---
title: "Genesis 3 - Study King James Bible with clarkes commentary"
description: "Read Genesis 3 with clarkes commentary commentary. 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not ea"
image: "/_app/immutable/assets/missing.C7wGMEZ6.jpg"
url: "https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3"
---

[ Read](/kjv/genesis/3)[ Commentary](/study/genesis/3)[ Interlinear](/interlinear/genesis/3) Audio

 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?*

 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

 3 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.

 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 6 And when the woman saw that the tree *was* good for food, and that it *was* pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make *one* wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.*

 7 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.*

 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.*

 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where *art* thou?

 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I *was* naked; and I hid myself.

 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou *wast* naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest *to be* with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What *is* this *that* thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou *art* cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire *shall be* to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.*

 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed *is* the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat *of* it all the days of thy life;

 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;*

 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou *art*, and unto dust shalt thou return.

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

 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

 22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
 
[Genesis 2](/study/genesis/2) [Genesis 4](/study/genesis/4)

## Commentary

 To verse 1
 
Verse [Genesis 3:1](/kjv/genesis/3/1). ***Now the serpent was more subtle*** — We have here one of the most difficult as well as the most important narratives in the whole book of God. The last chapter ended with a short but striking account of the perfection and felicity of the first human beings, and this opens with an account of their transgression, degradation, and ruin. That man is in a *fallen* state, the history of the world, with that of the life and miseries of every human being, establishes beyond successful contradiction. But *how*, and by what *agency*, was this brought about? Here is a great mystery, and I may appeal to all persons who have read the various comments that have been written on the Mosaic account, whether they have ever yet been satisfied on this part of the subject, though convinced of the fact itself. *Who* was the *serpent*? of what *kind*? In what *way* did he seduce the first happy pair? These are questions which *remain yet* to be *answered*. The whole account is either a *simple narrative* of *facts*, or it is an *allegory*. If it be a historical relation, its literal meaning should be sought out; if it be an *allegory*, no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should be understood, for fanciful illustrations are endless. Believing it to be a *simple relation* of *facts* capable of a satisfactory explanation, I shall take it up on this ground; and, by a careful examination of the original text, endeavour to fix the meaning, and show the propriety and consistency of the Mosaic account of the fall of man. The chief difficulty in the account is found in the question, Who was the *agent* employed in the seduction of our first parents? 

The word in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate *serpent*, is נחש *nachash*; and, according to *Buxtorf* and others, has *three* meanings in Scripture. 

1. It signifies to *view* or *observe attentively*, to *divine* or *use enchantments,* because in them the augurs *viewed attentively the flight of birds*, the *entrails of beasts*, the *course* of the *clouds*, c. and under this head it signifies to *acquire knowledge by experience*. 

2. It signifies *brass, brazen*, and is translated in our Bible, not only *brass*, but *chains*, *fetters, fetters of brass*, and in several places *steel*; see [2 Samuel 22:35](/kjv/2-samuel/22/35); [Job 20:24](/kjv/job/20/24); [Psalms 18:34](/kjv/psalms/18/34); and in one place, at least *filthiness* or *fornication*, [Ezekiel 16:36](/kjv/ezekiel/16/36). 

3. It signifies a *serpent*, but of what kind is not determined. In [Job 26:13](/kjv/job/26/13), it seems to mean the *whale* or *hippopotamus: By his spirit he hath garnished the* *heavens, his hand hath formed the crooked serpent*, נחש ברח nachash *bariach*: as ברח *barach* signifies to pass *on* or *pass* *through*, and בריח *beriach* is used for a *bar* of a gate or door *that passed through rings*, c., the idea of *straightness* rather than *crookedness* should be attached to it here and it is likely that the *hippopotamus* or *sea-horse* is intended by it. 

In [Ecclesiastes 10:11](/kjv/ecclesiastes/10/11), the creature called *nachash*, of whatever sort, is compared to the *babbler: Surely* *the serpent* (נחש nachash) *will bite without enchantment; and a* *babbler is no better*. 

In [Isaiah 27:1](/kjv/isaiah/27/1), the *crocodile* or *alligator* seems particularly meant by the original: *In that day the Lord - shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent*, c. And in [Isaiah 65:25](/kjv/isaiah/65/25), the same creature is meant as in [Genesis 3:1](/kjv/genesis/3/1), for in the words, *And dust shall be the serpent's meat*, there is an evident allusion to the text of Moses. In [Amos 9:3](/kjv/amos/9/3), the *crocodile* is evidently intended: *Though they be hid in the* *bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent*, (הנחש hannachash,) *and he shall bite them*. No person can suppose that any of the snake or serpent kind can be intended here and we see from the various acceptations of the word, and the different senses which it bears in various places in the sacred writings, that it appears to be a sort of *general term* confined to no one sense. Hence it will be necessary to examine the root accurately, to see if its ideal meaning will enable us to ascertain the animal intended in the text. We have already seen that *nachash* signifies to *view attentively*, to *acquire knowledge* or *experience* *by attentive observation*; so נחשתי *nichashti*, [Genesis 30:27](/kjv/genesis/30/27): *I have learned by experience*; and this seems to be its most general meaning in the Bible. The original word is by the Septuagint translated οφις, a *serpent*, not because this was its *fixed* determinate meaning in the sacred writings, but because it was the best that occurred to the translators: and they do not seem to have given themselves much trouble to understand the meaning of the original, for they have rendered the word as variously as our translators have done, or rather our translators have followed *them*, as they give nearly the same significations found in the Septuagint: hence we find that οφις is as frequently used by them as *serpent*, its supposed literal meaning, is used in our version. And the New Testament writers, who seldom quote the Old Testament *but from the Septuagint translation*, and often do not *change* even a word in their quotations, copy this version in the use of this word. From the Septuagint therefore we can expect no light, nor indeed from any other of the ancient versions, which are all *subsequent* to the Septuagint, and some of them actually made from it. In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look *everywhere* for information. And in such an inquiry the Arabic may be expected to afford some help, from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. [Arabic] *chanas* or *khanasa* signifies *he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away*; from this root come [Arabic] *akhnas*, [Arabic] *khanasa*, and [Arabic] *khanoos*, which all signify an *ape*, or *satyrus*, or any creature of the *simia* or ape genus. It is very remarkable also that from the same root comes [Arabic] *khanas*, the DEVIL, which appellative he bears from that meaning of [Arabic] *khanasa*, he *drew off, seduced, c*., because he *draws* men off from righteousness, *seduces* them from their obedience to God, c., &c. See *Golius*, sub voce. Is it not strange that the *devil* and the *ape* should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text? But let us return and consider what is said of the creature in question. *Now* *the nachash was more subtle*, ערום arum, more wise, cunning, or prudent, *than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made*. In this account we find, 

1. That whatever this *nachash* was, he stood at the *head* of all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding. 

2. That he *walked erect*, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment - *on thy belly* (i.e., on all fours) *shalt* *thou go*. 

3. That he was *endued with the gift of speech*, for a conversation is here related between him and the woman. 

4. That he was also endued with the *gift of reason*, for we find him reasoning and disputing with Eve. 

5. That these things were *common to this creature*, the woman no doubt having often seen him walk erect, talk, and reason, and therefore she testifies *no* *kind of surprise* when he accosts her in the language related in the text and indeed from the manner in which this is introduced it appears to be only a *part* of a conversation that had passed between them on the occasion: *Yea, hath God said, c*. 

Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the woman at this time and on this subject, it could not have failed to excite her *surprise*, and to have filled her with *caution*, though from the purity and innocence of her nature she might have been incapable of being affected with *fear*. Now I apprehend that none of these things can be spoken of a *serpent* of any species. 

1. None of them ever *did* or ever *can* walk erect. The tales we have had of two-footed and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit. The very name *serpent* comes from *serpo*, to creep, and therefore to such it could be neither *curse* nor *punishment* to go on their bellies, i.e., *to creep on*, as they had done from their creation, and must do while their race endures. 

2. They have no *organs* for *speech*, or any kind of articulate sound they can only *hiss*. It is true that an *ass* by miraculous influence may speak but it is not to be supposed that there was any miraculous interference here. GOD did not qualify this creature with speech for the occasion, and it is not intimated that there was any *other agent* that did it; on the contrary, the text intimates that *speech* and *reason* were natural to the *nachash*: and is it not in reference to this the inspired penman says, *The nachash was more subtle* or *intelligent than all* *the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made*? Nor can I find that the *serpentine genus* are remarkable for *intelligence*. It is true the wisdom of the *serpent* has passed into a proverb, but I cannot see on what it is founded, except in reference to the passage in question, where the *nachash*, which we translate *serpent*, following the Septuagint, shows so much intelligence and cunning: and it is very probable that our Lord alludes to this very place when he exhorts his disciples to be *wise*- prudent or intelligent, *as serpents*, φρονιμοι ὡς οἱ οφεις· and it is worthy of remark that he uses the same term employed by the Septuagint in the text in question: Οφις ην φρονιμωτατος, *the serpent was more* *prudent or intelligent* than all the beasts, c. 

All these things considered, we are obliged to seek for some other word to designate the *nachash* in the text, than the word *serpent*, which on every view of the subject appears to me inefficient and inapplicable. We have seen above that *khanas*, *akhnas*, and *khanoos*, signify a creature of the *ape* or *satyrus* kind. We have seen that the meaning of the root is, he *lay hid, seduced*, *slunk away, c.* and that *khanas* means the *devil*, as the inspirer of evil, and seducer from God and truth. See *Golius* and *Wilmet*. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the *ape* or *ouran outang* kind is here intended and that Satan made use of this creature as the *most proper* instrument for the accomplishment of his murderous purposes against the life and soul of man. Under this creature he *lay hid*, and by this creature he *seduced* our first parents, and *drew off* or *slunk away* from every eye but the eye of God. Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text: it is evident from the structure of its limbs and their muscles that it might have been originally designed to walk *erect*, and that nothing less than a sovereign controlling power could induce them to put down *hands* in every respect formed like those of man, and walk like those creatures whose claw-armed paws prove them to have been designed to walk on all fours. Dr. *Tyson* has observed in his anatomy of an *ouran* *outang*, that the seminal vessels passed between the two coats of the peritoneum to the scrotum, as in man; hence he argues that this creature was designed to walk erect, as it is otherwise in all quadrupeds. Philos. Trans., vol. xxi., p. 340. The subtlety, cunning, endlessly varied pranks and tricks of these creatures, show them, *even now*, to be more subtle and more *intelligent* than any other creature, man alone excepted. Being *obliged* now to walk on all fours, and gather their food from the ground, they are literally obliged to *eat the dust*; and though exceedingly cunning, and careful in a variety of instances to separate that part which is wholesome and proper for food from that which is not so, in the article of *cleanliness* they are lost to all sense of propriety; and though they have every means in their power of cleansing the aliments they gather off the ground, and from among the dust, yet they never in their savage state make use of any, except a slight rub against their side, or with one of their hands, more to see what the article is than to cleanse it. Add to this, their utter aversion to *walk upright*; it requires the utmost discipline to bring them to it, and scarcely anything irritates them more than to be obliged to do it. Long observation on some of these animals enables me to state these facts. 

Should any person who may read this note object against my conclusions, because apparently derived from an Arabic word which is not exactly similar to the Hebrew, though to those who understand both languages the similarity will be striking; yet, as I do not insist on the *identity* of the terms, though important consequences have been derived from less likely etymologies, he is welcome to throw the whole of this out of the account. He may then take up the Hebrew root only, which signifies to *gaze, to* *view attentively, pry into, inquire narrowly, c.*, and consider the passage that appears to compare the *nachash* to the *babbler*. [Ecclesiastes 10:11](/kjv/ecclesiastes/10/11), and he will soon find, if he have any acquaintance with creatures of this genus, that for *earnest, attentive* *watching, looking, c.*, and for *chattering* or *babbling*, they have no fellows in the animal world. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter is all they have left, according to the above hypothesis, of their original gift of speech, of which I suppose them to have been deprived at the fall as a part of their punishment. 

I have spent the longer time on this subject, 

1. Because it is exceedingly obscure 

2. Because no interpretation hitherto given of it has afforded me the smallest satisfaction 

3. Because I think the above mode of accounting for every part of the whole transaction is consistent and satisfactory, and in my opinion removes many embarrassments, and solves the chief difficulties. 

I think it can be no solid objection to the above mode of solution that Satan, in different parts of the New Testament, is called the *serpent*, the *serpent that deceived Eve by his subtlety, the old* *serpent, c.*, for we have already seen that the New Testament writers have borrowed the word from the *Septuagint*, and the Septuagint themselves use it in a *vast variety* and *latitude* of *meaning* and surely the *ouran outang* is as likely to be the animal in question as נחש *nachash* and οφις *ophis* are likely to mean at once a *snake*, a *crocodile*, a *hippopotamus, fornication,* a *chain*, a *pair of fetters*, a *piece of brass*, a *piece of* *steel*, and a *conjurer*; for we have seen above that all these are acceptations of the original word. Besides, the New Testament writers seem to lose sight of the animal or instrument used on the occasion, and speak only of Satan himself as the cause of the transgression, and the instrument of all evil. If, however, any person should choose to differ from the opinion stated above, he is at perfect liberty so to do; I make it no article of faith, nor of Christian communion; I crave the same liberty to judge for myself that I give to others, to which every man has an indisputable right; and I hope no man will call me a heretic for departing in this respect from the common opinion, which appears to me to be so embarrassed as to be altogether unintelligible. See farther on [Genesis 3:7-14](/kjv/genesis/3/7-14), &c. 

***Yea, hath God said*** — This seems to be the continuation of a discourse of which the preceding part is not given, and a proof that the creature in question was endued with the gift of reason and speech, for no surprise is testified on the part of Eve.

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/#website","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com","name":"Real Bible Believers","description":"RBB","publisher":{"@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/#/schema/person/e966585dde703268e7f6ae890ea98509"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/search?q={search_term_string}","query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/_app/immutable/assets/missing.C7wGMEZ6.jpg","contentUrl":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/_app/immutable/assets/missing.C7wGMEZ6.jpg","width":672,"height":448,"caption":"Real Bible Believers"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3#webpage","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3","name":"Genesis 3 - Study King James Bible with clarkes commentary","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3#primaryimage"},"author":{"@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/#/schema/person/e966585dde703268e7f6ae890ea98509"},"description":"Read Genesis 3 with clarkes commentary commentary. 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not ea","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/","name":"Home"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study","name":"Study Bible"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary","name":"clarkes commentary"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"item":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis","name":"Genesis"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"item":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/study/clarkes-commentary/genesis/3","name":"3"}}]},{"@type":["Person","Organization"],"@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/#/schema/person/e966585dde703268e7f6ae890ea98509","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/android-chrome-512x512.png","contentUrl":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/android-chrome-512x512.png","width":512,"height":512},"logo":{"@id":"https://realbiblebelievers.com/#personlogo"},"sameAs":["https://twitter.com/RBiblebeliever","https://www.facebook.com/RBibleBelievers"]}]}
```