Lonang Commentary on Genesis 3

Gen. 3:1-6 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

The Fruit of Disobedience

Here we have the account of the Fall of mankind into sin, which was absolutely necessary to have happened for God to work out His plan of sin and redemption, etc. As already mentioned, God undoubtedly conceived this little test of obedience for the very purpose of prompting man’s disobedience, knowing full well in advance what would transpire. And in spite of the fact that only Adam’s sin would end up bringing death and condemnation to the entire human race that was to come, it was absolutely necessary that the woman should be there and participate in the sin.

For it showed that the moral nature and character of the woman and the man were the same. Women are not any less evil, more perfect, more moral, or less inclined to make errors in judgment, than men. Sex or gender is not an indication of moral strength or inclination. Before the Fall, the man and the woman were equally innocent, and afterward equally fallen. It is fitting, since they were made for each other, and made for this earth, that they should enter a state of sinfulness together.

Nevertheless, regardless of who sinned in what order, and who tempted who, the man bears the primary responsibility for the decision to disobey God. For as the apostle Paul tells us,

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Rom. 5:12-14.

In other words, the sin nature that is passed to each person when they are born comes solely from Adam – not Eve, and not Adam and Eve together. It is Adam’s descendants who are fallen by nature, not Eve’s. It is Adam who is the model for Christ – the second Adam – not Eve, both of whom came into the world without sin as the direct creation of God. Many people attribute Adam’s sole responsibility for our sin natures to him being the federal head of the human race, the one who represents us all. I don’t disagree with this conclusion, but I find the idea of representation insufficient as a legal principle found in the law of nature. I prefer to rest my case on the biblical law of inheritance, which states a legal rule. I will discuss this law at length later on.

Admittedly, the scriptures do not give us any indication of the amount of elapsed time between Gen. 2 and Gen. 3, if indeed there was any elapsed time. It is certainly possible that Adam and Eve remained in a state of innocense for some time (years, maybe?), enjoying each other’s company and walking with God in the cool of the day. But three things mitigate against that in my mind. First, I cannot imagine the devil would have delayed in working his deception. He would have played the part of the spoiler as soon as possible. Second, Adam and Eve had not yet had occasion to eat of the tree of life. Realistically, how long would they have gone without trying it while they still could?

Thirdly, not by any means least, Adam and Eve did not have sex and conceive a child until chapter 4, after the Fall and pronouncement of the curses. There they are in the garden in chapter 2, having been told to be fruitful and multiply, naked and not ashamed. Again, realistically, Adam’s looking at Eve and she’s looking really good, and he’s going to wait how long before getting intimate? Years – really? Months, weeks, days? How about maybe a couple of hours? Although, that does not mean Eve became pregnant right away. The Lord could very well have blessed them with years of sweet marital bliss before any children came along.

Plus, in order for God’s whole plan to work out correctly (where all mankind is under the curse of sin), Adam and Eve could not have conceived a child before the Fall, or else that child might not be under sin. So I’m thinking that the events of chapter 3 all happened pretty quickly, compared to the creation itself, maybe even occurring on day 6 of creation. I don’t know for sure, obviously – no one does. But more likely than not, to my mind, the Fall is part of the creation account, and is built into the fabric of the creation as much as any other aspect of nature.

Which is why, to the extent the order of the Fall into sin by the man and woman have consequences relating to authority and inheritance, those consequences are eternal and immutable, meaning that they are still in full effect today for all of us.

Gen. 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Gen. 3:7-11 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

Of Nakedness and Shame

I suspect a key reason why the scriptures tells us the man and woman were initially naked and not ashamed, is because it is diametrically opposed to the current universal human condition. There is a strong link in scripture between nakedness and shame. And thus the other principal reason for Gen. 2:25 is that it gives us a before and after snapshot of the instinctive human response to nakedness. Ever since the Fall, nakedness is something that actually causes shame.

The reason for this is that the flesh is the embodiment of sin, as indicated in Rom. 7:17-25, where Paul complains about the “sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.” And again, “with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” In other words, as a result of the Fall, it is not merely our spirits which have been deadened to God, but also the flesh itself which has been corrupted. Thus, to be naked is to expose one’s sin to the eyes of the world, which is not something to boast about, but rather to be ashamed of. God desires that our nakedness, that is our sinful bodies, be hidden, or in other words, covered.

When we cover our own nakedness, we admit that our natures are sinful, and we humble ourselves before God. When we expose our own nakedness, we deny our sinful natures and/or take pleasure in our sinfulness, in defiance of the God who made us. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the world who think that exposing their own nakedness is a good thing.

Of course, our sin and shame cannot be hidden from God, who sees all. “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” Heb. 4:13. The one principal exception to this rule is between a husband and wife, whose exposure to each other is not shameful, since they have become one flesh by God’s design, and to see each other in that context is counted the same as a person who sees himself. Since God sees us as we are and nothing can be hidden from Him, to see ourselves naked – in privacy – is strictly speaking just between us and God, and there is no shame in it. The concept of nakedness in scripture is not merely a lack of clothing, but it also implies an exposure to those who have no right to see it.

This is why the sexual offenses listed in Lev. 18 and 20 are not framed in terms of, “you shall not have sex with so-and-so.” Instead, the offenses are framed as, “you shall not uncover the nakedness of so-and-so.” Lev. 18:7 is a good example: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.” In other words, because mother and father are one flesh, for a son to have sex with his mother uncovers the nakedness of both father and mother, which is immoral and unlawful. Similarly, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.” Lev. 18:16. Many of the sexual offenses are explained in this way.

I know the discussion about head coverings in 1 Cor. 11 is sometimes difficult to understand. But think about 1 Cor. 11:6 (for example) in the context of nakedness. “For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.” Consider the possibility that for a woman to shave her head is a form of nakedness, and in order to hide her shame her head should be covered. Which, in the larger context of that chapter, is not merely her nakedness, but also her husband’s nakedness, for they are one flesh. Thus, for a woman to shave her head, is for her to expose her husband’s sinful nature which ought to be covered. Thus, it is a form of rebellion against her husband.

Nakedness seems to be a big thing to God. Flaunting one’s nakedness is usually associated with adultery and whoring in scripture. God was even concerned that the priests of Israel not go up to the altar with steps lest their backsides be exposed (Exo. 20:26), and prescribed that they should wear undergarments to prevent that possibility (Exo. 28:42). Conversely, it is always seen as a virtue and an indication of uprightness that one would clothe or cover the nakedness of a stranger. The extent to which modern societies flaunt, laugh at, and revel in nakedness is a good indication of people being proud of their sins and sinful natures, and the extent to which they despise God and His laws.

Gen 3:12-15 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

The Curse of the Serpent

In these verses Adam and Eve play the blame game, indicating an equal tendency by nature of all people to try to shift the blame for what they have done. God hears their arguments and does not contradict them in so many words, but by the judgment and curses which follow, He makes it clear He is not buying any of their excuses. For the fact of the matter is the man and woman were both under an equal duty of obedience not to eat the forbidden fruit – a duty which they both violated in equal measure. There is no joint or attributed guilt here – each of them was individually responsible for their own compliance, and each received an individual judgment.

The serpent was not, by the express terms of God’s command, in violation of that command because the serpent did not (as far as we know) eat of the forbidden fruit. Rather, the serpent’s offense was tempting and deceiving those who were under a duty to obey, to disobey. For this, the serpent (representing the devil), received a two-part curse. The present part apparently consisted of condemning the serpent to a life of crawling on its belly and eating dust. The extent to which this involved any physiological or anatomical changes to serpents, I cannot say, and leave to others to speculate. But apart from that, there would also be an ongoing hatred or hostility between the woman, and perhaps all women, and snakes.

But the future part is interesting. “He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” This, of course, is understood by most as referring to Christ and His defeat of the Devil. But it is the phrase, “your offspring and her offspring” that interests me. For I have already mentioned that the effects of the Fall pertain to the descendants of Adam, not Eve, and not Adam and Eve. Just Adam alone. The point being that, legally speaking – by which I mean to specifically exclude any considerations of DNA or biology – all people living today are Adam’s descendants, and we have inherited nothing of a legal or spiritual nature from Eve. In other words, the sin nature is not governed by the rules of biology or genetics (that is, science), but by the nature of inheritance (that is, law). The transmission of the sin nature from one generation to the next is a legal question.

Which makes it odd, once you are aware of this biblical principle, to consider anyone at all in the human race to be Eve’s offspring. There is only one way this could possibly happen, and that is for someone to be born of a woman who is not a descendant of Adam. In other words, Gen. 3:15 is a prophecy concerning a virgin birth. A baby born of a woman, but not with a human father – for indeed any human father would be a descendant of Adam. And so we have here a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus, who was Eve’s offspring. The chief significance of which is that since mankind’s fallenness and sin nature flow through to all descendants of Adam, a baby born of a virgin woman would not have a sin nature, and not be fallen. In other words, born sinless. Someone uniquely qualified to be the Savior. 2 Cor. 5:21.

It is also to be fairly implied from this text that there will be ongoing hostility not only between the serpent as representative of the devil and women, but also hostility between the serpent and God, for Christ is God’s anointed (the word “Messiah” or “Christ” literally means “Anointed One”). Thus, since the dawn of time, serpents have ever been associated with pagan, devilish, and false religions all over the globe. This is no coincidence, but flows directly from the events described here in Gen. 3.

Gen. 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

The Curse of the Woman

God’s curse of the woman, as with His curse of the serpent, has two parts, only in this case they are both an ongoing present reality. The first part has to do with pain in childbirth. Some people argue that child raising in general is painful, but that is not what is meant here. Scripture is clear that God regards children as a blessing (see, Ps. 127), although it is true that child raising takes much effort. But the curse here is specifically directed towards women, not parents as such, so it must be taken as referring to the pains of pregnancy, labor and delivery – things not applicable to men.

Numerous times the scripture uses the word picture of a woman in childbirth as a metaphor for debilitating pain. Ps. 48:6; Jer. 6:24, etc. Especially noteworthy is the reference in Rom. 8:22 that “the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.” This is a reference to the inauguration of the earthly kingdom of Christ being born, as it were, upon Jesus’ return. Similarly, the metaphor of a woman giving birth is used in Isa. 66:7-9 to refer to the rebirth and restoration of Israel. The point in each case being the same: that the pain is necessary in order to produce the good result of a birth – that the pain is ultimately worth it.

The second part of the curse of the woman relates to the marital relationship. We have already mentioned that the order and manner of creation (how that woman was made for man and fashioned from him) points to a difference of authority between them. Namely, that a husband is the head of (in a position of authority over) his wife. And, without getting into too many specifics, at a minimum it means that the husband is the head of any family. In God’s curse of the woman, we see this natural and divinely intended order reshaped in the form of a struggle between husbands and wives as to who is really in charge. Not that God is changing the natural order of authority in any way – He is merely making it more difficult to keep the marital relationship in a proper balance and providing an endless source of conflict.

Thus, wives will be inclined to balk at their husband’s authority, and attempt to usurp it by asserting their own will. However, and this is where the curse for women really hits home, they will be frustrated in their attempts (generally speaking), and husbands will respond by being excessively domineering. The result of which, as the scripture says, “he shall rule over you.” Not tenderly, as it were, but harshly, to the vexation of all parties – women won’t submit, husbands overreact, and everyone ends up unhappy. The result of which, if I may be so bold to suggest (this particular curse being directed to women), is that women will come out on the losing end. Those couples who are able, by the grace of God, to minimize their internal marital conflict, are truly blessed.

Gen. 3:17-19 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

The Curse of the Man

Consistent with God’s pattern so far, the curse of the man also has two parts. The first part is the curse of the ground, by which the earth will no longer be man’s friend, as it were. Instead of yielding its produce abundantly and easily, the earth will now only yield its produce begrudgingly, with much effort and pain on the man’s part. The second part of the man’s curse is the sentence of death imposed on men and women alike, and indeed, all flesh (i.e., the entire animal kingdom).

I think it interesting that both the woman’s and the man’s curses included an element of pain. Adam and Eve probably knew no pain up to this point, although that time of sinless and painless existence was probably quite brief. But to quote the wise philosopher, “Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.” This is the inevitable state of things until God creates the new heavens and new earth. For salvation in Christ my soothe the soul and heal the mind, and even our bodies can be healed from time to time, but no one will ever be free from pain in this life. It seems that God wants us to believe in Him and love Him in spite of the pain, for this is our lot.

Both the curses of the woman and man additionally involve an impediment to the exercise of the Dominion Mandate. The woman’s curse impedes her ability to be fruitful and multiply, as indeed many women in history have died in childbirth, or otherwise become gravely ill. Sometimes childbirth will render a woman incapable of having any more children. None of which alters the command of God, or the duty of people, to be fruitful and multiply. Bearing children has been made more difficult, but that does not modify the Dominion Mandate in any way.

Similarly, with respect to the man’s curse, subduing the earth has been impeded. But this only makes fulfilling the Dominion Mandate more difficult – it has no effect on the command or the duty whatsoever. The Dominion Mandate is still in full force and effect, and no matter how difficult it may have become to achieve it, it still stands as our Prime Directive in life.

Tell me if you’ve heard this bedtime story: In the beginning God gave mankind dominion over the earth, but in the Fall that dominion was lost. Since the Fall, the earth has been under the dominion of Satan, but when Jesus returns man’s rightful dominion over the earth will be restored (as Satan will be locked and chained in the Abyss). Leave this fable in the fairy-tale book, because it simply isn’t true. God never gave Satan man’s prior dominion (much less could Satan forcibly wrench from people what God had given them). “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” Rom. 11:29.

For one thing, the Dominion Mandate was repeated almost verbatim in Gen. 9:1-3. If anything, this second giving of the Dominion Mandate was more expansive than the first, not less (which we will see when we get there). If the first giving of the Dominion Mandate had expired or been terminated because of the Fall, then the second giving of it undid whatever damage the Fall had done. But in truth, the second giving of the command was not really necessary as the first command had never lapsed. The second merely affirmed and confirmed for Noah and his family that in spite of all that had happened as a result of the flood (i.e., the death of 99.99% of the world’s population), God’s intention, plan and command had not changed.

Although it is true that mankind’s dominion and the Devil’s dominion are both worldwide, the nature of their dominions is completely different. Being fruitful and multiplying – having human babies – has never been part of the Devil’s authority. And no, I don’t believe it has ever been possible for humans and angels or demons to generate offspring. The fact that people have continued to bear children all throughout history demonstrates whose authority it is to do so. Similarly, do you see the demonic host exercising dominion over the animal kingdom for food, clothing, etc., or is this something that only people are doing?

So, when it comes to subduing the earth – buying and selling, owning and using property, reshaping the earth via construction and building projects – who is doing it, people or demons? People, of course. Thus, the Dominion Mandate hasn’t gone anywhere, it is still very much in human hands. Plus, the Dominion Mandate is a package deal – all the parts (children, family, property, animals, occupations, etc.) all rise or fall together as a bundle. No part of the Dominion Mandate can be stripped out and separated from the other parts. Meaning, that if the Devil doesn’t have all aspects of dominion, then he has none of them.

What the Devil’s dominion does include, apparently, are the rulers and governments of the world. “And the devil took [Jesus] up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.'” Lk. 4:5-6. It is clear to me that if the Devil was here claiming an authority which he did not actually have, then Jesus would have seen through it immediately and it would not have been a temptation to Him. But the fact Jesus did not rebuff the Devil for telling a lie, means he could have delivered the kingdoms of the world if he wanted to.

Similarly, Eph. 6:12 links the power of evil with rulers, powers, principalities and authorities, which I take to primarily signify the rulers and governments of the world. This is the dominion of Satan, and it covers the whole earth.

Mankind, on the other hand, has no authority via the Dominion Mandate to rule over other men (apart from the parent-child relationship). Thus, mankind has no inherent right to rule over neighbors, governments, nations or kingdoms. This is the basis for the rule that governments are instituted among men by the consent of the governed, and not by any inherent or inherited right on the part of the rulers.

What we have here are two dominions operating concurrently. Each dominion is for a separate purpose, and operates under a separate authority. Between the dominions of mankind and Devil there is no overlap. Neither one interferes with, or supersedes the other. They both run in parallel at the same time. They are separate and distinct. Yet both dominions cover the entire globe at the same time. And whatever dominion the Devil has was not acquired from humanity or at our expense, nor does it truly affect the Dominion Mandate in any way.

The Curse of the Ground

Apart from the sentence of death, the brunt of man’s curse fell only indirectly on the man, but fell very directly on the earth. For when God cursed the ground, the ground did nothing wrong. But because man sinned, the ground would produce thorns and thistles, and only reluctantly give up its produce. Or, because of human sinfulness, the earth’s physical environment changed. Ever since the Fall, the earth reflects the sin condition of its inhabitants. God has established this as the mechanism by which the physical environment is linked to the sinfulness of the inhabitants of the land.

This relationship between the earth and human sinfulness is not merely just “once and done” in the past, but occurs on an ongoing basis. In other words, this is not a fixed or static condition – it is dynamic and constantly changing. Yes, the sentence of death and the basic nature of the curse of the ground will remain constant for all time. Yet, at the same time, as any society becomes more wicked, the land will become even more hostile, as it were, and less fruitful for its inhabitants.

Thus, whenever you see something in the scripture indicating the land has been defiled or polluted by certain sinful acts, it leads to the imposition of additional consequences in the form of natural disasters – plagues, floods, droughts, crop loss, disease, etc. These things, in God’s economy, need to be periodically atoned for, or else the earth will react violently against its human inhabitants. This is the Law of the Land, and we will discuss it in more detail later.

This curse of the ground and the law of the land will remain in effect unabated throughout all of human history, even including the Millennial period. Neither Isa. 11:6 (“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them”), nor any other scripture indicates that the curse of the ground will be partially or fully repealed in history. How could it be otherwise? The Fall changed the nature of creation and the nature of mankind right at the beginning of history. Nature, as the law of nature tells us, is immutable. It will not change until the creation itself is changed.

In other words, the curse of the ground will not be lifted until God destroys the present creation and makes a new heaven and a new earth. Indeed, this is the clear indication of Rev. 22:3 when describing the New Jerusalem: “No longer will there be anything accursed,” which the KJV translates as there shall be no more curse, referring to the curse of the ground.

Further, since death is an integral part of the curse, the curse cannot be repealed until death itself is abolished. As long as death exists, the curse of the ground exists. And we know death will not be abolished until death and the grave are thrown into the lake of fire at the Great White Throne Judgment at the very end of history, immediately preceding the new heavens and new earth. Rev. 20:14. Also see Rev. 21:4, describing eternity (not the Millennium) as when “death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

This helps to put into perspective how vain are all the attempts of mankind to achieve immortality through various mystical or scientific means, including downloading our intelligence and personality into an artificial intelligence device. All people must die, and God will not be mocked. The only path to true immortality is through Jesus Christ.

Gen. 2:23b She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen. 3:20 The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Of Naming and Authority

We have already seen God exercise the right of naming things He has made, by calling his creation Day, Night, Heavens, Earth and Seas, etc. Gen. 1:5,8,10. Similarly, God has on occasion renamed individuals, such as Abram-Abraham, Sarai-Sarah, Saul-Paul, Simon-Peter, Jacob-Israel, etc. Now certainly, the parents of all those people had the authority to name them as children, indicative of the authority parents have over children – being an inherent authority, not derived from government or any other person. But God, who had already made these individuals as Creator, was asserting a new authority over each of them by renaming them, such as setting them apart for a special task.

Even when we reach eternity, God will rename all those who will dwell with Him. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.” Rev. 2:17.

The point is that the authority to name someone or something indicates an authority over the thing itself. God has authority over His creation, and over us – especially those whom He has called for a special purpose. Parents have authority over their children. Adam, by naming the animals, demonstrated mankind’s dominion over the animal kingdom. In the case of animals, this authority includes the right to own them, use them, and sell them. And, ever since Gen. 9, to kill animals for food, survival and necessities. Likewise with the present verses, we see the authority of a husband to name his wife.

We see this most clearly demonstrated in Genesis by the fact Adam named his wife not once, but twice, as we see from these texts. Which things Adam did consistent with the naming authority already discussed. When I note this, I’m not saying that man has the same authority over woman as he does over animals – he does not. A man does not have dominion authority over a woman, to dominate her. Yet, there most clearly is a difference in the relative authority between a husband and wife as demonstrated by Adam in naming his wife. For never in scripture does a woman name her husband.

I presume the tradition of a woman taking the name of her husband was derived from this example in Genesis. And the fact this practice was begun, or instituted, from the very beginning of history, is a strong indication it is the pattern God wishes all people to follow. Therefore, logically, any woman who refuses to take the name of her husband upon marriage to him, dishonors her husband, defies his rightful authority over her, and is in open rebellion against the law of God. And no, I don’t mean that she should add her husband’s name to her father’s surname as a hyphenated name. I mean that she should gladly take the name her husband gives her, and leave the name of her father and mother as suggested by Gen. 2:24.

Gen. 3:21-24 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever ” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Man Has Become Like One of Us

Verse 21 tells us that after the Fall, God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins. Some people take this as an indication that God redeemed them from their sin, pointing to the animal skins and quoting Heb. 9:22, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” But see, there is no language in the text saying this – no mention of faith or belief, and while they acknowledged their sin (each of them blaming others in the process), there is no indication of individual repentance.

In a certain sense it is probable, given that Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the day, they believed in God and acknowledged Him for who He was as their Maker, etc. It is possible they each had a faith equivalent to Abraham – for that is the rule of faith they would have been under at the time. But the scriptures never say this, and the mere fact God clothed them is an insufficient indication of redemption. In the hall of fame of faith in Heb. 11, the first examples are Abel, Enoch and Noah – no mention of Adam. In the New Testament, the most significant mentions of Adam connect him with sin and death, not as an example of redemption.

Of course, it’s quite possible Adam and Eve are with the Lord right now – it’s impossible to say for certain. I will say, however, that there is one very obvious purpose in God clothing the man and woman other than redemption. Namely, to hide their nakedness, of which they were now ashamed. And merely hiding nakedness does not a redemption make. It is a type of covering for sin, yes – but not one that provides entry into heaven as a redeemed one. For without faith it is impossible to please God, isn’t that what the scriptures say?

Verse 22 gets into some interesting territory, as God once again refers to Himself in the plural form. What does it mean, that man has become like one of us, that is, like God? Has man acquired divine powers? No. He has gained a knowledge of good and evil, that by his now corrupted nature, he will undoubtedly use primarily for evil and not good. And God forbid, if man were to become immortal in this fleshly body of sin and death (Rom. 7:18), he would have a virtually unlimited capacity to produce evil and wickedness in the world, becoming as it were, another Satan in human form, living forever.

Thus, I draw a parallel between verse 22 and Gen. 11:6, speaking of the Tower of Babel incident: “And the LORD said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.'” Imagine what the potential for evil would be if, in addition to speaking one language and being of one accord, humans were also able to live forever? Yikes!

And so cutting off the man and woman from the tree of life, just like separating humanity into separate languages and nations after Babel, was primarily calculated to restrain the potential for evil that people would have. I mean, it’s bad enough as it is – why would anyone (other than the Devil) want it to be even worse? And so, you might say, by cutting humanity off from Eden and the tree of life, God was protecting us from ourselves.

Is the tree of life still out there, hidden like Shangri-La from the prying eyes of the world, cherubim and flaming sword at the ready? Highly doubtful. I suspect the tree was destroyed or removed during Noah’s flood, and any trace of Eden washed away. The tree of life is used as a metaphor several times in Proverbs, but shows up again as a literal tree in Rev. 2:7 and three times in Rev. 22 (talking about the New Jerusalem). So all the saints dwelling with God in eternity will have access to the tree of life – only after every last trace of sin and death are removed and forever destroyed. At which time the Lord will bring His saints back to a perfect state of innocence, and we will all experience a Garden of Eden-like experience forever.