her husband and he ate too. (7)Then they both became aware of what they had done and realized they were naked; and they made drapes of fig leaves to cover themselves. Commentary 1-Barnes Notes According to Barnes, the serpent is called a beast of the field; that is neither a domesticated animal nor one of the smaller sorts. It is not the wisdom, but the wiliness of the serpent that is intriguing. The serpent has no arms or legs by which to escape danger. Therefore, the mode of attack that he chose, conversation, is very interesting. No startling proposal or disobedience is made, no advice or persuasion to partake of the fruit is employed. 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. He ventures upon a half-questioning, half-insinuating remark: It is so, then, that God hath said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden. This seems to be a feeler for some weak point, where the fidelity of the woman to her Maker might be shaken. It hints at something strange, if not unjust or unkind, on the part of God. The serpent would insinuate, Why was any tree withheld? Barnes goes on to say, 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. The serpent denies the life threatening consequences of partaking from the tree by affirming that God was aware that on the eating of it their eyes would be opened, and they would be like himself in knowing good and evil. Keep in mind, this was the first li...
