The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
The Serpent’s Deception
Genesis 3:1–7 — The Serpent’s Deception. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·han·nā·ḥāš hā·yāh ‘ā·rūm mik·kōl ḥay·yaṯ haś·śā·ḏeh ’ă·šer Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm ‘ā·śāh way·yō·mer ’el- hā·’iš·šāh ’ĕ·lō·hîm kî- ’ap̄ ’ā·mar lō ṯō·ḵə·lū mik·kōl ‘êṣ hag·gān
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the serpent was crafty more than any beast of the field which YHWH God had made. And he said to the woman, "Is it even so that God has said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
Where the English smooths the original
Neither the serpent nor the woman use the title—common throughout this section—of Jehovah-Elohim, a sure sign that there was a thoughtful purpose in giving this appellation to the Deity. It is the impersonal God of creation to whom the tempter refers, and the woman follows his guidance, forgetting that it was Jehovah, the loving personal Being in covenant with them, who had really given them the command.On why the covenant name Jehovah vanishes inside the dialogue.
For it begins with casting a doubt on the reality of the prohibition. ‘Hath God said?’ is the first parallel opened by the besieger. The fascinations of the forbidden fruit are not dangled at first before Eve, but an apparently innocent doubt is filtered into her ear.
The suggestion or assertion of the false only is plainly offered; and the bewildered mind is left to draw its own false inferences, and pursue its own misguided course. The tempter addresses the woman as the more susceptible and unguarded of the two creatures he would betray.
To attain his end, the tempter felt it necessary to change the living personal God into a merely general numen divinium, and to exaggerate the prohibition, in the hope of exciting in the woman's mind partly distrust of God Himself, and partly a doubt as to the truth of His word.
2The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden,
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·’iš·šāh wat·tō·mer ’el- han·nā·ḥāš nō·ḵêl mip·pə·rî ‘êṣ- hag·gān
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the tree[s] of the garden we may eat.
Where the English smooths the original
The woman is quick to correct the error into which she fancies the serpent has fallen, and to defend the generosity of the Lord.
Omitting the Divine name when recording his liberality, though she remembers it when reciting his restraintOn the woman naming God only when she states the prohibition, not the gift.
The woman said — With a view to defend the conduct of her Maker toward them, against the insinuations of the tempter. We may eat of the trees of the garden — Of all the trees except one.
3but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ū·mip·pə·rî hā·‘êṣ ’ă·šer bə·ṯō·wḵ- hag·gān ’ĕ·lō·hîm ’ā·mar lō ṯō·ḵə·lū mim·men·nū wə·lō ṯig·gə·‘ū bōw pen- tə·mu·ṯūn
Literal — word-for-word from the original
But from the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"
Where the English smooths the original
She was aware of the prohibition, therefore, and fully understood its meaning; but she added, "neither shall ye touch it," and proved by this very exaggeration that it appeared too stringent even to her, and therefore that her love and confidence towards God were already beginning to waver.
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.The charitable reading: the added 'touch' is not yet sin.
In Genesis 2:9 , where two trees are mentioned, the one which is described as “in the midst of the garden” is the tree of life. Here the woman speaks of the tree, which is “in the midst of the garden,” as the tree of knowledge.
here the woman is charged by some both with adding to, and taking from the law of God; and if so, must have sinned very heinously before she eat of the fruit; but neither of them are sufficiently proved
4“You will not surely die,” the serpent told the woman.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lō- mō·wṯ tə·mu·ṯūn han·nā·ḥāš way·yō·mer ’el- hā·’iš·šāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the serpent said to the woman, "Not — dying — shall you die.
Where the English smooths the original
Thus the second step in his assault is to challenge the Divine veracity, in allusion to which it has been thought our Savior calls Satan a liarLinking the serpent's lie to John 8:44, where Christ names Satan a liar and the father of it.
The serpent directly contradicts the statement of the penalty of death, and thus craftily removes the cause for fear, before dwelling upon the advantages to be obtained from defiance of the Divine decree.
Let us remember that this was the first falsehood the woman ever heard. Her mind was also infantile as yet, so far as experience was concerned. The opening mind is naturally inclined to believe the truth of every assertion, until it has learned by experience the falsehood of some.
The tempter, finding that the woman began to doubt whether eating this fruit was a crime, and if it were, whether punishment would follow, now became more bold in his attack, and, giving God the lie direct, asserted roundly, “Ye shall not surely die.”
5“For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî ’ĕ·lō·hîm yō·ḏê·a‘ kî bə·yō·wm ’ă·ḵā·lə·ḵem mim·men·nū ‘ê·nê·ḵem wih·yî·ṯem wə·nip̄·qə·ḥū kê·lō·hîm yō·ḏə·‘ê ṭō·wḇ wā·rā‘
Literal — word-for-word from the original
For God knows that in the day you eat from it, then your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Where the English smooths the original
And, as usual, the tempter kept the promise to the ear. Eve knew good and evil, but only by feeling evil within herself. It was by moral degradation, and not by intellectual insight, that her ambitious wish was fulfilled.
Here it was designed to be ambiguous; like all Satan's oracles, suggesting to the hearer the attainment of higher wisdom, but meaning in the intention of the speaker only a discovery of their nakedness.On the calculated double sense of "your eyes shall be opened."
According to the story, there is a half-truth in each utterance of the tempter; (1) “ye shall not surely die”: and it is true that the penalty of Genesis 2:17 was not literally carried out. The man did not die in the day that he ate of the fruit
His words meant more than met the ear. In one sense her eyes were opened; for she acquired a direful experience of "good and evil"—of the happiness of a holy, and the misery of a sinful, condition.
6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·’iš·šāh wat·tê·re kî hā·‘êṣ ṭō·wḇ lə·ma·’ă·ḵāl wə·ḵî hū ṯa·’ă·wāh- lā·‘ê·na·yim hā·‘êṣ wə·neḥ·māḏ lə·haś·kîl wat·tiq·qaḥ mip·pir·yōw wat·tō·ḵal wat·tit·tên gam- lə·’î·šāh ‘im·māh way·yō·ḵal
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] a delight to the eyes, and the tree [was] desirable to make wise — and she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Where the English smooths the original
And when the woman saw . . . she took. —Heb., And the woman saw . . . and she took, &c. In this, the original form of the narrative, we see the progress of the temptation detailed in a far more lively manner than in our version.On how the Hebrew waw-consecutive chain quickens the pace the English loses.
Observe the steps of the transgression: not steps upward, but downward toward the pit. 1. She saw. A great deal of sin comes in at the eye. Let us not look on that which we are in danger of lusting after, Mt 5:28. 2. She took. It was her own act and deed. Satan may tempt, but he cannot force
Let us not forget that any sin is unreasonable, unaccountable, essentially mysterious. In fact, if it were wholly reasonable, it would no longer be sin.
Doubt, unbelief, and pride were the roots of the sin of our first parents, as they have been of all the sins of their posterity.
7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
‘ê·nê šə·nê·hem wat·tip·pā·qaḥ·nāh hêm way·yê·ḏə·‘ū kî ‘ê·rum·mim way·yiṯ·pə·rū ṯə·’ê·nāh ‘ă·lêh way·ya·‘ă·śū ḥă·ḡō·rōṯ lā·hem
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves [together] and made for themselves coverings.
Where the English smooths the original
More remarkable is the word sewed. The Syriac translator felt the difficulty of supposing Eve acquainted with the art of needlework, and renders it, “they stuck leaves together.” But the word certainly implies something more elaborate than this.On the rare verb tāphar, "to sew," and the translators' unease.
They knew that they were naked. They knew it before, when it was their glory, but now they know it with grief and shame, from a sense both of their guilt for the sin newly past, and of that sinful concupiscence which they now found working in them.
They had lost "that blessed blindness, the ignorance of innocence, which knows nothing of nakedness" (Ziegler). The discovery of their nakedness excited shame, which they sought to conceal by an outward covering.
but these, whatever covering they may be thought to have been to their bodies, which yet seem to be but a slender one, they could be none to their souls, or be of any service to hide their sin and shame from the all seeing eye of God; and of as little use are the poor and mean services of men, or their best works of righteousness, to shelter them from the wrath of GodThe fig-leaf as the type of every self-made covering for sin.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The chapter opens with no warning and a word-play the English cannot keep. The pair were just left ‘ărûmmîm — naked (2:25); now the serpent is ‘ārûm — crafty. Ellicott spells out the lost contrast: "both naked (arumim) . . . but the serpent was subtil (arum)." The quality itself, he notes, "was in itself innocent, and even admirable" — Keil and Calvin divide over whether the lexeme leans to the LXX's phronimos ("prudent") or the Vulgate's callidus ("cunning"); the word is neutral, the use is not. The deepest move of the verse is the quietest. The narrator says YHWH ’Elōhîm, the LORD God; the serpent says only ’Elōhîm, God. Ellicott: this is "a sure sign that there was a thoughtful purpose," the covenant name dropped so that "the impersonal God of creation" replaces "Jehovah, the loving personal Being in covenant with them." Keil names the tactic: "to change the living personal God into a merely general numen divinum." And then the question itself — ’ap̄ kî, a broken "is it even so that?" — which Maclaren calls the besieger's first trench: "‘Hath God said?’ is the first parallel opened by the besieger... an apparently innocent doubt is filtered into her ear."
The woman answers when she should have fled — "Eve's weakness," says Henry, "to enter into this talk with the serpent." Her speech, faithful at its core, leaks at three seams. She drops God's emphatic, doubled grant ("eating you shall eat," 2:16) to a plain "we may eat"; the Pulpit Commentary catches her "omitting the Divine name when recording his liberality, though she remembers it when reciting his restraint." She adds "neither shall ye touch it" — and Keil reads the addition as the first crack: she "proved by this very exaggeration that it appeared too stringent even to her... her love and confidence towards God were already beginning to waver." Poole, more charitable, refuses to convict her: "it is not probable that the woman, being not yet corrupted, should knowingly add to God's word." And she softens the penalty from God's môt tāmût ("surely die") to a tentative "lest ye die" — JFB: "she spoke as if the tree had been forbidden because of some poisonous quality." Cambridge notes a further haunting slip: she sets the forbidden tree "in the midst of the garden," the exact spot 2:9 assigned to the tree of life.
Now the serpent strikes. The Hebrew of v.4 is a mirror held to God's word: lō-môt təmuṯūn — the negative lō set directly before God's own "surely die," so that, as the Pulpit Commentary observes, its "position here being determined by the form of the penalty." This is not disagreement but contradiction by inversion — "his first begotten lie." Cambridge: "by no means shall ye die" — "the serpent directly contradicts the statement of the penalty of death." Then v.5 offers the bait, and it is God's own attribute: yōḏê‘a, God knows, and the fruit will make you knowing good and evil, the verb yādaʻ bracketing the verse. The promise "your eyes shall be opened" turns on the rare verb pāqach, which the Pulpit Commentary calls "ambiguous; like all Satan's oracles, suggesting... higher wisdom, but meaning in the intention of the speaker only a discovery of their nakedness." Cambridge names the genius of it — "a half-truth in each utterance of the tempter" — and Ellicott the bitter fulfillment: "the tempter kept the promise to the ear. Eve knew good and evil, but only by feeling evil within herself."
The temptation done, the deed is a rush of bare waw-consecutives. Ellicott restores the original tempo: "Heb., And the woman saw . . . and she took, &c.... the progress of the temptation detailed in a far more lively manner than in our version." Henry counts the rungs of the descent: "1. She saw... 2. She took... 3. She did eat... 4. She gave it also to her husband with her. 5. He did eat." The three things she saw — good for food, a ta’ăwāh (lust/longing) to the eyes, desirable to make wise — are, Benson and Cambridge agree, the very anatomy of 1 John 2:16: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life. Keil distills the roots: "Doubt, unbelief, and pride were the roots of the sin of our first parents." The single phrase ‘immāh — "with her" — carries the unresolved weight of Adam's complicity; Gill records the rabbinic inference "that Adam was with her all the while," and stresses where the verdict falls: "not the woman but the man was the federal head" (Romans 5:12). And Barnes refuses every attempt to rationalize it: "any sin is unreasonable, unaccountable, essentially mysterious. In fact, if it were wholly reasonable, it would no longer be sin."
The promise is kept and broken in one verb. Wat-tippāqaḥnāh — "the eyes of them both were opened" — is the very pāqach of the serpent's pledge in v.5. Keil lets the irony stand bare: "the eyes of them both were opened (as the serpent had foretold: but what did they see?), and they knew that they were naked." The knowledge promised arrives — and its first content is shame; Poole: "They knew it before, when it was their glory, but now they know it with grief and shame." Then the rare verb tāphar, "to sew" (only four times in Scripture), and the fig-leaf ḥăḡōrōṯ — girdles, not aprons. Ellicott notes the translators' unease at the elaborate "sewed"; Gill draws the lasting figure: these coverings "could be none to their souls... and of as little use are the poor and mean services of men, or their best works of righteousness, to shelter them from the wrath of God." The fig-leaf belt is the first self-made righteousness, and it sets up 3:21, where God Himself clothes them in skins.
This paragraph is the tool's own reading under Sola Scriptura — fallible, ⚙-marked, offered to be tested, not believed. Read in the original, the unit turns on a single rare verb and a single repeated noun. The verb is pāqach, "to open [the eyes]": the serpent promises it (v.5), and the narrator delivers it word-for-word (v.7) — but between promise and fulfillment the meaning is gutted. The eyes that were to see like God's see only their own nakedness. The whole lie works this way: the serpent never invents, he negates and borrows. He borrows God's emphatic "surely die" and prefixes one word, "not" (v.4). He borrows God's own attribute — yādaʻ, to know — and re-sells it as something withheld (v.5). He borrows the name of the tree, "knowing good and evil," and offers it as theft. Every promise he makes comes true; that is the horror of it. Their eyes are opened, they do become like God knowing good and evil (3:22) — and it is death, not deity. The deepest seam, then, is not between truth and falsehood but between the same words spoken by God as gift and by the serpent as bait. And the unit's last image answers its first: it opened with the crafty (‘ārūm) one and closes with the naked (‘êrummim) pair sewing a covering that cannot cover — until, four words later in 3:21, God sews one that can. Weigh this against the text; the named commentators are surer guides than the synthesizer.
⚙ A fallible line, not a verse of Scripture: the serpent invents nothing — he takes God's own words, "surely die" and "knowing good and evil," prefixes a "not" and re-prices the gift as theft; and every promise he makes comes true, which is exactly how it kills.
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The unit's tightest internal seam. The serpent promises in 3:5 that "your eyes will be opened" (wə-nip̄qəḥū ‘ênêḵem); the narrator records in 3:7 that "the eyes of both of them were opened" (wat-tippāqaḥnāh). The Verifier records the shared rare lexeme H6491 pāqach (only 18 verses in all of Scripture), together with H5869 ‘ayin (eye) and H3045 yādaʻ (know). Because pāqach is uncommon and is the very verb of the promise, restated verbatim in its fulfillment, this is a genuine verbal link within the unit — the lie kept to the letter, broken in substance. Keil hangs the whole irony on it: "as the serpent had foretold: but what did they see?"
Genesis 3:5 · Genesis 3:7
basis: shared rare Strong's lexeme H6491 pāqach (18 vv) — the very verb of the v.5 promise reused verbatim in the v.7 fulfillment — plus H5869 ‘ayin and H3045 yādaʻ; Verifier-computed; rarity of pāqach warrants 'verbal'.
The rare verb H8609 tāphar ("to sew") occurs only four times in the whole Hebrew Bible. Beyond Genesis 3:7 it appears in Job 16:15 — "I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin" — and Ecclesiastes 3:7, "a time to rend, and a time to sew." The Verifier records H8609 as shared and flags its rarity (in only 4 verses). Job's act is mourning-dress over wounded flesh; Ecclesiastes sets sewing in the rhythm of human grief and repair. The lexical kinship is real and uncommon, but the connection is one of human shame and mourning, not quotation — the first garment of guilt, the sackcloth of sorrow, and the seasons of tearing and mending all reaching for the same rare verb.
Genesis 3:7 · Job 16:15 · Ecclesiastes 3:7
basis: shared rare Strong's lexeme H8609 tâphar — only 4 occurrences in Scripture; Verifier-computed. The rarity makes the verbal link firm, though the shared sense is human shame/mourning, not a citation of Genesis.
The woman in 3:3 places the forbidden tree "in the midst of the garden" — the exact location 2:9 had given the tree of life. The Verifier records shared lexemes H6086 ‘êts (tree, 288 vv), H1588 gan (garden, 37 vv), and the desire-words that recur in 3:6 link the eating-scene back to 2:9 as well (H2530 châmad, H3978 ma’ăkâl). These are common words, so the tier is structural/thematic, not verbal — but the overlap is pointed: Cambridge observes that the woman speaks of the tree of knowledge in the very terms 2:9 used of the tree of life, the two central trees blurring in her mouth on the eve of the fall.
Genesis 3:3 · Genesis 3:6 · Genesis 2:9
basis: shared Strong's lexemes H6086 ‘êts (288 vv), H1588 gan (37 vv); and 3:6↔2:9 share H2530 châmad, H3978 ma’ăkâl — all relatively common, so thematic not verbal; the link is the two central trees and the desire-vocabulary, argued by Cambridge from the text.
The serpent's bait in 3:5 — "you will be like God, knowing good and evil" — is echoed verbatim by God Himself in 3:22: "the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." The Verifier (3:1↔3:22 frame) records shared lexemes H6086 ‘êts, H2416 chay, and H398 ’ākal; the decisive verbal overlap is the phrase yōḏə‘ê ṭôwḇ wā-rāʻ (H3045 yādaʻ + H2896 ṭôwb + H7451 raʻ), which both the serpent and the LORD speak. Because the constituent words are common, the badge is held at structural/thematic — but the phrase-for-phrase return is the chapter's grimmest confirmation: the serpent's promise was true, and God's own words ratify that it came to pass, as ruin.
Genesis 3:5 · Genesis 3:22
basis: shared Strong's lexemes H3045 yādaʻ, H2896 ṭôwb, H7451 raʻ (the phrase 'knowing good and evil') plus H6086/H2416/H398 — common words, so thematic; the link is the serpent's promise of 3:5 restated by God in 3:22, argued from the matching phrase, not from rarity.
The noun H5175 nāchāsh (serpent) is moderately rare (28 verses). The Verifier records it shared between Genesis 3:1 and Isaiah 14:29 ("out of the serpent's root shall come forth a viper") and Jeremiah 46:22, alongside the very common H3588 kî and H6086 ‘êts. Because nāchāsh is the only weighted shared word and the surrounding lexemes are high-frequency, the tier is structural/thematic: a shared serpent-motif, not a quotation. Benson notes the same word is used of "the fiery serpents which bit the people in the wilderness" and "the serpent of brass," tying Eden's tempter into a Scripture-wide serpent imagery that the prophets and Numbers 21 develop.
Genesis 3:1 · Isaiah 14:29 · Jeremiah 46:22
basis: shared Strong's lexeme H5175 nāchāsh (28 vv) with otherwise high-frequency words (H3588 kî, H6086 ‘êts); Verifier-computed; one moderately-rare shared noun supports a thematic serpent-motif link, not a verbal quotation.
Paul reaches back to this exact scene: "as the serpent deceived Eve through his craftiness" (2 Corinthians 11:3) — the New Testament's most direct reading of Genesis 3:1, and the verse Benson, JFB, the Pulpit Commentary, and Keil all cite to establish that the Hebrew ‘ārūm means craft (Greek panourgia), not innocent prudence. Held honestly: this is a cross-Testament link — Greek New Testament to Hebrew Old Testament — so no shared Strong's number can exist (the Verifier returns no shared original-language lexeme across the language barrier). The connection is to the content of the scene, argued by Paul and unanimous in the named commentators, and is therefore tiered structural/thematic and argued from the text, not asserted from the index.
Genesis 3:1 · Genesis 3:6 · 2 Corinthians 11:3
basis: cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew): no shared Strong's lexeme is possible; the Verifier returns no shared lexeme. Paul (2 Cor 11:3) explicitly retells Genesis 3:1's deception of Eve — a real, ancient link, argued from the text and unanimous in the commentators, not from the index.
The serpent's flat denial in 3:4 — borrowing God's "surely die" and prefixing "not" — is read across the tradition through John 8:44, where Christ calls the devil "a liar and the father of lies" who "was a murderer from the beginning." Keil cites it to identify the speaker behind the serpent; the Pulpit Commentary links it directly to v.4. Held honestly: this is a cross-Testament link (Greek Gospel to Hebrew narrative), so the Verifier finds no shared original-language lexeme; the connection is theological and figural, identifying the serpent's lie with Satan's character, and must be argued, not asserted from the lexicon. It is shown that way rather than dressed as a verbal quotation.
Genesis 3:4 · John 8:44
basis: cross-Testament (Greek↔Hebrew): no shared Strong's lexeme possible; Verifier returns no shared lexeme. The link identifies the serpent's lie (3:4) with the 'father of lies' (John 8:44) — a theological/figural reading argued by Keil and Pulpit, not provable from the index; flagged accordingly.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
The temptation of 3:1–7 sets up the first promise of the gospel a few verses later (3:15), where the seed of the woman will crush the serpent's head. The Verifier records H802 ’ishshāh (woman) shared between 3:1 and 3:15 — the same woman who is deceived here becomes, in the next breath of the chapter, the one through whose seed the deceiver is undone. Maclaren reads the whole episode toward this hope: "even at that first hour of sin and retribution a gleam of hope... promises that the conquered shall one day be the conqueror, and that the woman's seed, though wounded in the struggle, shall one day crush the poison-bearing, flat head in the dust." That the crusher is Christ is the ancient and widely-held reading of the church.
Genesis 3:1 · Genesis 3:6 · Genesis 3:15
The federal weight of "and he ate" (3:6) — "not the woman but the man was the federal head" (Gill) — is the dark foil to Christ. Paul's parallel is explicit: "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:19, which Henry and Benson both cite at this verse, naming Adam's act "disobedience"). Where the first Adam grasped at being "like God" by theft (3:5), the Last Adam, "being in very nature God," did not grasp at equality but emptied Himself (Philippians 2:6). The fall by one man's eating is undone by one man's obedience. This Adam-Christ typology is ancient and widely held.
Genesis 3:5 · Genesis 3:6 · Romans 5:19 · 1 Corinthians 15:22
The fig-leaf ḥăḡōrōṯ (girdles) of 3:7 are the first self-made covering for sin — and they fail. Gill draws the figural line plainly: such coverings "could be none to their souls... and of as little use are the poor and mean services of men, or their best works of righteousness, to shelter them from the wrath of God." In 3:21 God replaces the fig leaves with coats of skin — covering that costs a life, read by the tradition as the first shadow of an atoning provision fulfilled in Christ, who is made "our righteousness" (1 Corinthians 1:30) and in whom believers are "clothed" (Galatians 3:27). The reading of the self-made covering as type — human righteousness versus God-provided righteousness — is widely held; the specific link of the skins to Christ's atonement is an ancient figural reading, marked here as interpretation rather than lexical proof.
Genesis 3:7 · Genesis 3:21
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Two of this unit's cross-references are held cross-Testament and argued, not asserted. 2 Corinthians 11:3 ("the serpent deceived Eve") is the New Testament's own retelling of Genesis 3:1 and is unanimous in the named commentators — but it crosses from Greek to Hebrew, where no shared Strong's number can exist; the Verifier accordingly returns no shared original-language lexeme, and the link is shown as structural, argued from Paul's text. John 8:44 (the "father of lies") is left explicitly flagged: the identification of the serpent's lie in 3:4 with Satan's character is theological and figural, real and ancient, but cannot be proved from the lexicon and is marked as such rather than dressed up as a quotation. Within the Hebrew, the strongest seam is the rare verb pāqach ("open the eyes," 18 vv) reused from the serpent's promise (3:5) to its fulfillment (3:7) — verbal and verifier-confirmed. The verb tāphar ("sew," 4 vv) is genuinely rare and so warrants a verbal badge for the Job 16:15 / Ecclesiastes 3:7 link, though the shared sense is human shame and mourning, not a citation. Two interpretive cruxes are kept open, not resolved: whether ‘ārūm ("crafty," v.1) is praise of nature (Calvin) or moral fault (Keil), and whether ‘immāh ("with her," v.6) means Adam stood by throughout the temptation (rabbinic tradition in Gill) or arrived only at its close (Calvin) — the lexicon cannot decide, and the commentators divide. "Test all things; hold fast to what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)