SOURCE: “Genesis 2-3: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation,” Art and Meaning in Biblical Literature, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, 19, 1982, pp. 20-36.

[In the following essay, Hauser examines the literary devices and techniques by which the author of Genesisdevelops the theme of intimacy in chapter two of Genesis, and alienation in chapter three. Hauser maintains that the author uses this intimacy/alienation theme as a motif to both focus and integrate the narrative, and to emphasize the disorder and divisiveness of human life.]

The narrative in Genesis 2-3 is one of the better-known pieces of Western literature, largely because it has the ability to focus the reader's attention on key issues relating to man's existence. The writer has artfully woven his story, using a limited number of characters and objects to present in brief but moving form the story of man's fall. Any attempt to make a complete analysis of this writer's work would be a major undertaking, especially when one considers the complexity of issues such as the role and identity of the serpent, or the form and function of the knowledge that woman so strongly desires. In this study I have a fairly limited goal: to analyze the writer's development of the two-dimensional theme of intimacy and alienation. These are my words, not his, but it is my conviction that they clearly express a major motif the writer has used to focus and integrate his narrative. As I analyze this motif, I will pay special attention to the ways in which the writer leads his audience, by means of numerous literary devices, to experience the shattering of the closely-knit created order and the onslaught of that divisiveness which both writer and reader know to be a part of their everyday life.

Of necessity, this study will fall into two parts. The first will treat the development of the theme of intimacy in Genesis 2. The second will analyze the theme of alienation as it unfolds in Genesis 3.

I

In ch.2 the writer weaves several components into an intimate picture of harmony, with all revolving around man, the first and central element in the created order. These components are: the ground (h’dmh); the Lord God (yhwh ’lhym); the garden (hgn) and its trees (kl ‘ts); the animals; and woman (’shh). A study of select verses from this chapter will show in detail how the writer has used various stylistic devices to convey the theme of intimacy.

Verse 7. wyytsr yhwh ’lhym ’t h’dm (then the Lord God molded man). The verb ytsr (to form, mold) underlines the intimacy between God and man. God does not simply create man or bring him into being: he takes pains with him, just as a potter would in forming a fine vessel. Man is therefore most special.

‘pr mn h’dmh (dust from the ground). This phrase points to man's close association with the ground: ’dm is taken from ’dmh. The Hebrew mind viewed the similarity of sounds, as here with the words ’dm and ’dmh, as a key to the interrelatedness of the persons, objects, or concepts embodied in the words. In subsequent verses the writer will develop this association of man with the ground, as when God causes trees to grow out of the ground to provide food for man (2:9,16), or when God forms animals out of the ground as companions for man (2:19). Furthermore, the phrase ^cpr mn h’dmh forms an inclusio with 3:19. Man is formed by God from the dust of the ground (2:7): after man has disrupted creation he must return to the ground as dust (3:19). Significantly, even though ’dmh is used repeatedly in chs. 2 and 3, 2:7 and 3:19 are the only two points where ’dmh and ^cpr are directly associated with one another. As a result, the statement of consequences in 3:19 harks back directly to the time of beginning, making more poignant man's fall.

wypch b’pyw nshmt chyym wyhy h’dm lnpsh chyh (and he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature). In addition to further developing God's closeness to man during the act of creation, these words stress through repetition the gift of life that man has received. In a fashion reminiscent of Hebrew poetry, the writer parallels nshmt chyym (breath of life) with lnpsh chyh (living creature). The rest of ch.2 continues to stress the gift of life, life which is created for the benefit of man and in order to provide him with companionship. It is in 3:19 that the gift of life is withdrawn; thus, the life-death sequence forms a further link between 2:7 and 3:19.

Verse 8. The garden is created for man. The writer emphasizes this fact by having God plant it immediately after man receives life, and by having God set the man in the garden immediately after it is planted.¹wysm shm ’t h’dm ’shr ytsr (and there he set the man whom he had formed). It would have been adequate for the writer to say, “And there he set the man.” He chooses, however, to add the last two words, using the identical verb (ytsr) from v.7, so that he may again stress the close association between man and God.

Verse 9. God causes the trees to grow mn h’dmh (from the ground). Man, who himself was taken from the ground, is able to enjoy through sight and taste the produce God has brought forth for him from the ground. Here man's enjoyment of the trees through sight and taste is part of God's plan. This sets the stage for 3:6, where enjoying the tree in the midst of the garden belongs to the sequence of disruption.

Verse 15. Man's closeness to the garden is again stressed. He lives in harmony with it, having the responsibility of caring for it, even while he enjoys its fruit (v.16). The verb ^cbd (to till, care for) points back to v.5, where there were as yet no plants, because there was no man to till (^cbd) the ground. Now, however, it is appropriate that God has planted trees in the garden: there is a man to care for them.

Verse 18. The writer now turns to the element of creation closest to man. He tells us this not only by using the programmatic clause, “It is not good that man should be alone,” but also by means of the phrase ‘zr kngdw (a companion corresponding to him, a helper like him). The writer also makes his point by means of a word play: although man is part of the created order, in close harmony with God and the garden, for which he cares (^cbd: v.15), he is alone (lbd), lacking a close companion, someone to care for him. The fact that a suitable companion is not found immediately, but only after prolonged effort by God, helps to emphasize the closeness to man of the ultimate companion, woman.

Verse 19. Like man, the animals are formed (ytsr) from the ground (’dmh). The writer thus represents God as attempting to create a companion for man who is as much like him as possible, being formed in the same way and being taken from the same source. This sets up the failure at the end of v.20, where none of the animals proves acceptable as man's companion. In light of this failure, woman, who is the appropriate companion, must be seen to be very close to man.

Verses 19-20. The writer places great stress on the naming of the animals by man. Three times the verb qr’ (to name) is used, and the noun shm (name) is used twice. The writer does not have God name the animals, because the man must examine each thoroughly and discern for himself a companion. This is stressed by the clause wyb’ ’l h’dm lr’wt mh yqr’ lw (and he brought them unto the man, to see what he would name them). This clause, the two lists naming categories of animals God has created (vv.19 and 20), and the clause wkl ’shr yqr’ lw h’dm npsh chyh hw’ shmw (and whatever the man named each living creature, that was its name), all serve to elongate the process of man's careful scrutinizing of the animals. The writer has chosen to employ this repetition so that the last phrase in v.20 will be even more emphatic: wl’dm l’ mts’ ‘zr kngdw (but there was not found for man a companion like him). Despite God's efforts to make the animals as much like man as possible, the long search is fruitless, and man is still alone. Man's being alone is especially stressed by the repetition of the phrase ‘zr kngdw (a companion like him) from v.18, which described the beginning of the search.

Verse 21. God now causes a deep sleep to fall upon man, because the creation of a companion for man literally requires that God take a part of man himself: wyqch ’cht mtsl‘tyw (and he took one of his ribs). The animals, like man, were taken from the ground, but this does not give them the closeness to man which woman will possess. The closing up of the wound with flesh (bsr) enables the writer to anticipate the end of the scene in v.24 where man and woman are described as one flesh.

Verse 22. The writer repeats the phrase “the rib which he had taken from man” in order to stress again the intimate connection between man and woman. wybn (and he built): the writer uses the verb bnh in order to stress the uniqueness of woman's creation; for whereas God formed (ytsr) man and the animals from the ground, he builds up woman from man's rib. While bnh normally means “to build,” in this context it carries the connotation of “building up,” since from a small part of man God fashions a companion for him.

wyb’h ’l h’dm (and he brought her to the man). These words echo God's bringing the animals to man in v.19. The writer deliberately parallels the wording in the two scenes so that the reader will keep the former scene in mind, and thereby focus on the contrast between woman, who indeed is man's ^czr kngdw (companion like him), and the animals, which are not. This phrase also suggests the way in which a father brings to a man his bride (cf. Gen. 29:23), thereby preparing the reader for v.24.

Verse 23. The writer uses this short piece of poetry to bring to a climax the search for man's ‘zr (helper). The demonstrative pronoun z’t (this)² is used three times in order to single out woman emphatically as the one who is suited to be man's companion. The poetry begins with man exclaiming z’t, as if he has been watching a long parade of nominees and now suddenly sees the right one. The next word, hp‘m (at last, finally), strengthens the image, declaring man's exasperation over the long wait. The second use of z’t, at the beginning of line two, again accentuates woman as she receives a name indicating her closeness to man. The final z’t, at the end of the short poem, forms a neat inclusio with the opening word, recalling man's earlier word of joy upon having at last found his companion. It also serves to emphasize for a third time woman's suitability as the writer repeats, in language closely parallel to v.22, the fact that woman is taken from man (m’ysh lqchh z’t).³

‘tsm m^ctsmy wbsr mbsry (bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh). This phrase is often used in the OT to express intimate family ties, as in Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1, 19:12-13. In such cases, a common ancestry is assumed. Here, however, woman is literally man's bone and flesh (see the writer's earlier setting of the stage in v.21). The writer knew that the special twist he was putting on the common phrase would seize the attention of his reader and therefore stress even more the intimacy of man and woman.⁴ Furthermore, ^ctsm (bone), because of its vocal similarity to ‘zr (companion), calls to the reader's attention the fact that woman, who is ^ctsm of man's ^ctsm, is also man's ^czr.

lz’t yqr’ ’shh (for this will be called “woman”). As with the animals, man names the woman, except that in this case he clearly perceives the woman to be his ‘zr kngdw (companion like him). The writer does not specifically use that phrase here. Rather, he employs a word play between ’shh (woman) and ’ysh (man) to make his point. While there is no etymological relationship between the two words⁵, the phonetic similarity makes a “common sense” case for the closeness between man and woman. Thus, while man's observation of each animal led him to give each a name, so his perception of woman causes him to give her a name closely akin to his.

Verse 24. Again the writer makes his point about woman being one flesh with man. As close as man is to his parents, who have given him life, he will be even closer to his wife, to whom he will cleave (dbq), and with whom he will become one flesh. But in this first instance the relationship is even closer, since the writer is clearly alluding to v.21, where the first woman is taken directly from man.⁶ Thus, the theme of alienation in ch.3 becomes even more tragic in light of this special oneness of the first man and woman.

Beginning with v.24, the word is not simply “woman,” but rather “his woman.” While the root word in Hebrew, ’shh, is the same as that used in vv.22-23, the sense of the passage makes “his wife” a better translation.

Verse 25. The reference in v.24 to being one flesh does not refer only to sexual relations (nor does it exclude them). In v.25 the sexual overtones are more pronounced. Throughout the OT there is basically a reserved attitude towards nakedness, with it being presumed that one's nakedness is, with only rare exception, to be shielded from the eyes of others. To expose someone's nakedness was to lay them bare before the world, to make them open and vulnerable, in a most thoroughgoing sense (Gen. 42:9,12; Isa. 20; Ezek. 16:22,39; 23:22-35; Hos. 2). It often means to expose one to shame (1 Sam. 20:30; 2 Sam. 10:4-5; Isa. 47:3; Nah. 3:5). Clearly, one's nakedness was seen as a very personal thing, a key to one's innermost self. It is for this reason that the phrase “to expose the nakedness of …” is often used to refer to sexual intercourse (Lev. 18; 20), wherein two people open themselves to one another in the most complete way possible. Thus, in v.25 man and his wife stand naked before one another, expose themselves completely to one another, and are not ashamed.⁷ Their vulnerability causes no anxiety, and their intimacy is complete. This sets the stage for ch.3, where the intimacy is disrupted, as expressed in part through the urgent need of man and woman to cover up their nakedness.

II

As we move into ch.3, the writer dramatically shifts the course of his narrative. The world of harmony and intimacy becomes a world of disruption and alienation. The sudden introduction of the serpent⁸ alerts the reader that he is entering a new stage of the narrative, as does also the format of the opening words, which may be translated “Now the serpent was …” The word ^crwm (cunning) also presents a new element, one which is accentuated by the writer's word play between it and the similar—sounding ‘rwmym (naked) from the previous verse. The nakedness of man and woman had given expression to their intimacy. Now, however, the cunning of the serpent injects into the created order a disruptive feature which grows until it reaches a climax in vv.12-13. The intimacy of ch.2 dissolves in a rapid sequence of events.

Verses 1-6. In the encounter between woman and the serpent, the writer subtly but firmly continues to stress the intimacy between man and woman. Throughout vv.1-6, plural verbs are used when the serpent addresses woman, as though man were also being addressed (e.g., v.5 whyytm k’lhym, and you will be like God), plural verbs are used to summarize God's command concerning the fruit of the trees (e.g., v.3 l’ t’klw, you shall not eat)⁹, and woman in speaking of herself and man uses a plural verb (v.2 n’kl, we may eat). The writer's use of these plural verbs¹⁰ implies that man and woman are one, that they cannot be dealt with or addressed apart from one another. When woman eats the fruit of the forbidden tree, her first act thereafter is to give some to man, and the writer further stresses the intimacy by using the phrase l’yshh ^cmh (to her husband with her). While the intimacy between man and woman continues to be stressed in the opening verses of ch.3, it will soon dissolve into open animosity between the two (especially in vv.12-13).

But if the intimacy between man and woman continues in vv.1-6, other elements of the intimate world described in ch.2 are already being torn apart. In a series of steps, the serpent moves woman from correcting the serpent's false statement about God's command, to doubting God's truthfulness, craving the forbidden fruit, and desiring to be wise like God. The intimacy with God is being destroyed by the serpent's cunning even before woman eats of the fruit.

Thus, in vv.1-6 the writer has artfully woven together his themes of intimacy and alienation. The intimacy of man and woman, the most complete form of intimacy described in ch.2, temporarily continues as a remnant of the harmonious world of ch.2, even while the disruption between God and his creatures grows at a rapid pace.

The writer has used the verb yd^c (to know) to strengthen the image of alienation. It is first used at the beginning of v.5, where the woman is told, “God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened.” The tone of this statement is that God is deliberately withholding information, desiring to keep his creatures in their place. Thus, woman is led to doubt God. Furthermore, the writer is using a word play, for at the end of v.5 there is the phrase “knowing good and evil.” Both forms of yd^c are participles. One might loosely paraphrase the sense of this word play as follows: God knows that … you will know good and evil (and he doesn’t want you to know!). This use of yd‘ in v.5 sets the stage for the knowledge that is actually received in v.7.

The writer also stresses the divine-human alienation by means of the clause whyytm k’lhym (and you will be like God) in v.5. It is noteworthy that, unlike Genesis 1, which stresses the intimacy between God and man by man's being made in the image and likeness of God, Genesis 2-3 stresses this intimacy by means of God's great care in the creation of man and man's companion. Although God forms man and breathes into him the breath of life, man is different from God, and has a clearly-defined place as God's creature (as in 2:16-17,18,21-22). Thus, any human desire to be like God places the creature in rebellion against his creator. He becomes estranged from God.

Beginning in v.5, the writer places great stress on the motif of seeing. Woman is told that their eyes (‘ynykm) will be opened if they eat the fruit of the tree (v.5). She saw (wtr’) that the tree was good for food (v.6), and that it was a delight to the eyes.¹¹ It is therefore ironical that after the fruit has been eaten (v.6), man and woman desire that they not be seen. Although the tree was a delight (t’wh) to the eyes (v.6), the “eye opening” experience they have after eating the fruit is anything but delightful, and there now is an attempt to cover up (vv.7-11). The writer uses this fear of being seen as a key means to express the alienation that destroys the harmony of ch.2.

The writer has devoted only a bare minimum of words to the act of eating, and even a majority of these words are used to indicate that man and woman take part in the act together.

Verse 7. Here the writer's interweaving of the themes of intimacy and alienation continues. As a result of their eating, both man and woman have their eyes opened. While they experience this together¹², the knowledge they have gained separates them. They can no longer tolerate being naked in one another's presence. Since, as noted earlier, one's nakedness is a key to one's innermost self, man and woman are pulling apart from one another: their intimacy is no longer complete.

The clause, “Then the eyes of the two of them were opened,” is rather surprising, given all the seeing that has taken place in the previous verses. The writer is using this clause to express the dramatic change that has come about as a result of the forbidden act. As a consequence of their rebellion against God, the man and woman see things very differently. The writer has also stressed this change by means of the word play on yd‘ (to know). While knowing had appeared very attractive in v.5, now man and woman know that they are alienated from one another, and they make clothes.

The influence of alienation is not yet complete. There is a remnant of togetherness, as indicated by the plural verbs describing the making of clothes, and by the plural lhm (for themselves).

Verses 8-10. God has been absent since 2:22, his absence being part of a deliberate pattern by the writer. In ch.2 God and man had been quite intimate, but the chapter closes by stressing the complete intimacy of man and woman (vv.23-25), and God recedes into the background. In ch.3 God continues to be absent as the forces of disruption are turned loose. His reappearance in v.8, however, brings the theme of alienation to its climax. Thus, not only does God create the most complete form of intimacy (2:22); he also brings out into the open all the divisive consequences of man's rebellion (3:9-13).

Upon hearing God, man and his wife hide themselves (wytchb’) in the midst of the trees of the garden. This act, their mutual hiding from God, is the last remnant of the “togetherness” of man and woman. Hereafter they act as individuals, and the plural verbs of vv.1-8 are absent. Similarly, the phrase “the man and his wife” (h’dm w’shtw) is the last time the two words are used in relation to one another to express intimacy. The complete phrase appears earlier in 2:25, and singly the words “his wife” (’shtw) and “her husband” (’yshh) appear in 2:24 and 3:6, respectively. This usage, along with the stress in 2:23-24 on man and woman being one flesh, is in stark contrast to the way man refers to woman in 3:12.

The phrase btwk ‘ts hgn (in the midst of the trees of the garden) points back to v.3. Woman had told the serpent that they were forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden (h‘ts ’shr btwk hgn). But she and her husband did eat of it. Thus, by using the same words (slightly rearranged) in v.8 the writer again brings to the reader's attention the offense that unleashed the forces of disruption and alienation, and now causes man and woman to hide from the presence of God (mpny yhwh ’lhym), with whom they formerly had been intimate. The writer is also being ironical: man and woman eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden in order to be like God (v.5); now, as a consequence of their eating, they hide from God in the midst of the trees of the garden.¹³ They sin by means of a tree; yet, they must hide among the trees. Thus, they cannot escape what they have done. Indeed, from this point on, everywhere man and woman turn they encounter as symbols of alienation what had formerly been elements of the created world of harmony.

Significantly, in v.9 God does not address man and woman together, but rather calls to man (wyqr’ yhwh ’lhym ’l h’dm). To stress further that God is speaking to man alone, the writer adds wy’mr lw (and he said to him), and ’ykh (where are you?), the latter having a second person masculine singular ending.¹⁴ The writer is thus suggesting, as he soon will stress more bluntly (v.12), that man and woman no longer are one.

Man's response (v.10) to God's question emphatically stresses man's aloneness. Verse 8 had begun by stating, “and they heard (wyshm‘w) the sound (qwl) of the Lord God walking in the garden (bgn).” In v.10 the words qwl, gn, and the root shm^c are repeated, so as to underline the parallelism between vv.8 and 10. This makes the singular form of shm‘ty (I heard) in v.10 stand out all the more in contrast to the plural form of v.8. Thus, in v.8 man and woman hear together; in v.10 man has become alienated to the point that he now perceives himself to have heard alone. Man's alienation is further underlined by the final verb w’chb’ (and I hid myself), which contrasts with the plural wytchb’ of v.8. The writer also stresses man's aloneness through the singular verb w’yr’ (and I was afraid) and through the phrase ky ^cyrm ’nky (because I was naked).

While the contrast between the plural forms of v.8 and the singular forms of v.10 stresses the alienation of man from woman, the writer also emphasizes man's alienation from God. Man hears God's voice in the garden, and is afraid. God heretofore has been very intimate with man, forming him from the dust of the ground, planting the garden for him, forming animals for him from the ground, and building up woman from the rib taken from man's side. All this, however, is now gone, as man fears the very one who has given him life and his world. Man is afraid, “Because I am naked,” and he hides himself. As noted earlier, one's nakedness was seen as a key to one's innermost self; as a consequence, being comfortably naked in another's presence was a sign of real intimacy. But now man must cover up, since he fears having God see him as he is.

Verse 11 stresses man's act of rebellion against God, which more than anything else is what he wishes to hide. It was after his eating that man became conscious of his nakedness, of his alienation. The writer uses God's questions to recall that for the reader: “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The double use of the verb ’kl (to eat) focuses the reader's attention even more sharply on the act, since this is the same verb used three times in v.6 to describe the act.¹⁵ Furthermore, the writer's emphasis on the fact that God commanded man not to eat of the tree helps stress even more man's alienation from God. The writer also continues to underline man's alienation from woman by having God address man with singular verbs and pronouns. Thus, man stands before God completely alone.

Verse 12. The motif of man's alienation from God and from woman reaches its climax in v.12. In previous scenes the intimacy between man and woman has been thoroughly developed, especially through the idea that man and woman are one flesh (2:23-25). Furthermore, when woman's relationship to man has been described, she has consistently been referred to as ’shtw (his wife; 2:24,25; 3:8). Now, however, man coldly passes the blame for his deed to “the woman” (h’shh):¹⁶ “she gave to me” (hw’ ntnh ly).¹⁷ To man she has become an object, not a companion, and the clause ’shr ntth ‘mdy (whom you gave to be with me) points the reader back to an earlier situation of intimacy which no longer exists. The alienation of man from woman is complete.

While God's question in v.11 called for a simple yes or no answer, man refuses to accept responsibility for what he has done. It is not only woman who is blamed, however, as indicated by the words ’shr ntth ‘mdy (whom you gave to be with me)¹⁸, which closely parallel the immediately following words hw’ ntnh ly (she gave me). Man is clearly saying that God is to blame, since God gave to man the woman who led him astray. Thus, not only has man ceased to see woman as a companion: he also has ceased to see God as a well-intentioned creator who provides man with all good things. The alienation of man from God is also complete.

As previously noted, ’kl (to eat) is used to point to the act of rebellion, most importantly in the twofold usage in v.11 and in the threefold usage in v.6. In v.12 it again serves this function in the clause hw’ ntnh ly mn h^cts w’kl (she gave to me from the tree, and I ate), which closely parallels the wording in v.6, wttn gm l’yshh ‘mh wy’kl (and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate). Furthermore, the double use of ntn in v.12 helps recall woman's giving of the fruit to man in v.6, and the use of ^cmdy (with me) in v.12 points back to ^cmh (with her) in v.6. Thus, in v.12 the writer has carefully constructed a number of links with the description of the act of rebellion in v.6. This is most appropriate, since it is in v.12 that the consequences of the act are most sharply focused.

Finally, man's concluding word, w’kl (and I ate) points once again to man's aloneness, since the verb is in the singular. This directly parallels the aloneness of woman in v.13, where her concluding word is exactly the same.

Verse 13. As was the case with man (v.12), woman refuses to shoulder any blame. She ignores man's claim that she had led him to sin, and instead passes to the serpent the blame for her own deed. Nevertheless, God's question to woman, “What is this that you have done?,” underlines the devastating nature of woman's deed. The tone of God's question is, “How could you do such a horrible thing?”¹⁹ The final word w’kl (and I ate), being in the singular, further stresses woman's aloneness and alienation from man.

Verses 14-19. There are a number of ways in which the writer expresses his motif of alienation in the poetry of these verses:

1.As in the previous section (3:9-13), the principal figures are each addressed separately by God. Their relationship to one another is consistently depicted as one of animosity and separation. There will be enmity and strife between the serpent and woman, and between the serpent's seed and woman's seed (3:15), which means all mankind (cf. 3:20). While man and woman remain together, they no longer are intimate in the way they were previously, since man will rule over his wife (3:16), and the woman will desire her husband (cf. 2:24-25).

2.The serpent is singled out from the cattle and the creatures of the field and cursed (3:14), because of what he has done.²⁰ The writer has stressed the serpent's role in causing alienation by paralleling ’rwr ’th mkl hbhmh wmkl chyt hsdh (cursed are you more than all the cattle and all the creatures of the field) with ‘rwm mkl chyt hsdh (more cunning than all the creatures of the field) from 3:1. Because the serpent was cunning (‘rwm), leading woman to eat of the fruit of the tree, he is now cursed (’rwr).

3.Man has become alienated from the ground. Although God formed man from the dust of the ground (h’dmh; 2:7), and from the ground created for man the trees of the garden (2:9) and the animals (2:19), man must now cope with a ground that is cursed, that has become his enemy (3:17-19). He must constantly wrestle with it to sustain his life, yet in the end his life must be surrendered to the ground. Thus, although he is one with it in his creation and in his death, he will throughout his life be alienated from his source. As noted previously (see my comments on 2:7), the writer uses ‘pr (dust) in conjunction with ’dmh in only two places: 2:7, where God forms man from the dust of the ground and in 3:19, where man's death is described. The writer thus gives the reader a subtle reminder of what could have been, man's ongoing, intimate relationship with God and the ground, even while the writer stresses the devastating consequences of man's rebellion against God.

4.The main verb used to describe man's rebellion against God was ’kl (to eat: cf. 3:1,2,3,5,6,11,12,13). The writer continues to use this verb in 3:17-19 in order to link the fact of man's rebellion with the consequences that follow. This is most clearly focused in v.17: because man ate of the tree from which God had forbidden him to eat, the ground will henceforth be cursed, causing man to eat in toil all his days (cf. also v.19). He will struggle with it, but it will bring forth thorns and thistles (v.18). Significantly, man will eat ^csb hsdh (the plants of the field): now that he has eaten of the tree in the midst of the garden, all the trees of the garden become unavailable to him.

5.The writer employs a word play between ^cts (tree) and ^ctsb (pain). ^cts has consistently been used to develop the theme of man's rebellion (3:1,2,3,6,8,11,12). Consequently, ^ctsb, with its similar sound, reminds the reader of the human rebellion even while describing woman's pain in childbearing (v.16) and man's toil in raising food (v.17). The offense of man and woman concerning the ‘ts results in their ‘tsb.

Verse 21. The act of “covering up” had earlier symbolized the first awareness of man and woman that they were alienated from God and from one another (vv.8-11). Now, the permanence of that alienation is stressed. The creator, who had made man and woman naked, in the most perfect form of intimacy, covers their nakedness, thereby acknowledging the ongoing nature of the divisiveness which man and woman have brought upon themselves. The fact that he makes for them garments of skins, as compared to the hastily-sewn aprons of fig leaves they had made for themselves, helps to emphasize the permanence of their need to cover up.

The words l’dm wl’shtw (for man and for his wife) hark back to the earlier intimacy described in 2:21-25, but they do so in a melancholy manner. As man and woman's clothing indicates, their relationship to one another will henceforth be quite different from what it was before the fall. The writer emphasizes this by repeating wylbshm (and he clothed them) after wy‘s … ktnwt ‘wr (and he made … garments of skins).

Verse 22. Chapter 2 shows man being given specific roles and functions within the created order, with definite bounds being set for man (e.g., 2:16-17). Most notably, although man is intimate with God, he is clearly subordinate to him (as in 2:18,21). In 3:22, however, emphasis is placed on man's attempts to be like God. Thus, man has stepped beyond the bounds set for him as creature, desiring instead to make himself creator.

hn h’dm hyh k’chd mmnw ld^ct twb wr‘ (Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil). These words echo the serpent's statement to the woman in 3:5, thereby reminding the reader at the close of the account of man's rebellion against his creator. It is not just that man has transgressed the bounds set for him: he threatens the creator's supremacy as creator.

This is especially brought out by the second half of v.22. Traditionally in the ancient Near East, one of the key boundaries between man and the gods is the fact that man is mortal whereas the gods are eternal (as, for example, in the Gilgamesh epic). In 3:22 God fears that man will attempt to transgress this boundary also (gm), since he has already acquired the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, man could attempt to be even more like God (3:5). The writer uses the idea of eating (’kl) from the tree (^cts) of life to parallel man's potential deed with his earlier act (3:1-6,11-13,17). God's status as creator is sorely threatened by man, and God takes stringent measures (vv.23-24) to guard this last divine possession from man.

Verse 23. Man was originally formed from the dust of the ground, and the writer throughout ch.2 (vv.7,9,19) notes the importance of the ground in the creation of man's world. As noted above, in 3:17-19 the writer stresses man's alienation by emphasizing the antagonism between man and the ground which has been brought about by man's act of rebellion. Verse 23 re-emphasizes that point through the words l^cbd ’t h’dmh ’shr lqch mshm (to till the ground from which he was taken). Thus, the result of man's alienation from God (v.22) is man's alienation from the very ground from which God had formed him.

Verse 24. In v.23 God had sent (shlch) man forth from the garden. Verse 24 repeats this for emphasis, only in stronger terms: wygrsh ’t h’dm (and he drove out the man). Man must not have access to the tree of life!²¹ This leads well into the final image of these two chapters. God places the cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life. There is now no turning back. Man has striven to be like God, and will always do so. God must take strong measures to see that man is kept in his place. The fact that God must act so decisively to keep his creatures in line re-emphasizes the radical victory of alienation.

SUMMARY

One of the main themes the writer of Genesis 2-3 has used to tie his story together is the motif of intimacy and alienation. This motif is developed in ch.2 by: the writer's depiction of God's care in forming man from the dust of the ground; God's creation of the garden for man, with its trees growing from the ground and providing man with food; God's forming the animals from the ground in an attempt to create a companion for man; God's creation of a companion for man who is literally a part of man; and the picture of man and woman being one, naked but yet completely at ease in one another's presence. This intimate world of harmony developed in ch.2 is shattered in ch.3. Although man and woman have a set place in the created order, the writer pictures woman striving, at the serpent's urging, to become like God, knowing good and evil. Man and woman act together in eating the fruit of the tree, but their intimacy is beginning to be shattered as the writer portrays them making clothes to cover themselves. Furthermore, their striving to be like God in fact results in their being alienated from him: they hide from him. But this is their last act together. God's probing questions expose the alienation of man and woman not only from God, but also from one another. The use of singular nouns and verbs, along with the tendency of man (and subsequently of woman) to blame everyone but himself, shows that the alienation of the various elements of the created order from one another and from God is complete. The poetry of 3:14-19 gives clear expression to this state of alienation, and appropriately presents the picture of man returning to the ground, from which he was taken at the beginning of the narrative. Finally, the permanence of alienation is stressed both by the clothing God makes to cover man and woman's nakedness and by God's decisive measures to keep man out of the garden and away from the tree of life.

Notes

1. The creation of the garden for man is further stressed by the repetition in v.15 of the idea that God placed man in the garden, specifically using the verb nwch (to place, to cause to settle).

2. The writer could have used hw’ (she) in some or all of the instances where z’t is used, but that would have reduced the emphasis on woman provided by the demonstrative pronoun. On the use of z’t for emphasis, see Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: Brill, 1958) 250.

3. See also the use of the verb lqch in v.21.

4. See the discussion of Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961) 135-36.

5. E.A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964) 18.

6. It is precisely this point which allows the writer to stress in v.24 the fact that man and woman become one flesh.

7. The writer stresses their standing in each other's presence both by using shnyhm (the two of them) and by specifically mentioning each, h’dm w’shtw (the man and his wife).

8. The inverted word order, with the noun hnchsh (the serpent) coming first, places even greater emphasis on the serpent.

9. This despite the fact that woman has not yet been created when man alone receives the command from God in 2:16-17.

10. Interestingly, almost all these plural verbs are second person masculine, even when woman alone is addressed (vv.4-5). The writer thus makes it impossible for the reader to think of woman apart from man in vv.1-6.

11. This wording parallels 2:9, except that in 3:6 there is the additional clause, “and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise.” The addition of this clause in 3:6 helps contrast the situation there, where disruption is breaking into the created order, with earlier conditions where the created world was in harmony.

12. As indicated by the phrase ‘yny shnyhm (the eyes of the two of them). It should further be noted that the verbs throughout v.7 are plural, continuing the pattern of vv.1-6, where the plural verbs indicate the oneness of man and woman.

13. As noted above, there was great stress on the delight of seeing in vv.5-6, whereas in vv.7-11 man and woman cannot bear to be seen, either by God, or by one another.

14. See A.E. Cowley (ed.), Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1910) 256.

15. Note also the usage in vv.1,2,3, and 5.

16. Prior to 3:12, the writer has used h’shh only in 3:1-6, where he describes the serpent's tempting of the woman.

17. Note the stress that is placed on hw’ (she), both by the fact that it is an added element, not really required in its clause, and by its position at the beginning of the clause, which is opposite to the normal verb-subject word order in Hebrew.

18. The writer has used the longer spelling, ntth, as opposed to the shorter ntt (see Gesenius, 121, 175), so as to make a more perfect parallel to the subsequent ntnh.

19. See Cassuto, 158.

20. Note the parallelism of ky ‘syt z’t (because you have done this) to mh z’t ‘syt (What is this that you have done?) in v.13.

21. The word play on shlch in vv.22 and 23 helps strengthen this point. God sent man forth (wyshlchhw) from the garden (v.23) so that he would not stretch out (yshlch) his hand to take and eat from the tree of life.