Satans repartee with Eve

Genesis 3:2-3 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 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.

Anglican cleric W. H. Griffith Thomas comments on a “3-fold error” in the words of Eve. He writes, “In her reply to his [the serpent’s] question, she perverted and misquoted three times the divine law to which she and Adam were subject: (1) She disparaged her privileges by misquoting the terms of the Divine permission as to the other trees. (2) She overstated the restrictions by misquoting the Divine prohibition. (3) She underrated her obligations by misquoting the Divine penalty.” ( W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary, London: Religious Tract Society, 1909, p. 48.)

A preacher could get ahold of that and shout, “That’ll preach.” Yes, but should it? There is another “that’ll preach” moment in Genesis 3 that should be approached circumspectly. It might be thrilling to hear someone preach on Adam blaming Eve, and Eve blaming the serpent. If so, where is their repentance? If what they say is read sans the emotion we add to it, we might see that they both tell the story exactly as it happened.

First, I think the objections about “ye-thou” and the “lest ye die” are picayune. There is little different there in what Eve said and what God said. When God gives the command as recorded in Gen. 2:15-17, there is no “ye” present. After the forming of Eve (2:18-25), then the command is to them both. I can’t see much to argue about there. “Lest ye die” seems to allude to the reason for not eating, the consequence being death (as opposed to meaning “ye might die”). Not different from thou shalt surely die, just saying it in a different context.

The main part of Eve’s statement that deserves real contemplation is “neither shall ye touch it.” Theologically, we cannot believe that Eve added to God’s word, which is a form of lying (Romans 3:4), and lying is a sin (Ex. 20:16; Lev. 6:1-7). If “neither shall touch it” is adding to God’s word, then either this is a sin and Eve sinned before and apart from partaking the forbidden fruit, OR the only sin that could happen in the Garden at this time was directly disobeying God’s command about partaking the forbidden fruit. If the latter is accepted, then it was not wrong at that time to add to God’s word. Either option produces a dilemma.

We might ask, “Is this idiomatic speech?” Perhaps, though I am not satisfied whether a neither nor statement by Eve rises to an idiom here. Eve is saying “Neither touch it nor eat it.” Why a neither/nor? Maybe it is an emphatic statement (in other words, added for emphasis on the seriousness of the disobedience). If my mother put a pie on the pie rack and said, “Don’t touch it,” I would know that it meant don’t eat it. She could also say, “Don’t eat the pie – don’t even touch it!” It would mean the same thing, but with perhaps a bit more emphasis.

Ultimately, I think the theological aspect of the fall must drive us away from the idea that Eve sinned before and apart from partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!!

Here are thoughts from a couple of Bible commentators:

• Albert Barnes: “The woman gives the natural and distinct answer of unaffected sincerity to this suggestion. The deviations from the strict letter of the law are nothing more than the free and earnest expressions of her feelings. The expression, ‘neither shall ye touch it,’ merely implies that they were not to meddle with it, as a forbidden thing.”
• Matthew Poole: “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.”