C
Crumpy
Guest
Who knows why I am comparing a Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish commentary on Genesis? I don’t, but I learned a thing or two so far.
From the NAB:
3:1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”
3:2 The woman answered the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
3:3 it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’”
3:4 But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!
3:5 No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.”
3:6 The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
The Jewish commentary poses the question why Adam ate of the fruit. Well, we don’t know why, but they do note that the serpent was talking to both Adam and Eve, no matter what 3:4 says. This is so, because the word for “you” is the Hebrew plural.
The Protestant commentary notes that the serpent in v5 and the woman in v6 contradict God; note the use of the word “good” in those verses. God said that creation was “very good” but gave a command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Well, for me, judging things “good” is what gets me into a lot of trouble (sin), so I am impressed how the text and the commentaries so vividly portray that all-too-human tendency to use our free will for evil, rather than for good.
The “whole ballgame” starts right there – God wants us to use our free will to obey rather than to disobey.
(New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Jewish Publication Society Commentary on Genesis, and Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible)
From the NAB:
3:1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?”
3:2 The woman answered the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;
3:3 it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’”
3:4 But the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!
3:5 No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.”
3:6 The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
The Jewish commentary poses the question why Adam ate of the fruit. Well, we don’t know why, but they do note that the serpent was talking to both Adam and Eve, no matter what 3:4 says. This is so, because the word for “you” is the Hebrew plural.
The Protestant commentary notes that the serpent in v5 and the woman in v6 contradict God; note the use of the word “good” in those verses. God said that creation was “very good” but gave a command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Well, for me, judging things “good” is what gets me into a lot of trouble (sin), so I am impressed how the text and the commentaries so vividly portray that all-too-human tendency to use our free will for evil, rather than for good.
The “whole ballgame” starts right there – God wants us to use our free will to obey rather than to disobey.
(New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Jewish Publication Society Commentary on Genesis, and Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible)