𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝟑:𝟐-𝟕 - 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐟𝐞?

Genesis 3: 2-7 -And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat: 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. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. And 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 to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 

The story of the temptation is told with subtle simplicity. The snake speaks only twice, but that is enough to offset the balance of trust and obedience between the man and the woman and their Creator. The centerpiece of the story is the question of the knowledge of the "good." The snake implied by his questions that God was keeping this knowledge from the man and the woman (3:5), while the sense of the narratives in the first two chapters has been that God was keeping this knowledge for the man and the woman (e.g., 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 2:18). In other words, the snake's statements were a direct challenge to the central theme of the narrative of chapters 1 and 2: God will provide the "good" for human beings if they will only trust him and obey him.

However, a narrative clue already points to the woman's assuming God's role of "knowing the good" even before she ate of the fruit that is, the description of the woman's thoughts in the last moments before the Fall. The narrative states that the woman "saw that the tree was good" (3:6). Up until now in the narrative, the expression" and he saw that it was good" has been used only of God. Now, instead of God, it is the woman who "saw that it was good." Precisely at this point, the author raises the issue of becoming "wise": "And the woman saw that the tree was ... also desirable for gaining wisdom" (3:6). Thus, the temptation is not presented as a general rebellion from God's authority. Rather, it is portrayed as a quest for wisdom and "the good" apart from God's provision.

Having thus shown the temptation to be a quest for "wisdom" apart from God, the story comes to an abrupt conclusion in the act of the transgression itself: "and she took some and ate it and also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it" (3:6b). How quickly the transgression comes once the decision has been made. The thrust of the story, with all its simplicity, lies in its tragic and ironic depiction of the search for wisdom. That which the snake promised did, in fact, come about: the man arid the woman became "like God" as soon as they ate of the fruit. The irony lies in the fact that they were already "like God" because they had been created in his image (1:26). In the temptation the serpent promised that they would know "good and evil," just as God knew "good and evil." It is clear in the story that the man and the woman had believed that when they obtained the knowledge of "good and evil" they would, on their own, enjoy the "good." Prior to their eating the fruit, the narrative did not raise the possibility that they would know only the "evil" and not the "good." Yet when they ate of the fruit and their eyes were opened, it was. not the "good" that they saw and enjoyed. Their new knowledge was that of their own nakedness. Their knowledge of "good and evil" which was to make them "like God" resulted in the knowledge that they were no longer even like each other and were ashamed of their nakedness, and they sewed leaves together to hide their differences from each other. Like Ecclesiastes, they sought wisdom but found only vanity and toil. As the next segment of the narrative shows, not only did the man and his wife attempt to cover their shame from each other by making clothing from the trees of the garden, but they also tried to hide themselves from God at the first sound of his coming.

Why was the man held responsible for the actions of both he and his wife?

There are some clues in the text and its context. For example, the author stresses in 3:13 that the woman was "deceived." Since the text does not explicitly state that the man was also "deceived," the author apparently means to suggest that the man was, in fact, not deceived and hence was to be held responsible for his own action. The woman, being deceived, was not responsible. There is a further indication within the text why the man was being held responsible for the woman's actions. That is, in the larger context of the Pentateuch (e.g., Nu 30:1-16), the Mosaic Law teaches that the husband is responsible for those vows which his wife has made. (see comments below on Nu 30:1-6) The author of the Pentateuch allows the reader's knowledge of the Mosaic Law to guide the reading of this passage. In Numbers 30, if the husband hears his wife make a vow and does not speak out, he is responsible for it. It may be important, then, that the author states specifically in Genesis 3 that the man was with his wife when she ate of the tree, and that he said nothing in reply to the serpent or the woman. His silence may be a clue as to why the man must bear the responsibility for the actions of his wife.

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 30: 1-16

𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑣𝑜𝑤𝑠: 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑎 𝑣𝑜𝑤, ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑡 (30:2). 𝐼𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑔𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑣𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑖𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑. 𝐼𝑓 ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑎 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑜𝑤𝑛 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑤. 𝐻𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑎𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑓𝑒, ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑤 𝑏𝑦 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑢𝑡. 𝐼𝑓 ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑜𝑢𝑡, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑜𝑤 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑. 𝐼𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑜𝑤 𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛 (𝐿𝑒., 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑓𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑠𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑), 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑑 (30:9). 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠 3 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤. 𝐼𝑛 3:6, 𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑚'𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒: "𝑆ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑢𝑠𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ ℎ𝑒𝑟." 𝐼𝑛 𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠, 𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑚'𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑚 𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑓𝑒'𝑠 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.