Bible Commentary

Genesis 3:1-7

The Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1-7

The Pulpit Commentary · Joseph S. Exell and contributors · Public domain

How long the paradisiacal state of innocence and felicity continued the historian does not declare, probably as not falling within the scope of his immediate design. has been thought, though without sufficient reason, to hint that man's Eden life was of comparatively short duration. The present chapter relates the tragic incident which brought it to a termination. Into the question of the origin of moral evil in the universe it does not enter. The recta-physical problem of how the first thought of sin could arise in innocent beings it does not attempt to resolve. It seeks to explain the genesis of evil with reference to man. Nor even with regard to this does it aim at an exhaustive dissertation, but only at such a statement of its beginnings as shall demonstrate that God is not the author of sin, but that man, by his own free volition, brought his pristine state of purity and happiness to an end. A due regard to this, the specific object of the Mosaic narrative, will go far to answer not a few of the objections which have been taken to its historic credibility. Like the Mosaic record of creation, the Biblical story of the fall has been impugned on a variety of grounds.

1. The doctrine of a fall, which this chapter clearly teaches, has been assailed as inconsistent with the dictates of a speculative philosophy, if not also with the tenets of a Scriptural theology. While in the present narrative the origin of sin is distinctly traced back to the free volition of man acting without constraint, though not without temptation, in opposition to the Divine will, a more exact psychological analysis, it is alleged, declares it to have been from the first a necessity, either

2. The narrative of the fall has been impugned—

Recommended reading

More for Genesis 3:1-7

Continue with other commentaries and DiscipleDeck content connected to this verse, chapter, or topic.

Other commentaries

Matthew Henry on Genesis 3:1-5Genesis 3:1-5 · Matthew Henry Concise CommentarySatan assaulted our first parents, to draw them to sin, and the temptation proved fatal to them. The tempter was the devil, in the shape and likeness of a serpent. Satan's plan was to draw our first parents to sin, and…The Tempter's Subtlety; The Tempter's Importunity (b. c. 4004.)Genesis 3:1-5 · Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole BibleTHE TEMPTER'S SUBTLETY; THE TEMPTER'S IMPORTUNITY (B. C. 4004.) We have here an account of the temptation with which Satan assaulted our first parents, to draw them into sin, and which proved fatal to them. Here observe…The Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1-7Genesis 3:1-7 · The Pulpit CommentaryEXPOSITIONThe Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1Genesis 3:1 · The Pulpit CommentaryNow (literally, and) the serpent. Nachash, from nachash— (a) To make naked; whence atom, plural arumim, naked (Genesis 2:25). (b) To crafty (1 Samuel 23:22). If applied to the serpent in the sense of πανοῦ ργος (Aquila…The Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1Genesis 3:1 · The Pulpit CommentaryThe tempter. I. WHO TEMPTS? 1. Not the mere serpent. 2. A higher power of evil. 3. This higher power a person. 4. The leader of the fallen angels. II. WHY PERMITTED? Easy to see why moved; why permitted, a mystery. But…The Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1-7Genesis 3:1-7 · The Pulpit CommentaryThe moral chaos before the moral restoration. Hitherto the moral nature of man may be said to be absorbed in his religious nature. He has held intercourse with his Creator. He has ruled earth as "the paragon of animals.…
commentaryMatthew Henry on Genesis 3:1-5Satan assaulted our first parents, to draw them to sin, and the temptation proved fatal to them. The tempter was the devil, in the shape and likeness of a serpent. Satan's plan was to draw our first parents to sin, and…Matthew HenrycommentaryThe Tempter's Subtlety; The Tempter's Importunity (b. c. 4004.)THE TEMPTER'S SUBTLETY; THE TEMPTER'S IMPORTUNITY (B. C. 4004.) We have here an account of the temptation with which Satan assaulted our first parents, to draw them into sin, and which proved fatal to them. Here observe…Matthew HenrycommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1-7EXPOSITIONJoseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1-7The moral chaos before the moral restoration. Hitherto the moral nature of man may be said to be absorbed in his religious nature. He has held intercourse with his Creator. He has ruled earth as "the paragon of animals.…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1The tempter. I. WHO TEMPTS? 1. Not the mere serpent. 2. A higher power of evil. 3. This higher power a person. 4. The leader of the fallen angels. II. WHY PERMITTED? Easy to see why moved; why permitted, a mystery. But…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:1Now (literally, and) the serpent. Nachash, from nachash— (a) To make naked; whence atom, plural arumim, naked (Genesis 2:25). (b) To crafty (1 Samuel 23:22). If applied to the serpent in the sense of πανοῦ ργος (Aquila…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:4The tempter's chief weapon. Narrative of the fall is of interest not only as the record of how mankind became sinful, but as showing the working of that "lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:11) by which the tempter continually seek…Joseph S. Exell and contributorscommentaryThe Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 3:4And the serpent said unto the woman. "As God had preached to Adam, so Satan now also preaches to Eve … The object of Satan was to draw away Eve by his word or saying from that which God had said" (Luther). Ye shall not…Joseph S. Exell and contributors