involved in the consequences of his
father’s sin. Nor was Enoch in any way made to suffer because of Cain’s sin.” (P. 237)
But this is over-stated. Cain had to live in separation from the “tree of the lives,” regardless
of what he himself did; and as Genesis goes on to point out very emphatically, the Divine
sentence of returning to the dust was true in his life, as well as in that of his descendants. And
the violent murder of his brother is remembered among his descendants, leading to the song of
vengeance of Lamech in verses 23-24.
We think that the ancient story as we now have it emphasizes, not the harshness and inescapability
of the Divine judgment, but rather the Divine leniency and willingness to forgive and
grant new beginnings, even to the brother-murderer. Do you agree?
Hamilton notes that “The building of the city seems to contradict God’s earlier dictum that
Cain would be a fugitive.” He then asks, “How shall we explain the shift in Cain from a nomadic
life-style back to a more sedentary one? Perhaps Cain’s act is one of defiance...But nowhere in
Genesis 4 does God state his displeasure with Cain’s urban enterprise. Thus Cain’s building of
the city might represent a Divine lifting of the punishment that was once mandated for Cain. He is
now free to establish roots and permanence again. If this is the case, however, surely it would be
stated more directly. We suggest that Cain’s act of city-building is an attempt to provide security
for himself, a security he is not sure that God’s mark guarantees.” (Pp. 237-38)
Or, alternatively, perhaps these are separate stories that were originally unrelated (the earlier
one from the material which scholars have denominated “J”; the latter from the later priestly
writers, with their deep concern for genealogies, which scholars have denominated “P”), and have
only now been placed side by side by the final editor of Genesis.
Ramban, sensing this difficulty, comments that “...He still wandered. The wording of the
verse indicates that because his efforts were cursed, he indulged in building the city all his days.
He would build a little with great effort, and then wander away only to return and build more...He
thus proclaimed that he did not build it for himself, because he was cursed and a wanderer. Rather
it would be as if Enoch had built it for himself.” (Bereishis 1, p. 159)
228

`%m,l'-ta, dl;y" laev'Wtm.W laev'Wtm.-ta, dl;y" laey"Yxim.W laey"Wxm. And to Enoch was
81
born Iyrad; and Iyrad gave birth to Mechuyael; and Methiyyael gave birth to Methushael; and
Methushael gave birth to Lamech. 82
4.19 `hL'ci tynIVeh; ~vew> hd'[' tx;a;h' ~ve ~yvin" yTev. %m,l, Al-xQ;YIw: And
83
Lamech took for himself two women; the one’s name Adhah, and the second’s name, Tsillah.
80
Where the Massoretic text reads ~veÞK., keshem, literally “like name,” a few Hebrew manu-
scripts and the Greek translation read ~veÞB., beshem, “by name.” This variant reading does not
change the meaning, but is easier to read and understand–indicating that it is a correction of the
original text of Genesis.
81
Strangely, the name of Iyrad’s son is given two spellings in the same sentence, probably
indicating the difficulty and uncertainty surrounding this “foreign” name for the Hebrew author.
The first occurrence is spelled lae_y"Wx)m., mechuya)el; the second occurrence is spelled
lae ªy"Yxim., mechiyyya)el. The Greek translation spells both names the same, Maihl, Maiel, as
do most of the versions. Wenham holds that Mechuya)el is likely the correct spelling (P. 95).
82
Wenham comments that “Lamech, as the seventh from Adam, occupies a significant place in
the genealogy, so more details of his life are noted about him than about his immediate ancestors
...His violent life-style strongly recalls that of his forefather Cain.” (P. 112)
NIVSB notes that “Each of the six names listed here is paralleled by a similar or identical
name in the genealogy of Seth in chapter 5 as follows: Kenan (5:12), Enoch (5:21), Jared (5:18),
Mahalalel (5:15), Methuselah (5:25), Lamech (5:28). The similarity between the two sets of
names is striking.” (P. 12)
83
Hamilton comments that “For the first time in the Bible monogamous marriage breaks down.
Lamech has two wives, Adah and Zillah [compare the others who have more than one wife: Elkanah
(1 Samuel 1:2), David (1 Samuel 27:3), and Ashhur (1 Chronicles 4:5), not to mention
Solomon–see 1 Kings 11:1-6],..To be sure no rebuke from God is directed at Lamech for his
violation of the marital arrangement. It is simply recorded. But that is the case with most Old
Testament illustrations of polygamy. Abraham is not condemned for cohabiting with Sarah and
Hagar, nor is Jacob for marrying simultaneously Leah and Rachel...
“In fact, however, nearly every polygamous household in the Old Testament suffers most
unpleasant and shattering experiences precisely because of this ad hoc relationship. The domestic
struggles that ensue are devastating.” (P. 238)
229
(continued...)

84
4.20 `hn
`bg"W[w> rANKi fpeTo-lK' ybia] hy"h' aWh lb'Wy wyxia' And his brother’s name (was)
86 87
Yubhal; he became father of everyone playing stringed-instrument(s) and guitar(s). 4.22
83
(...continued)
This is the kind of comment that is made by those who want to defend their doctrines–such
as that of monogamy as the only biblical legitimate marriage. But the biblical authors (especially
of these early stories) have no such ax to grind, and do not draw ethical conclusions from such
mentions of polygamy. And it is to be remembered that monogamous marriages oftentimes suffer
most unpleasant and shattering experiences as well, as our modern record of divorces makes evident.
What do you think?
84
Wenham comments on verses 20-22 that “The names of Lamech’s children–Yabhal, Yubhal,
and Tubhal-Cain–all appear to be derived from the same Hebrew word, lWby., ‘produce,’ presumably
alluding to their inventiveness. However, the precise difference between the different names
is obscure.” (P. 112)
85
The Hebrew phrase is hn

86
(...continued)
2500 B.C.E. were found in royal tombs of Ur, a city in ancient Sumer in lower Mesopotamia. The
lyre is first depicted in Egypt on the wall painting at Beni Hasan...In Israel it was the favorite instrument
of David (1 Samuel 16:23) and enjoyed pride of place among the instruments used by the
Levites in the temple worship...” (P. 37)
For all the occurrences of this noun rANàKi, kinnor, “harp,” “stringed-instrument,” or “lyre,”
elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, see:
1 Samuel 10:5; 16:16, 23 (the stringed-instrument that David played to soothe Saul’s evil spirit);
2 Samuel 6:5, ‘~yvi_Arb. yceä[] lkoßB. hw"ëhy> ynE åp.li ~yqix]f;(m. laeªr"f.yI tyBeä-lk'w> ŸdwI åd"w>
~yli(c,l.c,b.W* ~y[iÞn>[;n:)m.biW ~yPiêtub.W ‘~ylib'n>biW tArÜNOkib.W, And David and Israel’s
house (were) singing and dancing / laughing before YHWH with all cypress wood (instruments),
and with stringed instruments, and with guitars, and with tambourines, and with
rattles, and with cymbals; 1 Chronicles 13:8 (similar);
1 Kings 10:12, Solomon used almog wood imported from Lebanon to make harps and stringed
instruments for the musicians; 2 Chronicles 9:11 (similar);
Isaiah 5:12, woe to those who rise early and stay up late with their drinking–they have harps and
stringed instruments at their banquets, tambourines and flutes, along with their wine;
Isaiah 16:11, Isaiah’s internal organs sound like a stringed instrument, growling in sympathy for
Moab;
Isaiah 23:16, a stringed instrument is played by a prostitute, walking through Tyre;
Isaiah 30:32, when YHWH comes in judgment on Assyria, His punishing strokes will be to the
music of tambourines and stringed instruments;
Ezekiel 26:13, YHWH tells Tyre that He will put an end to her noisy songs and the music of her
stringed instruments will be heard no more;
Psalm 33:2, Give thanks to YHWH with a stringed instrument; with a ten-stringed guitar make
music to him; the Greek translation is ya,late auvtw/|, psalate auto);
Psalm 43:4, I will confess with a ten-stringed instrument, O God, my God!;
Psalm 49:5, verse 4 in English; I will incline my ear to a wise-saying; with a stringed-instrument
my riddle;
Psalm 57:9, verse 8 in English; Awake, my glorious radiance! Awake, the guitar and stringedinstrument!
I will awake dawn!; Psalm 108:3 (verse 2 in English; similar);
Psalm 71:22, Also I will confess You with a guitar-instrument; Your true faithfulness I will sing to
You with a stringed-instrument, O Set-apart One of Israel!;
Psalm 81:3, verse 2 in English; Lift up a song; and give a tambourine (sound); a pleasantsounding
stringed instrument with a guitar!;
Psalm 98:5, 5, Make music for the YHWH with a stringed-instrument, with a stringed-instrument
and voice of a song!;
Psalm 149:3, They will praise His name with dancing; with tambourine and stringed-instrument
they will make melody to Him!;
Job 21:12, Job states that the wicked, they lift up like a tambourine and stringed-instrument, and
they rejoice to the voice of musical instrument / flute;
(continued...)
231

86
(...continued)
Job 30:31, Job states that his stringed-instrument was for mourning, and his musical instrument /
flute for those crying;
1 Chronicles 15:16, è ~yrI êr>voæm.h; ‘~h,yxea]-ta, dymi ª[]h;(l. ~YIwIl.h; yrEåf'l. édywID" rm,aYOæw:
`hx' (m.fil. lAqßB.-~yrI )h'l. ~y[i îymiv.m; ~yIT"+l.cim.W tArßNOkiw> ~yli îb'n> ryvi²-ylek.Bi
And David said to the rulers of the Levites, to cause their brothers to stand up, the ones
singing with instruments of song, guitars and stringed-instruments and double-cymbals;
causing (everyone) to hear, (and) to raise high with (their) voice for gladness;
1 Chronicles 15:21, simply a mention of the stringed instruments;
1 Chronicles 16:5, mention of individuals playing with instruments of guitars and stringedinstruments,
and causing double-cymbals to sound;
1 Chronicles 25:1, David and army commanders separated people for the ministry of speaking
for YHWH / prophecy, with stringed-instruments, with guitars and with double-cymbals;
1 Chronicles 25:3, Jeduthun, who speaks for YHWH / prophesies with stringed-instrument, while
confessing / giving thanks and praising to the YHWH;
1 Chronicles 25:6, men under supervision of their fathers, for the song(s) of YHWH’s house, with
double-cymbals, guitars and stringed-instruments...;
2 Chronicles 5:12, Levite singers standing to the east of the altar of sacrifice with doublecymbals,
guitars and stringed-instruments, joining with trumpeters (and singers);
2 Chronicles 20:28, Jehoshaphat and his armies return to Jerusalem following victory, going to
the temple of YHWH with guitars and stringed-instruments and with trumpets;
2 Chronicles 29:25, tArêNOkib.W ~yli äb'n>Bi ‘~yI“T;l.cim.Bi hw"©hy> tyBeä ~YI ÷wIl.h;-ta, dme’[]Y:)w:
dy:B. hw"ßc.Mih; hw" ±hy>-dy:b. yKió aybi _N"h; !t'än"w> %l,M, Þh;-hzE)xo dg"ïw> dywI±D" tw:ïc.miB.
`wya'(ybin>-, (King Hezekiah) caused the Levites to stand in YHWH’s house, with doublecymbals,
with guitars and with stringed instruments by David’s command, and Gad’s, the
king’s seer, and Nathan the spokesperson / prophet; because by YHWH’s hand the
command (came) by His spokespersons / prophets.
In the Greek New Testament, see this same verb used for Christian worship at:
Romans 15:9, Therefore I will praise You among the non-Jews; I will sing / play to Your name,
quoting 2 Samuel 22:50;
1 Corinthians 14:15, I will sing / play with my spirit, but I will also sing / play with my mind;
Ephesians 5:19, -
speaking to one
another [in / with] psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing with your
heart to the Lord;
Jacob (“James”) 5:13, , Is any one cheerful? Let him sing / play.
87
Wenham comments that “The lyre and pipe are ‘the oldest and simplest musical instruments’
(Skinner, p. 119). The lyre rwnk, kinnor was a stringed instrument played with the hand...and
(continued...)
232

tAxa]w: lzb;W tv,xon vrexo-lK' vjel{ !yIq; lb;WT-ta, hd'l.y" awhi-~g: hL'ciw>
88
`hm'[]n: !yIq;-lb;WT And Tsillah, she also gave birth to Tubhal Cain, one sharpening (tools for)
89 90
every bronze- and iron-worker; and Tubhal-Cain’s sister (was) Naamah.
87
(...continued)
was used for both sacred and secular music. The pipe bgw[ is mentioned more rarely, usually in
parallel with lyres (Job 21:12; 30:31), and seems to have been a reed or Pan’s pipe...The brotherhood
of Yabhal and Yubhal may suggest an association of music with nomadism similar to that
attested in classical mythology, where the shepherd God Pan invented the pipe.” (1, p. 113)
But again it is to be noted that the invention of musical instruments is not attributed to a
God, as in Greek mythology, but rather is attributed to a human being (and one that is not a Jew).
88
Sarna comments that “The compound name [Tubhal-Cain] is most unusual. Tubhal alone is
mentioned again in 10:2 as the name of a people, in association with Meshech and Javan, among
the Japhethites. Ezekiel frequently couples Tubhal with the former, and Isaiah 66:19 connects it
with Javan, which is Ionia. This places Tubhal in Asia Minor. Assyrian sources record two countries,
Tabhal or Tabhura and Musku or Mushku, which are undoubtedly the Tubhal and Meshech
of the Bible. They are the same as the Tibarenoi and Moschoi referred to by Herodotus in his
Histories. These places were known for their precious metal vessels. Ezekiel 27:13 also refers
to their trafficking in bronze vessels. Archaeology has confirmed them as centers of metallurgy.
It is now know that Tubhal and its variants–tabhura, tabhira in Akkadian, tibhira and dibhira in
Sumerian–mean ‘metal-worker’...In several Semitic languages kayn means a ‘smith.’ Accordingly,
the two elements of the name given to the son of Zillah both mean the same thing, and both
designate his profession.” (P. 38)
89
The two nouns used in this verse, lzb;W tv,xoßn>, nechosheth and bharzel refer to metals
that were introduced into human consumption. The first, tv,xoßn> , nechosheth applies to both
copper and its alloys, such as bronze. The second, lzb;, barzel, means “iron.”
Wenham comments that “Since copper was the first metal to be worked, from about the
fourth millennium B. C., it is appropriately mentioned before iron, first smelted in the second millennium.
The mention of iron-working so early in history would be anachronistic, so it has been
suggested that the cold forging of meteoric iron, which was practiced very early, is meant...However,
this is hardly the most natural meaning of ‘sharpen.’ Rather, Westermann seems right that
the intention of the passage is simply to note the origin of metal-working in general, not to date
the introduction of particular metals.” (Pp. 113-14).
Where our text has the phrase vre îxo-lK' vje §l{, lotesh kol-choresh, “one sharpening
every bronze-worker” Sperber’s Targum and the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan read “father of
(continued...)
233

89
(...continued)
everyone sharpening,” or “father of all who work.”
Wenham thinks the phrase is difficult, and translates it literally as “a sharpener, all who
work copper and iron,” which is supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch and other early versions
...It would sem that the rarer term vje§l was the original reading, later replaced by the more common
vre îxo. Then the two readings were combined, omitting the vital yba, ‘father of’ to form our
present text.” (P. 95)
Hamilton points out that “The focus is on the three sons Yabhal, Yubhal, and Tubhal-Qayin.
Each of them is listed as the ancestor of some cultural accomplishment: Yabhal, husbandry;
Yubhal, music; Tubhal-Cain, metallurgy...Genesis is making the point that through the (disobedient)
line of Cain [there is nothing said in the text concerning Cain’s line being disobedient] many
of the world’s significant cultural discoveries have emerged. This point may provide another illustration
of the grace of God at work in this fallen line [but where does the text say anything about a
‘fallen line’?]. They too have an important and wholesome contribution to make to God’s world.
One is reminded of the Greeks and their contributions in the areas of art and philosophy and of
the Romans, and their legal and political institutions. They produced what the Hebrews did not.”
(P. 239)
We appreciate this comment, and agree with much of it. But Hamilton’s description of
Cain’s descendants as a “fallen line,” and his emphasis on the line of Cain’s disobedience, are
being read into the text. Both Cain and his later brother Seth, because of their parents’ disobedience,
live in a world separated from the tree of the lives, and both of the brothers and their descendants
are subject to the Divine sentence of returning to the dust, and of the destruction of the
flood as well. However, neither line of descendants is depicted as a particularly “fallen line” in
distinction from the other. Apart from this, we would emphasize along with Hamilton the obvious
fact that the Divine endowment of creativity and inventiveness is not limited to any one group or
race of people. It is clear from history how Divinely gifted both the Greeks and the Romans have
been; but there can be no question that the Hebrews have been just as gifted, and that every race
and people has had unique contributions to make in the development of human culture, including
the Aztecs and the Incas of the Americas, the Chinese, and many others.
Hamilton also comments that “Tubhal-Cain is identified as the hammerer of (those) fashioning
bronze and iron. According to most reconstructions of ancient history, human advancement
in civilization proceeded through four periods: Stone Age (100,000 B.C.–4000 B.C.); Chalcolithic
[meaning a time when copper and bronze were both used] Age (4000 B. C.–3200 B.C.);
Bronze Age (3200 B.C.–1200 B.C.); Iron Age (1200 B.C.–330 B.C.). By contrast, this verse
seems to suggest the simultaneous use rather than the sequential use of bronze and iron...The
reference here may be to meteoric iron and surface deposits of copper, of which there are examples
from the 3 millennium B.C. (iron magic amulets) and even from the 6 millennium B.C.
rd
th
(copper objects from Turkey).” (P. 239)
234
(continued...)

91
4.23 hL'ciw>hd'[' wyv'n"l. %m,l, rm,aYOw:
89
(...continued)
Sarna comments that “There is no memory of a Stone Age, but the narrative recognizes
the discovery of the use of metals to constitute a revolutionary advance in the progress of civilization,
allowing the development of new and more efficient tools and weapons. (P. 38)
Fretheim asks, “What are we to make of the origins of certain cultural advances–namely,
urban life, animal husbandry (a more general reference than Abel’s work), music (both stringed
and wind instruments) and metallurgy? Inasmuch as such developments were ascribed to Divine
beings in the Mesopotamian world, the genealogy may provide a demythologized form of that
tradition [see footnote 71]...
“Many scholars have suggested that, inasmuch as these developments belong to the
genealogy of Cain, these cultural achievements should be interpreted negatively. However, a
positive assessment seems more likely. The seven generations of Cain may mirror the seven
days of creation, thus placing human creativity parallel to the Divine. Just as one may marvel at
the great diversity of God’s creation, so also human creativity mirrors God’s in producing numerous
gifts and interests...” (P. 375)
What do you think? Do you agree with Fretheim?
90
The female Naamah is mentioned, but she is not described as being responsible for any
specific cultural advancement. Hamilton notes that she “...is only identified, and appears to be
something of an appendage to the other members of the family.” (P. 239)
The Jewish commentators claim that she later became the wife of Noah (Bereishis 1, p.
161). Targum Jonathan describes her as a professional singer (Sarna, p. 38).
91
The "Song of Lamech" contained in verses 23-24 is given in the poetic parallelism of Semitic
poetry; it is a "braggart song," that has been included so as to form the conclusion of the story of
Cain and Abel.
TNISB comments that “Lamech’s song, composed in archaic Hebrew poetry, is so short
and obscure that its meaning and purpose are hard to determine.” (P. 15)
Westermann comments that "The link with the Cain and Abel narrative is obvious; this is
saying that when people live together there arises the possibility of the murder of a brother, while
the song of Lamech sees this possibility aggravated and underscores it in hyperbole in verse 24."
(P. 335)
The expansion and progress of civilization is not an unmixed blessing. Many new technologies
and possibilities open up before the human race. But at the same time, there is a similar
growth and development in the possibility for greater and greater vengeance and retaliation--as is
embodied in these words of Lamech, intended to strike terror in the hearts of Lamech's opponents.
235
(continued...)

%m,l, yven> yliAq ![;m;v.
ytir'm.ai hN"zEa.h;
y[ic.pil. yTig>r;h' vyai yKi
`ytir'Bux;l. dl,y
And Lamech said to his women, Adhah and Tsillah,
Listen to my voice, women of Lamech,
hearken (to) my words.
Because I murdered a man for wounding me,
91
(...continued)
Westermann concludes, "The song of Lamech indicates that the increased progress activated
by the human potential increases the possibility of mutual destruction. With the growth of
one's capacities there is a growth of self-assertion and [self-love] that demands retribution without
limit for even the smallest injury...[This story] has sensed both aspects of the progress of civilization:
the mounting of openings to life which accompany it and the consequent mounting of
'claims' which lead to overweening self-assertion." (P. 337)
In spite of YHWH's on-going, Fatherly care, Cain's descendants as a whole, who have so
much to do with the advancement of civilization, do not open up their lives to genuine relationship
with YHWH or with their fellow family members. Rather, in the close of Genesis 4, this terrible
"song of vengeance" is heard, uttered on the lips of Lamech, Cain's descendent. If YHWH intends
to take seven-fold vengeance on anyone who dares to hurt Cain, Lamech intends to take
seventy-fold vengeance on anyone who dares to harm him in the least way. He will kill a youth for
simply striking him.
That this is the consequence of taking vengeance, a thousand historical illustrations will
amply testify. It may well be that Jesus had this ancient story in mind when He gave the teaching
on forgiveness in Matthew 18:21-22:
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, Lord, how many times shall I forgive my
fellow family member when he misses the mark against me? Up to seven times? Jesus
answered, I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
See the following parable of the unmerciful servant and its application in Matthew 18:23-35,
which is that if we wish for God’s forgiveness, we must forgive others from our hearts.
Sarna notes somewhat sadly that "The line of Cain is not mentioned again in the Bible.
No details are given of his span of life, and even the fact of his death is not noted. The same is
true of the list of his descendants. The entire line passes into oblivion [being forgotten]." (P. 36)
236

and a boy for injuring me. 92
4.24 !yIq'-~Q;yU ~yIt;['b.vi yKi
`h['b.viw> ~y[ib.vi %m,l,w>
Since Cain will be avenged seven times
–and Lamech seventy seven times.” 93
92
NIVSB comments that Lamech’ words to his wives boast of the “violent and wanton destruction
of human life...by taking vengeance with his own hands...Lamech proudly claimed to be
master of his own destiny, thinking that he and his sons, by their own achievements, would
redeem themselves from the curse on the line of Cain.” (P. 13)
ESVSB likewise comments that “Lamech’s response is out of proportion to the injury,
showing his inordinate vengefulness. This, like his bigamy (verse 19) reveals his depravity. His
behavior reveals that the line of Cain is dominated by those who have no regard for the lives of
others or respect for the principle of monogamy that 2:23-24 endorses...Later laws in the Pentateuch
insist on proportional punishment; in the case of murder, a maximum of life for life (Exodus
21:23).” (P. 59)
But the text says nothing about a “curse on the line of Cain,” or the involvement of Lamech’s
sons in his violence, or of his claiming to be “master of his own destiny.” ESVSB’s comment
overlooks the bigamy of those in Seth’s line, including the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob,
and anachronistically applies later Mosaic judicial-decisions to the much earlier time-period. Such
comments are, we think, misleading over-interpretation.
What do you think?
93
Lamech’s statement is an example of Semitic “poetry” or “parallelism.”
Hamilton questions whether the third and fourth lines are truly parallel, since “a man” and
“a boy” are not exactly synonymous–but we think this is being too precise. Hebrew parallelism
does not demand the use of exact synonyms.
However, we agree with his further comment that “Lamech, if provoked, would not hesitate
to kill even a child, let alone an adult. His capacity for retaliation is non-discriminatory...[The
‘taunt song’] intensifies Lamech’s emotions and makes the possibility for revenge even more
aggravated...Unlike his ancestor several generations earlier who felt the desperate need of Divine
protection, Lamech feels he is his own security. He can handle any difficulty or any mistreatment
quite adequately by himself. If Cain is avenged only sevenfold, he will be avenged seventyseven-fold.
He has no scruples about taking the law into his own hands...He is not only replete
with a spirit of vindictiveness, but he is also a proud man who backs away from nobody and does
not hesitate to kill anybody. Cain’s mind-set now surfaces in his great-great-great grandson.” (P.
241)
(continued...)
237

93
(...continued)
We add that the very family that is responsible for many of the world’s finest cultural achievements,
is also responsible for great evil, leading to indiscriminate murder–and we cannot help
but think of Germany–which, in spite of all its scholarly and scientific achievements, still gave birth
to Hitler and the Third Reich, with the deaths of millions upon millions of people.
Medieval Jewish commentators translate Lamech’s statement quite differently: “Have I
slain a man by my wound and a child by my bruise? If Cain suffered vengeance at seven generations;
then Lamech at seventy-seven!” I.e., “Did I slay him [Cain] with premeditation so that the
wound should be considered my deliberate act?...If the punishment of Cain, an intentional murderer,
was delayed until the seventh generation, surely my punishment will be deferred many times
seven because I killed accidentally! (Rashi)...Targum unlike Rashi, renders the verses as a statement
of assurance rather than a rhetorical question: ‘I have not slain a man that I should bear
guilt on his account; or destroyed a young man that my posterity...should be consumed. If seven
generations are suspended for Cain, will there not be to Lamech, his son, seventy-seven?’” (Bereishis
1, p. 163)
We do not see any justification for translating the Hebrew text in this manner. Neither the
1917 JPS nor the 1985 Tanakh have anything like this, nor do any of the major Christian translations.
Sarna, by contrast with the Jewish commentators referred to in Bereishis 1, states that
“Because of the brevity of the poem and the loss of its original context, the interpretation of the
verses is uncertain. An attractive suggestion is that they constitute Lamech’s taunt, threats, and
boastings, which are of the kind customarily uttered in ancient times by those about to engage in
combat. The story of David and Goliath, as told in 1 Samuel 17, especially verses 10, 36, and
43-46, is an excellent biblical example of this genre...
“Alternatively, Lamech may be describing some incident that has already taken place in
which he actually shed blood to avenge a previously inflicted wound...” (P. 39)
Wenham comments that “If Adhah and Zillah watched with pride as their sons developed
husbandry, music, and metalworking, they listened with horror to their husband’s violent blood
lust. Lamech’s seventy-sevenfold vengeance stands in contrast with the law of talion which limits
retaliation to exact equivalence (Exodus 21:25)...By placing this comment at the end of the story
of Cain, the editor suggests that all his descendants are under judgment and hints at the disaster
to come.” (P. 114)
But how does the lust for vengeance of one of Cain’s descendants mean that all of his
descendants are under judgment, any more than other people upon earth? Is it only the descendants
of Cain that died in the universal flood? Did not the descendants of Seth also die in that
flood according to the biblical story?
Fretheim states that “The piece may be identified as a taunt song by one about to do battle
(hence translated future, New International Version footnote) or a boasting song upon completion
of a mission (revenge), a macho song performed before women...
(continued...)
238

94
4.25 yKi tve Amv.-ta, ar'q.Tiw: !Be dl,Tew:ATv.ai-ta, dA[ ~d'a' [d;YEw:
95
`!yIq' Agr'h] yKi lb,h, tx;T; rxea; [r;z< ~yhil{a/ yli-tv' And Adam knew his woman
93
(...continued)
“Whereas God avenged the death of Abel, Lamech takes vengeance into his own hands;
he exacts death only for an injury; he appropriates God’s own measures and intensifies the level
of retribution, so much so that only a blood feud could ensue. The song shows how Cain’s violence
had been intensified through the generations. Progress in sin and its effects matches the
progress in civilization.” (P. 375)
94
Sarna comments on this closing statement in Genesis four that "It is the consciousness of
human frailty, symbolized by the name Enosh [related to the root vna, ‘soft,’ ‘weak’] that heightens
man's awareness of utter dependence upon God, a situation that intuitively evokes prayer...
“The coupling of prayer with the Divine proper name YHWH is understandable because
this name, the simplest interpretation of which is 'He Who Causes To Be,' [we think it is ‘He Will
Cause to Be’] expresses God's personality, His relationship to human beings, and His immanence
in the world. [We see the Divine name expressing God’s immanence in the world, but not His
personality or relationship to human beings–what do you think?]
"This text takes monotheism to be the original religion of the human race, and the knowledge
of the name YHWH to be pre-Abrahamic. In conformity with this notion, YHWH is freely
used throughout the patriarchal narratives. On the other hand, it is significant that of all the proper
names listed in the Torah, none is constructed of the Divine element based on this name,
whether prefixed yeho / yo or suffixed yahu / yah until [we would say, shortly before] the birth of
Moses. Yokheved, the Hebrew name of Moses' mother, is the first such. This accords with the
tradition of Exodus 3:13-16 and 6:3, which clearly implies that the Divine name YHWH only came
to prominence as the characteristic personal name of the God of Israel in the time of Moses. It
was only then that the people as a whole experienced the essential character of God as it revealed
itself through His direct intervention in history." (P. 40)
Wenham comments on verses 25-26 that “Compared with these two gloomy tales [Cain’s
murder of Abel; Lamech’s song of vengeance], this brief introduction to the line of Seth offers two
rays of hope: the explanation of Seth’s name and men calling on the name of the Lord.” (P. 115)
95
Here the noun / name ~d'îa', )adham occurs without the definite article, and is obviously
being used as a personal name, “Adam,” instead of meaning human being.
Fretheim comments that “Genesis 4:25 offers the first certain instance of ~d'îa', )adham
as a proper name without article or preposition, so New Revised Standard, with footnotes to
possible prior instances in 2:20; 3:17, 21.” (P. 375)
239

96 97 98 99
again, and she gave birth (to) a son; and she called his name Sheth, because God set for
100
me another descendant in the place of Abel, for Cain murdered him. 4.26 -~G: tvel.W
`hw"hy> ~veB. aroq.li lx;Wh za' vAna/ Amv.-ta, ar'q.YIw: !Be-dL;yU aWh And to Sheth, he
101 102
also was given birth (to) a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then it began-- calling on
96
Hamilton comments that here “in chapter 4 are two births, one at the beginning and one at
the end. One son goes askew and the other son fathers a good and Godly line.” (P. 242) This is
once again being read into the text, which says nothing concerning this supposed contrast between
the two lines of human beings, or about the beginning of “a good and Godly line.”
97 rd
The Samaritan Pentateuch changes the 3 person feminine singular verb, ar'îq.Tiw:, watti-
rd
qra), “and she called,” to the 3 person masculine singular verb ar'îq.Yiw:, wayyiqra), “and he
called,” probably a male chauvinist alteration of the Hebrew text.
98
The Greek translation interpolates the participle, le,gousa, legousa, “saying” and the Latin
Vulgate interpolates dicens, “saying,” at this point in the text, assuming a Hebrew text that reads
rmal. The interpolation does not change the meaning of Genesis.
99 rd
Sperber’s Targum and the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan interpolate the 3 person singular
verb “she said” at this point in the text.
100
This is the last mention of Cain in the Genesis story–he was the murderer of his brother.
Sarna comments in an overall sense that “Despite the air of gloom that pervades the chapter,
it concludes on a hopeful note. Humankind is regenerated through another son of Adam and
Eve.” (P. 39)
However, just as the text itself says nothing about an “evil line” and a “righteous line,”
neither does it say anything about humanity’s being “rejuvenated” through the birth of Seth.
101
We agree with Hamilton that the name vAn=a/, )enosh, does not by itself carry the idea of
feebleness or frailty, even though this has often been asserted as its basic meaning (see footnote
94). Rather, in the Bible, the name is used as a synonym for ~d"êa', )adham, and the same
statements concerning feebleness and frailty that are made concerning Enosh are likewise made
concerning Adam. (P. 243)
102
The phrase lx;êWh za'ä, )az huchal, “then it was begun,” is changed by the Greek transla-
tion to read ou-toj h;lpisen, houtos elipsen, “this one hoped.” The Latin Vulgate has iste coepit,
“this one began.”
240
(continued...)

YHWH’s name. 103
102
(...continued)
Bereishis 1, pp. 164-65, translates by “Then to call in the Name of Hashem became profaned,”
and comments that this translation is “following Rashi and Midrash, who interpret lx;êWh,
huchal as !ylwx !wovl., leshon chuliyn, meaning ‘profane’: Man and lifeless objects were
called by the name of God, and idolatry began...Others, conversely, perceive the verse as a statement
of renewed worship of Hashem: ‘Then did the righteous begin to pray in the name of Hashem’
(Rambam; Ibn Ezra; Ibn Caspi)...The righteous then began to publicly expound the name of
Hashem to counter the idolaters whose teachings began during that period as the Sages note
(Sforno).”
103
NIVSB states that “Lamech’s proud self-reliance, so characteristic of the line of Cain, is contrasted
with dependence on God found in the line of Seth.” (P. 13)
ESVSB likewise comments that “The potential of Seth’s birth is immediately underlined by
the observation, At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord, i.e., to seek Him in
(public) worship.” (P. 59)
Again we state that this contrast between the “line of Cain” and the “line of Seth” is being
read into the text, seeking to view the line of Cain as unGodly, and the line of Seth as Godly.
Hamilton comments that “The last part of the verse is curious. Both Cain and Abel worshiped
God. Adam and Eve talked with Him in the garden, and Cain talked with Him outside the
garden. Yet, it is noted that only around the time of Seth’s birth did men begin to invoke Yahweh
by name. Source critics remind us that in their schemata this verse contradicts both Exodus 3:
3ff. (J) and Exodus 6:3 (P), verses which attribute the worship of Yahweh qua Yahweh to the
time of Moses. Here worship of Yahweh is connected with the antediluvians [people from before
the time of the flood].” (P. 243)
Fretheim comments that “Yahweh’s name was probably first associated with Israel at the
time of Moses (see Exodus 3:14-16; 6:2-3); using the name here attests that Israel’s God should
be identified with the God active from the morning of the world. Even more, pre-Israelite worship
should not be written off as illegitimate...This language testifies to a relationship with God that
people had before there ever was an Israel and must, in some ways, have continued alongside
Israel at a later time (see Malachi 1:11 [For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is
great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering;
for My name is great among the nations, says YHWH of Armies]).” (P. 376)
King James, New American Standard and New International Version all translate
Malachi 1:11 as having future verbs, but the verbs in both Hebrew and Greek are in the present
tense, as they are translated in Jewish translations.
There is a long history of debate over this question, as biblical literalists have sought ways
to harmonize the two different views of when worship of YHWH by name began. But however this
(continued...)
241

103
(...continued)
debate may be resolved, it is obvious that for Genesis, the worship of YHWH is not peculiar to
Israel, but instead has a long history before Israel’s beginning in history (see Genesis 12:8; 13:4;
21:33; 26:25). And it is consistent with Biblical Theology that YHWH, the God of Israel, is also
the God of all the earth.
However this may be resolved, it is obvious that not all humanity is being depicted as “totally,
hereditarily depraved,” as unable to approach YHWH. Rather, the biblical depiction is that of
a mixture of both goodness and badness, of both unGodliness and Godliness.
What do you think?
Westermann, in his discussion of the “Purpose and Thrust” of Genesis 4:17-26, shows
how “J. P. Auden contrasts the Promethean view of the origin of civilization with the biblical in
Genesis 4:17-26...
“Auden’s view is that] the myth of Prometheus presumes that fire was originally reserved to
the Gods alone. Prometheus in an act of revolt steals it to give it to humans. As a result one can
view the development in this way: the significance of religion has continually and irreversibly receded
in the course of the millennia of human history, while the development of civilization made
possible by stealing the fire has become determinative for humankind in an ever increasing degree.
Advances in science and technology have step-by-step rendered the hypotheses of religion
otiose [‘of no use’]. ‘The real revenge for Prometheus’ act...is a Promethean culture and civilization
which, by its victories over the ‘secrets’ of our world, leads men gradually to despise and forget
Zeus.’
“In contrast the Old Testament is remarkable for the quiet matter of fact way in which it
speaks of the basic achievements of civilization. No robbery is needed, no culture hero to rise in
revolt against the Gods and snatch from them the fire that makes civilization possible. It is a
function of the blessing God bestows on His creatures to enable the creatures themselves to
make the basic discoveries. Civilization and its effects then have a positive emphasis in Israel
from the very beginning; it is founded in God’s will for His creatures [i.e., to ‘bring the earth under
control,’ and ‘to rule over it,’ as stated in Genesis 1:28]...
“When actually explaining the origins [of civilization], Israel turned completely to humans:
the basic achievements are human work...It is to human beings that one must trace agriculture,
the founding of cities, nomadic and sedentary life, the arts. This is the reason why civilization and
art could never have a Divine or sacral character in Israel.” (Pp. 342-43)
We agree with Westermann in this comment, and together with him, reject the view that he
growth of civilization is being depicted in Genesis as a consequence of humanity’s fallen nat-ure,
that of the “Godless line of Cain.” J. Gabriel holds that “The function of the Cainite genealo-gy is
to give an account of the moral decline and the alienation from God of this section of man-kind.”
And K. Budde holds that “It is certainly not the intention of holy writ to describe the prog-ress of
human civilization.” (Both quoted by Westermann, p. 343)
242
(continued...)

103
(...continued)
But, Westermann comments, “This is a typical example of a prejudice which subjects the
text of the Bible to itself. If this view were true, then a notable part of the Old Testament would
have to be struck from the canon. The Old Testament knows nothing of such a pre-judged and
constricted concept of religion. Applied to Genesis 4:17-26 the ‘progress of human civilization’ is
most certainly part of that which happens between God and His people. If God has given people
the commission to work, 2:15; 3:23 [and we add, to ‘rule’], then one cannot deny a connection
between what is said in 4:17-26 and this commission.” (P. 343)
We also agree with Fretheim in his statement that “The first story of human life outside the
garden includes elements regarding human potential for the best and the worst: from creating life
to destroying life, from intimacy to jealousy and resentment, from invoking the name of the Lord to
lying to God, from the development of the arts and culture to the use of human ingenuity for violent
purposes, from living in the presence of God to alienation from God, from being at home to
being displaced.” (P. 376)
243