Verse by Verse

¹⁶ Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.

¹⁷ And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

¹⁸ To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech.

¹⁹ Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah.

²⁰ And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.

²¹ His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute.

²² And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.

²³ Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, even a young man for hurting me.

⁸ Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.

⁹ Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

¹⁰ And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.

¹¹ So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.

¹² When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth.”

¹³ And Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!

¹⁴ Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”

¹⁵ And the Lord said to him, “Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.

The anger in Cain’s heart does not immediately vent itself in murder, but rather—and in much more realistic fashion—move incrementally from the stage of inner enmity to verbal dispute. This is implied by the initial reference in this verse to Cain “speaking” with Abel. … The verb [should be translated] in the rarer sense of “disputed,” as the same verb is also used in Esther 1:18. In any event, the progressive escalation of inner enmity/anger, to verbal abuse/dispute, and finally—if not addressed—the act of murder, is likewise the pattern supplied by Christ in Matthew 5:21-22, for which the present passage is almost certainly in view (cf. v.22: “everyone who is angry with his brother”). — Wechsler, pages 118-119.

__________

The seed of the Serpent was quickly striking at the Seed of the woman, corrupting her first son and slaying her second, thus trying to prevent the fulfillment of the protevangelic promise right at the beginning of human history. — Morris, page 139.

__________

When God had sought out Adam after his sin, Adam had responded in confession and repentance, but not Cain. He compounded his wickedness by blatantly lying to God and challenging His right even to question him. …

God, therefore, can no longer speak to Cain in mercy, but only in judgment. Cain had been able to still the hated prophesying voice of his brother, but he could not still the voice of his blood! “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” For the first time, “blood” is actually mentioned in the Bible in this verse, although its significance had been intimated several times previously. Abel, the type of the seed of the woman, was righteous before God and yet died violently at the hand of the first of the Serpent’s seed. Thus, Abel’s blood crying from the ground is the prototype of all the suffering inflicted on the righteous through the ages by the children of the wicked one. Its climax and fulfillment are seen in the conflict of Satan and Christ on Calvary.

But the blood of Christ “speaketh better things that that of Abel” (Hebrews 12:24). The blood of animals could never really take away sin, though it might enable their skins to be used for a temporary covering. But “the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). — Morris, pages 139-140.

I think the verses Morris references are more evidence against the view that Cain’s sacrifice was rejected only because of his attitude. But his view (next quote) is much different than that of Wechsler (below).

God’s punishment of Cain is thus also a type of the ultimate crushing of the head of the Serpent, when he will be separated forever from God in the lake of fire. Cain was forever “driven out from the presence of the Lord”; likewise will all those who obey not the gospel of Christ “be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). — Morris, page 140.

Wechsler has a very different take on verses 13-15.

God shows Cain preemptive mercy—that is, He withholds from Cain, despite his lack of remorse, the full penalty that his sin deserves—which is precisely what it takes to crack Cain’s hardened shell of unrepentance and bring him to his knees, pouring out as he does so one of the most heart-rending expressions of remorse and confession to be found in Scripture. (In this respect it is important to bear in mind that the negative New Testament references to Cain in Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 3:12; Jude 1:11 apply specifically to his depravity as described in verses 3-12, not explicitly to the portion thereafter, let alone to his life as a whole.)

Any sense of confession would seem to be quite far—even contrary—to Cain’s statement in this verse as typically translated—to wit, “My punishment is too great to bear!” … In point of fact, the Hebrew word typically translated “punishment” normally means “iniquity” or “evil,” and when used as the object of the verb “bear” always has the idiomatic sense of “bearing away (that is, forgiving) sin”! Thus, for example, these same two words are used by David in Psalm 32:5 in praise of God’s forgiveness: “And Thou didst forgive the iniquity (evil) of my sin.” For some reason, however, we recognize David’s legitimate use of this idiom but not Cain’s—and yet David’s sin was even more extensive and premeditated, encompassing adultery, multiple murders (see 2 Samuel 11:16-17), and intentional cover-up (see 2 Samuel 11:22-25). Clearly it is inconsistent not to recognize this same idiom on the part of Cain, which is why it was recognized already in the ancient translations as well as by the majority of early Jewish interpreters that Cain is here expressing deep remorse and confession—i.e., “My iniquity/evil is too great to forgive!”—as prompted by the recognition of God’s preemptive mercy towards him.  Nor does verse 14, as is often claimed, contradict this expected idiomatic meaning, for the way in which one understands verse 14 depends largely upon the way in which one understands verse 13. If verse 13 is a complaint, then so too is verse 14; yet if verse 13 is an expression of remorse over the recognition of a sin so wicked that God’s great mercy is unacceptable, verse 14 makes perfect sense as an expression of the just penalty that the sinner not only affirms but in fact desires to be applied! Cain, in other words, is expressing the wish that someone else might execute the penalty of death from which God in His mercy refrained. Viewed in this way, per our straightforward idiomatic reading of verse 13, the latter part of verse 14 should therefore be translated (as is perfectly consistent with the Hebrew grammar): “And may it come about that whoever finds me would kill me!” 

As with his parents, so also with Cain God piles grace on top of mercy, bestowing upon His chastised and forgiven child that which he does not deserve—the very definition of grace (whereas mercy entails the withholding of the full punishment that one does deserve). Specifically, in response to Cain’s remorseful recognition of guilt (v.13) and consequent yearning for immediate, full punishment (v.14), God, with the parental foresight of His child’s best in view, gracefully appoints a sign for Cain to indicate that he is under divine protection and so to prevent any others from enacting the full punishment from which God Himself mercifully refrained. In popular culture, however, this “mark of Cain,” as it is commonly referred to, is figuratively employed in exactly the opposite sense to denote anything considered a sign of infamy! It is all the more essential, therefore, that the reader appreciate this sign for what it really is: an abiding supernatural indication of God’s grace and parental care for Cain. The word here for “sign,” in fact, is the same one previously used in Genesis 1:14, as normally, throughout the Bible, to denote miracles—i.e., testimonies to God’s active involvement in human history, usually in connection with a redemptive (and by definition, therefore, gracious) purpose. — Wechsler, pages 120-122.

Wechsler’s take on Cain is brand new to me, but I like it. I find it consistent with the record of God’s grace throughout the Bible.

 ³ And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord.

⁴ Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering,

⁵ but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

⁶ So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?

⁷ If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Abel’s offering implies a previous instruction, for it was “by faith” (Hebrews 11:4), and faith is taking God at His word; so that Cain’s unbloody offering was a refusal of the divine way. — Scofield, page 9.

__________

They [Cain and Abel] were both grown men … It is, therefore, quite probable that the offerings described in these verses were not the first ones offered by these two brothers. Rather, it must have become a regular practice, at certain definite periods of time, possibly on the Sabbath. The words in the Hebrew—literally, “at the end of the days”—seem to suggest this. Since this was the first occasion on which Cain received a rebuke, it would be inferred that his previous offerings had been acceptable to God.

The Bible does not actually say specifically whether such sacrifices had been commanded by God, or whether the practice arose merely as a spontaneous expression of thanksgiving and worship. If it was the latter, however, it is difficult to understand why God would not have been as pleased with an offering of Cain’s fruit as with an offering of Abel’s slain lamb. It seems more likely that God did give instructions, and that Cain had  disobeyed. The entire occurrence can only be really understood in the context of an original revelation by God regarding the necessity of substitutionary sacrifice as a prerequisite to approaching God. …

Cain himself had probably purchased from Abel a sheep for his own sacrifice each time they came to the appointed place. There came a time, however, when Cain began to resent this situation and finally decided to rebel against it. … At any rate, his heart was not right before the Lord, and his offering was not in faith as was his brother’s. Therefore, God rejected his gift. — Morris, pages 136-137.

__________

Cain’s “glance” (a better rendering than “countenance”) had been haughty, but now it “fell” and he became bitterly angry. Though perhaps up to this point in his life, he may have seemed outwardly pious and obedient toward God, this incident finally revealed the inward pride and resentment that must have been festering in his heart for some time. The resentment was directed not only at God, but also at his brother Abel. Abel was an outward symbol of the fact that Cain’s works were not adequate to get him into God’s presence (since he must obtain Abel’s sheep for this purpose). — Morris, page 137-138.

__________

In spite of Cain’s bitter anger, God graciously promised that he would yet be accepted if he would only “do well,” which undoubtedly meant to “obey His word.” If he continued in rebellion, however, “sin” (and this is the first use of the word in Scripture) was “crouching at his door.” — Morris, page 138.

__________

Cain offered to Jehovah the fruit of a cursed earth, and that, moreover, without any blood to remove the curse. He presented “an unbloody sacrifice,” simply because he had no faith. … No doubt reason might say, What more acceptable offering could a man present than that which he had produced by the labor of his hands and the sweat of his brow? Reason, and even man’s religious mind, may think thus, but God thinks quite differently; and faith is always sure to agree with God’s thoughts. God teaches, and faith believes, that there must be a sacrificed life, else there can be no approach to God. — Mackintosh, pages 62-63.

__________

“God is not worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything”; and yet Cain thought He could be thus approached—and every mere religionist thinks the same. — Mackintosh, page 64.

__________

No doubt faith will produce feelings and sentiments—spiritual feelings and truthful sentiments—but the fruits of faith must never be confounded with faith itself. I am not justified by feelings, nor yet by faith and feelings, but simply by faith. And why? Because faith believes God when He speaks—it takes Him at His word; it apprehends Him as He has revealed Himself  in the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is life, righteousness, and peace. To apprehend God as He is, is the sum of all present and eternal blessedness. When the soul finds out God, it has found out all it can possibly need, here or hereafter; but He can only be known by His own revelation, and by the faith which He Himself imparts, and which, moreover, always seeks divine revelation as its proper object.

Thus, then, we can, in some measure, enter into the meaning and power of the statement, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Cain had no faith, and therefore he offered an unbloody sacrifice: Abel had faith, and therefore he offered both “blood” and “fat,” which, in type, set for the presentation of the life, and also the inherent excellency of the Person of Christ. — Mackintosh, pages 69-70.

__________

Of Abel we read that “God testified of his gifts.” He did not bear witness to Abel, but to Abel’s sacrifice; and this fixes, distinctly, the proper ground of a believer’s peace and acceptance before God. 

There is a constant tendency in the heart to ground our peace and acceptance upon something in or about ourselves, even though we admit that that something is wrought by the Holy Ghost. Hence arises the constant looking in, when the Holy Ghost would ever have us looking out. The question for every believer is not, What am I? but, What is Christ? — Mackintosh, pages 71-72. 

__________

Had Abel been accepted on the ground of aught in himself, then, indeed, Cain’s wrath, and his fallen countenance, would have had some just foundation; but inasmuch as he was accepted exclusively on the ground of his offering, and inasmuch as it was not to him, but to his gift, that Jehovah bore testimony, his wrath was entirely without any proper basis. This is brought out in Jehovah’s word to Cain—”If thou doest well, (or, as the LXX reads it, “if thou offer correctly”) shalt thou not be accepted?” The well-doing had reference to the offering. Abel did well by hiding himself behind an acceptable sacrifice: Cain did badly by bringing an offering without blood; and all his after-conduct was but the legitimate result of his false worship. — Mackintosh, pages 73-74. 

__________

[Cain] is a type of the many in these times who will descant upon the benevolence and love of the Creator, and are ever ready to laud Him for those attributes, and claim the benefit of them, without any reference to their own unworthiness and sinful condition, without a thought of that perfect holiness and justice which are as much elements of the mind of God as love itself. — Pember, page 181. 

__________

What does John mean when he says that Cain was of the wicked one?  [For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous (1 John 3:11-12)] The Spirit means to bring out the idea that Cain was not only an ugly fratricide, but a tool of Satan to make an immediate and deadly attack upon the promised seed of the woman, but as usual, Satan overshot the mark for God made the death of Abel a wonderful picture of Calvary and gave Seth as a picture of the risen Savior (Genesis 4:25), who became a father of a holy seed after the cruel death of the innocent one. — Bultema, page 22. 

Only recently have I heard the take on this passage that the problem with Cain’s offering wasn’t that it didn’t involve blood, but that Cain had the wrong attitude. In other words, Cain’s fruit would have been acceptable to God if his heart had been in the right place. I can’t see it. There’s no denying that Cain didn’t have the right attitude, and that he should have. But if the problem was Cain’s attitude alone, then his standing before God would be based on his own performance—his works. But a sacrifice of blood isn’t acceptable based on the performance of the person doing the sacrifice, but rather on the work of Christ on the cross.

1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”

² Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

The following paragraph by Morris is conjecture, but I think it makes sense enough to be a possibility.

It seems reasonable to infer that, after the expulsion from Eden, God had made gracious provision to continue to commune with man, even though now “at a distance,” on the basis of His promise of a coming Redeemer, whose shed blood would be the price of redemption. He had shown Adam and Eve that an “atonement” required the shedding of innocent blood to provide a “covering” for the guilty. Probably at an appointed time and place, men were able to meet God, first being careful to approach Him by means of a proper offering, especially marked by the principle of substitution—the innocent for the guilty. — Morris, page 133.

__________

This is the first use of the familiar Biblical euphemism for marital intercourse; “Adam knew his wife.” Such an expression uniquely emphasizes both the full harmony and understanding of man and wife (one flesh) and also an ideal awareness of God’s primeval purpose as implemented through the human capacity for sexual love and reproduction.

The name Cain means “gotten” and is obviously derived from Eve’s exclamation of joyful acquisition. … Eve not only was thankful for a child, but also that the Lord had enabled her to begat a man. This seems to be a further expression of faith that her babe would grow to manhood. It is possible that she hoped this might be the promised Deliverer, even though he was not in a specific biological sense a “seed of the woman.” As a matter of fact, he “was of that wicked one” (1 John 3:12), and thus was the first in the log line of the Serpent’s seed.

Cain’s younger brother, Abel, was truly in the household of faith, however, He is the very first mentioned in the long line of men of faith recorded in Hebrews 11 (v.4). He is called “righteous” and a prophet (Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50-51). … As a prophet, he must also have received God’s Word by divine revelation and preached it by divine enablement. But Cain refused it and disobeyed.

the name of Abel means “vapor” or “vanity,” and suggests that, by the time of Abel’s birth, Eve had become thoroughly impressed with the impact of God’s curse on the world. God had indeed made the creation “subject to vanity” (Romans 8:20).

As the boys grew, Cain became a farmer and Abel a shepherd. Both were honorable occupations, Cain’s fruits provided food and Abel’s sheep providing clothing for the family. In addition, it is probable that the sheep were to be used for sacrifice. … Man was not authorized until after the Flood to use animals for food (Genesis 1:29; 2:16; 3:19; 9:3). —Morris, pages 134-135.

__________

In the persons of Cain and Abel, the first examples of a religious man of the world and of a genuine man of faith. Born, as they were, outside of Eden, and being the sons of fallen Adam, they could have nothing, naturally, to distinguish them one from the other. They were both sinners—both had a fallen nature—neither was innocent. …

What, therefore, made the vast difference? The answer is as simple as the gospel of the grace of God can make it. The difference was not in themselves, in their nature or their circumstances; it lay entirely in their sacrifices. This makes the matter most simple for any truly convicted sinner—for any one who truly feels that he not only partakes of a fallen nature, but is himself, also, a sinner. The history of Abel opens, to such an one, the only true ground of his approach to, his standing before, and his relationship with, God. It teaches him, distinctly, that he cannot come to God on the ground of anything in, of, or pertaining to, nature; and he must seek, outside himself, and in the person and work of another, the true and everlasting basis of his connection with the holy, the just and only true God. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews sets the whole subject before us in the most distinct and comprehensive way, “By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks” (Hebrews 11:4).

__________

Thus the first dispensation ended in failure, yielding as its result a mournful proof that man is a being too weak to retain his innocence even in the most favorable circumstances. It now remained to be seen whether after the experience of the fall, after tasting the bitter consequences of sin, he could recover his position and become again obedient and holy. Of this God made trial in several ways.

First, in what we may term the age of freedom, during the lapse of which He left Adam and his descendants almost entirely to their own devices. Marriage had indeed been instituted: and they were instructed to approach God by means of typical sacrifices, and commanded to toil for their bread by tilling the earth. But beyond this God would neither Himself issue laws nor suffer men to do so. The sword of the magistrate might not be used for the repression of crime: even the murderer should be unpunished, as we may see by the case of Cain. No government was permitted: every  man should go in his own way, and do that which was right in his own eyes. 

Thus the fitness of man for a condition of extreme liberty, and the worth of a trust in the innate justice supposed to lie at the bottom of the human heart, have been already tested by the great Creator. — Pember, pages 165-166.

__________

Eve’s statement is to be translated, “I have acquired a male, the Lord.” In other words, Eve’s expectation regarding Cain, her first male child, is that he is none other than the promised “seed” of 3:15, who, as God incarnate, would restore humanity to their pre-Fall ideal by “crushing” Satan’s head and ending the reign of sin over Creation. — Wechsler, page 116.

__________

In their desire to worship, therefore, the brothers quite naturally present to the Lord that which is theirs to give—namely, a fruit offering and a flock offering. The reason Cain’s offering is rejected is not because it was a non-animal offering (this distinction is only  made later on in the Law of Moses, and even then fruit/grain offerings are specified as a legitimate type of offering; cf. Leviticus 2:1.), but rather because Cain’s heart, or attitude, was not consistent with the act of worship. — Wechsler, page 116-117

I’ve heard Wechsler’s viewpoint before, but I don’t think I fully agree. Yes, the Mosaic law speaks of grain offerings, but as far as I can see from Leviticus 2, they are for memorials and worship, not for sin offerings. As Hebrews 9:22 says, “And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” There’s not blood in fruit. Yes, Cain’s attitude was wrong, but I don’t believe that was the only problem with his offering. That fact that Abel knew to kill a sheep to offer it to the Lord is evidence that God had revealed His will regarding blood sacrifices. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to kill the sheep.

²² Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—

²³ therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.

²⁴ So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Verse 22 gives a brief insight into the inner councils of the tri-une Godhead. As in Genesis 1:26, such a council was recorded relative to the decision to make man, so now the council decrees his expulsion from the garden and the tree of life. In both passages, the divine unity is stressed (“And the Lord God said”) and also the divine plurality (“Us”). — Morris, page 131.

__________

To “keep” ( or “guard”) the way of the tree of life, God placed at the east of the garden two cherubim, with a revolving swordlike flame …These creatures, apparently the highest in the angelic hierarchy, are described more fully in Ezekiel 1:4-28; 10:1-22; and Revelation 4:6-8. Satan himself had once been the “anointed cherub” (Ezekiel 28:14) on God’s holy mountain.

The cherubim are always associated closely with the throne of God (note Psalm 18:10; 80:1; 99:1) and it is thus intimated that God’s presence was particularly manifest there at the tree of life. Later, His presence was especially revealed over the mercy seat in the holy of holies in the tabernacle (Exodus 25:17-22; Hebrews 9:3-5), and it is significant that this mercy seat was overshadowed by two golden representations of the cherubim. It was here that once each year the high priest entered with the sacrificial blood of atonement to sprinkle over the mercy seat (see Leviticus 16; Hebrews 9:7-9; 24-28).

By analogy, it may well be that it was here, between the cherubim guarding the way to the tree of life, that God continued at intervals to meet with Adam and those of his descendants who desired to know Him. — Morris, page 132.

__________

Fallen man, in his fallen state, must not be allowed to eat of the fruit of the tree of life, for that would entail upon him endless wretchedness in this world. To take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever in our present condition, would be unmingled misery. The tree of life can only be tasted in resurrection. To life forever in a frail tabernacle, in a body of sin and death, would be intolerable. — Mackintosh, page 55.

__________

The verb “shakan,” translated “and he placed,” should be rendered “and He set up the tabernacle” as it has been so translated in Joshua 18:1, where the same verb is given its right meaning. Then we can understand how the two brothers could bring an offering unto the Lord. The Lord had a tabernacle at the East of the Garden of Eden.  — Bultema, page 19.

__________

Adam and Eve, though forgiven, are no longer able to experience that ideal of intended intimacy with God in the garden, from which they are sent out towards the east: so too is Cain sent eastward as a consequence of his sin (4:16); and so too does man move further east before building the tower of Babel (11:2). This direction is first reversed in the Bible by Abraham’s father Terah, who sets out towards Canaan in 11:31, implying a desire on his part to draw closer to God. It is finally reversed by Christ Himself at His second advent, when, as described by Ezekiel, “the glory of God” (Jesus; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:7; Hebrews 1:3) returns to the Temple “from the way of the East” (Ezekiel 43:2). It is there, Ezekiel goes on to say, that God (the Son) will establish His throne and “dwell” for all eternity. — Wechsler, page 114.

²⁰ And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

²¹ Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

Adam called his wife’s name Eve (meaning “life”) because she was the “mother of all living.” He thus indicated his faith in God’s promises, not only that they would have children but also that through this means God would send the “seed of the woman” to bring salvation.  … In spite of their condemnation unto death, God promised they would indeed live long enough at least to have their children and raise them. They believed God’s word and so were saved. — Morris, page 129.

__________

The robe which God provided was an effectual covering, because He provided it; just as the apron was an ineffectual covering, because man had provided it. Moreover, God’s coat was founded upon blood-shedding; Adam’s apron was not. So also now, God’s righteousness is set forth in the cross; mans’ righteousness is set forth in the works—the sin-stained works—of his own hands. … the sinner may feel perfectly at rest when, by faith, he knows that God has clothed him; but to feel at rest till them, can only be the result of presumption or ignorance. — Mackintosh, pages 54-55.

__________

[God] took away their coverings of fig leaves, and clothed them with coats of skins. Most significant was the action: for by it He testified that their shame was not groundless, that there was need of a covering, but that the best the sinners could make for themselves was of no avail. … They must learn that only by life can life be redeemed; that if the sinner die not, there must be a Substitute; that the Most High is holiness and justice as well as love, and can by no means clear the guilty. — Pember, pages 158-159. (He proposes that it was at this point that God initiated animal sacrifice.)

¹⁷ And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

¹⁶ To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

This is the traditional take, supported by several of my commentaries.

Although God’s grace was manifest in this particular way [the promised seed, Christ] toward woman—despite her being the vehicle through which Satan gained control over the world—she was nevertheless to be the subject of special judgment, though even this would be for the ultimate good of humanity. Eve shared in the curse on Adam, since she was also “of the man”; but in addition a special burden was placed on her in connection with the experience of conception and childbirth, the pain and sorrow of which would be “greatly multiplied.” It had been appointed to her to be the “mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20), but now her children to all generations would suffer under the curse. Their very entrance into the world would be marked by unique suffering, serving as a perpetual reminder of the dread effects of sin.

The function of reproduction and motherhood, originally given as the joyful fruition of God’s purpose in her creation, but now marred so severely by her “lust” for withheld knowledge, which conceived and brought forth sin and death (James 1:15), would thus be marked by unique suffering in its accomplishment. Furthermore, she who had acted independently of her husband in her fateful decision to taste the desired fruit, must henceforth exercise her desire only to her husband and he would bear rule over her.

It is surely true that, in the Israelite economy outlined in the Mosaic code, and even more in the Christian relationships enjoined in the New Testament, the role of the woman is eminently conducive to her highest happiness and fulfillment … In nominally Christian countries, of course, and even in many Christian homes and churches, the proper roles of husband and wife have often been distorted in one direction or another. This can best be corrected by simple obedience to God’s revealed Word on such subjects (see Matthew 19:3-12; 1 Corinthians 7:1-10; Ephesians 5:22-23; Colossians 3:18-21; 1 Timothy 2:8-15; 3:11-12; 5:14; Titus 2:4-5; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Peter 3:1-7, etc.). Morris, pages 122-124

Taylor has a more modern take.

The ideal state is for man and woman to be co-heirs, co-equals. There is nothing in this passage that prevents us striving for that. Remember, this is a curse, not a command. Over the ages, Christians have misinterpreted this verse as declaring the rightness of women’s inferiority to men. In fact, the opposite is being stated. God is saying that there will be natural tendency for men to rule over women, but that in fact this is not how matters were intended to be. … The curse merely explains that something went very wrong to cause the world to be unequal. — Taylor, pages 111-112.

Wechsler, as always, digs deeper and finds a more satisfying take.

As God moves back up the chain of responsibility that was shamefully “up-ended” by Adam and Eve, God shifts from pronouncing judgment to the issuing of chastisement—which latter is always motivated by love and intended for improvement (CF. Psalm 119:75; Proverbs 3:12; Hebrews 12:6). His chastisement of the woman consists of two parts: the first is that He would “greatly multiply” her pain in childbirth, the ongoing reality of which is abundantly evident. Noteworthy, however, is God’s use of the expression “greatly multiply,” which implies that there was intended to be a certain degree of “pain” even in the ideal (i.e., pre-Fall) state! … Pain, which is in essence simply “an unpleasant sensation” serves a quite positive purpose, and one for which it need not be of an intense kind—to wit, it tells us when we have “pushed” our bodies too far or applied them beyond what they were meant to do or bear. With respect to childbirth in particular, pain serves the purpose of informing the mother that the baby is coming, for which process she must be physically prepared and able to adjust her body as necessary. 

The second part of the woman’s chastisement is that her “desire shall be for” her husband—the “desire” here being not the emotional desire that was unquestionably present in their pre-Fall relationship, but rather the psychological desire to dominate and control her husband. This this is so is clear from (1) the contrast with the following clause, “but he shall rule over you”—which, it must be stressed, is not intended as God’s “ideal correction” to the woman’s desire for mastery, but is in fact also part of God’s chastisement, according to which the man will likewise seek to exercise mastery and control over the woman (the ideal being that they were to rule together, with final authority and responsibility resting with the man; and (2) the word here used for “desire” is used again in the very next chapter (the only other occurrence of this word in the Pentateuch!) where it is again followed by a contrastive clause and paralleled  by the same verbal root for “rule” as in 3:16—i.e., God’s warning to Cain (4:7): “[sin’s] desire is for you, but you must master it.” Such parallels are clearly intentional, and hence intended to be similarly  understood—especially given the larger structural and thematic-theological parallels between God’s response to the sin of Adam and Eve in chapter three and that of their firstborn son Cain in chapter four. — Wechsler, pages 107-109

What to make of all this? That God wills that husbands be the head of their household is irrefutable. That God sees men and women as equals, but with different roles, is also irrefutable. Taylor’s take conveniently ignores all the verses (many of which are included in Morris’s quote above) that make these things clear. His explanation smacks of “explaining away,” not “explaining.” His use of the word “inferior” to describe women’s traditional role is a straw dog argument.

Wechsler’s take works for me. That God intended husbands and wives to be in a mutually-beneficial, loving, respectful partnership (under the headship of a loving husband who always has his wife’s best interest as his goal) is clear. That this isn’t often the case is also clear. That the curse creates a tension in the relationship makes sense.

That the Pauline verses linked above show the best way to reduce that tension also makes sense.

¹⁴ So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.

⁹ Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

¹⁰ So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

¹¹ And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

¹² Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

¹³ And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

It may be noted incidentally that the shame of nudity is no artificial inhibition introduced by the conventions of civilization … It has its source in this primeval awareness of sin, and is only discarded when the moral conscience has been so hardened as to lose all sensitivity to sin. … Except for the brief period of Edenic innocence, nakedness before anyone other than one’s own husband or wife is, in the Bible, considered shameful (Genesis 9:23; Exodus 32:25; Revelation 3:18, etc.) — Morris, page 116-117.

__________

Nakedness was not a sin at the beginning. Genesis 2:25 tells us, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Nakedness had never previously been a hindrance to fellowship with God. It was their shame and guilt, due to their sin, that caused their nakedness to be a problem. — Taylor, page 106. 

__________

So rapidly had sin pervaded the hearts of both Adam and Eve that, when God began to question them, Adam blamed his wife and Eve blamed the serpent, neither being willing to acknowledge personal guilt. In fact, Adam, by implication, cast the blame on God Himself, emphasizing that it was all because of “the woman whom thous gavest to be with me.” — Morris, page 117.

__________

Eve was not responsible for Adam’s sin, as we have noted several times already. she was not Adam’s representative. When Eve sinned, it was her own sin. Adam, however, was our representative. Unlike Eve, Satan did not deceive him. in other words, he knew exactly what he was doing. His was the greater sin, and his sin was imputed to you and me. Adam’s foolish comments are not to go unregarded by God, but for the moment He moves on to question Eve. She also has the opportunity to repent. She does not. She also engages in the art of blame shifting. She blames the serpent, who, of course, is guilty, but he is guilty of his own sin, not Eve’s. Eve’s sin is not to go unnoticed, but for the moment God addresses the sin of the serpent. — Taylor, pages 107-108.

__________

God’s response to the sin of Adam and Eve is not merely that of a Creator, nor even that of a God who is merely just: rather, it is the response of a God who desires to be—and be seen as—a Father in every ideal sense of the word. In this respect the detailed description of how God responds to the couple’s sin is not just important, but paradigmatic, insofar as it “sets the course” for the way in which we are to anticipate and assess God’s response ever thereafter to the sin(s) of those whom He likewise considers His children—whether Israel nationally, or individual believers. At the same time, to highlight God’s paternal response to the couple, we are also presented with the foil (i.e., clear contrast) of His unmitigated judgment of Satan—this contrastive purpose of which (i.e., to highlight God’s paternal mercy) is quite likely one of the main reasons that God permitted him to instigate the temptation in the first place. — Wechsler, page 102.

__________

Unexpectedly to Adam and Eve, since they are anticipating God’s immediate (and just) response to their sin, the Son does not call out to them in wrath, but in a tone of gentle and patient questioning. … These questions are not being asked for His own benefit (i.e., to supply Him with information He didn’t otherwise have), but for the benefit of the ones being questioned. Rather than “bash” them over the head with judgment because His honor was offended, God responds in a way reflective of a fundamental concern for their welfare and betterment; He wants them to understand why what they did is so bad, that it might serve as a deterrent to future sin. Thus, the first question (which, is should be noted, God addresses to the man, since He holds him primarily responsible)—”Where are you?”—is intended to bring the couple to a clear recognition of where their sin has led them—namely, to a tragic distance from God with a further barrier (the trees) between them. and by the second question—”What have you done …?”—God’s intention is for them to clearly understand how then ended up at this less-than-ideal distance from God.

God’s paternal—and even gentle—mercy (i.e., not giving them the punishment they do deserve) is further evident in the fact that, in asking the second question, God even supplies the content of their confession (i.e., “Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?), in response to which, therefore, the man need only say “Yes,” or “I ate” to acknowledge his sin. And indeed Adam does say this—but only after seeking to mitigate his guilt by shifting much of the blame to the woman—who, after all God Himself gave him. Nonetheless, God plays along, and, in response to His similar question to Eve—the asking of which indicates that His personal interest in the woman’s welfare is just as keen—He receives essentially the same response, with much of the blame being shifted to Satan. That these questions were indeed intended to draw the couple out to confession is underscored by the observation that God asks no question of Satan—precisely for the reason that the point of the questions (i.e., to induce confession) does not have any application to him, for Satan is not God’s child. 

Another significant observation with respect to God’s questions here is that once the man and the woman say “I ate,” God ceases His questioning and moves on. If the purpose of these questions is truly to draw each of them out to confession, one may reasonably conclude from this that God’s purpose has been satisfied—a conclusion which is established as a certainty by verse 21, where God expresses toward the couple one of the most vivid and visual examples of forgiveness to be found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Inevitably, therefore, the further conclusion emerges that God is satisfied with less than perfect confession!  In His paternal mercy and perfect love, God fervently desires to express forgiveness towards His children (and what good parent wouldn’t?), the theological-thematic emphasis of this episode therefore being on God’s mercy rather than on the couple’s merit. — Wechsler, pages 102-104.

There’s much in the commentaries that I’ve quoted here that isn’t explicitly spelled out in Scripture, but it’s consistent with the rest of Scripture. I think it holds water. I especially like Wechler’s final point that God’s response was based on His mercy and not 0n man’s merit.