Genesis 3: A Commentary

Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

By James M. Rochford

God gave the first humans authority over the Garden and the Planet Earth (Gen. 1:28). They should have had the faith to throw the Serpent out of God’s Garden, but instead, the Serpent throws them out.

Notice in this section how Satan argues with Eve. He uses half-truths, subtle questioning, and attacks the character of God. He only speaks twice, but he doesn’t need to speak that much. Once he implants his idea into the couple’s mind, they are taken with it. This passage shows the power of truth, and how we need to take our thoughts captive (2 Cor. 10:5).

As you read this chapter, ask yourself: “What can we learn about how Satan operates from this chapter? What can we learn about God’s grace from this chapter? What can we learn about human nature from this chapter?” (See also “Total Depravity”).

(3:1) “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, ‘Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?’”

Immediately, we notice that this is no ordinary Serpent. For one, the word “Serpent” has the definite article (the serpent”).[1] Secondly, he’s a theologian who knows about God’s words (Gen. 2:17; 3:4). And thirdly, he can talk!

The word “serpent” (nāchash) is similar to the word for “divination” or “omens” (Num. 23:22; 24:1).[2] The verbal form “divined” (nāḥ) is also similar (Gen. 30:27, 44:5, 44:15, Lev. 19:26, Deut. 18:10). This could be a literary connection with occult practice. In the ancient Near East, snakes “were symbolic of life, wisdom, and chaos.”[3]

In the NT, we see that the “Serpent” is none other than Satan himself (Rev. 12:9; 20:2). Jesus said, “[The devil] was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn. 8:44; cf. Mt. 23:33). This reference to the “beginning” seems to point to Genesis 3. Other NT references assume that this narrative was historical as well (Rom. 16:20, 2 Cor. 11:3-4, 1 Tim. 2:14). But how should we understand this reference to the Serpent’s form? Two views are prominent:

OPTION #1. Satan possessed this Serpent. If Satan can possess human beings, then he surely could possess an animal. In fact, according to the gospels, demons possessed a herd of pigs (Mt. 8:31-32; Mk. 5:12-13; Lk. 8:33). So, this concept is not unprecedented in the Bible. A spiritual being like Satan could talk through a serpent just as easily as God could talk through a donkey (Num. 22:21-33), a burning bush (Ex. 3:4), or a human being (1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Cor. 5:20). Most interpreters hold this view.[4] The author of Numbers didn’t believe that donkeys could speak. Instead God himself had to open the animal’s mouth (Num. 22:28).[5]

OPTION #2. This language of “the Serpent” is a metaphorical title for Satan himself. For one, God had already created “creeping things” that crawled on their bellies, and he called them “good” (Gen. 1:24-25). Yet this Serpent is punished by being sent to crawl on the ground (Gen. 3:14). Second, metaphorical language surrounds the Serpent. His punishment of eating dust is likely metaphorical (Gen. 3:14). After all, snakes eat mice—not dust. This is most likely language used for being defeated by God. Similarly, the psalmist writes that the enemies of the king will “lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9). Moreover, this Serpent has “seed” (zeraʿ) or offspring that have hostility with Eve’s offspring (Gen. 3:15). Surely, Satan’s “seed” are metaphorical. Third, if a literal serpent started talking to Eve, we might imagine her running for her life, screaming, “What on Earth?! I just saw a talking snake!” Would Satan have taken the form of a snake, when he is such a beautiful being? (2 Cor. 11:14; Ezek. 28:13-15) Thus Walter Kaiser writes, “The designation ‘the serpent’ is probably a title, not the particular shape he assumed or the instrument he borrowed to manifest himself to the original pair.”[6] In this view, while the events of Genesis 3 are historical, it is possible that there is some symbolism in the text that describes this Serpent.

What do we learn about Satan?

He is a created being. Just as God “made” (ʿasah) the world and humans in the previous chapters, God also “made” (ʿasah) the Serpent (Gen. 3:1).

He is an intelligent being. He is “more crafty” than any other beast of the field. “Crafty” (ʿārûm) can be understood as a positive virtue of the wise (Prov. 12:16; 13:16) or as a negative quality (Job 5:12; 15:5; Ex. 21:14; Josh. 9:4). Satan was given incredible wisdom and intelligence, but since he fell, his mind split into a twisted, perverted, and psychotic intellect.

He is an enemy of God. Angels like Satan witnessed the glory of creation (Job 38:4-7), and now, Satan was watching God give dominion of this glorious creation over to these measly human beings (Gen. 1:28)! It must have been too much for him to bear. To deceive the first humans into abandoning God, Satan needed to properly accuse God’s character, rather than making a powerful display of authority.

He hates humanity. Since Satan cannot attack God, he sets his sights on those God loves. The term “crafty” (ʿārûm) is wordplay with the word “naked” (ʿārôm) in Genesis 2:25.[7]

He attacks God’s character and God’s word. Notice that he never tells these humans to eat the fruit! Instead, he undercuts their foundation by attacking God’s character. Like the film Inception, he places ideas in their minds that germinate and take root over time, eventually destroying them.

Notice that Satan subtly refers to God as Elohim (i.e. the Creator), rather than the Yahweh Elohim (i.e. the Covenant-Maker). Wenham writes, “God is just the remote creator, not Yahweh, Israel’s covenant partner.”[8]

“Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” This is a skeptical and cynical attitude toward God’s incredible provision and the freedom he gave to humanity. In reality, God said the complete opposite in Genesis 2:16 (“From any tree of the garden you may eat freely”). Moreover, this “incredulous tone… smuggles in the assumption that God’s word is subject to our judgment.”[9]

(3:2-3) “The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

Eve begins to lose the battle in her first rebuttal: (1) She doesn’t mention “every” tree that they were free to eat; (2) she refers to God as Elohim, rather than the Yahweh, using Satan’s definition of God—not the true definition; (3) she adds restrictions that God never added (“You shall not… touch it, or you will die”). This is the first recording of faulty religious thinking.

She has (1) a low view of God’s provision, (2) a low view of God, and (3) a hyper-restrictive view of God’s will.

(3:4) “The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die!’”

Why is the Serpent called “crafty”? We find out in this verse. He never calls on the woman to eat the fruit. Instead, he carefully persuades her that God is not good, and his word is not trustworthy.

Notice that the first doctrinal heresy in the Bible is a denial of God’s judgment (“You surely will not die!”). Today, God’s judgment is still denied by many skeptics and so-called Christian teachers.

(3:5) “‘For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’”

The original sin—in fact, the root of all sin—was the desire to be “like God.” We’d rather be at the center of the universe, than accept a good world where God rules.

Sadly, the first humans didn’t remember that God had already made the two of them “like” himself. He made humans in his image and “likeness” (Gen. 1:26).

(3:6) “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”

People often call “sin” an “accident” or a “mistake.” But eating the fruit was no “accident” or “mistake.” An “accident” is when I bump my elbow into a glass of milk, spilling it on the floor. A “mistake” is when I think that 3 plus 4 equals 10. This was far different! There weren’t a multitude of laws that would confuse them—only one. Grabbing, eating, and chewing the fruit was a deliberate, volitional choice—not a mere accident or mistake.

In reality, every other tree that God had created was “pleasing to the sight and good for food” (Gen. 2:9). Why was this tree so unique? It wasn’t the fruit, but Eve’s distrust of God.

Up until this point, God was the one who saw what was “good.” Here the woman is usurping God’s role, determining “the good” for herself.

The battle was fought and lost in their beliefs. Once the distorted beliefs were created, the behavior followed almost immediately. Sailhamer notes, “How quickly the transgression comes once the decision has been made!”[10] The deceit led to desire which led to death!

“…and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” Adam was standing there the entire time! In the Hebrew, Satan addresses the couple with the plural “you,” also implying that Adam was there. What was he doing? What was he thinking? Nothing! The passivity of Adam has passed down to all of his sons throughout history, doing nothing in the presence of sin and evil.

(3:7) “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.”

God had “made” an entire world and universe for humanity (1:7, 1:11, 1:26, 1:31; 2:18). Here, the humans “made” something for themselves: loincloths.

“Naked” (ʿêrōm) is different than the word “naked” (ʿārôm) in Genesis 2:25. This term is used of God’s punishment (Deut. 28:48).[11]

(3:8) “They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.”

Satan and Eve were discussing “God” (Elohim) in their conversation, but Moses reintroduces Him as the “Lord God” (Yahweh Elohim). God still wants to make a covenant with his people. The sound is most likely God calling out to them—not his footsteps (Gen. 3:9).[12] They were scared of God’s voice as he called to them. What used to be a pleasant sound has become terrifying. This is similar to how the Israelites were afraid of the sound of God at Mount Sinai (Deut. 5:25; 18:16; Ex. 20:18-21). There, the people pled with Moses, “do not have God speak to us or we will die” (Ex. 20:19 NIV). People continue to flee in fear from the sound of God’s call today. They still wonder if they should trust him and run to him, or if they should hide and flee.

(3:9) “Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’”

Critics allege that God is not pictured as omniscient (or “all knowing”), because he needs to ask this question. This is simply nonsense. Have they never related to a child who is in trouble? Have they never asked a classroom a question to get them thinking? God asked this question to give them an opportunity to come forward and confess. Good counselors know to ask questions—even if they already know the answer before they ask it. In the very next chapter of Genesis, we see that God asked Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” (Gen. 4:9) However, when Abel lied to him, God already knew the answer to his own question (v.10).

Notice as well that God never refutes the accusations of the first humans or the Serpent. He sees no need to defend his own character. He asks the questions—not us. We answer to him—not the other way around.

(3:10) “He said, ‘I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.’”

We are naturally still afraid to come into God’s presence after we sin. We’d rather hide from him, than to come into his presence (Jn. 3:19-20). We can either approach God out of fear or out of faith (1 Jn. 4:18-19).

Adam says, I hid myself,” rather than “we hid ourselves.” We are already seeing that there is relational separation between the first couple.

(3:11) “And He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’”

Because of his order of questioning, we can assume that God views Adam as the most responsible, Eve as the second most responsible, and Satan as the third most responsible. Paul surely places the guilt primarily with Adam—not Eve (Rom. 5:12ff).

Why does God question the first humans, but not the Serpent? Waltke notes that he has no need to question Satan, because Satan has already rejected redemption.[13]

(3:12) “The man said, ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.’”

The woman was God’s great gift for Adam. It was not good for Adam to be alone (Gen. 2:18), so God gave him Eve. When Adam first met Eve, he burst into poetry (Gen. 2:23). Now, all of those memories have been twisted and distorted by sin.

In Hebrew, the “she” is emphatic.[14] He is emphatically blaming his wife, spitting the words venomously at God. Adam is using God’s good provision against God in his argument, blaming God for the catastrophe in which he finds himself.

Notice that Adam does confess (“…and I ate”), but this is only after blame shifting and making numerous qualifications. God doesn’t take this as an authentic confess, because it is prefaced by such vitriol. Similarly, people today will admit their faults, but often only after finger pointing at everyone else in the process. This is why Jesus tells us to “first” get the log out of our own eye (Mt. 7:3-5). Adam—like many people today—has this order reversed.

(3:13) “Then the Lord God said to the woman, ‘What is this you have done?’ And the woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’”

Like Adam, Eve needs to blame the Serpent. Also like Adam, she admits that she ate the fruit, but only after blame shifting and finger pointing. Even today, many skeptics balk at the idea that God would allow Satan to exist in order to tempt humans. But God sees things differently. No one can get away with the excuse “the devil made me do it.” Satan doesn’t force us, but only persuades us.

(3:14) “The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go and dust you will eat all the days of your life.’”

Further wordplay occurs: the Serpent goes from being “crafty” (ʿārûm) to being “cursed” (ʾārûr). Boice comments, “Satan ate dust then. He will always eat it. For even in Isaiah’s great description of earth’s golden age it is said, ‘The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent’s food’ (Isa. 65:25).”[15]

Is this a mythological explanation for how serpents lost their legs? No, this is not mythological (or etiological) literature, but rather, it is metaphorical language for the Serpent’s judgment. For one, snakes do not literally eat dust, but mice, lizards, etc. Second, this language is “rhetorically high (set as poetry in English Bibles).”[16] Third, other passages in the OT use this language to refer to judgment and humiliation.[17]

“[The evil nations] will lick the dust like a serpent, like reptiles of the earth. They will come trembling out of their fortresses; to the LORD our God they will come in dread and they will be afraid before You” (Mic. 7:17; cf. Isa. 65:25).

“Why do You hide Your face and forget our affliction and our oppression? 25 For our soul has sunk down into the dust; our body cleaves to the earth” (Ps. 44:24-25).

“Let the nomads of the desert bow before [the king of Israel], and his enemies lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9).

“The unassailable fortifications of your walls He will bring down, lay low and cast to the ground, even to the dust” (Isa. 25:12).

Therefore, the language of “dust you will eat” refers to judgment, humiliation, and terror. Likewise, the language of “on your belly you shall go” refers “not to the mode of travel but to cringing”[18] and perhaps bowing in submission. Kidner rejects the view that this is “merely aetiology” for “how the serpent lost its legs.”[19] Instead, this shows how this is symbolic of defeat. This is similar, he argues, to the “significance,” not the “existence,” of the rainbow in Genesis 9:3. The curse of the Serpent utilizes symbolic language.[20]

Young Earth Perspective: YECs see this passage as describing a physiological change in snakes. Sarfati writes, “We see here the first signs that Adam’s sin would have cosmic impact. The animals were also cursed, but the serpent ‘above all’ with symbols of utter degradation. The serpent would slither on its belly, i.e. creep, which later was one mark of an unclean animal (Leviticus 11:42). So one result of sin was that God somehow changed the snake’s body—and its DNA along with it—so that snakes from that day forth would always slither.”[21] Again, we see that this hermeneutic easily results in literalism. Why would God curse a physical race of snakes for something that Satan did? Rather than seeing this as judgment for Satan, they see this as a cursing for snakes.

Young Earth Perspective: While noting that snakes eat animals and not dust, Sarfati writes, “Snakes literally do eat dust as well. In the roof of a snake’s mouth, there is an organ called the vomeronasal organ (VNO) or Jacobson’s organ. Like the sense of smell, it is a system designed to detect many different kinds of chemicals. But the VNO specializes in non-volatile chemicals, so requires direct physical contact. The snake achieves this with its forked and constantly flicking tongue. This picks up dust on the points of the fork, then carries the samples to the matching pair of sensory organs inside the mouth. As with many features of animals in this fallen world, this could have been an adaptation of an existing design, or latent design features that God activated at the Fall.”[22]

(3:15) “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

While some that “seed” (zeraʿ) refers to male “semen,” the word clearly has a broader semantic range, because women can have “seed” (Gen. 16:10; 24:60; 1 Sam. 1:11). Moreover, the “seed” of the Serpent must refer to non-literal descendants—not literal offspring.

Does this passage predict the coming of Jesus? We think so for a number of reasons:

First, the grammar points to a singular person. “His heel” is masculine singular in Hebrew.[23] There were only two people living in the Garden at this time, and Adam never crushed the Serpent’s head. Moreover, the text uses the future tense: “He will crush your head” (NIV). This is predicting a future destroyer of the Serpent.

Second, it occurs immediately after the moral Fall. Arnold Fruchtenbaum correctly observes, “It is no surprise that the very first messianic prophecy should occur within the context of the Fall. If sin had not entered the world, there would never have been a need for a redeeming Messiah.”[24]

Third, Eve’s “seed” doesn’t crush the Serpent’s “seed.” Rather, her seed crushes the Serpent himself!

Paul applies this passage to the Body of Christ (Rom. 16:20; cf. Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:13; Lk. 10:16; 1 Pet. 4:11; Acts 9:4).

(3:16) “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’”

Does God sanction men ruling over their wives? This passage is descriptive—not prescriptive. It is a picture of the Curse apart from God—not a picture of God’s ideal picture of marriage. The Hebrew word (teshuqah) comes up later with the same grammatical construction in Genesis 4:7 (“sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”). Here, it is clear that the two parties are fighting to dominate and rule over one another. Kidner writes, “‘To love and to cherish’ becomes ‘To desire and to dominate’.”[25]

This is obviously not God’s ideal, and neither are painful child births and painful labor. We should mitigate against such sinful, controlling behavior, just as we would by giving an epidural to a birthing woman or killing weeds in our lawn.

If we want God’s ideal, we see this before the Fall in that both were made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27) and both were mutually corresponding and complementing each other (Gen. 2:18-20). Eve was supposed to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28) and also to correspond with her husband (Gen. 2:18). Now, sadly, the pain of childbirth will increase and her husband will rule over her. Men are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). Apart from God, however, men often abuse and dominate their wives.

Sadly, God’s description of this battle between husbands and wives is still disintegrating marriages today. Expert Chris Moles states that 85% of abuse victims are female, and the other 15% are often related to abused women reacting to their abuser. For further reading, see our earlier article “Christianity and Women.”

(3:17) “Then to Adam He said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

Even though Eve played a role in Adam’s fall, God didn’t blame Eve for Adam’s free choice. He held Adam responsible for his own actions. All of the blame shifting and finger pointing was for nothing. While other people might influence us to sin or even give us the opportunity to sin, we are still held responsible for our choices.

(3:18-19) “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’”

Young Earth Perspective: YECs hold that that Adam’s sin not only brought human death into the world, but also animal and ecological death. They cite Romans 8:18-25 as a parallel passage that supports this. We see serious difficulties with this interpretation.

For one, the curse only applies to the “ground” (ʾadamah), not the entire earth. The “ground” is the specific place where humans work (Gen. 3:23). Collins writes, “Nowhere does it imply that somehow human sin has distorted the workings of the natural elements: rather, agriculture is the arena in which God brings his chastisement upon human beings.”[26]

Second, the terms used in this passage in Genesis (3:16-19 LXX) do not correspond to those in Romans 8. While Paul writes, “the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth” (Rom. 8:21), this surely isn’t a reference to the natural childbirth of Genesis 3:16, and this “groaning” is surely metaphorical language.

Third, the “slavery” and “corruption” of Romans 8:21 refers to the moral decay as a result of human corruption. This is the same language used in the LXX in Genesis 6:11-13, also referring to moral decay. The corruption is not in ecology, but in humanity, which exploits the Earth. This is why the creation “waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:19), because they will be the ones who stop exploiting the Earth. Collins comments, “Paul here sees the resurrection of the sons of God as a blessing not only for themselves but also for the whole creation.”[27]

(3:20) “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”

Theistic Evolution Perspective: The view has great difficulty with this passage. Derek Kidner, a theistic evolutionist, admits, “If Genesis 3:20, naming Eve ‘mother of all living’, is intended as an anthropological definition, with the sense ‘ancestress of all humans’, the question is settled.”[28] How then does Kidner answer this difficulty? He continues, “The meaning of her name, ‘life’, and the attention drawn to it by the term ‘living’, suggest that the concern of the verse is to reiterate in this context of death the promise of salvation through ‘her seed’ (3:15).”[29] In other words, we need to take this as referring to Eve bringing spiritual life through the birth of the Messiah.

We find this interpretation to be untenable. Eve’s name (Khawwa) most likely means “Life-giver.”[30]

(3:21) “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” While the first humans tried to cover their shame with pathetic loincloths, God gave them entire tunics. God must have killed an animal to give them these clothes. This could be the first example of needing a substitionary sacrifice to cover our shame and nakedness,[31] just as the priests needed tunics to cover their nakedness (Ex. 28:42, 48). Others disagree, seeing this as “unduly subtle,”[32] but it fits with the context of the prediction of the Messiah (Gen. 3:15), as well as the recording of the first animal sacrifice.

(3:22) “Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.”

The first humans had become like God, but they were no longer with God. What if Hitler could’ve lived for 800 years or 8,000 years? How much havoc and horror could he have caused? How awful would it be if humans could live in a sinless state forever?

(3:24) “So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.” The mention of the “cherubim” later reoccur in later allusions to the Tabernacle and Temple, which would symbolize the way back to the Garden (Ex. 25:18-22; 26:31; 1 Kin. 6:23-29).[33] The humans were driven out to the “east” of the Garden, and people entered the Tabernacle on the eastern side.[34]

The language of “guarding” (shamar) the “tree of life” harkens back to Genesis 2:15, where Adam was installed to “keep” (shamar) the Garden. These first humans forfeited this in a great act of tragedy. The Proverbs later describe the tree of life (Prov. 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4).

[1] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.170.

[2] Alden, R. (1999). 1347 נחשׁ. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 572). Chicago: Moody Press.

[3] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.72.

[4] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.110.

John C. Lennox, Seven Days that Divide the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), p.83.

Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.72.

[5] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.63.

[6] Kaiser, Walter C. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub., 1995. 38.

[7] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.49.

[8] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.73.

[9] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.72.

[10] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.52.

[11] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.49.

[12] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.53.

[13] See footnote. Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.92.

[14] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.174.

[15] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.117.

[16] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.163.

[17] Waltke, B. K., & Fredricks, C. J. (2001). Genesis: a commentary (p. 93). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[18] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.163.

[19] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.75.

[20] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.64.

[21] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc., 10179.

[22] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc., 10191.

[23] Kaiser, Walter C. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub., 1995. 39.

[24] Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Messianic Christology: a Study of Old Testament Prophecy concerning the First Coming of the Messiah. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1998. 14.

[25] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.76.

[26] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.164.

[27] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.184.

[28] See footnote. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.32.

[29] See footnote. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.32.

[30] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.125.

[31] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.58.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Complete Works of Francis A Schaeffer: a Christian Worldview. Volume Two: A Christian View of the Bible as Truth. Westchester, III: Crossway, 1994. 75.

[32] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.77.

[33] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.86.

[34] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.86.