Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryGenesis 3

The serpent. With the serpent a new figure appears in the narrative, one that exercised a tremendous influence on the subsequent history of the world. Moses turns from his description of the perfect conditions in Paradise to the history of the Fall, by which this earth was transformed from a world of happiness, love, and perfection to one of sorrow, hatred, and wickedness. Moses leaves unmentioned the blissful period in Eden, time spent in complete happiness, in the study of natural history, in tending the garden as God had ordained, and in daily communion with the Creator in the cool hours of eventime (Gen. 3:8). More subtil than any beast. The serpent is introduced as a creature more subtle than other animals. The word “subtil,” ‘arum, is used in the Bible a few times to indicate an unfavorable tendency of character (Job 5:12; 15:5), with the connotation of being “clever” or “cunning,” but usually in the favorable sense of being prudent (see Prov. 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12). The latter, favorable meaning would seem preferable here because the serpent was one of the created beings God had pronounced “good,” even “very good” (Gen. 1:25, 31). The evil character of serpents today is a result of the Fall and subsequent curse, and not a trait of that animal when it was created. The objection that the serpent was not a real animal, but a supernatural being, hardly needs any serious refutation in view of the explicit statement that it was, indeed, an animal. However, the whole Scripture makes it abundantly plain that the serpent itself

was not responsible for man’s fall, but rather Satan (see John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3, 14; Rom. 16:20). Nevertheless, Satan is in a figurative sense occasionally called a serpent because he used the serpent as a medium in his attempt to deceive man (see Rev. 12:9; 20:2). The fall of Lucifer, who had been foremost among the angels of heaven (Isa. 14:12, 13; Eze. 28:13–15), obviously preceded the Fall of man (see PP 36). God, who daily conversed with man in the garden, had not left him ignorant of events in heaven, but had acquainted him with the apostasy of Satan and other angels, for whose coming Adam was to be on guard. Adam and Eve may have expected to see Satan appear as an angel, and felt prepared to meet him as such and to reject his enticements. But, instead, he spoke to her through the serpent, and took her by surprise. This, however, in no wise excuses our first mother, though it is true that she was thereby deceived (see 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3). The trial of our first parents was permitted as a test of their loyalty and love. This test was essential to their spiritual development, to the formation of character. Eternal happiness would have been the result for them if they had come out of the test unscathed. Inasmuch as God did not wish them to be tempted above their ability to withstand (1 Cor. 10:13), He did not allow Satan to approach them in the likeness of God, or at any other place than this one tree (1 SP 34). Satan, therefore, came in the form of a creature, not only far inferior to God, but far below man himself. Adam and Eve, in allowing Satan, through the medium of a mere animal, to persuade them to break the commandment of God, were doubly without excuse. He said unto the woman. Using the serpent as his medium, Satan found a time when he could address the woman alone. It is always easier to persuade an individual to do wrong when he is detached from protective surroundings. Had Eve remained with her husband, his presence would have been a protection to her, and the story would doubtless have had a different ending. Yea, hath God said. Satan addressed her with a question that looked innocent but was full of cunning. It has been debated whether the question should be translated (1) “Has God really said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” meaning, “Are there any trees in the garden of which you may not eat?” or (2) “Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden.” The Hebrew allows both translations, and possesses therefore a certain ambiguity. Satan intended that his words should be indefinite and ambiguous. His purpose was obvious. He wished to sow doubt in the heart of the woman concerning the real phraseology and the exact meaning of the divine commandment, especially concerning the reasonableness and justice of such a command.

Ellen G. White

We may eat of the fruit. Eve evidently understood the question in the second sense discussed above, and instead of turning away and fleeing to her husband, showed signs of wavering and doubt, and a readiness to discuss the subject further with the serpent. God declared, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Eve changed this to, “lest ye die.” For the full certainty of the death penalty following a transgression of the command, the woman declared that death might follow such an act. The word “lest,” pen, implies inner alarm at the thought of playing with something that might prove fatal, concealed under an assumed cynical attitude toward the idea that such a thing could ever really happen. The doubt and hesitancy in Eve’s language, reflecting that of the serpent, make the motive to obedience predominantly one of the fear of death rather than of inherent love toward her beneficent Creator. Another symptom of awakening doubt in

the absolute justice of God’s injunction is the fact that Eve did not mention the name of the tree, which was certainly known to her. By speaking of this tree in general terms of locality as the one being “in the midst of the garden,” she placed it almost in the same class with the other trees of her garden home.

Ye shall not surely die. If Satan’s first question was intended to arouse doubt, as indeed it was, the statement with which he followed it up had the deceptive appearance of an authoritative declaration. But therein truth was most cleverly mixed with falsehood. This assertion contradicted God’s explicit command in the most emphatic manner of which Hebrew is capable, and which may be rendered, “Ye will positively not die.” Satan challenged the truthfulness of God’s word by an unconcealed lie, for which reason Christ was right in calling him the father of lies (John 8:44).

Your eyes shall be opened. Satan proceeded to give a plausible reason for God’s prohibition. He charged God with: (1) Envy of His creatures’ happiness. Satan said in effect, “Depend upon it, it is not through any fear of your dying from its fruit that the tree has been prohibited, but through fear of your becoming rivals of your Master Himself.” (2) Falsehood. Satan charged that God lied when He said death would follow the eating of the fruit. God’s requirements were placed in the most heinous and reprehensible light. By mixing truth with falsehood Satan tried to confuse the mind of Eve, in order to make it difficult for her to distinguish between God’s words and his. The expression “in the day ye eat thereof” sounded similar to what God had spoken (ch. 2:17), as did also the phrase “knowing good and evil.” The promise, “Your eyes shall be opened,” implied a present limitation of sight that could be removed by following the serpent’s advice. Ye shall be as gods. The same word translated in the KJV “gods,” ’elohim, is rendered “God” in vs. 1, 3, and 5. The translators of the KJV here followed the LXX and the Vulgate. The correct rendering is, “Ye shall be as God.” This reveals most sharply the blasphemous nature of Satan’s words (see Isa. 14:12–14) and the full gravity of his deception.

Ellen G. White

When the woman saw. After doubt and unbelief in God’s word had been awakened in the woman, the tree seemed vastly different to her. Three times mention is made of how charming it was; it appealed to her taste, to her eye, and to her longing for increased wisdom. Looking at the tree in this way, with a desire to partake of its fruit, was a concession to Satan’s inducements. She was already guilty in her mind of transgressing the divine command, “Thou shalt not covet” (Ex. 20:17). The act of taking the fruit and eating it was but the natural result of entering thus upon the path of transgression. She took of the fruit. Having coveted that to which she had no right, the woman proceeded to transgress one commandment after another. She next stole God’s property, violating the eighth commandment (Ex. 20:15). By eating the forbidden fruit and giving it to her husband she also transgressed the sixth commandment (Ex. 20:13). She then broke the first commandment (Ex. 20:3), because she placed Satan before God in her esteem, and obeyed him rather than her Creator. Gave also unto her husband. Observing that she did not die immediately, a fact which seemed to confirm the seducer’s definite assertion, “Ye shall not die,” Eve experienced a deceptive sense of elation. She wanted her husband to share the feeling with her. This is the first time the Sacred Record calls Adam “her husband.” But instead of being a “help meet” for him she became the agent of his destruction. The statement that “she gave also to her husband with her,” does not imply that he had been with her all

the time, standing mute at the scene of temptation. Instead, she gave him of the fruit upon rejoining him that he might eat it “with her” and thus share its presumed benefits. He did eat. Before he ate, a conversation between Adam and his wife must have taken place. Should he follow his wife in her path of sin and disobedience or give her up, trusting that God would somehow restore his shattered happiness? The fact that she had not died as the result of eating the fruit, and that no apparent harm had come her to her, did not deceive Adam. “Adam was not deceived, but the woman” (1 Tim. 2:14). But his wife’s power of persuasion, coupled with his own love for her, induced him to share the consequences of her fall, whatever they might be. Fateful decision! Instead of waiting until he should have the opportunity of discussing the whole tragic matter with God, he took his fate into his own hands. Adam’s fall is the more tragic because he did not doubt God, nor was he deceived like Eve; he acted in the certain expectation that God’s terrible threat would come true. Deplorable as was Eve’s transgression and fraught as it was with potential woe for the human family, her choice did not necessarily involve the race in the penalty for her transgression. It was the deliberate choice of Adam, in the full understanding of an express command of God—rather than hers—that made sin and death the inevitable lot of mankind. Eve was deceived; Adam was not (see Rom. 5:12, 14; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3). Had Adam remained loyal to God in spite of Eve’s disloyalty, divine wisdom would yet have solved the dilemma for him and averted disaster for the race (PP 56).

Ellen G. White

The eyes of them both were opened. What irony lies in these words, which record the fulfillment of Satan’s ambiguous promise! The eyes of their intellect were open— they realized that they were no longer innocent. Their physical eyes were open—they saw that they were naked. And made themselves aprons. Standing ashamed in each other’s presence, they sought to evade the disgrace of their nakedness. Their fig-leaf aprons were a pitiful substitute for the radiant garments of innocence they had forfeited. Conscience was at work. That this feeling of shame had its root not in sensuality but in the consciousness of guilt before God is evident from the fact that they hid themselves from Him. The only ancient inscription that shows some resemblance to the story of the Fall of man as told in the Bible is a Sumero-Akkadian bilingual poem which says, “The maiden ate that which was forbidden, the maiden, the mother of sin, committed evil, the mother of sin had a painful experience” (A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients [Leipzig, 1930], p. 99).

Ellen G. White

The voice of the Lord. The periodical visits of God toward the close of day, when quiet evening zephyrs refreshed the garden, had always been occasions of delight for the happy pair. But the sound of God’s approach was now a source of alarm. Both felt that they dared by no means meet their Creator. The reason for their fear was neither humility nor modesty but a profound sense of guilt.

Where art thou? Adam, who had always welcomed the divine approach, was now in hiding. He could not, however, be hidden from God, who called to Adam, not as if ignorant of his hiding place, but to bring him to confession. Adam sought to hide the sin behind its consequences, his disobedience behind his sense of shame, by proposing to God that he had hidden himself through embarrassment at his nakedness. His consciousness of the effects of sin was keener than of the sin itself. Here we witness for

the first time the confusion between sin and punishment, which is characteristic of man in his fallen state. The results of sin are sensed and detested more than the sin itself.

Ellen G. White

The woman whom thou gavest. God put forth a question that revealed His knowledge of Adam’s transgression and was designed to awaken within him a conviction of sin. Adam’s reply was a devious and evasive apology for his embarrassment that amounted to an accusation of God. Thus had Adam’s character changed in the short interval since he entered the pathway of disobedience. The man who had cherished his wife so dearly that he intentionally violated God’s command in order that he might not be separated from her, now speaks of her with cold and callous antipathy as “the woman whom thou gavest to be with me.” His words resemble those of Jacob’s sons who spoke to their father about Joseph as “thy son” (Gen. 37:32; cf. Luke 15:30). One of the bitter fruits of sin is a hardness of heart, “without natural affection” (Rom. 1:31). Adam’s insinuation that God was to blame for his sad plight in being bound to such a weak and seductive creature sinks to the very depths of ingratitude.

The serpent beguiled me. The woman also had an answer ready, blaming the serpent for deceiving her. Neither Adam nor his wife denied the facts, but each sought to escape blame by incriminating someone else. Neither gave evidence of contrition. One noteworthy difference, however, exists between their confessions. The woman protested that she had been deceived; Adam tacitly admitted his act had been deliberate, in full knowledge of its consequences.

Thou art cursed. The curse of sin rests not alone on the serpent but on all the animal creation, though it was to bear a greater curse than its fellows. Formerly the most clever and beautiful of creatures, the serpent was now deprived of wings and doomed henceforth to crawl in the dust. It should not be supposed that unreasoning brutes were thus made objects of the anger of a vengeful God. This curse was for Adam’s benefit, as one means of impressing him with the far-reaching consequences of sin. It must have brought intense suffering to his own heart as he beheld these creatures, whose protector he was supposed to be, bearing the results of his sin (PP 68). Upon the serpent, which had become for all time the symbol of evil, the curse fell more heavily—not so much that it might suffer as that it might also be for a man a symbol of the results of sin. Little wonder that most human beings feel revulsion and dread in the presence of a serpent. Dust shalt thou eat. The fact that serpents actually do not eat dust has caused critical commentators to declare that ancient people erred, thinking that this animal, creeping always on its belly and living even in deserts where scarcely any food is available, fed on dust. This misconception influenced the author of Genesis, they say, to formulate the curse pronounced over the serpent so as to harmonize with this commonly held belief. Conservative scholars have more or less unsuccessfully tried to show that the serpent eats some dust when it eats its food. But is the same not true of many animals that pick up their food from the ground? This problem disappears when we view the phrase “dust shalt thou eat” as figurative. It was used in this sense by ancient peoples, as their literature and letters, recently recovered, reveal. The pagan myth of Ishtar’s descent to the nether world says of cursed people that “dust is their fare and clay their food.” Among the curses pronounced on enemies the wish is repeated over and over again that they shall have to eat dust. In the old Welsh battle hymn, “March of the Men of Harlech,” the taunt is hurled at their enemies, “They shall bite the ground.” In this light the expression, “Dust

shalt thou eat all the days of thy life,” means simply, “Thou shalt be the most cursed of all creatures.”

I will put enmity. Here the Lord turns from addressing the literal serpent who spoke to Eve, to pronounce judgment on the old serpent the devil. This judgment, expressed in prophetic language, has ever been understood by the Christian church as a prediction of the coming of the Deliverer. Even though this interpretation is unquestionably correct, it may be pointed out that the prophecy is also true literally— there is mortal enmity between the serpent and man wherever the two meet. Between thy seed and her seed. Reference is made to the agelong struggle between Satan’s “seed” or followers (John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10) and the woman’s seed. The Lord Jesus Christ is styled by pre-eminence “the seed” (Rev. 12:1–5; cf. Gal. 3:16, 19); it was He who came “to destroy the works of the devil” (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8). It shall bruise thy head. “Bruise,” shuph. This word means “to crush” or “to lie in wait for.” It is evident that crushing the head is far more serious than crushing the heel. It is important to notice that although the enmity foretold is to be between the seed of the woman and that of the serpent, it is the head of the serpent and not its seed that is to be crushed. In retaliation, the serpent will have been able to do no more than to bruise the heel of the woman’s seed. The “seed” is put in the singular, indicating, not that a multitude of descendants of the woman jointly shall be engaged in crushing the serpent’s head, but rather that a single individual will accomplish this. These observations clearly show that in this pronouncement is compressed the record of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, a battle that began in heaven (Rev. 12:7–9), was continued on earth, where Christ again defeated him (Heb. 2:14), and will terminate finally with Satan’s destruction at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:10). Christ did not emerge from this battle unscathed. The nail marks in His hands and feet and the scar in His side will be eternal reminders of the fierce strife in which the serpent bruised the woman’s seed (John 20:25; Zech. 13:6; EW 53). This pronouncement must have brought great comfort to the two dismayed offenders standing before God, from whose precepts they had departed. Adam, viceroy of God on earth so long as he remained loyal, had, by transferring his loyalty from God to the serpent, ceded his authority to Satan. That Satan was fully aware of his usurped “rights” over this earth, gained by Adam’s submission, is clear from his statement to Christ on the mount of temptation (Luke 4:5, 6). Adam began to realize the extent of his loss, that from ruler over this world he had become a slave of Satan. Nevertheless, before hearing his own sentence pronounced, the healing balm of hope was applied to his shattered soul. To her whom he had blamed for his fall he was now to look for deliverance—for the promised seed, in whom would be power to vanquish the archenemy of God and man. How kind was God! Divine justice required that sin should meet its penalty, but divine mercy had already found a way to redeem the fallen human race—by the voluntary sacrifice of the Son of God (1 Peter 1:20; Eph. 3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rev. 13:8). God instituted the ritual of sacrifice by way of providing man with a visual aid, that he might be led to understand something of the price that must be paid to make atonement for his sin. The innocent lamb had to give its lifeblood for that of man, and its skin to cover the sinner’s nakedness, in order that man might thus ever be symbolically reminded of the Son of God, who would have to lay down His life to atone for man’s transgression and

whose righteousness alone would be sufficient to cover him. We do not know how clear Adam’s understanding of the plan of redemption was, but we can be certain that enough was revealed to be an assurance to him that sin would not last forever, that the Redeemer would be born of the woman’s seed, that the lost rulership would be regained, and that the happiness of Eden would be restored. From first to last the gospel of salvation is the central theme of the Scriptures.

Ellen G. White

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow. The phrase “thy sorrow and thy conception” is generally considered to be a literary form in which two similar phrases express a single idea. The phrase could thus read “the sorrow of thy conception.” At the very first, man had been commanded, “Be fruitful and multiply” (ch. 1:28). Repeated conception was therefore intended to be a blessing, not a curse. But the entrance of sin meant that henceforth pregnancy would be accompanied by pain. In sorrow. Indeed, the pains of childbirth were to be so intense that in Scripture they are symbolic of the most severe anguish of body and mind (see Micah 4:9, 10; 1 Thess. 5:3; John 16:21; Rev. 12:2). Thy desire shall be thy husband. The Hebrew word shuq, “desire,” means “to run after, to have a violent craving for a thing,” indicating the strongest possible desire for it. Though oppressed by man and tortured by the pains of childbirth, the woman would still feel an intense desire for her husband. Commentators have been divided in their opinion as to whether this is part of the punishment. It seems reasonable to conclude that this “desire” was given to alleviate the sorrows of womanhood and to bind the hearts of husband and wife ever more closely together. He shall rule over thee. The woman had broken her divinely appointed relationship with the man. Instead of being a help “meet” for him she had become his seducer. Therefore her status of equality with man was forfeited; he was to “rule over” her as lord and master. A wife is described in Scripture as being “possessed” by her lord. Among most non-Christian peoples woman has been subjected throughout the ages to degradation and virtual slavery. Among the Hebrews, however, the condition of woman was one of distinct subordination though not of oppression or slavery. Christianity has placed woman on the same platform as man as regards the blessings of the gospel (Gal. 3:28). Although the husband is to be head of the household, Christian principles will lead a man and his wife into an experience of real partnership, where each is so devoted to the happiness and well-being of the other that it never occurs to either to attempt to “rule” over the other (see Col. 3:18, 19).

Ellen G. White

Because thou hast hearkened. For the first time the noun “Adam” is used as a proper name without the article, a fact that is not apparent in the KJV, where ha’adam, in chs. 2:19, 23; 3:8, 9, is translated as a personal name, although the article in each instance indicates that the word is used in the sense of “the man.” Before passing sentence God explained why it was necessary and appropriate. Adam had acted in accord with Eve’s persuasive arguments, setting her word above that of God. He had thus withdrawn his supreme affection and allegiance from God, and so had forfeited the blessings of life, and even life itself. Having exalted his will above the will of God, Adam must learn that independence from God does not mean a more exalted sphere of existence but separation from the Source of life. Death would therefore show him the worthlessness of his own nature.

Cursed is the ground. It should be noticed again that God did not curse either Adam or his wife. Curses were pronounced only upon the serpent and the ground. But “cursed is the ground for thy sake,” God said to Adam. In sorrow shalt thou eat. The same word that had been used to express the sufferings associated with childbearing is now used to inform Adam of the difficulties to be encountered in eking out a meager living from the cursed ground. So long as he lived there would be no hope of relief from this condition. The expression “all the days of thy life” is the first indication that death would surely come, though the event might for a time be postponed.

Ellen G. White

Thorns also and thistles. Prior to the Fall, only plants that were either useful for food or beautiful to the eye grew from the earth; now it was to produce “thorns and thistles” also (6T 186). The increased labor necessary to the cultivation of the soil would increase the misery of man’s existence. He was to learn by bitter experience that life independent of God can at best be one of sorrow and affliction. The herb. See on ch. 1:11, 29. The divine punishment provided also a partial change in diet. We evidently are to conclude that the quantity and quality of grains and nuts and fruits originally given to man were, as a result of the curse, reduced to such an extent that man would be required to look to the herbs for a portion of his daily food. This change may also have been due in part to the loss of certain elements from the tree of life, to a change in climate, and perhaps most of all to man’s sentence to hard labor in the process of earning a livelihood.

Ellen G. White

In the sweat of thy face. The arduous toil that was to add to man’s burdensome life is now vividly expressed. This refers specifically to the husbandman, who must live by forcing from a reluctant earth food for himself and his family, but it applies equally to all other vocations. Since Adam’s fall human achievement may be realized only through toil. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that this punishment was indeed a blessing in disguise for sinful beings. When a man works he is far less likely to sin than when he spends his days in idleness. Toil and labor develop character and teach man humility and cooperation with God. This is one reason why the Christian church has generally found its most loyal adherents and supporters among the laboring class. Work, even when arduous, should not be despised; “a blessing is in it.” Till thou return unto the ground. The Lord informed Adam that the grave was his certain destination. Man thus understood that the plan of redemption (v. 15) would not prevent the loss of his present life, but it did offer assurance of a new life. With the change in Adam’s nature from conditional immortality to mortality began the fulfillment of the dire prediction, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Unless in mercy man had been granted a day of grace, death would have occurred instantaneously. Divine justice required man’s life; divine mercy afforded man an opportunity to regain it.

Adam called his wife’s name Eve. This verse is not a disturbing interpolation in the context of the story of the Fall and its consequences, as some commentators maintain. It shows that Adam believed the promise with regard to the woman’s seed and manifested this faith in the name that he now gave to his wife. Eve, chawwah. Chawwah means “life,” and is here translated Zoe by the LXX. It is an old Semitic form, found also in old Phoenician inscriptions, but was no longer used in the Hebrew language at the time the Bible was written. This has been suggested as indicating that Adam spoke an old Semitic language. If Moses had used a contemporary

Hebrew equivalent, he would have written the woman’s name chayyah instead of chawwah, but by giving the name in an unusual archaic form he shows that his knowledge goes back into the remote past. In ch. 4:1 chawwah was roughly transliterated Eua by the LXX, whence comes our English “Eve.” She was the mother. Adam gave the name “the living one” to his wife in faith, seeing in her the “mother of all living” at a time when his death sentence had just been pronounced. Also, he looked beyond the grave and saw in the seed promised to his wife the One who would restore to him and his descendants the immortality they had forfeited that day. Instead of calling her in gloom and despair—as could be expected under the circumstances—“the mother of all doomed,” he fastened his eye in faith upon his Judge, and, before she even gave birth to her first-born, called her, hopefully, “the living one.” Faith was indeed to him “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).

Coates of skins. Before expelling Adam and Eve from the garden, God provided them with more durable clothing, suitable for the hard labor that lay ahead and as protection against the extremes of heat and cold that followed the Fall (PP 61). Also the skins were a constant reminder of their lost innocence, of death as the wages of sin, and of the promised Lamb of God, who would by His own vicarious death take away the sins of the world. He who had been commissioned protector of the animal creation now unhappily found himself taking the life of one of them. They must die that he might live. The sacrificial service, though not specifically mentioned here, was instituted at this time (PP 68; cf. DA 28). The story of Cain’s and Abel’s sacrifices related in the next chapter shows that the first sons of Adam and Eve were well acquainted with this ritual. If God had not issued definite regulations concerning sacrifices, His approval of Abel’s offering and His disapproval of Cain’s would have been arbitrary. That Cain did not accuse God of partiality is evidence that he as well as his brother knew what was required. The universality of animal sacrifices in ancient times points to a common origin of this practice.

As one of us. Man had learned of his punishment and the plan of redemption, and had been provided clothing. By disobedience he had learned the difference between good and evil, whereas God had intended him to gain this knowledge through voluntary cooperation with the divine will. Satan’s promise that man would become “like God” was fulfilled only in that man now knew something of the results of sin. Put forth his hand. It was now necessary to prevent man from continuing to partake of the fruit of the tree of life lest he become an immortal sinner (PP 60). Through sin man had fallen under the power of death. Thus the fruit that produced immortality could now do him only harm. Immortality in a state of sin, and thus of endless misery, was not the life for which God designed man. Denying man access to this life-giving tree was an act of divine mercy which Adam may not have fully appreciated at that time, but for which he will be grateful in the world to come. There he will eat forevermore from the long-lost tree of life (Rev. 22:2, 14). By partaking of the emblems of Christ’s sacrifice, we have the privilege of eating by faith of the fruit of that tree today, and of looking forward with confidence to the time when we may pluck and eat its fruit with all the redeemed in the Paradise of God (8T 288).

Ellen G. White

He drove out the man. In sending Adam forth from Eden to earn a living by the sweat of his brow, God performed what must have been to Him, as well as to Adam, a sad duty. Even with the primeval forests cleared away, there would ever be a perpetual struggle against weeds, insects, and wild beasts. Cherubims. The origin of the name “cherubim” is not clear, but the word cherub is probably related to the Assyrian word karâbu, “to bless,” or “to pray.” The Bible represents cherubim as belonging to the class of beings we call angels, especially those close to God and His throne (Eze. 9:3; 10:4; Ps. 99:1). For this reason cherubic figures were to be upon the ark and the curtains of the tabernacle (Ex. 25:18; 26:1, 31), and were afterward engraved upon the walls and doors of the Temple (1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35). A memory of heavenly beings guarding the way to the tree of life is perhaps retained in the old Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh, who went out in search of the “herb of life,” or immortality. Of the place where the “herb of life” was to be found, the epic reports that “scorpion men guard its gate, whose terror is fearful, whose beholding is death; their awesome glory throws down mountains.” Assyrian palaces were guarded by great winged colossi called kâribu, half bull and half man, perhaps a pagan corruption of the record of the God-appointed guardians of Paradise. In Egyptian temples are found numerous representations of cherubim, creatures similar to human beings, with their wings spread protectingly over the shrine of deity. A flaming sword. Light has ever been a symbol of the divine presence. As such, the Shekinah glory of God appeared between the two cherubim, one on either side of the mercy seat covering the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies (see Ex. 25:22; Isa. 37:16; DA 464; PP 349; GC 24). The phrase “a flaming sword” is a rather inexact translation of the Hebrew, which reads literally “a glittering of the sword.” There was no literal sword guarding the gate of Paradise. There was, rather, what appeared to be the scintillating reflection of light from a sword “turned every way” with great rapidity— flashing shafts of light radiating from an intensely brilliant center. Furthermore, the form of the Hebrew verb mithhappeketh, rendered in the KJV “turned every way,” really means “turning itself every way.” This verb form is used exclusively to express intensive, reflexive action, and requires in this instance the conclusion that the “sword” appeared to whirl itself about. This radiant, living light was none other than the Shekinah glory, the manifestation of the divine presence. Before it, for centuries, those loyal to God gathered to worship Him (PP 62, 83, 84).

Ellen G. White