Genesis-Commentary-1-to-9-Synopsis-Matthew-Poole-Trans-Steven-Dilday

149

Matthew 23:15; Hebrews 11:37 (Lapide).
That is it which compasseth, i.e. with many windings and turnings

passed through; as this word is used, Joshua 15:3; Matthew 23:15.
[Havilah] Havilah is twofold: one in Africa, which they think to be

Getulia;1 the other in India (Munster). This region is near Persia, as it is
believed by certain learned men: see Genesis 25:18 (and 1 Samuel 15:7
[Carver]), from Havilah unto Shur (Vatablus). Susiana (Piscator, Junius), see
Genesis 10:7 (Junius), or the region near it2 (Lapide, Carver). On the way
between Nabatean Petra and Babylon, Strabo places the Chaulotæans (I do not
doubt them to be descendants of Havilah) and Agræans,3 that is, Hagarites
(Carver’s A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 14). See also 1 Samuel 15:7
(Menochius, Estius on verse 8). Strabo locates it in the frontiers of Arabia and
Mesopotamia (Estius on verse 8). And who has not heard of the Arabian gold?
which is the best, as Diodorus Siculus testifies in his Historical Library4 3:12: It
is not refined by fire, as it is the custom among others . . . Its color is so
brilliant that it would render precious gems more splendid to be enclosed in the
gold by craftsmen (Carver’s A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 14).
Nearchus, Alexander’s Admiral, testifies concerning the Persian coast: In that
place, there are many, precious pearls, and bright, transparent gems, and
aromatic, frankincense trees: Strabo’s Geography 16. Among those trees, it is
not probable that Bdellium was lacking (Carver). That there was gold in
Susiana, Pliny in his Natural History 6:27, Solinus in The Wonders of the
World 68, and Strabo testify (Junius). It is a region of India (named after
Havilah, the son of Joktan5) (Lapide, Junius, Bonfrerius, Malvenda). India
abounds in gold, says Pliny (Lyra).

The whole land of Havilah; either that which is in those parts of Arabia
which is towards Mesopotamia, so called from Havilah the issue of Cham,
Genesis 10:7; or that which is nigh Persia, and in the borders of India, so called
from another Havilah of the posterity of Shem, Genesis 10:29. To either of
these following the description agrees well.

Verse 12: And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium (Num.
11:7) and the onyx stone.

Good, i.e. better than ordinary.

side; and the border went about (bsna Fw): eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by
it on the east to Janohah.”
1 Getulia is located in Libya.
2 Susiana is located in Iran, a plain near the ancient Persian city of Susa.
3 Geography 16:4:2.
4 Diodorus Siculus (c. 90-c. 30 BC), a Greek historian, wrote the massive Bibliotheca
Historia in forty books. Unhappily, only fifteen books have survived.
5 Genesis 10:29; 1 Chronicles 1:23.

150

[There is Bdellium (Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Montanus, Junius and
Tremellius, Munster, Piscator, Tirinus, Ainsworth)] To some, Bdellium is a
tree (Vatablus, Piscator, Junius and Tremellius); to others, a precious gum
(Carver’s A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 113). Concerning Bdellium
gum, see Pliny’s Natural History 12:9 (Menochius). To others, xladbo ;@ is
crystal; so it is in David de Pomis1 (Drusius, Hebrews in Munster). To others,
it is carbuncle2 (thus the Septuagint in Menochius, but in Numbers 11:7 they
translate it crystal [Menochius]). It is rightly a pearl or gem (Oleaster, Grotius,
de Dieu, Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals). [See what things have
brought together from these and others in Numbers 11:7.] Thus Benjamin in
his Itinerary3 and Kimchi, whose words see in de Dieu or Drusius. To others,
it is a large pearl, says Munster (thus the Syriac, Arabic). Some interpreters
think it to be a precious stone. This does not satisfy Junius, because the name
of a precious stone is not given to it. True, it is not called a precious stone, like
the following onyx, but that is because it is not a precious stone produced in the
earth, in the manner of gems, properly so called. The Jurisconsultus removes
pearl from the register of gems and precious stones: As gold . . . so also pearls
(Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 2:5:8:714).

Bdellium, which signifies either a precious gum, of which see Numbers
11:7, or gems and pearls. Once for all observe, that many of the Hebrew
words or names of stones, trees, birds, and beasts, are even to the Hebrew
doctors and others, both ancient and modern interpreters, of uncertain
signification, and that without any considerable inconvenience to us, who are
free from the obligations which the Jews were formerly under of procuring
such stones, and abstaining in their diet from such beasts and birds as then were
sufficiently known to them; and if any were doubtful, they had one safe course,
to abstain from them.

[Onyx stone (Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Montanus, Malvenda)
Mh#a $h%o ]a Even the Hebrews confess themselves to be ignorant of what sort
these stones might be (Fagius). Josephus calls it sardonyx,4 agreeing with the
Hebrew and with Aquila (Jerome in Drusius, thus Junius, Piscator). A green
gem (Septuagint). A gem of crystal (Syriac, Arabic). Beryl5 (Targum
Jerusalem, Ainsworth). See Exodus 28:206 (Ainsworth).

1 David ben Isaac de Pomis (1525-1593) was an Italian physician, philosopher, and
rabbi. He produced Hebrew and Aramaic lexica.
2 Carbuncle is a deep-red colored gem.
3 Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (d. 1173) was a Spanish Jew, who chronicled his travels
through Europe and Asia, unto the very borders of China.
4 Sardonyx is a type of layered onyx.
5 Beryl had emerald and aquamarine varieties.
6 Exodus 28:20a: “And the fourth row a beryl (#$y#ri$ t: )a@ , and an onyx (Mh#a $ow): , and a

151

The onyx stone, a kind of precious stone, of which see Exodus 25:7;
28:9, 20.

Verse 13: And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it
that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia (Heb. Cush).

[Gihon] This name is not found in only one place; see 1 Kings 1:33; 2
Chronicles 32:30; 33:14. It signifies e0kbolhn/, that is, a divergence of the
river (Grotius). Now, it is the Armalca of Pliny (which is rightly called
Naharmalcha by Ammianus Marcellinus1 and basi/leioj potamoj\ , the
Royal River, by Strabo), or (if that is less satisfying) Chaboras, which Ptolemy2
testifies to be joined with Euphrates.3 Persian history names a river with Tigris
by the name of Gihon: see Teixera4 (Grotius). Others assert that it is the Nile
(Lyra, Bonfrerius, Menochius, Malvenda), which even now the Abyssinians5
call Guyon (Menochius). It is thought by certain learned men to be a southerly
tract of the Euphrates, flowing into the Persian Gulf (Vatablus). Ibn Ezra
asserts that it is that which adjoins to the land of Israel, 1Kings 1:33 (Fagius).
This river heads for the Arabian desert. Ecclesiasticus 24:276 mentions it
(Estius on verse 8). It skirts Ethiopia, not the African Ethiopia, but the
Mediterranean. See Numbers 12:1; Habakkuk 3:7; 2 Chronicles 14; 21:16;
Psalm 68:31; 87:4 (Estius on verse 8). It is the river Naharsares, the primary
channel of Euphrates, dividing Eden from the rest of Chaldea in a westerly
direction, dissipating in the Chaldean marsh (Junius). Our native-born Carver
thinks that this Gihon is that channel of the Tigris which borders Assyria or
Adiabene7 on the north, as Pliny testifies in 6:9, 15 (and which receives into
itself the Choaspes and the Eulæus, rivers out of Media, and another channel of
the Tigris out of Susiana, as Strabo testifies),8 which Justinus,9 in Of Phillipic
Histories10 11, and Diotimus,11 in Strabo’s Geography 1:3, call Cydnus (but

jasper.”
1 Ammianus Marcellinus (c. 330-c. 390) was Roman noble, soldier, and historian.
2 Geographia 5:18.
3 Chaboras, or Habor, flows into the Euphrates in modern-day Syria.
4 Pedro Teixera (d. 1640) was a Portuguese explorer. His Relaciones de Pedro
Teixeira contains a history of the Persian kings, which he composed using Persian
historical documents.
5 Abyssinia is modern-day Ethiopia.
6 Ecclesiasticus 24:27: “He maketh the doctrine of knowledge appear as the light, and
as Gihon in the time of vintage.”
7 Adiabene was a Jewish kingdom, extending through Iraq, Armenia, and northern
Iran, lasting from the first to the seventh century.
8 Geography 15:4.
9 Junianus Justinus was a Roman historian of the third century.
10 Historiarum Philippicarum.
11 Diotimus was an Athenian general who fought in the Peloponnesian War and

152

one differing from that Cydnus in Cilicia). Others call it Gynde (which
Stephanus1 calls the greatest river of the Assyrians after the Euphrates) and
Indus, as Plutarch and Dionysius Periegete testify: xwrij\ de\ Xo/aspij
E3 lkwn I0 ndo\n u3dwr, para_ te re( i/wn xqo/na Sous/ wn, apart from the
Choaspes River, drawing the Indus River from the streams of the land of Susa
(just as Nicephorus,2 in his Ecclesiastical History3 9:18, calls Adiabene an
Indian region, and Theophilus is called the Indian,4 who was Assyrian). Rather,
they called it also Nile, as Vadian5 testifies. Concerning which, Pausanias, in
his Description of Greece “Corinth” 2:5:6 Furthermore, there is a story that
the Nile is the Euphrates, which, where, immersed in a marsh, it lies hidden for
a long time, escapes beyond Ethiopia as the Nile. Whereby no theologian made
a better interpretation of Moses. For the Nile, that is, Gihon, according to the
writing of the ancients, is said to be the same as the Euphrates, and it flows past
the land of the Ethiopians. Thereafter, the Geographer Nubiensis7 expressly
calls the River Cydnus, Gihon, with Scaliger observing this as authoritative
(Carver’s A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 9, 10). The eastern flood he
calls NwxO ygI/Gihon,8 that is, plhmmu/ran/flood-tide on account of the vast
marshes which it brings into being; of which kind is Padusa, which the Padus9
makes; the other, which one sees westward, is called NwxO ygI/Gihon, that is, an
outlet, for it is longer than the other, because the great channel sends it forth
from itself, just as Lake Benacus10 issues forth Mincius, Lake Lamanus11 issues

authored a history on Alexander the Great.
1 Stephanus Byzantium wrote a geographical dictionary, entitled Ethnica, which only
survives in fragments.
2 Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos was a fourteenth century Greek ecclesiastical
historian.
3 Historia Ecclesiastica.
4 Theophilus Indus was from an island off of the Arabian coast. After his conversion
to Christianity (unhappily, the pseudo-Christianity of Arianism), Constantius sent him
(356) as an ecclesiastical representative to the king of the Homeritæ in southern
Arabia.
5 Epitome Trium Terræ Partium, Asiæ, Africæ et Europæ. Joachim Vadian (1484-
1551) was a Swiss Humanist scholar, with interests in the sciences (particularly
medicine), history, and geography. Although he never had theological training, he
sided with Zwingli, in support of the Reformation, which he furthered as a member of
the city council, and eventually mayor, of St. Gallen.
6 Pausianas was a Greek geographer of the second century AD.
7 “The Geographer Nubiensis” refers to Idrisi (1099-1154), an Arabian geographer,
who wrote Geographia Nubiensis.
8 The name of the river, NwOxyg,%I is derived from the verb, xAygI,% which means to burst,
draw, or thrust forth.
9 The Padus, or Po, is the longest river in Italy. It has a large, marshy delta.
10 This is Lake Garda in northern Italy.
11 This is the Lake of Geneva.

153

forth Rhodanus,1 etc. For the same reason, the river, which the Pool of
Jerusalem was issuing, was called NwOxygI/Gihon in Hebrew, or )xwf l@ y#i,$ 2 that
is, outlet, by the unlearned of Jerusalem. For the rivers Euphrates and Tigris
unite and in one great channel empty into the Persian sea, where, before they
might be received, they are divided again into two great floods, like Padus and
Rhodanus. These floods produce many marshes, as Arrianus3 writes and
merchants testify (Scaliger’s Concerning the Emendation of the Times 5,
Gataker). But how is it here said to flow past Ethiopia? Responses: 1. On
account of this evidence, some assert that this is the Nile (Bonfrerius). 2.
Ethiopia in this place is the Arabian desert, bordering Chaldea. For the three
Arabias, both Ethiopias, and the entire southerly expanse are comprehended by
the appellation, Cush. 3. It is even another Ethiopia, which is partly
contiguous with India, says Augustine in Concerning the Miracles of Sacred
Scripture4. And out of these parts, the African Ethiopians came (see the
Chronicle of Eusebius on the year 3580 and Nicephorus’ Ecclesiastical History
9:18), as it is known from their language, which they themselves assert to be
the same as the ancient language of the Chaldeans; this Scaliger holds as certain.
(Now, the same was also language of the Assyrians, as all agree.) Strabo, in his
Geography 1, observes that Ethiopia was called Phœnicia by some. From
which he was able better to understand that verse of Homer, Odyssey 4:81,
concerning Menelaus, I came to the Ethiopians, then the Sidonians and Erembi.
The Erembi are Arameans, or Syrians. Indeed, the better part of the inhabited
land was identified by the name of Ethiopia, says Strabo. The River Tigris, says
Æthicus, runs along over Ethiopia, etc. Sa/rgerai, the Sargarai5 (who were
near the Tigris), e!qoj (read e!qnoj, a nation) Ai0qi/opwn, of Ethiopians.
Epiphanius,6 in Anchoratus7 58, locates the province of the Elymeans8 in
Ethiopia. And Memnon, who came to the Trojan War from Susa, is called the
Ethiopian by Pindar, Olympian Odes 2;9 and King of the Ethiopians by Hesiod,

1 This is the Rhone, issuing forth from the Lake of Geneva.
2 )xfwl@ y#$i is derived from xla#;$ (Aramaic), which means to send forth.
3 Anabasis Alexandri 8. Lucius Flavius Arrianus of Nicomedia was a second century
Greek historian and a Roman senator.
4 De Mirabilibus Sacræ Scripturæ.
5 The Sargarai were a people group living in modern-day Afghanistan.
6 The profound erudition of Epiphanius (c. 310-403) led to his installation as Bishop
of Salamis. He was something of a heresy hunter, combating Apollinaris, the
disciples of Origen, and even at one point Chrysostom.
7 Anchoratus presents a brief summary of the Christian faith.
8 The Elymeans, or Elamites, were a people group living in the mountains east of the
Euphrates.
9 Pindar (522 BC-443 BC) was a lyric poet of Greece, esteemed by some to be the
greatest.

154

Theogony 2:984, Tiqwnw~| d 0 0Hw_j, etc., Eos bare to Tithonus brazen-
crested Memnon, King of the Ethiopians; and by Pausanias, Description of
Greece Book “Phocis” 10. And (which to a remarkable extent confused
Pausanias, who thought Ethiopians to be only in Africa) the Persians were
depicted by Miltiades1 as living after the manner of the Ethiopians (Pausanias’
Description of Greece “Attica” 1). Strabo, Geograpy 15, calls the mother of
Memnon, Kissi/an/Cissia. Ki/ssoi de\ le/gontai oi9 Sou/sioi, the Susians
are also called Cissians, or rather, Cossæi, as he himself, Geography 11, and
other geographers (Pliny, in his Natural History 6:27) call them. Thus
Dionysius Afer:2 Aut0 a_r up9 e\r babulwn~ oj . . . Ki/ssioi, But above
Babylon . . . the Cissians. But they are also called the Cuthæi, by an easy
permutation of the letters S and T. And the Chaldean Paraphrase translates
Zephaniah 3:10, beyond the rivers of #w$ k% /Cush, as, beyond the rivers of
India. The eastern and western Ethiopians are clearly distinguished by
Herodotus, History “Polymnia” 7, and he joins the former with the Indians;
likewise, Homer: between these I would place the Tigris River as a boundary,
rather than the Red or Arabian Sea (although many ascribe this title also to the
Persian Gulf). Concerning the western or Arabian Ethiopians, many have
written learnedly, who, if they had searched out the easterner Ethiopians,
would have interpreted many passages of Scripture more successfully: for
example, when Cush is conjoined with Elam, Isaiah 11:11, with Persia and Put,
Ezekiel 38:5. Compare with Ezekiel 27:10 and Judith 2:23.3 Perhaps it might
even be able to bring light to that obscure passage, Isaiah 18:1 (Carver’s A
Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 11).

Gihon; not that river in the land of Israel, so called, 1 Kings 1:33; 2
Chronicles 32:30; but another of the same name, which in Hebrew signifies,
the branch of a greater river: here it is a branch either of Euphrates, as most
think, or of Tigris, as some late writers conceive.

Ethiopia; not that country in Africa above Egypt, commonly so called;
but either Arabia, which in Scripture is frequently called Cush or Ethiopia; of
which, see the notes upon 2 Kings 19:9; Job 28:19; Ezekiel 29:10; 30:8, 9;

1 Miltiades the Younger (c. 550-489 BC) was the tyrant of the Thracian Chersonese,
which is now the Gallipoli peninsula of modern-day Turkey. In 499 BC, he
participated in the Ionian revolt against the rule of the Persians. His conflict with the
Persians continued until his death, approximately ten years later.
2 Dionysius Afer is the same as the previously mentioned Dionysius Periegetes.
3 Judith 2:22-24: “Then he took all his army, his footmen, and horsemen, and
chariots, and went from thence into the hill country; and destroyed Put and Lud, and
spoiled all the children of Rasses, and the children of Ismael, which were toward the
wilderness at the south of the land of the Chellians. Then he went over Mesopotamia,
and destroyed all the high cities that were upon the river Arbonai, till ye come to the
sea.”

155

Habakkuk 3:7. Or rather a country adjoining to India and Persia, with which
Cush is joined, Ezekiel 38:5; see also Isaiah 11:11; Ezekiel 27:10; and about
which place the Ethiopians are seated by Herodotus (Book 7), Homer, Hesiod,
and others. Of which see the Synopsis portion.

Verse 14: And the name of the third river is Hiddekel (Dan. 10:4):
that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria (or, eastward to Assyria). And
the fourth river is Euphrates.

[Tigris, lqedE@xi] All explain this as Tigris (Vatablus). Thus it is called
because the waters of it are Mylqw Mydx, that is, things clear and smooth
(Fagius), from dx/a clear, and from lqA/smooth. It is named Tigris on account
of its swiftness (Ainsworth, Malvenda). From this, with the Syriac addition,
)tlqdx/Hiddeglito is derived; and with the first guttural removed, which is
easily lost, Diglito is derived, which is the name found in Pliny’s Natural
History 5:27. From this the Greeks made Tigris.1 See 2 Kings 15:29
(Grotius).2 [Targum Jonathan has Diglath.] Hiddekel properly signifies Tigris;
however, here it denotes synechdochically the upper part of the channel of
Naharmalca, or Royal, River, which flows into Tigris north of Seleucia,3 and
changes its name: which channel ancient geographers, thinking it to have been
artificial, did not consider it among the channels of Euphrates; but rather the
island, which the Euphrates forms with the Tigris from Seleucia unto Apamea,4
they allotted to Mesopotamia, and not to Babylonia (Junius). This does not
satisfy Carver. For, 1. this channel was not one of the rivers of Paradise, since
Junius himself acknowledges that it was manufactured a long time after those
times, and Ammianus adequately witnesses (who relates it to have been carved
by Trajan),5 and Ptolemy, who acknowledges on that account only three
channels of Euphrates, holding this one, as it were, for none. But Hiddekel, if
it is the same as that in Daniel 10:4 (which is altogether probable), is called the
great river. 2. With this the rw#@ $)a tmadq: i6 does not agree, which Junius
renders incorrectly, toward the east in the direction of Assyria, since in this

1 There would be an easy permutation from D to T and from L to R.
2 2 Kings 15:29a: “In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath (tlagt: i@)-pileser
king of Assyria.”
3 Seleucia was the ancient capital of the Seleucid Empire, located eighteen miles
south of modern Baghdad.
4 The precise location of Apamea is unknown, but it was in that short space of the
land where the Tigris and Euphrates run so close together in modern-day Iraq, near
Baghdad.
5 Trajan was emperor from 98 to 117. He is remembered for his great building
projects.
6 MdqE e can signify the east, or before.

156

place there is neither a preposition nor the locative h;1 neither does this
general and ambiguous note harmonize with the exact description of Moses.
On the contrary, it ought to be translated either, in front of Assyria, or (as in
the English version), toward the east of Assyria. However, both sacred and
profane history (thus Pliny’s Natural History 5:12 and Strabo’s Geography
16:1) understand Assyria as Adiabene or the region around Nineveh (Carver’s
A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 4). Therefore, Hiddekel is the upper
part of the channel of the Tigris. For TIGRIS, around Apamea, a town of
Mesene,2 on this side of Seleucia . . . is divided into two channels: the one runs
SOUTHWARD and toward SELEUCIA, flowing through MESENE; the other,
bending toward the north, traverses the plains of Cauchæ, toward the far side
of the district of Mesene: Pliny’s Natural History 6:27. Stephanus
acknowledges the same division peri\ po/lewj, near the city, and the
northern channel of which (that is, of Tigris) he calls the Lesser Tigris; on the
bank of which is the town of Babytace, which is distant from Susa one hundred
and thirty miles and from Seleucia three hundred and fifteen miles: Pliny’s
Natural History 6:27. And this channel flows past Susa, and it is called Tigris
by both Benjamin, in his Itinerary, and Diodorus Siculus, who reports that the
soldiers of Antigonus, having safely surpassed one Tigris, a long time thereafter
in the crossing of another Tigris were scattered by Eumenes.3 Neither does
Diodorus contradict himself, as they suppose, but he acknowledges a twofold
Tigris). Now, this river, winding toward the north as it is said by Pliny, is
necessary so that it might turn the course toward the east of ancient Assyria.
To these add that Daniel, in the time of the vision of Daniel 10, was
superintendent of Susiana, and had a seat in Shushan, the palace (as it is
collected out of Daniel 8:2 and is approved by Scaliger in the “Prolegomenon”
of Concerning the Emendation of the Times); and so that river Hiddekel is the
same as this Tigris which the profane authors assert to flow through Susiana
(Carver’s A Discourse of the Terrestrial Paradise 12).

Hiddekel, i.e. Tigris, or an eminent branch of it. See Dan 10:4.
[Towards the Assyrians, rw@#$)a tmda q: i] Before Assur (Montanus,
Malvenda); in view of Assyria (Grotius); toward the east of Assyria (Rabbi
Salomon, Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni in Fagius, Ainsworth, Chaldean, Samaritan
Text, Munster, Pagnine, Tigurinus).
[Pherath itself, trpF ; )w@h] By joining these into one (corruptly),

1 The locative h F-ending can denote the place where or motion towards.
2 The Mesene Kingdom was founded in the second century BC, existing somewhat
independently in the midst of the Parthian Empire. It extended from the head of the
Persian Gulf, nearly half way to modern-day Baghdad.
3 Antigonus and Eumenes were opponents in the complex power struggle over
Alexander’s kingdom after Alexander’s death.

157

Euphrates is made (Fagius, Grotius). That Perath is a choice river. For there
are also elsewhere rivers by that name, on account of fecundity1 (Grotius).

[Euphrates] The fourth river is named through a synecdoche of the
whole (Piscator out of Junius). It is the central channel of the Euphrates, which
passes through Babylon and Otris2 (Junius). This does not satisfy Carver. For
again this channel was not that ancient paradisial river, but was made by art.
Mela, Discription of the World 1:11,3 and Propertius, Elegies 3:11,4 ascribe to
Semiramis5 that she both founded Babylon and diverted the Euphrates (with the
Tigris [Mela]) to once dry regions. So, this Perath is that great and most
famous river, and the primary channel of it, which is perhaps the Naharsares
(Carver).

Verse 15: And the LORD God took the man (or, Adam), and put him
into the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8) to dress it and to keep it.

[He took him] Not by a bodily carrying (Fagius), but by persuasion
(Rabbi Salomon in Fagius, Grotius). So it is in Matthew 4:1, a)nh/xqh, he was
led (Grotius). From this place and from Genesis 3:23, it is clear that he was
created outside of Paradise, so that he might understand that he is not the son
of Paradise, but a settler; so that he might attribute it, not to his own nature,
but to the grace of God (Lapide).

[So that he might work it, hd@ bF ;(fl;] So that he might cultivate it
(Fagius). However, he would have worked it with cultivation, not toilsome,
but delightful (Lyra, Menochius), for pleasure and the acquisition of skill
(Lapide), by irrigating, etc. (Ibn Ezra in Fagius).

[And so that he might keep it] From wild animals (Ibn Ezra in Fagius,
Lapide) and from the animals in Paraidise, lest they should spoil the beauty of it
(Lapide, Menochius). The old rabbis refer it to spiritual cultivation,6 that is, to
twnO bfr:qf/sacrifices, which they fix to be the cause of the rains, even so that by
due observance all heavenly things might flow down into the inferior regions;
and they say that Adam in Paradise was going to sacrifice, so that he might
obtain rain. And they say: The world is founded upon three things: the Law,

1 trFp; appears to be derived from hrFp,f% to bear fruit.
2 Otris was a city on the Euphrates.
3 Pomponius Mela was perhaps the first Roman geographer, producing De Situ Orbis
around 43 AD.
4 Sextus Propertius (50 BC-16 AD) was a Roman elegiac poet.
5 The legendary Semiramis (c. 800 BC) was a semi-divine queen of Assyria. Many of
the great works around the Euphrates were ascribed to her. Sammur-amat, wife of
Shamshi-Ada V, who ruled briefly after her husband’s death, may be the historical
person behind the mythology.
6 Cultus can refer the cultivation of land or the cultivation of the spirit, that is,
worship.

158

worship, and piety. An opening he gave to these, for db(a ,f to serve, and
rm#a ,$f to observe,1 are used elsewhere of the worship of God (Fagius).

Put him, i.e. commanded and inclined him to go. To prune, dress,
and order the trees and herbs of the garden, and to keep it from the annoyance
of beasts, which being unreasonable creatures, and allowed the use of herbs,
might easily spoil the beauty of it.

Verse 16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (Heb. eating thou shalt eat).

[He commanded him, Md)F hf -f l(a wcayw: ]A And He commanded Adam
(Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Syriac, Arabic, Septuagint), or, Adam himself
(Munster), or, man (Tigurinus, Pagnine). He prescribed to (or over,
Malvenda) man (Montanus, Piscator); and He forbade the man (Junius and
Tremellius). He prescribed against man. So it is in Amos 2:12: Ye
commanded over, or against, the prophets,2 that is, ye issued a prohibition to
the prophets. The reason for the phrase is that the prohibition of a desirable
thing is contrary to the nature of man. Again, he understands both Adam and
Eve (Piscator). [So the singular is here put for the plural. Thus it is in the
succeeding verse.]

God commanded the woman too, (as appears both from the permission
for eating herbs and fruits given to her, together with her husband, Genesis
1:28, 29, and from Genesis 3:1-3, and from Eve’s punishment), and that either
immediately, or by Adam, whom God enjoined to inform her thereof.

[Eat] Hebrew: Eating, thou shalt eat;3 that is, I give to thee full liberty
(Fagius, Vatablus, Piscator, Ainsworth).

Thou mayest freely eat; without offence to me, or hurt to thyself. The
words in Hebrew have the form of a command, but are only a permission or
indulgence, as 1 Corinthians 10:25, 27.

Verse 17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen.
2:9), thou shalt not eat of it (Gen. 3:1, 3, 11, 17; 2 Esd. 3:74): for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Heb. dying thou shalt die; Gen.
3:3, 19; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:56; Jam. 1:15; 1 John 5:16).

1 Genesis 2:15: “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of
Eden to dress it (h@dbF ;(fl); and to keep it (hr@ Fm#; $flw; %).”
2 Amos 2:12b: “And ye commanded the prophets (My)yi bin:h@ a-l()a , saying, Prophesy
not.”
3 Hebrew: lk)' t@o lk)o f.
4 2 Esdras 3:7: “And unto him thou gavest commandment to love thy way: which he
transgressed, and immediately thou appointedst death in him and in his generations,
of whom came nations, tribes, people, and kindreds, out of number.”

159

[But from the tree, C('m'w@] And from the tree (Malvenda). w/and is
often translated but, as in Isaiah 10:20,1 likewise also 1 Peter 1:252 from Isaiah
40:8,3 and Hebrews 1:11, 124 from Psalm 102:26, 275 (Ainsworth).

[Thou shalt not eat] In the place of, ye shall not eat (Menochius). That
this precept was given to Eve is clear from Genesis 3:2, 3 (Bonfrerius, Piscator,
Ainsworth, Lapide, Castalio, Menochius), and from chapter 1, where it is said
that He granted to them the eating of the plants6 (Castalio), and from the
punishment of Eve (Menochius). Thus Lot is forbidden to look back;
nevertheless, the command was extending also to his wife, as it is clear from
the punishment7 (Castalio). Now, the creation of Eve was before the issuing of
this precept, although narrated afterwards (Castalio, Menochius). Or, could it
in fact be that the designation Adam is appellative, comprehending the woman?
Thus, some translate: He commanded man. Perhaps Augustine is better: He
commanded the man, that through him it might come to the woman; in
conformity with that saying of the Apostle: Let the woman learn at home8
(Drusius’ Concerning Things Sought by Epistle 3:30).

[Thou shalt not eat w@n@mem@ i] From it. This word appears to be
redundant.9 It can be diminutive (Ibn Ezra in Fagius); that is, thou shalt not eat
even a little from it, that is, from the fruit of it (Fagius).

[By death thou shalt die10] It denotes certainty, vehemence, and speed
(Fagius). Some Hebrews translate in this way: Then thou shalt begin to be
mortal; and they think that man was not going to die, if he had not sinned;
although by the law of nature, he was mortal (Menochius, Tirinus), from

1 Isaiah 10:20: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and
such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that
smote them; but shall stay (N(a#n;$ wI ): upon the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.”
2 1 Peter 1:24b, 25a: “The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but
(de\) the word of the Lord endureth for ever.”
3 Isaiah 40:8: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word (rbad:w@) of our
God shall stand for ever.”
4 Hebrews 1:11, 12: “They shall perish; but (de\) thou remainest; and they all shall
wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be
changed: but (de\) thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.”
5 Psalm 102:26, 27: “They shall perish, but thou (htf)@ wa :) shalt endure: yea, all of
them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall
be changed: but thou (ht@f)wa ): art the same, and thy years shall have no end.”
6 Genesis 1:29.
7 Genesis 19:17, 26.
8 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35.
9 Genesis 2:17a: “But of the tree (C(m' 'w@, from the tree) of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it (w@n@m@em,i from it).”
10 Hebrew: twm@ t@f twmO .

160

Genesis 3:22, lest he live Mlwf (O l;/forever. But Ibn Ezra says that this speaks
not of eternality, but only of a long time (Fagius). Thou shalt be mortal; thus
Symmachus (which Jerome in Drusius and the Syriac in Grotius approve).
Certainly and immediately thou shalt die, if not with natural death, with the
death of sins and calamities. A miserable life is death (Drusius). Your strength,
sustained previously by the tree of life, will fail, which is the way unto death
(Grotius, Tirinus). By the name of death, Scripture calls deadly plagues,
Exodus 10:17; dire terrors, 1 Samuel 25:37; the gravest dangers, 2 Corinthians
11:23; death in sins, Ephesians 2:1; separation of soul and body, Genesis 35:18;
and eternal perdition, Matthew 10:28 and Revelation 20:6, 14 (Ainsworth).
Others: thou shalt be liable to death (Fagius, Targum Jerusalem); thou shalt
deserve to die (Arabic); thou shalt die at once: and they say that he was going
to die shortly, unless he had repented (Hebrews in Fagius). Nahmanides:
Thou shalt die sooner than had otherwise been; as in 1 Kings 2:36, 37, on that
day with death thou shalt die; it does not signify punishing him at once with
death, but at whatever time it should seem right to Solomon (Fagius). Thou
shalt be exposed to death, both of body, and of soul (Vatablus). The Hebrews
do not deny this twofold death (Fagius). It has respect to the death of the body
(as it is clear in Genesis 3:19, until thou revert into dust), which is here pressed
for greater terror (although the death of the soul also was the penalty of this
sin, in accordance with Romans 6:23). The Pelagians1 were saying that, not
the death of the body, but of the soul, proceeded from sin (Estius). Thou shalt
die does not signify the act of dying, but the necessity and debt (Lapide,
Bonfrerius, Tirinus). Or you might say that then he began to die, by that long
death of consumption or internal corruption (Tirinus). MwyO b,;@ in the day, is put
for if (if thou eatest of it), as often it is elsewhere, as in Ruth 4:52 and 1 Kings
2:373 (Castalio).

With a threefold death. 1. Spiritual, by the guilt and power of sin: at
that instant thou shalt be dead in trespasses and sins, Ephesians 2:1. 2.
Temporal, or the death of the body, which shall then begin in thee, by decays,
infirmities, terrors, dangers, and other harbingers of death. 3. Eternal, which
shall immediately succeed the other.

Verse 18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should

1 The Pelagians were followers of Pelagius, a British monk who opposed Augustine’s
doctrine of original sin and eternal predestination.
2 Ruth 4:5a: “Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest (or, if thou buyest) the field of
the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess . . .”
3 1 Kings 2:37a: “For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out (or, if thou goest out),
and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely
die . . .”

161

be alone; I will make him (Gen. 3:12; 1 Cor. 11:9; 1 Tim. 2:13) an help meet
for him (Heb. as before him; Ecclus. 36:241.)

[He said] He had said, that is, on the sixth day, in which woman was
created (Vatablus).

The Lord God said, or, had said, to wit, upon the sixth day, on which
the woman was made, Genesis 1:27, 28.

[It is not good] It is not suitable, fitting, appropriate (Fagius,
Menochius). Neither is it pleasant to the individual, nor useful to the species
(Piscator, thus nearly Bonfrerius, Menochius). Of this the Hebrews say:
Nothing is good without woman; likewise: Whoever has not a wife, the same
is not man; likewise: Whoever dwells (or abides) without a wife, he abides
without good, without joy, without blessing, without lodging, without law,
without defense, without peace, etc. And they suppose that Solomon had
respect to this place in Proverbs 18:22 (Fagius).

[That the man is alone, wdO @bal;] Himself alone, that is, alone (thus the
Septuagint). Thus myself alone, in 1 Kings 19:10, is alone in Romans 11:3.
For singular (or solitary) him,2 as if widowed or abandoned (Malvenda).

Not good; not convenient either for my purpose of the increase of
mankind, or for man’s personal comfort, or for the propagation of his kind.

[Let us make a helper, etc.] All things are wonderfully grandiloquent
(Fagius).

[rzE(]' It is translated helper (Septuagint, Chaldean, Aquila, Montanus,
Vatablus, Oleaster). Even Cicero uses the word helper of a wife in Xenophon’s
The Economist:3 Marital union . . . is a helper in old age (Grotius). Others: a
support (Malvenda). She would be a help with respect to offspring and all the
necessities of life (Fagius).

[Like unto him (thus the Syriac, Samaritan Text), wOdg@ :nkE ];@ They
consider the k to be a marker of similitude (Fagius). The Hebrew doctors
often used the word dgnE Ek;@ to express similitude: The Law speaks after the
fashion (dgEnEk);@ of the sons of men (de Dieu). The helper corresponds to him as
a compliment, h4 a)ntistre/fei au0tw~,| the compliment to him (Drusius’ Of
Hebraic Inquiries 1:59). Thus plainly in Rabbi Levi4 in 1 Samuel 17:4: Let not
generals fight except with generals MdgF :nEk@; r#e$)j, who correspond to

1 Ecclesiasticus 36:24: “He that getteth a wife beginneth a possession, a help like
unto himself, and a pillar of rest.”
2 This is a wooden rendering of wOdb@ al.;
3 Œconomicus.
4 This is likely Levi ben Gershon, also known as Gersonides and Ralbag (1288-1344).
Although little is known about his life, his interests included, not only Biblical and
Talmudic interpretation, but also philosophy, science, and mathematics.

162

themselves, that is, like unto themselves (de Dieu). Others thus: near him,
under the charge of him, or most nearly face to face with him. Here the k
denotes alongside, and it denotes proximity; of which the contrary is dgnE Em@ ,i
which is to be absent at a distance (Fagius). The word dgnE E denotes two things:
1. Presence. She ought to be at hand, so that she might obey (Fagius): always
and everywhere she ought to be in the presence of her husband (Munster). 2.
Help (Fagius). Onkelos renders it thus: Let me make for him a post, or
support, opposite to him, so that, although two, they might lift one burden.
Thus she is a vicarious help to her husband (Fagius). Others: as in the presence
of him (Montanus); which might be in the presence of him (Munster, Pagnine,
Tigurinus); in the presence of his person, that is, so that she might minister to
him (Kimchi in Fagius, Grotius, Piscator). Thus Daniel 1:5: so that they might
stand before the king, that is, to minister; which is perfectly expressed in
Ezekiel 44:11: they shall stand before them to minister unto them (Vatablus).
So it is put in 1 Samuel 29:8 and 1 Kings 10:8 (Grotius). The more learned
Hebrews say that the k is not of similitude (as the Vulgate translates it), but of
verification; that is to say, Let me make a help for man, not a useless one, but a
true, certain, and trustworthy one (Fagius), which might be truly face to face
with him (Kimchi in Fagius, de Dieu). Otherwise: Let me make a help for him
in conformity with his anterior parts, that is, which might correspond to his
anterior parts. It appears to have respect to the use of marriage; therefore,
afterwards, while the creation of the brutes narrated, he says, he did not find a
help for man wOdg@ :nkE @,; which might correspond to his foremost parts.1 dgnE E
properly denotes the anterior, or the foremost part, as in 2 Kings 1:132 and
Psalm 38:11.3 Thus Onkelos translates it, in conformity with his foremost
part; and Jonathan, Let me make for him a wife, who will be inclining in
accordance with his foremost part. And the Arabic translates it (or I
understand it not), in conformity with his foremost part. And from the
Hebrew xkanO, towards the front of (which is the same with dgnE e), the Arabs
made xkn, to enter into marriage, to come together, and hxwknm, her with
whom a sexual union is had (de Dieu). Rabbi Salomon babbles concerning the
word wOdgn: kE :@; If a man will live innocently, then she will be a helper; but if
not, she will stand against him for doing battle (Tigurinus). The Septuagint
translates it, kat 0 au0to\n, corresponding to himself, that is, a second self
(Mercerus), similar in nature, united by love, etc. (Ainsworth), of the same

1 Genesis 2:20.
2 2 Kings 1:13b: “And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his
knees before Elijah (dgEnEl;).”
3 Psalm 38:11a: “My lovers and my friends stand aloof from (dgEnmE% i) my sore . . .”

163

nature, both of mind and will, of the same manners and interests;
an) ti/strofon/coordinate, or an) ti/stoixon/corresponding with, or a
corresponding a)nti/tupon/image (Mercerus). As after his presence, namely,
with respect to form, species, and functions; as a second man (Malvenda). dgnE E
is in the presence of, or facing; wOdgEnE is in his presence, or from opposite him;
wdO @gn: Ek,@; literally, is in accordance with in his presence, that is, in conformity
with his correspondence; as a second self, corresponding to the self with
respect to species and form (Rivet). This word, wOd@g:nkE ;@, is felicitously
composed (such composites are proper to the Hebrews, as rbfk@;#eb$ ,;@ 1
following that which already, in Ecclesiastes 2:16; as in French, hersoir, last
evening, is a compound from the Latin herì seró, yesterday late); if it might be
resolved into its parts, it will be wOdgn: E wh@ wmO k;, just as that one, in the
presence of that one, that is, just as that one and in the presence of that one (for
the copula is often understood), or like him and on hand for him. Like him,
that is, alike with respect to nature; on hand for him, in his presence, near him,
before him. It denotes intimacy and promptness for service. These things are
given by Picherel.

Meet for him; a most emphatical phrase, signifying thus much, one
correspondent to him, suitable both to his nature and necessity, one altogether
like to him in shape and constitution, disposition and affection; a second self; or
one to be at hand and near to him, to stand continually before him, familiarly to
converse with him, to be always ready to succour, serve, and comfort him; or
one whose eye, respect, and care, as well as desire, Genesis 3:16, should be to
him, whose business it shall be to please and help him.

Verse 19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air (Gen. 1:20, 24); and brought them unto
Adam (or, the man; Ps. 8:6; see Gen. 6:20) to see what he would call them:
and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[With them formed, ~wgw rcye %wI ]A And He formed (Montanus,
Samaritan Text); He gathered (from rrc, to bind) from the earth, and He
brought them, etc. (Arabic).

[From the ground all the animals of the earth and birds of the air] You
will say that birds were bought forth from the water. Response: 1. The word
birds is to be conjoined with formed, not with from the earth2 (Menochius out

1 The root of this compound is rbfk,;@ which means already. The relative particle #e$
has been prefixed, together with the preposition b@.;
2 The argument here rests upon the order of the words in the Hebrew: “And the Lord
God formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.”

164

of Lapide). Or, 2. the birds emerged from mud, or from turbid water, but the
living creatures of the sixth day from a more solid earth. Or, 3. the birds were
made from both, that is, from the waters and the earth; for some live upon the
waters and upon the earth, some only upon the earth (Hebrews in Fagius).

[He brought them] Either by a secret impulse and of their own accord,
so that they might acknowledge their subjection; or through the agency of the
Angels (Menochius). It is not necessary to examine how these were led into
one place, whether by winds, like quails, etc., or by Angels, or by a hidden
impulse of God, by which it happens that herrings and tuna yearly change their
places, and the stork and crane fly from the northern region into Egypt, etc., at
a certain time of the year. God convoked them, 1. so that He might refresh
man, and move him unto the praises of his Creator; 2. so that Adam might
sense from the pairs of those led to him what was lacking for himself; 3. so that
they might acknowledge the dominion of man. Lucretius, On the Nature of
Things,1 says that it is absurd to believe that one man gave to things their
names, for he would not have been able to draw others into agreement. But it
was easy for Adam to propagate his terms through his children (Bochart’s A
Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:9).

[He brought them] Namely, outside of Paradise. It is by no means
probable that they were admitted into the garden (Piscator). He brought them
either by Angels, or by a disposition, both urged upon the fancy and imprinted
upon the affection of the animals (Lapide). He led them, even indeed in pairs,
say the Hebrews; so that thence he might recognize that it is not good to be
alone (out of this lack God stirred his desire), and so that he might more admire
the favor of God in the wife given (Fagius).

Brought them unto Adam, either by winds, or angels, or by their own
secret instinct, by which storks, and cranes, and swallows change their places
with the season; partly to own their subjection to him; partly that man, being
recreated with their prospect, might adore and praise the Maker of them, and
withal be sensible of his want of a meet companion, and so the better prepared
to receive God’s mercy therein; and partly for the reason here following.

[What Adam called the living creature, it is its own name; thus the

Chaldean Version renders hyxF@ a #$penE MdF)hf f wOl-)rFq;yI r#e)$ j lkwo :
wOm#$; )w@h] They variously translate this. What, or whatsoever, Adam, or
man, called that (to that, Oleaster) of the living creature, etc. (Montanus,
Samaritan Text, Oleaster), or, in relation to (or according to [Arabic]) the
living creature, etc. (Munster), or, the living creature, etc. (Septuagint,

1 De Rerum Natura. Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99-c. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and
Epicurean philosopher. Darling: “In his poem he not only controverts all the popular
notions of heathenism, but even those points which are fundamental in every system
of religious faith.” Cyclopedia Bibliographica, vol. 1, 1880.

165

Ainsworth). By whatsoever name Adam called them, each living thing, etc.
(Junius and Tremellius). Whatsoever name Adam imposed on them, on any
living creature, etc. (Syriac). Whatever the man might call those, to that living
creature, I say, it would be its name (Tigurinus). Rabbi Salomon thus arranges
it: wOm#$; )wh% M#$' Md)F hf f wOl-)rFq;yI r#$e)j hyFxa #$penE lko, that is:
Every living animal, to which the man was calling a name, it is its own name,
etc. (Fagius). What name the man imparted to those, that is, to the animals, it
is the name, etc. (Vatablus). Ibn Ezra writes that the l in wOl is to be referred
to #p$ en,E And everything which he called to it (wOl), that is, to a living creature
(#$pne E), it was its name (Fagius). wOl is a singular put in the place of a plural,
each one of them (Vatablus). This imposition of names was a sign, 1. of
dominion; as Chrysostom rightly noted, and as it is plain from Psalm 147:4
(Grotius). We customarily impose names upon those things which are subject
to our control (Clario). 2. Of the highest knowledge, for he would have
known perfectly the natures of all (Castalio). From this place the Hebrews
gather that he was an eminent philosopher (Fagius). Plato said, That nature,
which imposes names upon things, appears to him to be higher than human
nature (Clario). Cicero (The Tusculan Disputations1): Or who first, which
thing appears to be of the highest wisdom to Pythagoras,2 imposed names upon
all things (Malvenda)? This imposition of names ou0 fau/lwn an) drwn~ , is not
of worthless men, says Plato in Cratylus. This is most apparent here, where
most names were sought out of the nature of the thing. Some examples: the
brute is called ry(ib@;, from dullness,3 hmhf 'b@,; 4 from silence, for it is evident
that brutes, compared to man, are both stupid and mute; the camel, which is
mindful of injuries, is called lmgf ,F 5 from recompensing; the bird of prey is
called both h)frF,6 from his most keen sense of sight, and h)df @F,7 from his
ability to fly at such great altitude and for so great a length of time; the stork is
called hdFysix,j 8 because of its a)ntipelargi/an/kindness; the pelican is
called t)qf ,f 9 from its vomiting, for it brings up again mussels already

1 Tusculanæ Quæstiones 1:25.
2 Pythagoras (582-507 BC) was a Greek philosopher and mathematician.
3 ry(ib@; may be derived from r(ba ,@f to be stupid, dull.
4 Verbal root: Mhb, to be impeded in speech.
5 Verbal root: lmga F,@ to deal fully with.
6 Verbal root: h)fr,F to see.
7 Verbal root: h)fd,F@ to fly swiftly.
8 Nominal root: dsexe/kindness. The stork is known for kindness to its young.
9 Verbal root: )yqi, to vomit. The pelican brings up food from its crop to feed its
young.

166

swallowed, after they are made ready for use by the heat of the stomach, so that
it might gather what is edible from them; the ant is called hlfmnf ,: 1 because he
divides the heads of ears of grain, so that he might draw out the grains
(Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:9). [In this place, Bochart
produces many other examples, from which, he says, the wisdom of our first
parents clearly shines forth.]

To see, or, make a discovery; not to God, who knew it already, but to
all future generations, who would hereby understand the deep wisdom and
knowledge of their first parent.

That was the name thereof, to wit, in the primitive or Hebrew
language. And this was done for the manifestation both of man’s dominion
over the creatures, and of the largeness of his understanding; it being an act of
authority to give names, and an effect of vast knowledge to give convenient
names to all the creatures, which supposeth an exact acquaintance with their
natures.

Verse 20: And Adam gave (Heb. called) names to all cattle, and to the
fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not
found an help meet for him.

[All living things] Except fish, which could not be led out of the waters
without a miracle (Menochius).

[And for Adam he did not find2] Namely, Adam, he did not find for
himself. An elegent Hebraism, he speaks of himself in the third person (Fagius,
Vatablus, Ibn Ezra). When God brought the pairs, etc., Adam said, Each one
has its own spouse, but I do not have a spouse (Rabbi Salomon in Fagius). And
after the craving was acknowledged, God gives him a wife at once (Fagius in
verse 21). For, he did not find, the Greeks have, it was not found. The third
person active is often taken impersonally (Malvenda). Thus, He imputed, in
Genesis 15:63 is expressed as, it was imputed, in Romans 4:3.4 See also
Genesis 6:205 and 16:146 (Ainsworth).

1 hlmf nf : may be here related to llamf or lwm@ , both of which mean to cut off.
2 Genesis 2:20b: “But for Adam there was not found ()cmf )f an help meet for him.”
)cmf f is a third person, singular, Qal (formally active), perfect.
3 Genesis 15:6: “And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it (hbf #e ;x$ y; Aw% A, in the
active voice) to him for righteousness.”
4 Romans 4:3: “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was
counted (logis/ qh, in the passive voice) unto him for righteousness.”
5 Genesis 6:20b: “. . . two of every sort shall come (w%)boy,F this active verb could be
taken passively, shall be brought) unto thee, to keep them alive.”
6 Genesis 16:14a: “Wherefore the well was called (r)b' l@; a )rFq,f one calls the well,
an active verb taken impersonally or passively) Beer-lahai-roi.”

167

But though, in giving them names, he considered their several natures
and perfections, it was evident to himself, as well as to the Lord, that none of
them was an help meet for him.

Verse 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam
(Gen. 15:12; 1 Sam. 26:12) and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof.

[A deep sleep, hmdf r' :t@a] It denotes a very deep sleep (Fagius,
Vatablus). Aquila translates it kataforan_ /lethargy; Symmachus, ka/ron, a
heavy sleep. The Hebrews note that this signifies more than hny#/sleep
(Fagius). A trance (Septuagint). In the midst of sleep, he was carried into a
trance, so that he might see what things were being done and know by the
prophetic spirit the mystery signified, his own natural marriage to Eve, and the
mystical marriage of Christ and the Church (Menochius). For this reason,
when awakened, he brought forth that prophetic utterance, This is bone, etc.
God sent a sleep, 1. so that he might acknowledge that so great a gift from
heaven had been granted to one not observing; 2. lest he should feel pain by
the removal of the rib (Fagius, Lapide).

God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, that he, who was without
sin, might feel no pain in the taking away of his rib. And in this sleep some
think Adam was in an ecstasy, wherein he saw what was done, together with
the reason and mystery of it.

[He took one of his ribs, wytf(lo ;cam@ ]i They translate it, from the flanks
(Hebrews in Fagius, Vatablus, Oleaster), as, in Exodus 26, (lace is the side of
the tabernacle.1 One from the flanks, that is, a certain mass of flesh from one
of his flanks; one portion from one of his flanks (Vatablus): or, one, one rib He
took from each side, lest man should have more ribs on one side than on the
other. And for this reason, he calls her bone of his own bones (Oleaster). The
Hebrews imagine that man was initially made male and female (Fagius), which
they gather from Genesis 1:27, male and female created He them. But in fact
you should know that (lace properly denotes a rib (and thence a side, because
the ribs are there). Hence (lfc' is used of beams, which are to a house what
ribs are to a body (Kimchi and others in Fagius). Rabbi Joshua says that it was
selected from that part, which on a man standing is covered by the arms,
whereby he might be reminded of modesty and also of his heart, which is
desirous of a companion. They also teach that, just as she ought to keep herself
at home after the fashion of a turtle, so also she ought to cling to her husband

1 Exodus 26:26: “And thou shalt make bars of shittim wood; five for the boards of
the one side ((lac)e of the tabernacle.”

168

(Fagius). The creation of the woman from the side of a sleeping man was a
figure, for the Church was to be formed from the side of the Christ, sleeping
upon the cross (Lyra, Estius).

[Of the ribs] You will say that either this was superfluous, or Adam
was afterwards imperfect. Response: As semen is superfluous with respect to
the individual, but necessary with respect to the species; so also this rib was
superfluous with respect to the individual, but necessary in as much as the
woman was to be formed from it (Lyra, likewise Abarbanel in de Muis).
Others answer otherwise: He took a rib, not superfluous, but requisite for the
wholeness of the individual (Menochius, Estius). Question: How is a woman
made from a single rib? Response: By that method with which the loaves were
increased, Matthew 14 (Estius). He made her, not from one single rib, but
with matter supplemented from another place (Bonfrerius). It can also thus to
be translated, one of the flanks (Vatablus), that is, a certain mass of flesh from
one of his sides; so that the Hebraism might be like the following, he was
buried in the cities (that is, one of the cities) of Judah1 (Fagius).

He took one of his ribs, together with the flesh upon it, Genesis 2:23;
or, one of his sides, for the Hebrew word signifieth a side as well as a rib,
which may be taken synecdochically, for a part of one of his sides, viz. a rib and
the flesh upon it; or, for one part out of each of his sides; as if the two ribs
clothed with flesh were taken out of the man, because he saith, verse 23, This is
bone of my bones, not, of my bone. The woman was taken out of this part,
not out of the higher or lower parts, to show that she is neither to be her
husband’s mistress, to usurp authority over him, 1 Timothy 2:12; nor yet to be
his slave, to be abused, despised, or trampled under his feet; but to be kindly
treated, and used like a companion, with moderation, respect, and affection.
Question. How could a rib be taken from Adam, but it must be either
superfluous in Adam, while it was in him, or defective afterwards, both which
reflect upon the Creator? Answer 1. It was no superfluity, but a conveniency,
if Adam had at first one rib extraordinary put into him for this purpose. 2. If
Adam lost a rib upon so glorious an occasion, it was but a scar or badge of
honour, and no disparagement either to him or to his Creator. 3. Either God
created him a new rib, or hardened the flesh to the nature and use of a rib, and
so there was no defect in him.

[He replaced the flesh] He had carried away the rib, not without the
flesh, so at this point He replaced the flesh, but not without a rib (Menochius,
Estius, Piscator). For Adam said, She is bone from bones, and flesh from flesh
(Piscator, Estius). God would not want the innocent to receive any harm.

1 This linguistic phenomenon is illustrated in 2 Chronicles 35:24b: “[He] was buried
in the sepulchres (twOrb;qib,;@ that is, one of the sepulchres) of his fathers.”

169

[He replaced, rgO@sy; %Iw]A That is to say, He closed up the opening with
the flesh of the rib. He filled (Septuagint). And He arranged (Samaritan Text).
He brought together (Syriac). He closed (Arabic). He shut (Montanus,
Pagnine, Munster, Tirinus, Ainsworth).

He closed up the flesh, together with another bone or rib, instead of
that rib and flesh which he took away from him, which was easy for God to do.

Verse 22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made (Heb. builded) he a woman, and brought her unto the man (Prov. 18:22;
Heb. 13:4).

[And He built1] He makes use of this word to indicate the singular care
and effort of God in preparing the woman. Others relate it to intelligence and
prudence. From this place, the Hebrews gather that the woman is the
foundation of the home (Fagius). He does not say, He created (for she was not
created out of nothing), nor, He formed (for her form was not new, but the
form of man), but, He built, on the grounds that the woman was the work of
divine craftsmanship (Abarbanel in de Muis). Moses signifies by the variety of
words the singular craftsmanship of God (Ainsworth).

[Into a woman, h#)f%$ li ;] That it might be a woman. So it is in Judges
8:27, into an Ephod, that is, that it might be an Ephod.2 They call this l,
tylkth, that is, it signifies the product of a thing. So it is afterwards, into
one flesh (Fagius). Into a wife,3 by way of anticipation; for she is shortly
afterwards first addressed as wife.4 Thus in Genesis 1:2 the word earth is used,
which had not yet been addressed in this way; on the contrary, it did not yet
exist5 (Picherel).

[And He brought] Either (for they determine that she was actually
made outside of Paradise), so that he might recognize her as the gift of God; or,
things appeared to him in such a way that he thought that she was brought from
elsewhere. So it is in Joshua 2:7, they pursued, because they thought that they
were pursuing them. The Hebrew is hf)ebyi :wA: it was not a simple bring to, but
such that he might receive children from her and make use of her labors in
other things (Fagius). He brought her so that she might be his spouse and life-
companion (Piscator, likewise Bonfrerius).

From some place at a little distance, whither he first carried her, that
for the decency of the action he might bring her thence; a bride to a

1 Hebrew: hnbF @.f
2 Judges 8:27a: “And Gideon made it into an Ephod (dwpO )'l); . . .”
3 h#)%$f i can signify either woman or wife.
4 Genesis 2:24, 25.
5 Genesis 1:9, 10.

170

bridegroom to be married to him: the great God being pleased to act the part
of a father to give his daughter and workmanship to him, thereby both teaching
parents their duty of providing marriages for their children, and children their
duty of expecting their parents’ consent in marriage.

Verse 23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh (Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13; Eph. 5:30): she shall be
called Woman (Heb. Isha), because she was taken out of Man (Heb. Ish; 1 Cor.
11:8).

[And he said] Either of his own wisdom, or from the revelation of the
Spirit, for these words are attributed to God in Matthew 19:5 (Piscator). And
he said I refer to to\n poih/santa, the Creator. God, the legislator of this,
spoke, not Adam. For, although Adam might have contrived the law, because
he framed it by the inspiration of God, God Himself is not incorrectly said to
have brought it forth: just as it is called the Law of God and of Moses, brought
forth through the ministry of Moses (Picherel).

And Adam said. Question. How knew he this? Answer. Either, 1.
By his own observation; for though it be said that he was asleep till the rib was
taken out and restored, yet he might awake as soon as ever that was done, the
reason of his sleep ceasing, and so might see the making of the woman. Or, 2.
By the revelation of God, who put these words into Adam’s mouth, to whom
therefore these words of Adam are ascribed, Matthew 19:5.

[This is now, M(apa%ha t)z]o Upon this occurrence. So nearly all of
our interpreters read it (Fagius, Vatablus, Ainsworth, Piscator, Oleaster), that
is, now (Oleaster). Upon this occurrence, understand, I perceive and see that
God has made a helper for me also (Vatablus, Piscator). Rabbi Bechai:1 Upon
this occurrence only was the woman derived as bone of my bones . . . from
now on, woman will be born in the customary manner of the world (de Muis,
Targum Jerusalem). The Hebrews refer t)zo/this to the woman, this woman,
upon this occurrence, is bone, etc.; that is, at last a helper is found for me
(Fagius); that is to say: Depart from me, animals previously brought; they do
not satisfy; they do not correspond to me: she is the most like unto me
(Lapide, Bonfrerius, Menochius). By this wound, or stroke, that is to say, by
which God struck me, drawing forth from me the flesh and the rib (Malvenda).
Hence Adam is shown to have learned supernaturally of the creation of the
woman from his rib (Estius).

[And flesh] Because the rib was not offered bare, but with some

1 Bahya ben Asher was a thirteen century Spanish rabbi and scholar. He produced a
commentary on the Torah, which takes into account the literal meaning of the text, its
logical and philosophical implications, traditional rabbinic interpretation, and a
Kabbalistic/mystical interpretation of text, following Nahmanides.

171

amount of flesh (Estius).
[Bone of bones] As springing from me. Servius1 on the Æneid 4:

Someone will arise as an avenger of our bones. With good reason the
Carthaginians say that their descendants are born from their bones. Now, the
Punic language is very close to the Hebrew. Consult 1 Corinthians 11:8
(Grotius). I render it, bone of bones, because from the rib. On the other
hand, I could translate (as preferable) member from members, and body from
body. For Mc(e /e bone and r#fob/f@ flesh often signify member and body, as in
Psalm 6:22 and 38:3, 7.3 And Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6, makes e3n swm~ a, one
body, the same as sa_rc mia/ , one flesh4 (Castalio).

[Woman, h#f%)$ ]i Woman, from man; h#%)f$ i from #$y).i Accordingly
as the woman was taken from man, so also was her name. From this place they
gather that Hebrew was the first language. h#%f)$ i signifies that she is a woman
who is now a wife (Fagius).

[She shall be called (Septuagint, Chaldean, Syriac, Junius and
Tremellius), )rq" @fyI t)zol;] Either, to her, or, unto her, it shall be called
(Munster, Montanus, Castalio, Malvenda); that is, to her the name shall be
woman (Fagius); or, because of this (Tirinus, likewise Pagnine, Samaritan
Text), because of this matter she shall be called (Ibn Ezra in Fagius); that is to
say, she has her substance from me, she shall likewise have her name
(Menochius). And it is fitting that she be called woman (Arabic).

This is now; or, for this time the woman is made of my bones, etc.;
but for the time to come the woman as well as the man shall be produced
another way, to wit, by generation. Made of my rib and flesh; i.e. God hath
provided me a meet help and wife, not out of the brute creatures, but nearer
hand, a part of my own body, and of the same nature with myself.

Verse 24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Gen. 31:15; Ps. 45:10;
Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31).

[Wherefore] These are the words of Adam, not Moses. Objection:
But they are attributed to God in Matthew 19:4, 5. Response: They were

1 Maurus Servius Honoratius was a fourth century Roman commentator on Virgil.
2 Psalm 6:2b: “O Lord, heal me; for my bones (ymfc(f j, my members) are vexed.”
3 Psalm 38:3, 7: “There is no soundness in my flesh (yrI#fobb; @i, my body) because of
thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones (ymac(f bj a,@ my members) because of
my sin. . . . For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no
soundness in my flesh (yr#I ofbb; @,i my body).”
4 1 Cor. 6:16: “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body
(en3 swma)_ ? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh (sa&rka mia/ n).”

172

spoken by Adam under inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Piscator).
These are the words of Moses by Divine instinct, or his inference from

Adam’s words.
[He shall leave] These are the words of God (Hebrews in Fagius,

Menochius), as Christ says in Matthew 19:5 (Fagius, Menochius). He shall
leave, not with respect to affection, but with respect to cohabitation and
partnership in life, if the situation should require (Menochius).

[Father] The couch of his father (Chaldean). It alludes to this, that
they recline as virgins in the bedchambers of their parents as long as they are
contracted, but then they establish a new house. The Hebrews call all the
vessels and instruments, etc., a house (Fagius).

[And he shall cleave] This does not speak of the lust of the flesh, but of
marital affection (Fagius). The Greeks and Matthew 19:5 translate it,
proskollhqh/setai, he shall adhere. I render it, Cleave to one another as if
cemented (Picherel).

[Unto his wife, wtO #@ $); ib@;] The b-preposition is what Hebrew
grammarians call h(ygnh w) qwbdh tyb, a b of adhesion or joining
(Fagius). The Hebrews judge that he is as a shedder of blood, who, although
marriageable, does not take a wife (Munster). By the Law of God, and also of
nature, it is determined that one man is to be joined to one wife only (Clario).

[And the two shall be in one flesh] Hebrew: And they shall be into
one flesh.1 Others, however, supply the two, or both (thus the Samaritan
Text, Syriac, Arabic, Picherel). I add this word from Matthew 19:5. Thus
from the rendering of the Greeks of Deuteronomy 6:13 and 10:20,2 Matthew
adds the only in Matthew 4:10, introduced from 1 Samuel 7:3, which in that
place is understood from 1 Samuel 7:4. From this passage, polygamy is
condemned, in as much as it is said, unto his own wife, wife being in the
singular (Picherel). They are called one flesh, either because they are one civil
person (Menochius, Lapide), or because they beget one flesh, one child
(Menochius out of Lapide, Rabbi Salomon in Fagius, Ainsworth); or because
the husband is lord over the body of his own spouse, and thus the flesh of the
one is the flesh of the other, 1 Corinthians 7:3 (Menochius out of Lapide).
Flesh here is the closest social tie and relationship, as in Isaiah 58:7 (Fagius).
Plutarch, in his Symposium of the Seven Ages: w#ste du/o on1 taj en3 a
gegone/nai, that they, being two, might be made one (Fagius). Nehemann:3

1 Hebrew: dxf)e r#foblf ; wy@ hfw:.
2 The Septuagint renderings of Deuteronomy 6:13 and 10:20 are identical, with the
exception of one word added in 6:13: “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him
(mo/nw|/only, added in 6:13) shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear
by his name.”
3 This reference may be to Dietrich von Neheim, a fifteenth century German lawyer,

173

He shall no more separate from his wife, as the brutish animals do after
conception (Grotius). For one flesh. I translate it, they shall be one flesh. In
this way, Paul understood it, 1 Corinthians 6:16. See Matthew 19:6 and
Ephesians 5:28, etc., whereby, out of this place, God is said to join husband
and wife. So it is in Servius, Æneid 4: Lest to her I might desire to unite
myself with the nuptial1 bond: Nuptial, he says, because a yoke, which was
imposed upon those to be yoked together in marriage; whence even Juno is also
said to be yoked together (Picherel).

Shall a man leave his father and his mother; in regard of habitation and
society, but not as to natural duty and affection; and in conjugal relation and
highest affection, even above what they owe to their parents, they two (as it is
in the Samaritan, Syriac, and Arabic translations, and Matthew 19:5) shall be
esteemed by themselves and others to be as entirely and inseparably united, and
shall have as intimate and universal communion, as if they were one person,
one soul, one body. And this first institution shows the sinfulness of divorces,
and polygamy, however God might upon a particular reason for a time dispense
with his own institution, or remit the punishment due to the violators of it.

Verse 25: And they were both naked (Gen. 3:7, 10, 11), the man and
his wife, and were not ashamed (Ex. 32:25; Is. 47:3).

[They were both naked, Mymwi@ r@ (j] Targum Jerusalem renders it,
wise.2 Hebrew: Both naked3 (Septuagint, Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Syriac,
Arabic). It is true that Mymwr( without the Dagesh in the m signifies shrewd,
but with the Dagesh, as here, naked (Piscator).

[They were not ashamed] Because they were free from (rhF f rceyE,
that is, evil inclinations, which entered into them after the eating of the tree
(Fagius). Targum Jonathan reads it in this way: They were wise, but they
wasted no time on their own glory. From this place, Plato, in his Politics,4
appears to have derived that theirs was that nudity which he attributes to all
men of the golden age (Lapide).

[w@##$ $fb@t;yI )$l] They were not ashamed. For the signification of the
Hithpael conjugation is sometimes intransitive and neutral5 (Glassius’
“Grammar” 326).

expert in Roman canon law.
1 Latin: jugali/nuptial, yoked together.
2 Here Mymi@wr@ (j is related to the root Mr(o ,f to be shrewd. However, Mymiw@ @r(j is much
more commonly related to the root hr(F f, to be naked.
3 Hebrew: Mymw@i @r(j Mhye n"#;.$
4 Politicus.
5 Hithpael can function very much like the middle voice in Greek; the action
described affects, or is performed with respect to, the subject.

174

To wit, of their nakedness, as having no guilt, nor cause of shame, no
filthy or evil inclinations in their bodies, no sinful concupiscence or impure
motions in their souls, but spotless innocency and perfection, which must
needs exclude shame.

175

Chapter 3

The serpent’s subtlety, and ensnaring question, 1. The woman’s
answer, 2. The serpent denies the certainty of the threatening, 4; suggests a
benefit by eating, 5. The woman looks on the fruit, takes, eats, gives to the
man, who also eats of it, 6. The consequence of their sin, 7, 8. Adam’s
summons, 9, appearance, 10, examination, 11, excuse, 12. The woman
examined, excuses, yet confesses the fact, 13. Sentence upon the serpent the
instrument, 14; upon the devil the chief agent, with the first gospel promise,
15; upon the woman, 16; upon the man, 17-19. Adam names his wife, 20.
God clothes them, 21. They are thrown out of Paradise, 22, to till the ground,
23. Their return impossible, 24.

Verse 1: Now the serpent (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) was more subtil than any
beast of the field which the LORD God had made (Matt. 10:16; 2 Cor. 11:3).
And he said unto the woman, Yea (Heb. Yea, because, etc.), hath God said, Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

[The serpent, #x$ nf hF@ ]a That serpent,1 so that we might understand
Moses to speak of a notorious serpent (Vatablus). Certain of the Hebrews
simply take the serpent for a beast whose language (as also of other animals)
Eve is believed to have understood. (They maintain that the serpent had the
power of speech [Josephus, Philo and Basil in Tirinus].) Others by the serpent
understand Satan (Fagius), and they maintain that the similitude of a serpent
was assumed by the Demon. So it is in Cyril2 (Rivet). Others understand this
of a true serpent; yet so that Satan might have spoken through it as through an
instrument. Thus the old Hebrew Kabbalists (in Fagius, thus Munster, Fagius,
Lyra, Estius, Menochius, Rivet, Pareus). The Scripture is wont to understand
the originator of an action under the name of the instrument (Munster on verse
8), and to accept either for the same (Fagius). The serpent was not alone, but
was moved by the Devil, as it is evident from John 8:44; Revelation 12:9;
20:2, 10 (Pareus); and from Wisdom of Solomon 2:243 and Romans 16:20
(Picherel). He spoke through the serpent, as formerly through witches (Rivet),
and in the idols and oracles of the gods of the nations (Picherel); and as the

1 Here serpent is definite, has taken the definite article.
2 Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444) was a participant in the third ecumenical council,
held at Ephesus. He repudiated the heretical Nestorian Christology, but tended
himself to the monophysitism.
3 Wisdom of Solomon 2:24: “Nevertheless through the envy of the devil came death
into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.”

176

Angel did through Balaam’s ass1 (Lyra, Menochius). It is amazing that Julian
thought it absurd that a serpent should speak, while he himself was believing,
and the heathen relating, that a serpent barked after the fashion of a dog
(Pliny’s Natural History 8:41); and that the image of Juno Moneta2 has spoken
(Valerius Maximus’3 Nine Books of Memorable Deeds and Sayings4 1:8); and
that in fact the image of Fortune has spoken twice with these words, Rightly ye
matrons have seen me, and duly ye have declared me (Valerius’ Nine Books of
Memorable Deeds and Sayings 1:8); and both that the cow of Privernum had
spoken (Julius Obsequens’ The Book of Prodigies5 38), and that the same
occurred in a Roman territory (Julius Obsequens’ The Book of Prodigies 40),
where it also pronounces the words, Rome, beware (Julius Obsequens’ The
Book of Prodigies 53); and that the dog of Ariminus spoke (Rivet); and that the
tree of Apollonius spoke;6 likewise that the oak of Dodona spoke7 (Pareus).
Question: How was the serpent able to speak with the woman? Some maintain
that the serpent initially had both intellect and the use of language, of which he
was deprived because of sin. If this was so, why is there no mention of these in
the cursing of the serpent? Others maintain that Satan spoke, and assumed the
outward appearance of a serpent. But the curse of the serpent was not
applicable to Satan. Others maintain that Satan spoke by the mouth of the
serpent. But why, in that case, would the serpent, if innocent, suffer
punishment? Neither is it proper for an Angel to act in this way. Others
maintain that Eve knew the languages of the beasts, etc. But what induced the
serpent that he would deceive Eve? And who taught him the art of deceit? And
how would the serpent know what God had forbidden? Abarbanel, of all the
interpreters, appears to me to judge most subtly, who denies that the serpent
spoke to the woman (for it is not said, as it is concerning Balaam’s ass,8 that
God opened the mouth of the serpent), but it is a prosopœia,9 of which sort
many things are: as in Psalm 148:7, Praise the LORD, ye dragons, etc.; in Job

1 Numbers 22:21-35.
2 Juno Moneta, or Juno who warns.
3 Valerius Maximus was a first century Roman collector of antiquities.
4 Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium Libri Novem.
5 Julius Obsequens was a fourth century Roman author, about whom little is known.
De Prodigiis is an extract from the work by Livy.
6 In The Argonautica 2, Apollonius of Rhodes, a third century Hellenistic poet, writes
of an oak tree nymph that spoke.
7 The oak of Dodona was a sacred site dedicated to Zeus. The priests of that place,
even before the establishment of a sanctuary, would interpret the voice of the deity in
the rustling of the branches and leaves. It is said that a black dove landed upon the
tree and spoke to the locals in human speech, declaring that an oracle should be
established in that place.
8 Numbers 22:28.
9 A prosopœia is a speech, composed by one, but delivered by the mouth of another.

177

28:14, The depth saith, It is not in me; and, in Genesis 3:14, God is said to
speak to the serpent: as if the mute and stupid animal would converse. Insofar
as it is said in verse 6 that the woman saw that it would be good for eating, etc.,
but not that she heard the voice of the serpent, thence Abarbanel says that it is
evidently proven that it did not speak with the woman, but this is said, because,
since the serpent had climbed oftimes into that tree and, with Eve observing,
had eaten, yet had not died, she began to think that those fruits were not
deadly; and it is just as if the serpent had said, Ye shall not die. If you should
ask why then was the serpent punished? Abarbanel responds that the serpent,
not content with herbs, etc., climbed into the tree, so that it might eat the fruit
(de Muis’ Various Sacred Things, Composed out of Various Rabbis).
Concerning the serpent, two things are to be examined closely, says the most
learned Mede. 1. Who was it in fact; 2. who was it in the opinion of Eve.
Question 1: Who was it actually? I respond: Undoubtedly, it was the Devil,
who misused the brutish serpent, either by possessing him, or (which I prefer)
by appearing in the outward form of it. Question 2: What did Eve suppose the
serpent to be? a serpent, or, in fact, Satan? If the former is answered, it
detracts from the perfection of that state, seeing that she was ignorant of that
which we all know, namely, that a serpent is not able to talk. If the latter is
answered, 1. Why would she converse with the Fallen Angel? 2. Why does it
say that the serpent was more crafty, except to indicate that it was the occasion
of the fraud? Response: I clear this difficulty by these propositions. 1. I
suppose that it is the rule in the dealings of spirits with men that the spirit
would present itself by an outward form, visible to some extent. Which is
indeed true, inasmuch as an experience with spirits is called a vision or
apparition. Also God and the good Angels were present in the midst of men by
this method. And Eve knew this. 2. I also suppose this rule to be given to
spirits, that under the outward form they match what in some way represents
their own condition. Just as in the civil sphere, diverse ranks are distinguished
by a diversity of garments. Neither was Eve ignorant of this. From this it
follows that good Angels are not able to appear in any other way than in a
human form, but evil Angels were not able to present themselves by means of
the human form in the state of innocency (subsequently, he revealed himself by
means of the feminine, rather than the serpentine, form): the matter is
otherwise after the fall; neither is it surprising, since one falling star can
rightfully represent another. With these things posited, it was not on this
account that Eve would marvel that a spirit spoke with her: But on account of
this, that inasmuch as it appeared in the form of a most subtle serpent (which
was revealing its nature) and had assumed its outward appearance, so that it
might inspire in the woman the opinion of its own sagacity, she quickly
gathered that it was most sagacious and was able to understand the mind of God

178

more clearly than herself (Mede in his Diatribe “Discourse 37”). Eve did not
know of the existence of evil Angels, but she took this one to be a good Angel,
knowing that such excellent protection was assigned to her and to her husband
by God (Lightfoot’s On Genesis). Question: Why would not the woman be
amazed at a speaking serpent? Response: Eve considered, not by assenting, but
by pondering within herself, whether a serpent might perhaps have the power
of speech. Thus Cyril. For she was recently created, even in fact after Adam
had given names to the beasts; she did not experience these things. Neither did
the perfection of the woman demand this, that she should have congenital
knowledge of all things natural, as the perfection of the man was requiring
(Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences1 2). This was an
ignorance of pure negation, and such was possible in the state of innocency, like
in children, etc. (Rivet). Eve was admiring and looking upon that which was
occurring by an evidently higher power; but fear was absent, because she had
not yet sinned, and she knew that she was cared for by God (Menochius). At
that time, there was no cause for fear. At that time, man was the lord of the
beasts, and they revered him (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of
Sentences). It was not unknown to Eve that these words were formed by a
supernatural power; but she did not sufficiently consider, as she was obliged,
that they were forged to tempt her (Tirinus). The Demon entered the serpent,
not by his own election, but by a divine dispensation, which did not permit the
man to be tempted by the Devil in a pleasing and grand form, but in an uncouth
outward appearance, in which case, the fallacies of the Demon could be the
sooner detected (Lyra). They conclude the Bacchic revels o1fesin
an) estemme/noi, etc. that is, crowned with serpents, exclaiming, Eu0an_ ,
Eu0an_ , that is, Eve, Eve; and the serpent is the sign of their revels (Clement’s
Exhortation to the Heathen2 2 in Grotius).

[The serpent] Hence, I believe, comes that serpent, guardian of the
golden apple trees, in the Poets3 (Gataker).

[More subtle] Wise unto evil (Targum Jerusalem). Question: In what
sense is this spoken? Response: In a twofold sense: 1. Inasmuch as this
subtlety is attributed the serpent (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of
Sentences), of which these indications are brought forth: that it, when
attacked, immediately hides its head, either inserting it into the earth, or
surrounding it with the coils of its own body (Estius’ Commentary on the Four
Books of Sentences, Fagius); that it refuses to listen to the voice of the charmer
(Estius, Fagius); that at certain times it strips off its old skin and puts on new

1 In Quatuor Libros Sententiarum Commentaria.
2 lo/goj o( protreptiko\j proj\ E# llhnaj.
3 In Greek mythology, Ladon was a hundred-headed dragon which Hera set to protect
the golden apples of her western orchard.

179

(Fagius); that, being about to drink, it first spues out and gives up its venom, as
Epiphanius testifies concerning the heresy of the Ophites1 (Estius). Some cavil
that these are prominent in many animals of greater cleaverness. But it would
not be absurd, if we should say that the gift, which was destructive to man, was
taken away from the serpent (Calvin). Epiphanius supposes its subtlety to have
been diminished by the malediction. If this be not true, rightly it is said to be
more prudent than the others, not with respect to all things, but with respect
to natural instincts, even, inasmuch as I might speak in this way, the arts of life
against the perils of its preservation: Which excellence is certainly a kind of
prudence. With this it agrees: for by nature it is capable of harming man
invisibly and insidiously (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences);
for, sitting motionless in the way and hiding in those sands with which it is the
same color, it strikes the heels of the horse, Genesis 49:17, and, with only little
projections extended, which are like unto grains of wheat, he draws little birds,
flying to the bait. Accordingly, the Philosopher,2 History of Animals3 1:1,
teaches that serpents are ma/lista ep0 ibou/louj, especially treacherous.
And, in the writings of Æsop, the crab, having entered into society with the
serpent, was encouraging him metaba/llesqai th~j panourgi/aj, to give
up his subtlety: but he was showing himself to be not at all obedient. To these,
it could be added out of Pliny that the serpent, with his vision obscured by
winter hibernation, anoints and refreshes his eyes with fennel; but, if his scales
became numb, he scrapes them with the thorns of the juniper; the vernal snake
extinguishes nausea with the moisture from lettuce (Bochart’s A Sacred
Catalogue of Animals 1:1:4:8). Under and over itself it coils, so that it might
act more cunningly and consider its way more cautiously. For, that this coiling
pertains to its cunning, the fable of Æsop Of the Serpent and the Crab testifies4
(Picherel). Some suppose them to be called prudent because they deliberate
protractedly. Certain of the Hebrews say that the serpent was at first gifted
with human affections, and, hence, was more subtle (Fagius). Others maintain
that subtlety is attributed to the serpent because of the Devil speaking in it; just
as we call the tongue of man deceitful (not because deceit belongs to it, but)
because a deceitful mind moves it (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of
Sentences), and a tongue learned, which the intellect moves with prudences

1 The Ophites were a second century Gnostic sect, worshippers of snakes.
2 Because of his preeminence in the field, Aristotle is frequently referred to as “the
Philosopher”.
3 Historia Animalium.
4 In Æsop’s fable, the Crab attempts to convince the Snake to give up his winding and
twisting ways for a more straightforward manner of dealing. The Snake is
recalcitrant, so the Crab strangles him in his sleep. In death his body is laid out
straight and in full length. The story is intended to encourage frankness and
simplicity of manners.

180

(Lyra). Others conjoin both of these; thus Augustine. It is probable that Moses
regarded the latter sense, signifying this, that that cunning Devil used a subtle
instrument, suited to himself (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of
Sentences). This subtlety is to be referred principally to the Demon (Lyra).
MrU(/f naked, in 2:25, is here Mw@r(/f subtle. It speaks to the elegance of the
Hebrew language that the same term is repeated in diverse signification. So it is
in Judges 10:4, with respect to MyryI (F j,1 and in Judges 15:16, with respect to
rwmO xj2 (Fagius).

The serpent; or rather, this or that serpent; for here is an emphatical
article, of which more by and by.

The serpent’s eminent subtlety is noted both in sacred Scripture,
Genesis 49:17; Psalm 58:5; Matthew 10:16; 2 Corinthians 11:3, and by
heathen authors, whereof these instances are given; that when it is assaulted, it
secures its head; that it stops its ear at the charmer’s voice; and the like. If it be
yet said that some beasts are more subtle, and therefore this is not true; it may
be replied, 1. It is no wonder if the serpent for its instrumentality in man’s sin
hath lost the greatest part of its original subtlety, even as man’s sin was
punished with a great decay both of the natural endowments of his mind,
wisdom, and knowledge, and of the beauty and glory of his body, the
instrument of his sin. But this text may, and seems to be understood, not of
the whole kind of serpents, but of this individual or particular serpent; for it is
in the Hebrew Hannachash, that serpent, or this serpent, to signify that this was
not only an ordinary serpent, but was acted and assisted by the devil, who is
therefore called that old serpent, Revelation 12:9. And this seems most
probable, partly from the following discourse, which is added as a proof of that
which is here said concerning the serpent’s subtlety; and that surely was not the
discourse of a beast but of a devil; and partly from 2 Corinthians 11:3, which
hath a manifest reference to this place, where the apostle affirmeth that the
serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety; not surely through that subtlety
which is common to all serpents, but through that subtlety which was peculiar
to this, as it was possessed and acted by the devil. There seems indeed to be an
allusion here to the natural subtlety of all serpents; and the sense of the sacred
penman may seem to be this, as if he said: The serpent indeed in itself is a
subtle creature, and thought to be more subtle than any beast of the field; but
howsoever this be in other serpents, it is certain that this serpent was more

1 Judges 10:4a: “And he had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass colts (MyrIy(F )j , and
they had thirty cities (MyryI F(j) . . .”
2 Judges 15:16: “And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass (rwmO xhj )a , heaps upon
heaps (MytI rf mF oxj rwmO xj), with the jaw of an ass (rwmO xhj a) have I slain a thousand
men.”

181

subtle than any beast of the field, as will appear by the following words. If it be
said, the particle this, or that, is relative to something going before, whereas
there is not a word about it in the foregoing words; it may be replied, that
relative particles are often put without any antecedents, and the antecedents
are left to be gathered not only out of the foregoing, but sometimes also out of
the following passages, as is apparent from Exodus 14:19; Numbers 7:89;
24:17; Psalm 87:1; 105:19; 114:2; Proverbs 7:8; 14:26. So here, that
serpent, that of which I am now to speak, whose discourse with the woman
here followeth.

Question. How the serpent could speak, and what the woman
conceived of his speech, and why she was not affrighted, but continued the
discourse with it? There be two satisfactory answers may be given to these
questions. 1. The woman knew that there were spirits, and did freely and
frequently converse with spirits or angels, who also did appear in some visible
shape to her, which seems very credible; because in the following ages not only
the angels, but even the blessed God himself, did in that manner converse with
men. And as they afterwards used to appear in the shape of men, why might
not one of them now appear to her, and converse with her, in the shape of a
beautiful serpent? And why might she not freely and securely discourse with
this which she thought to be one of those good angels, to whose care and
tuition both she and her husband were committed? For I suppose the fall of the
angels was yet unknown to her; and she thought this to be a good spirit,
otherwise she would have declined all conversation with an apostate spirit. 2.
A late ingenious and learned writer represents the matter thus, in which there
is nothing absurd or incredible: The serpent makes his address to the woman
with a short speech, and salutes her as the empress of the world, etc. She is not
affrighted, because there was as yet no cause of fear, no sin, and therefore no
danger, but wonders and inquires what this meant, and whether he was not a
brute creature, and how he came to have speech and understanding? The
serpent replies, that he was no better than a brute, and did indeed want both
these gifts, but by eating of a certain fruit in this garden he got both. She asked
what fruit and tree that was? Which when he showed her, she replied: This,
no doubt, is an excellent fruit, and likely to make the eater of it wise; but God
hath forbidden us this fruit. To which the serpent replies, as it here follows in
the text. It is true, this discourse is not in the text; but it is confessed by Jewish
and other expositors, that these words: Yea, hath God said, etc., are a short
and abrupt sentence, and that they were but the close of a foregoing discourse;
which might well enough be either this now mentioned, or some other of a like
nature. And that expression which follows, Gen 3:6, when the woman saw,
i.e. understood that it was a tree to be desired to make one wise, may seem to
imply, both that the serpent told her, and that she believed, that the speech and

182

understanding of the serpent was the effect of the eating of that fruit; and
therefore that if it raised him from a brute beast to the degree of a reasonable
creature, it would elevate her from the human to a kind of Divine nature or
condition.

[Unto the woman] Being naturally the more easily deceived (Lyra).
[Why hath God prescribed] He takes it interrogatively (Fagius). Ti/
o3ti ei]pen (Why has He said, or, What is it that He said?) (Septuagint). Why
has He forbidden? (Castalio). yki@ P)a, Indeed (Oleaster); Is it in accordance
with the truth that (Syriac, Arabic); Yea, is it the case that (Munster); Is it
really possible that, He said? (Samaritan Text). Is it true that God, etc.?
(Chaldean in Fagius). This the more learned follow, rendering it, Is it so?
(Vatablus, thus Tigurinus); Is it indeed? (Pagnine); Yea, has God decreed?
(Junius and Tremellius). But then he would have said P)aha, as in Genesis
18:131 (Piscator). Others: Yea, because (Piscator, Malvenda, Ainsworth,
Montanus). Picherel parafra&zei/paraphrases: The serpent . . . among
other words, spoke these, Yea, has God forbidden to you? With a brief
expression, he subsumes certain things which previously he said. See Ruth
2:21 in Hebrew2 (Picherel). Others read it affirmatively: How much more?
(Fagius), or, Much more (Vatablus). It appears that the statement is truncated,
and they maintain that others preceded (Kimchi and other Hebrews in Fagius,
Lapide, Ainsworth); and the Hebrews suppose that perhaps he spoke in this
manner: Certainly God hates you, for He does not grant to you such and such
honor; other animals are superior to you, and that through the jealousy of God
(Fagius). After which he subjoins, Yea, is it true that He says? (Vatablus). To
others this is not satisfying. The woman should have been unwilling patiently
to hear so long and so malicious a sermon against God (Estius’ Commentary on
the Four Books of Sentences). He (the serpent) did not accuse God of cruelty,
for Eve would have necessarily shuddered at this blasphemy; but, rather
cunningly, as if commending God, he speaks in this way: that is to say, I do not
believe that God, who is so liberal and consummately good, has thus earnestly
and absolutely forbidden this tree. Here, the serpent slyly attempts to subvert
the purpose of the precept, so that he might subvert the precept itself: that is
to say, No just reason appears why He would forbid; therefore, He has not

1 Genesis 18:13: “And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh,
saying, Shall I indeed (P)ha a) bear a child, which am old?” Note the interrogative h
prefixed, indicating a question.
2 Ruth 2:21: “And Ruth the Moabitess said, Also (yki@ MgA)% he said unto me, Thou
shalt keep fast by my young men, until they have ended all my harvest.” It appears
that Ruth communicated more of her conversation with Boaz, as related in verses 7-
14, but only this most pertinent point of the conversation is here repeated for the
reader.

183

forbidden in sincerity, but in jest, even teasing, has He spoken (Lapide). It is
the custom of Scripture to capture the end of words, from which you might
understand their beginning. Thus, in Joshua 2:24, the returned spies say,
Because He has given, etc., which was not the beginning of the speech (Kimchi
in Fagius). Kimchi asserts these things (in my judgment) not without reason
(Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations). yk@i P)a is never placed at
the beginning of an oration (Fagius). They generally suppose it to be a
paralepsis,1 for Moses, out of the lengthier speech of the serpent, preferred to
relate only that which was necessary for his design, namely, that by which the
serpent secured what he was straining after (Malvenda). It can be translated,
Much more, etc.; that is to say, I am amazed that God has deprived you of great
goods, but much more I am amazed that He would prohibit, etc. (Vatablus).

[Why has He prescribed] Disorder was not then possible in the
subordinate faculties, unless it had been first in the reason; therefore, he did
not tempt at first with the consuming of the tree, but with the restriction of the
precept, Why has He prescribed, etc.?; that is to say, This precept was not
appropriate, since ye are of a free condition and are superior to all the trees
(Lyra).

He said unto the woman, who had upon some occasion retired from
her husband for a season (an advantage which the crafty serpent quickly espieth,
and greedily embraceth, and assaulteth her when she wanteth the help of her
husband). Yea, or, why, or, is it so, or, indeed, or, of a truth. It is scarce
credible that God, who is so bountiful, and the sovereign good, and so
abhorring from all parsimony and envy, should forbid you the enjoyment of any
part of those provisions which he hath made for your use and comfort.

[Of every] Thus he spoke, so that he might lure her into the
conversation (Fagius). It is ambiguous whether he is denying this concerning
any tree, or concerning in fact only some particular tree; modifying the words
in this way, so that he, having been caught unawares, might be able to specify
that he referred only to the one tree, etc. (Menochius). The clever devise of
the Demon is to speak ambiguously: hereafter Apollo was called Loci/aj/
Ecliptic, for he was pronouncing lochn\ fwnh\n, that is, an oblique word, or
ambiguous oracles (Bonfrerius). Here the Devil completely covers the lie
under the appearance of a truth (Piscator).

Of every tree, or, of any; for the word is ambiguous, which therefore
the cunning adversary useth to hide the snare which he was laying for her.

[Myhl$i )v, Elohim] With serious application to his purpose, he uses the
title, which refers to the severity and judgment of God (Fagius).

1 A paralepsis is a rhetorical devise. Material is omitted, or treated cursorily, usually
to highlight the importance of that material.

184

Verse 2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the
fruit of the trees of the garden.

[Of the fruit of the trees, C(' yrIp;%mi] Of the fruit of the tree
(Cajetan, Septuagint, Menochius). Or of the tree is put for of the trees, as
spear, in 2 Kings 11:10,1 is put for spears, 2 Chronicles 23:9;2 ship, in 1 Kings
10:22,3 is put for ships, 2 Chronicles 9:21;4 thus, in verse 7, leaf for leaves.5
See Genesis 4:206 (Ainsworth).

[We eat] That is, It is lawful to eat (Vatablus, Ainsworth).

Verse 3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,
God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die (Gen.
2:17).

[He prescribed to us] The Vulgate not incorrectly adds, to us. For,
although when God issued the prohibition to Adam, Genesis 2:16, Eve did not
yet exist; nevertheless, through Adam, inspired by the Holy Spirit, God
thoroughly instructed her (Picherel).

[That we should not eat, and neither should we touch] I render it, Ye,
being about to eat, shall not touch. In Hebrew, it is a hysteron proteron, as in
Colossians 2:5 and in Virgil’s Æneid 9, by sleep and wine destroyed, instead of,
by wine and sleep, as would be the case if thereupon he should observe the
right order of words. In that case, ye shall not touch, ye shall not eat; that is,
Ye shall not touch in order to eat. So it is in Exodus 20:4, 5, Thou shalt not
make a graven image, etc., thou shalt not bow down, in the place of which it is
said in Leviticus 26:1, Ye shall not make idols, etc., in order to bow down.
Now, she is mindful of touch only because it precedes eating, lest by means of

1 2 Kings 11:10a: “And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David’s
spear (tynIxjh,a singular) and shields . . .”
2 2 Chronicles 23:9a: “Moreover Jehoiada the priest delivered to the captains of
hundreds spears (MytiynIxjh,a plural), and bucklers, and shields, that had been king
David’s . . .”
3 1 Kings 10:22a: “For the king had at sea a navy (ynI)// ship, singular) of Tharshish
with the navy (yn)I //ship, singular) of Hiram: once in three years came the navy
(ynI)//ship, singular) of Tharshish . . .”
4 2 Chronicles 9:21: “For the king's ships (twOyn% I),/ plural) went to Tarshish with the
servants of Huram: every three years once came the ships (twyO %n)I ,/ plural) of Tarshish
. . .”
5 Genesis 3:7b: “And they sewed the leaf (hl(' j) of the fig tree together, and made
themselves aprons.”
6 Genesis 4:20: “And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of the tent-dweller (b#y'$
lhe)o, singular) . . .”

185

touching she should arrive at eating. See verse 22 (Picherel).
[That we should not touch, etc.] Also the woman adds to the words of

God (for God had spoken nothing concerning touch), and she takes away from
them, lest peradventure we die1 (Fagius).

[Np]%e Lest (Junius and Tremellius, Ainsworth). Lest at any time
(Malvenda). Out of displeasure with the precept (Fagius), out of weariness and
hatred for the precept (Menochius), adding of her own, she invidiously
exaggerates (Menochius, Tirinus). Or, rather, on account of religion and
reverence for the precept, she said this, that the fruit is, as it were, not even to
be touched, which it was not lawful to eat (Menochius out of Lapide,
Malvenda). Thus some also assert that touch was prohibited, so that she might
be further removed from tasting, but this is not drawn from what is written
(Lyra). Soon, having experienced a harmless touch, she hoped the same of
tasting (Grotius).

[Of the fruit] Most precious fruit. For the article is added,2 so that
you might see that she is already stirred a considerable amount (Menochius).

[Lest peradventure we die] God had absolutely asserted; the woman
doubts; the Devil denies. Thus Rupertus3 (Lapide, Menochius, Fagius). Npe% is
an adverb of doubting: Therefore, the serpent establishes his lie by the
doubling of the word, Ye shall not surely die4 (Picherel). This is spoken
doubtingly, even, as it were, by extenuating the precept (Bonfrerius). Npe% is an
adverb of doubting, from Nw@p,% to hesitate: but it could be from hnpF f%, to
regard, that is, with consideration of this matter, etc. Npe% is not always an
adverb of doubting (Piscator, Lapide, Ainsworth, Malvenda), as it is evident in
Psalm 2:12, lest He be angry, and Isaiah 27:3, lest anyone visit it (Piscator).
But often it is simply an adverb of denial (compare Psalm 91:12 with Matthew
4:6); sometimes of assertion (compare Isaiah 36:18 with 2 Kings 18:29, and
Matthew 15:32, lest they faint, with Mark 8:3, they will faint [Ainsworth]).
From the response of the Devil, it is plain that Eve had said, Dying, thou shalt

1 Genesis 2:17: “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (twmO
tw@mtf@, infinitive absolute followed by an imperfect, used to emphasize [in this case,
the certainty of] the verbal action).” Eve drops the infinitive absolute construction.
2 The construct chain, C(h' a yrIpm;% iw%, is definite.
3 Rupertus (1091-1135) was a learned Benedictine, Abbot of Tuits on the Rhine. The
citation is likely taken from his commentary In Genesin.
4 In the Hebrew, the infinitive absolute form of twm precedes the imperfect form,
Nwt@ mtu @; twmO -)$l. The infinitive absolute can be thus used to emphasize the certainty
of the performance of the verbal action. In this construction, it is the infinitive
absolute, the certainty, which is negated. Normally, in order to express that the action
of the main verb will certainly not take place, the negative particle would be placed
between the infinitive absolute and the main verb.

186

die, etc.1 (Piscator). For she was thus far in her integrity (Lapide).
Neither shall ye touch it, to wit, in order to the eating of it. Or the

touch might be simply forbidden, or she might reasonably understand it to be
forbidden in and by the prohibition of eating, because it was an occasion of sin,
and therefore to be avoided. For it is not probable that the woman, being not
yet corrupted, should knowingly add to God’s word, or maliciously insinuate
the harshness of the precept. Others read, lest peradventure ye die, as if she
doubted of the truth of the threatening; which seems not probable, the woman
yet continuing in the state of innocency, and such doubting being evidently
sinful; and the Hebrew particle Pen doth not always imply a doubt, as appears
from Psalm 2:12; Isaiah 27:3; and Isaiah 36:18 compared with 2 Kings 18:29.

Verse 4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die
(Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14).

[Ye shall by no means die] He does not say, Surely ye shall not die,
but, ye shall not surely die: Thus he denies only the certitude of death (Piscator
out of Junius). What she doubted, this he denies (Fagius). Certain of the
Hebrews say that he first persuaded the woman to touch, which she had said
was prohibited, and that, since she was uninjured by the touch, he tempted her
to eat (Fagius).

It is not so certain as you imagine, that you shall die. God did say so
indeed for your terror, and to keep you in awe; or, he had some mystical
meaning in those words; but do not entertain such hard and unworthy thoughts
of that God who is infinitely kind and gracious, that he will, for such a trifle as
the eating of a little fruit, undo you and all your posterity, and so suddenly
destroy the most excellent work of his own hands.

Verse 5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your
eyes shall be opened (Gen. 3:7; Acts 26:18), and ye shall be as gods, knowing
good and evil.

[For God doth know] yk@i/for ought to be translated as but (Grotius,
Piscator). yk@i is put for M)i yk,i@ for if (Piscator); that is to say, God knows
that this will be most useful to you: therefore, since He is good and takes care
of you, He is not to be thought to wish to deprive you of this good
(Menochius).

[In the day] To the immediate evil, which God had threatened, He
opposes an immediate good (Ainsworth).

[They shall be opened, w@xqp; ;nwI ]: And they shall be opened. And is put

1 Here it is supposed, based on the response of the serpent, that Eve did use the
infinitive absolute construction.

187

in the place of then (Piscator, Ainsworth). So it is also in Mark 14:34, instead
of then in Matthew 26:38. What Mark 15:27 has as and they were crucifying,
Matthew 27:38 has as then they were crucifying (Ainsworth). He deceives
with a homonym. He promises that they will be knowers/understanders, but
he knows that they will be knowers/experiencers of good and evil (Piscator).

[The eyes] That is, of the mind. Ye will be extremely sharp-sighted,
so that ye will be rightly judging that until now ye had known nothing and had
been as blind men (Menochius, Tirinus).

If you would have the whole truth of the matter, and God’s design in
that prohibition, it is only this, He knoweth that you shall be so far from dying,
that ye shall certainly be entered into a new and more noble kind of life; and
the eyes of your minds, which are now shut as to the knowledge of a world of
things, shall then be opened, and see things more fully and distinctly.

[Ye will be like gods (Septuagint, Montanus, Malvenda, Junius and
Tremellius, Ainsworth, Oleaster)] Myh$il)k',@ like God (Syriac, Drusius).
Equal with God (Fagius). This form is common to either number (Drusius). It
is divine to know all things. Homer says of Jupiter, plei/ona h|3dei, he knew
more, and elsewhere, Qeoi\ de/ te pan/ ta is1 asi, the gods know all things.
Knowledge is the life of the gods: Cicero in Hortensius. This gift, as needful as
it was, they were obliged to seek from God by prayer for the advantage of the
dominion given to them from heaven, not, however, to take it up by their own
agency. In the place of this tree, the Poets substituted a fire; an instrument, of
course, of all arts and of a luxurious lifestyle. Claudius Neapolitanus,1 in
Porphyry’s2 On Abstinence from Animal Food3 1, conjoins both. Add the
poem of Moschion,4 found in the works of Stobæus,5 entitled Concerning
Time6(Grotius).

[Like gods] Not restrained by any inhibition, nor subject to anyone
(Lyra). Others: like magnates, leaders (Onkelos), who are obliged to discern
between good and evil (Fagius, Drusius). And therefore they learned magic, so
that they might judge in imitation of Magi (Drusius). Others: like Angels
(Hebrews in Fagius, Drusius, Vatablus, Targum Jerusalem, Arabic). It could
have been understood of evil Angels, who experience both good and evil

1 Little is known of Claudius the Neapolitan. He wrote a tract against abstinence from
animals which is refuted by Porphyry.
2 Porphyry (c. 232-c. 304) studied in Rome under Plotinus. He endeavored to make
the obscure Neoplatonism of Plotinus intelligible to the popular reader.
3 De Abstinentia.
4 Moschion (probably living during the second century) was a physician and poet. He
wrote De Mulierum Passionibus (Concerning the Passions of Women), as well as the
works cited by Stobæus.
5 Joannes Stobæus was a late-fifth century compiler of Greek antiquities.
6 De Tempore.

188

(Ainsworth). Thus he accuses God of jealousy (Fagius). The woman, seeing
that the tree was good for eating, that is, that the serpent had eaten of its fruit
with impunity, believed that God had forbidden eating, lest they become like
unto Him, that is, with respect to knowledge, which she was gathering from its
name, since it was called the tree of knowledge by God Himself (de Muis on
verse 1).

Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil, or, as God, like unto God
himself in the largeness of your knowledge; the very name that God hath put
upon the tree may teach you. But this is a privilege, of which, for divers causes
best known to himself, some of which your own reason will easily guess at, he
would not have you partake of.

Verse 6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and that it was pleasant (Heb. a desire) to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to
make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat (Ecclus. 25:24;1 1
Tim. 2:14), and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat (Gen.
3:12, 17).

[And she saw] With her eyes and mind, she was wholly intent upon the
tree (Fagius). Curiously and attentively considering the fruit, she was eager to
taste (Menochius). The beginning of the transgression appeared (Hebrews in
Fagius).

The woman saw; by curious and accurate observation, and gazing upon
it, or perceiving it by the serpent’s discourse, as was observed on Genesis 3:3.

[That is was good for eating, lk)f mj la ;] For consumption. A verbal
noun is put in place of a verb (Vatablus).

[And pleasant to the eyes, MyInyA ('lf hw)F tj a] A desire of the eyes
(Montanus), that is, very desireable to the eyes. Desire in the abstract, that is
to say, a thing in the highest degree desirable (Malvenda). That it would be
health to the eyes (Onkelos); that is, it would be healing to the eyes. Now, to
heal the eyes is a Chaldean adage meaning to feed the eyes (Fagius).

Pleasant to the eyes, to wit, in an eminent degree; for otherwise so
were all the rest.

[With an agreeable appearance, lyki@#h;o la ; dmxf n; e] Desirable for
conferring prudence; thus the Hebrews, whom the more learned follow
(Vatablus, Onkelos, Targum Jerusalem, Oleaster, Malvenda, Samaritan Text,
Arabic, Cajetan, Piscator, Ainsworth, Picherel). lyki@#o;hla ,; to make wise, is
here taken transitively. So it is in Psalm 32:8.2 Otherwise, it is usually taken

1 Ecclesiasticus 25:24: “Of woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all
die.”
2 Psalm 32:8: “I will instruct thee (K1l;yk#@i )o; a, with a pronominal, direct object suffix)

189

intransitively (Piscator). Others refer this to the external appearance (Vulgate,
Syriac). The Greeks: wr( aio= n tou~ katanohs~ ai, that is, just how salutary it
was could be inferred from its appearance (Grotius). The tree was worthy of
attentive consideration (Menochius). The woman, with the word of God
already repudiated, perceives and judges quite differently than previously
(Fagius).

To make one wise, which she might know by the serpent’s
information. See the notes on Genesis 3:1.

[She gave to her husband hm@ (f@ i] With her, that is, so that he might eat
together with her (Vatablus, Lapide). Thus Picherel; that is, just as she herself
had eaten, so also he himself should eat. See Ecclesiastes 10:16; 2 Corinthians
11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14. The preposition with is sometimes used to
communicate similitude: to feel with someone is to feel just as that one feels.
So it is in Ecclesiastes 2:16; the Hebrew is with, which Jerome renders like as.1
So it is in Galatians 3:9, they are blessed with Abraham, that is, like Abraham;
and in Romans 8:17, Xristw~| sumpa&sxein, to suffer with Christ, and
sundoca&zesqai, to be glorified with Christ (Picherel). Others translate it,
who was with her (Fagius, Piscator, Oleaster). That is, he came to her as
quickly as possible, although the sermonizing of the serpent was already
completed and (as it appears) the serpent himself had already slipped away.
Nevertheless, God afterwards brought him back into the view of our first
parents (Piscator). All of our interpreters together, whom I have considered,
agree that Satan assaulted the woman with the man absent. But I scarcely
believe that either the woman would have endured to be drawn away from her
husband, not for a day, but for nearly an hour; or the man would have wished
her, I do not say to be torn from his side, but to depart from his view for a long
while, and to allow her to wander. Certainly an affection, not so small and
feeble, was realized recently, even today, in the couple, joined with reciprocal
delight; still less is it possible in those, whom, into so close a tie, God Himself
had bound with such solemnity; especially, since there was no one with whom
they, scattered from one another, might be able to be associated familiarly
(Gataker’s Cinnus 194). From the word, h@m(f@ ,i the Hebrews gather that Adam
was present during the exchange, and they reproach his negligence, for he did
not call her away from the evil (Fagius).

Gave also unto her husband with her, who by this time was returned to
her, and who now was with her; or, that he might eat with her, and take his
part of that fruit.

and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.” If
lyk@i#oh; la ;, in Genesis 3:6, is transitive, the direct object must be supplied.
1 Ecclesiastes 2:16b: “And how dieth the wise man? as (M(i/with) the fool.

190

[And he ate] This is expressed with great emphasis. For the
prevarication of the woman did not at all pertain to their posterity (Fagius). He
ate, because he believed that pardon would follow the transgression, and thus
he would remain in his current status (Lyra).

Verse 7: And the eyes of them both were opened (Gen. 3:5), and they
knew that they were naked (Gen. 2:25); and they sewed fig leaves together,
and made themselves aprons (or, things to gird about).

[Their eyes were opened, hnxF q; pa t%f iw@ A] That is, of the mind and soul
(Rabbi Salomon). Thus they are called Myxiqp; %,i that is, seeing, who discern
causes rightly, Exodus 23:81 (Fagius, Lapide). They began to perceive their
own evil (Vatablus).

The eyes of them both. The eyes of their minds and consciences,
which hitherto had been closed and blinded by the arts of the devil, were
opened, as the devil had promised them, though in a far differing and sadder
sense.

[They knew that they were naked] Both with respect to soul and body
(Piscator, Ainsworth). And they knew that nudity was indeed shameful now
(Piscator). They knew that they were naked: supply, and they were ashamed
(Picherel). They learned what the use of the male is, what the use of the female
is. Nudity is to the Hebrews ta_ genhtika_, the parts dedicated to generation.
See 1 Corinthians 12:23 (Grotius). Then they were recognizing that their
nudity was liable to embarrassment (Lyra). Now their nudity began to
displease them, which previously was not indecent, but suitable for those who
are innocent (Fagius). Thus they perceive themselves to have been deluded by
Satan (Fagius, Tirinus). They feel the rebellious motions of concupiscence by
their own members thrusting themselves forth (Fagius, Menochius).

[Mym@iryU ('] The letter y is added (which was absent in Genesis 2:25) by
way of epitasis and auxesis,2 as the Hebrews maintain, to signify the ugliness
which was added to nudity after sin (Fagius).

They knew that they were naked. They knew it before, when it was
their glory, but now they know it with grief and shame, from a sense both of
their guilt for the sin newly past, and of that sinful concupiscence which they
now found working in them.

[They sewed together3 fig leaves (Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Arabic,
Munster, Pagnine, Tigurinus)] This does not satisfy. Where did they get the

1 Exodus 23:8: “And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise (Myxqi ;pi,%
seeing), and perverteth the words of the righteous.”
2 That is, through emphasis and exaggeration.
3 Genesis 3:7b: “And they sewed together (w@rp;t% y; wI% )A , and made themselves aprons.”

191

needle and thread by which they might sew? Oleaster says that this was done
either by hand, tying one to another, or stitching together with briars: as
would be the case, of course, if they gathered from the thorns of the briars
small pins. In any event, there was hardly so much leisure or even curiousity,
in such great consternation of their souls, that they might zealously undertake
an unnecessary work. Therefore, I render it, and with leafy boughs
intertwined, or woven together, they made aprons. rpta @f signifies to attach, to
fasten, to fold together, to affix. Job 16:15:1 I have brought sackcloth into
contact with my skin. Ezekiel 13:18:2 Bringing into contact, or, fitting
(certainly not sewing) pillows to armpits. And hle(f signifies, not only leaf,
but also, bough, shoot, branch; so it is in Genesis 8:11,3 Proverbs 11:28,4 and
most clearly in Nehemiah 8:15 (Gataker’s Cinnus 200). [Now, what the rest
translate sewed together, the Syriac translates, they joined together.] They
were plaiting green twigs around their sides (Menochius). They sewed, that is,
they intertwined, or weaved together leaves and branches (Ainsworth).

[Leaves of a fig tree] Hebrew: leaf.5 See what things have been said
on verse 2. From this place, some conjecture that the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil was a fig tree: but Ibn Ezra rejects this (Fagius). They seek the
leaves of the fig tree because of their width (Piscator).

They tied, twisted, or fastened, the lesser branches or twigs, upon
which were also the leaves of a fig tree, which peradventure was then near
them, and which because of its broad leaves was most fit for that use.

[Girdles (thus the Syriac)] t$r$gx/j belts (Samaritan Text, Pagnine,
Montanus, Oleaster). Girdles (Chaldean, Munster, Tirinus). Things like
girdles (Septuagint, Malvenda). Coverings (Arabic). Aprons (Ainsworth).
Loincloths (Junius and Tremellius, Vatablus) for covering their shameful parts
(Vatablus, Piscator). It is an argument of the corruption of that nature, which
nature is propagated through those shameful members (Piscator, Ainsworth).

Made themselves aprons, to cover their nakedness.

Verse 8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God (Job 38:1)
walking in the garden in the cool (Heb. wind) of the day: and Adam and his

1 Job 16:15a: “I have sewed (yt@irp: ta @)f sackcloth upon my skin.”
2 Ezekiel 13:18a: “And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Woe to the women that sew
(twOrp%t; ma ;l)i pillows to all armholes.”
3 Genesis 8:11a: “And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth
was an olive branch (hl'()j pluckt off.”
4 Proverbs 11:28: “He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall
flourish as a branch (hle(fk)e .”
5 Hebrew: hl'(j.

192

wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God (Job 31:33; Jer.
23:24; Amos 9:3) amongst the trees of the garden.

[And they heard] Moses describes in detail the order of the response of
the grace of God. First of all, Adam was terrified, and driven to the
recognition of his sin, and cast down by his own false confidence (Fagius).

[The voice of the Lord] Either that this was the voice of One accusing
Adam for the first time, although it is not written, on account of which Adam
might hide himself: or by this voice I understand certain words which God
might have spoken to Himself while walking, concerning that which had fallen
out contrary to His prohibition (Picherel). The voice, the former or the latter,
was, Adam, where are you? (Menochius, Piscator), or the sounds of the
shaking of the trees, on account of the steps of God walking, in order to make
sinners afraid (Menochius, Bonfrerius); or thunder, which is called the voice of
God in Psalm 29:3. Wind is usually joined with thunder. God is introduced
here as the Judge. Compare with Job 38:1 (Piscator).

[The voice of the Lord walking abroad, Kl7 h@' ta ;m]i They refer this
walking to the wind, or to the voice. See Jeremiah 46:22,1 Ben Melech2
(Drusius). Some refer this to the voice (Fagius, Drusius, Ainsworth, certain
Hebrews in Malvenda), the walking-about-voice of God in the garden; so that it
might be said that the voice of God was carried by the wind unto the ears of our
first parents (Drusius’ Of Sacred Observations 16:25). A voice is said to walk,
that is, to sound long, Exodus 19:19,3 just as also the waters are said to walk,
Genesis 8:34 (Fagius, Ainsworth). Junius and Tremellius render it, the
walking-sound of God, and thus they explain it as a certain light sound, and also
like the noise of God approaching. This does not satisfy at all. 1. Then he
would not have called it a voice, but the sound of feet, as in 1 Kings 14:6. 2.
The word K7l'h@ ta ;mi is never attributed to a sound or to a thing, but always to a
person. 3. Not l, but b would have been added to xAwr@ /wind to show the
cause which would be carrying the voice back to their ears.5 This voice appears

1 Jeremiah 46:22a: “The voice (hl@ wf qO /sound) thereof shall go (K7l'y/" walk) like a
serpent . . .”
2 Shelomoh ben Melech was a Spanish Jew, living in Constantinople, where he
penned The Perfection of Beauty (1554), a detailed commentary upon the Hebrew
Bible.
3 Exodus 19:19a: “And when the voice (lwOq) of the trumpet sounded long (Kl7 w' hO /
walked), and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake.”
4 Genesis 8:3a: “And the waters returned from off the earth continually
(bw#O $wF Kw7 lO h,f with the infinitive absolute form of K7lha f serving to communicate that
the action of the mainverb was ongoing).”
5 Genesis 3:8a: And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in
the cool (xwA @rl,; in the breeze) of the day.” b is frequently used to indicate means or

193

to be heard at a distance (thus not that slight sound as of one walking on grass),
from which they have the opportunity to remove themselves (Fuller’s Sacred
Miscellany 3:5). Others refer this to God, the voice of God, while He was
walking (Onkelos in Fagius, Septuagint, Samaritan Text, Montanus, Oleaster,
Piscator, Syriac, and Arabic); the voice of the speech or of the word of God
walking abroad (Fagius, Targum Jerusalem). He indicates that it was not a
simple voice, but of the sort by which He strikes the conscience by the
proclamation of the Law, and, on the other hand, He encourages by the
publication of the Gospel. He describes in detail the voice of grace rolling
down: For just as, with the word of God cast off, death entered, so also, with
the word rolling down, and also received into the soul, life is renewed (Fagius).
Perhaps at that time God appeared in the form of a man, as in Genesis 18
(Piscator, Oleaster). Others refer this to Adam, that is, while he was walking
about in the garden (certain interpreters in Fagius). God was walking in some
created similitude (Lyra). It is probable that both the body and the voice were
formed through angelic agency (Estius).

The voice of the Lord God, mentioned in Genesis 3:9, or rather the
sound, as the word voice is often taken in Scripture, as Psalm 93:3; Revelation
10:3; 19:6. Either God the Father, or rather God the Son, appeared in the
shape of a man, as afterwards he frequently did, to give a foretaste of his
incarnation.

[About the time of the breeze after midday, MwyO %ha xwA @rl;] About the
time of the wind of the day (thus Aquila, Rabbi Salomon in de Dieu, Munster,
Fagius, Ainsworth, Junius and Tremellius); that is, close to the evening, when
the wind usually stirs itself up (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:5, Fagius,
Vatablus). In the evening, the west winds blow (Fagius, Menochius), which
Aristotle also observes (Fuller). Others: In the quiet of the day (Onkelos,
Fagius). (I believe that he takes xAwr@ /wind for xwrF E/respite; which I refuse to
receive, because it supposes that the Bible was formerly without vowel points
[Fuller].) That is, after the heat of the day had seethed (Fagius). Onkelos, I
suppose, understands evening; because at that time, as the winds used to
become still, so also men are weary from labors; the heat at that time likewise
slackens (Drusius’ Of Sacred Observations 16:25). About the time of the
evening (Septuagint). With the day retiring (Syriac). In the movement of the
day (Arabic). About the time of the breeze of the day (Malvenda). Others:
About the time of the wind of that day (Junius and Tremellius, Piscator,
Picherel); that is to say, the voice of God was carried to the ears of Adam by
the wind blowing on that day (Piscator out of Junius). With respect to the
wind having risen on that day, it was a sign and witness of the indignation of

instrument; l is frequently used to indicate the time of an occurrence.

194

God, certainly of his presence (Picherel). The sound of a violent wind was
likewise a witness of the advent of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:2. Others: About
the time of the exhalation of the day; so it is in Rabbi Jonah,1 that is, during the
time in which there was the exhalation and cooling of the day, that is, the
cooling of the air (Fagius). Thus MwOyh% a xwA r@ l;, the cool of the day, is opposite
to MwOy%ha Mxko ;,@ while the day grows hot, in Genesis 18:1 (Fuller’s Sacred
Miscellany 3:5). Rabbi Salomon has it thus: About the time of the wind of the
day, namely, that wind from where the sun sets, which is westerly (de Dieu).
Gerundensis: The wind which blew in Paradise was pleasant and gentle, but
then it began to stir more boisterously (Fagius). A certain, unusual motion is
signified, which is a sign of the divine presence (Menochius, Grotius), as in 1
Kings 19:12 and Acts 2:2 (Grotius). I render it, about the time of the breeze,
and MwyO h% a is after midday or at midday (Vulgate, Grotius). The principal part
usually assumes the name of the whole. At that time of day the Greeks also
expected visions. Theocritus’2 Idyll 1: Ou0 qe/mij, w} poima_n, to\
mesambrino\n, ou0 qe/mij a!mmin Suri/sden: ton_ Pa~na dedoi/kamej, It is
not the will of heaven, O shepherd, now about midday, it is not the will of
heaven for us to play the flute: we fear Pan. Ovid, Festivals3 4: Let us see
neither wood nymphs, nor the lips of Diana, nor Faunus, when he tramples the
plains in the midst of the day (Grotius). The Hebrews say that in the tenth
hour of the day (which is to us the fourth past noon [Drusius’ Of Sacred
Observations]) this occurred (just as also in this hour they rebelled, says Raschi,
that is, Rabbi Salomon) (de Dieu). Fuller thus explains it as, the voice of God,
who was walking toward the wind (or in the direction of the wind) of that day,
or, toward the breeze, I understand, which is worthy to be earnestly desired, as
men are wont to do. Thus it denotes, not so much a time, but motion toward a
place. 0Anqrwpopaqwj~ /anthropopathically these things are attributed to
Christ, who here appeared in human form (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:5).
Theodotion translates: e0n tw|~ pneu/mati proj_ kata&yucin thj~ h9me/raj
(concerning which interpretation, see Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:5), that is,
in the breezing blowing for the cooling of that day (Fuller, likewise Drusius).
This is not without mystery, for God reveals Himself by means of His voice, in
the midst of the wind, and about the time of the evening, so that He might
foreshadow the advent of Christ (who is the Voice of heaven), in the evening of
the day, that is, in the last days, whose it is to refresh the conscience. Also

1 Jonah ibn Genach (c. 990-c. 1050) was a Spanish rabbi. He exerted a heavy
influence upon Jewish exegesis of the Scriptures through his works in Hebrew
grammar and lexicography.
2 Theocritus was a Greek poet, who labored during the third century BC.
3 Fasti.

195

about the time of the evening the dove returned to Noah1 (Fagius). Thus they
are panicstruck, so that they, in clear daylight, were afraid on account of the
sound of the wind. What if He had come in darkness and night? They lost faith
in God (Munster). Foolishly, they flee Him whom they are not able to escape
(Munster, Fagius), rather to whom they ought to flee (Fagius).

About evening, the time when men use to walk abroad to recreate
themselves, when there was a cool and refreshing wind, whereby also the voice
of the Lord was more speedily and effectually conveyed to Adam and his wife.
Adam and his wife hid themselves: being sensible of God’s approach, and filled
with shame and conscience of their own guilt, and dread of judgment, instead
of flying to God for mercy, they foolishly attempted to run away from him,
whom it was impossible to avoid.

[In the midst of the tree, NghF@ a C(' Kw7 Otb]@; Some refer this to the
tree in relation to which they had failed, as if they would hide themselves under
the same (Fagius). But tree is put for trees through an enallage of number
(Menochius, thus Fagius, Vatablus, Drusius).

Verse 9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him,
Where art thou?

[He cried out2] Not, He said, but, He called. It carries emphasis,
according to the Hebrews, to signify that man is separated from God by a great
distance, and is to be called with shouts (Fagius).

[Where are you?] He asks, not because He is ignorant, but so that He
might chide (Lyra), so that He might compel him unto the acknowledgment
and confession of his sin (Fagius). There are some who maintain that this is a
taunt, so that thereupon he might know from how great a blessedness he had
fallen. For thus we are accustomed to cry out to those, who, having rashly
undertaken matters which are beyond men, either give up decency, or throw
themselves into danger (Fagius). Saint Ambrose’s Concerning Paradise3 14:
Where is (he says) thy confidence that thou hast a thorough knowledge of
yourself? This fear is an admission of fault; thine hiding place is an admission of
transgression. Where art thou then? Not in what place, I ask, but in what
condition; to what place has thy sin led thee, that thou wouldest flee from thy
God, whom previously thou soughtest (Menochius)? Where art thou? Is not
the whole world manifest before me, darkness as well as light? And how
thinkest thou that thou art able hide from my face? (Targum Jerusalem). The
Hebrew is hk@fy%)E .a It appears to be a composite from y)/alas and k/thee; that

1 Genesis 8:11.
2 )rFq;y%IwA, He called.
3 De Paradiso.

196

is, woe unto thee, or, alas, where art thou? The pronoun carries emphasis:
Thou, with so many and so great benefits liberally bestowed by me (Picherel).

The Lord God called with a loud voice: Thou whom I have so highly
obliged, whither and wherefore dost thou run away from me, thy Friend and
Father, whose presence was lately so sweet and acceptable to thee? In what
place, or rather in what condition, art thou? What is the cause of this sudden
and wonderful change? This he asks, not that he was ignorant of it, but to make
way for the following sentence, and to set a pattern for all judges, that they
should examine the offender, and inquire into the offence, before they proceed
to punishment.

Verse 10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself (Gen. 2:25; Ex. 3:6; 1 John 3:20).

[I heard] What things are obvious, he admits, but he keeps back the
cause, namely, sin, as the Hebrews note (Fagius, Piscator, Ainsworth).

He confesseth his nakedness, which was evident, but saith nothing of
his sin; which, if possible, he would have hid: see Job 31:33. And he is grieved
for the shameful effects of his sin, but not yet sincerely penitent for his sin.

[And I hid, )b'xf)w' F] The w/and is posited for therefore (Vatablus).
I hid myself, out of reverence to thy glorious majesty.

Verse 11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast
thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

[Naked] With respect to the whole body (more than the genitals
alone), which arouses shame in the sight if only of the honorable man
(Bonfrerius).

[Who told] Namely, that your nudity is shameful (Lyra). He was not
ignorant previously that he was naked, but he was not experiencing that which
made nudity shameful, namely, the shameful motion of the reproductive
members (Estius).

That thou wast naked; or, that thy nakedness, which lately was thy
glory, was now become matter of shame.

[Of which I had commanded] He holds forth the precept, so that he
might acknowledge sin. For this use of the precept of God is for the sake of
transgressors (Fagius).

Whereof I commanded thee; concerning which I gave thee so severe a
charge upon pain of death.

[That thou shouldest not eat, lk)f j yti@l;bil]; ytli@ b; il; has the same
signification as )$l#@ ,e$ that not, which the Hebrews observe (Fagius). Before
condemnation, He questions them. No one ought to be condemned without an
inquisition. He did not question the serpent, because the Devil, who was

197

speaking in the serpent, would have already been damned for sin (Lyra on verse
13).

Verse 12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with
me (Gen. 2:18), she gave me of the tree, and I did eat (Job 31:33; Prov.
28:13).

[The woman] Upright in the beginning, he is his own accuser: Before
us Adam goes to seek excuses for his sins (Menochius out of Lapide).

[Whom thou gavest to me as a companion, ydImf@(]i With me
(Septuagint, Chaldean, Munster, Pagnine, Montanus). So that she might be
with me (Syriac, Fagius, Oleaster, Ainsworth). It carries emphasis, from
dm(a f, to stand (namely, in order to minister; in which sense Abraham was
standing under the tree in Genesis 18 and before the Lord1); that is to say, so
that she might stand at hand, serve, show obedience; waiting upon me
(Malvenda). Now, hm@ (@f i (not ydmI (@f i) is used of the man; she gave to her
husband who was with her (verse 6). For in one way Adam was obliged to
attend to his wife, namely, as her head; in another way, she was obliged to
attend to her husband, namely, as an attendant and servant. But they both
perverted this order (Fagius). The ydmI f(@ i denotes: 1. accompaniment and
union. It has respect to the communion and bond of marriage; that is to say,
whom thou hast joined to me by indissoluble matrimony. 2. Rule over
something: as in Psalm 50:11, it is ydIm(f@ i/mine, what, just before this,
yt@(i ;dAyF, I knew, and, in verse 10, yl,i is mine;2 that is to say, All things are
mine; I have power over them. Thus it could be translated with me and before
me, in my presence, just as one might regard the word wOd@g:n,E suited to him, in
Genesis 2:20 (Picherel). He shifts the sin to God, as if He were miserly or
insufficiently provident (Fagius). Thou shouldest not have made such an
alluring mate: thou wert obliged to foresee (Menochius). Thus sin, by its own
weight, always draws unto sin, so that the sinner would rather accuse God than
acknowledge his sin (Munster).

I have eaten, not by my own choice and inclination, but by the
persuasion of this woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, as a meet help, a
faithful friend, and constant companion, supposing that it was not good for me
to be alone, which the event shows would have been much better for me. Thus
Adam excuseth himself, and chargeth God foolishly with his sin. I did eat, out

1 Genesis 18:8, 22.
2 Psalm 50:10, 11: “For every beast of the forest is mine (yl)i , and the cattle upon a
thousand hills. I know (yt(@i d; Ay)F all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of
the field are mine (ydIm(@f i).”

198

of complacency to her, not from any evil design against thee.

Verse 13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that
thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat
(Gen. 3:4; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14).

[He said] He disregards the excuse of Adam as frivolous and worthy of
punishment (Menochius).

[Why hast thou done this?] Thus it is rendered by Munster, Pagnine,
and Tirinus, as if hmf/what had been put for hmlf@ f/why (Piscator). What hast
thou done? (Arabic). What is this thou hast done? (Montanus, Septuagint,
Chaldean, Samaritan Text). What is this that thou hast done? (Junius and
Tremellius, Syriac), with the pronoun r#)$e j/that supplied. I do not reject this
(Piscator). I translate it, What is it which thou hast done? And why didst thou
do it? I add this because the woman responds to the latter question, not to the
former, What hast thou done? that is to say, Thou hast admitted such grave
calamity! But why thou didst thou admit it? (Picherel). How great a crime
thou hast perpetrated! It is to be read with amazement (Vatablus).

[This] In as much as you have both transgressed the Law and lured
your husband (Fagius). t)zo /this, that is, this thing, stated without further
qualification, as in Psalm 27:4, txa)a/one is put for one thing, I have asked.
Question: Why does He speak to Eve, since not Eve, but Adam, had received
the Law? The Hebrews respond that the Law was also given to Eve, for she was
bone of his bones, etc., and because He wished her to acknowledge her sin, not
to cast it upon another (Fagius).

How heinous a crime hast thou committed! What a world of mischief
hast thou by this one act brought upon thyself and all thy posterity? Or, why
hast thou done this? What causes or motives couldst thou have for so wicked
an action? What need hadst thou of meddling with this forbidden fruit, when I
had given thee so large and liberal an allowance?

[The serpent] Which thou (also certainly a shift) didst create and
permit to live here in our midst (Menochius).

[He deceived me, ynI)ay#$%ihi] He urged, persuaded (Fagius, Drusius).
He caused me to err (Pagnine, Onkelos, Targum Jerusalem in Fagius). He
seduced (Malvenda). He led me astray (Pagnine), namely, from truth and
virtue (Malvenda). Others: He encouraged me into vain pride and into an
appetite for the knowledge of good and evil. Others: He oppressed, or, he
robbed me, from h)f#f,$ to smash into ruins. Others: He effected in me, he
obtained what he desired. Others: He duped me (Malvenda).

[And I ate, lk)' owF] This is a present, masculine participle, not without
mystery; in as much as it teaches: 1. that the soul of the woman was masculine