Genesis 3-4, Moses 4-5
“The Fall of Adam and Eve”
January 19 - January 25
scriptures
commentaries
Confession of Eve
<p><strong>“The serpent beguiled me.” </strong>In light of the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Fall as a necessary prerequisite for humankind’s further progression and of their rejection of the generally negative portrayals of Eve in historical Christianity, Church members typically emphasize her perceptiveness and interpret her role as constructive. Unfortunately, some have taken this view to an extreme, not only rightfully clearing the innocent and pure Eve from accountability for her transgression and honoring her lifelong faithfulness, but in addition arguing that she was not actually beguiled by Satan in her decision to eat the forbidden fruit.</p> <p>With respect to the mistaken idea that Eve was <em>not</em> beguiled, we have already seen that Satan mixed truth with falsehood in his statements to her. On the one hand, Satan told a part-truth in his assertion that Adam and Eve’s eyes would “be opened, and [they would] be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Moses 4:11). On the other hand, his claim that they would “not surely die” as the result of eating the fruit was a complete falsehood (Moses 4:10). All this is consistent with Brigham Young’s conclusion that Satan told Eve “many truths and some lies,”<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> or as Hyrum Andrus more specifically expressed it, “a big lie and . . . a half-truth.”<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> The Book of Mormon more than once prefaces discussions of Adam and Eve’s transgression by the statement that the devil is “the father of all lies”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a>—implying that Eve was innocently misled by a lie. Perhaps the most telling of these passages is 2 Nephi 2:18. Here the word “wherefore” logically connects the first clause (which describes who Satan is) and the second clause (which tells what he said): “The devil, who is the father of all lies, <em>wherefore </em>[or, “for this reason”] he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but shall be as God, knowing good and evil” (emphasis added).</p> <p>In a different but equally mistaken interpretation, some readers admit that Satan “<em>sought </em>. . . to beguile Eve” (Moses 4:6; emphasis added) but go on to say the adversary did not actually <em>succeed</em> in deceiving her. They incorrectly conclude that the Hebrew term for “beguiled” does not mean that she was deceived. Unfortunately, the reasons given for this conclusion do not stand under close scrutiny<em>.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><strong>[4]</strong></a> </em>Barry Bandstra’s detailed study of the Hebrew text of Genesis translates the relevant term in the context of the verse as “deceived,”<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a> and even modern translations that don’t translate the term as “beguiled” or “deceived” retain the basic idea in Eve’s statement that the serpent successfully misled her in her innocence (for example, “the serpent <em>tricked </em>me”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a>; “the serpent <em>duped</em> me”<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a>).</p> <p>Of course, none of this means that Eve did not have some degree of insight into the positive consequences of her choice,<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"><sup>[8]</sup></a> nor does it assert that her understanding was not relatively complete <em>after</em> she had eaten and was able to identify Satan for who he was.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a> However, the explicit declaration of scripture is clear: “Satan . . . sought to beguile Eve” (Moses 4:6). Ancient and modern Hebrew scholars agree that the primary meaning of <em>beguile</em> is “to deceive.” The actions of Adam and Eve in making the fig leaf aprons and hiding from God witness their doubtful state of mind following the transgression. There is no reason that Latter-day Saints should not accept Eve’s own straightforward explanation of what happened. In the admirable candor and simplicity of her confession, she both admitted the deception and rightfully laid blame on Satan—the only one who actually deserved it: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”</p> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> <p>Book of Moses Minute by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw</p> <p><strong>Related verses</strong></p> <p>Moses 4:19; Genesis 3:13</p> <p> </p> <p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Brigham Young, December 1844, reported in Eugene England, “George Laub’s Nauvoo Journal,” <em>BYU Studies Quarterly</em> 18, no. 2 (Winter 1978): 151–178.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Hyrum L. Andrus, <em>Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price</em>, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 156–157.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> 2 Nephi 2:18; Ether 8:25; compare 2 Nephi 9:9.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> See Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Book of Mormon Central Staff, “Essay #67: Moses Witnesses the Fall (Moses 4): Was Eve Beguiled? (Moses 4:5–12),” Book of Moses Essays, Interpreter Foundation, August 7, 2021, https://interpreterfoundation.org/book-of-moses-essays-067/.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> Barry L. Bandstra, <em>Genesis 1–11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text</em> (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 198.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> Ronald S. Hendel, “Genesis,” in<em> The HarperCollins Study Bible, Fully Revised and Updated</em>, ed. Harold W. Attridge et al., rev. ed. (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2006), 9, Genesis 3:13.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., <em>The Jewish Study Bible, Featuring the Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation </em>(Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004), 17, Genesis 3:13.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> See, for example, Jeffrey R. Holland, <em>Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon</em> (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1997), 202–205.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> See, for example, Dallin H. Oaks, “The Great Plan of Happiness,” October 1993 general conference, online at churchofjesuschrist.org.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Author:</strong> Jeffrey M. Bradshaw<br /><strong>General Editor:</strong> Taylor Halverson<br /><strong>Associate Editor:</strong> Morgan Tanner<br /><strong>Senior Editor:</strong> Sarah Whitney Johnson<br /><strong>Assistant Editor:</strong> Sam Lofgran<br /><strong>Assistant Editor:</strong> Verlanne Johnson</p>
Old Testament Minute: Genesis by BMC
The Challenges and Blessings of Celestial Marriage
<p><strong>4:22; 3:16. “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”</strong> This statement has been the subject of much misunderstanding. In an honest effort to make sense of the troubling English translation of “rule over” in the King James Version, some scholars have mistakenly suggested that it should be read instead as “rule with.” Unfortunately, the “rule with” translation does not hold up under scrutiny. In her BYU master’s thesis, RoseAnn Benson argued conclusively that the “rule with” translation should be abandoned. In every occurrence of the underlying Hebrew she examined, the phrase is best understood as “rule over,” as when a king rules over his subjects.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><sup>[1]</sup></a></p> <p>In trying to apply this statement to modern marriage relationships, we must understand it for what it is: a sad description of the fallen conditions of mortal life. Briefly, a careful study of the Hebrew text in its scriptural context reveals that the Lord is not telling Adam and Eve how they <em>should</em> treat each other but is rather describing a tragic tendency in mortal marriages that they must <em>avoid.</em> Specifically, the Hebrew word for “desire” in “thy desire shall be to thy husband” does not refer to a romantic attraction but rather to a contentious wish to “overcome or defeat another.”<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> In addition, the “rule” of the husband depicted in the Hebrew version of the phrase is not benevolent but controlling. The sense of this terrible situation is well captured in a modern Bible translation: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee. . . . And thou shalt rule over him” (Moses 5:23).</p> <p>Bible scholar Victor Hamilton interpreted God’s words as a warning to Adam and Eve. Unless they are careful, the conditions of a fallen world may lead them “to break the relationship of equality and turn it into a relationship of servitude and domination. . . . Far from being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of God’s creation, the relationship [would then become] a fierce dispute, with each party trying to rule the other. The two who once reigned as one [would unrighteously] attempt to rule each other.”<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><sup>[4]</sup></a></p> <p>This is a war that can never be won since God’s intent was never for one party to dominate the other. The Hebrew word for “help meet” (Moses 3:18) means “a helper or strength corresponding to him”—or, in other words, a completing counterpart. “This term cannot be taken as demeaning because Hebrew <em>’</em><em>ezer</em>, employed here to describe the intended role of the woman, is often used of God in His relation to man.”<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a> President Howard W. Hunter explained, “The Lord intended that the wife be . . . a companion equal and necessary in full partnership.”<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a> Thus, in Moses 2, both man and woman are created in the image of God, and in Moses 3, they are described as corresponding strengths. Note that the role given to the woman is similar to one of the names for God Himself: <em>eben ‘ezer</em> (1 Samuel 7:12), which might best be translated as “stone of strength corresponding or equal to the opportunity or need.”</p> <p>After the Fall, God warned Adam and Eve—and each of us—of the sad consequences that would arise if the couple turned their powers away from their originally intended, mutually fortifying purpose. Otherwise, married couples would face an equal match of opposing wills, with each spouse bitterly contending for domination over the other.</p> <p>Like the blessing of childbirth, the experience of married love holds out a promise of happiness, yet its practice in a fallen world is frequently mixed with sorrow. Of the great blessings that await all generations of women who have suffered under unrighteous dominion, Elder James E. Talmage wrote,</p> <blockquote> <p>When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and cooperating to the full in the government of their family kingdom. Then shall woman be recompensed in rich measure for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality. Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> <p>Book of Moses Minute by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw</p> <p><strong>Related verses</strong></p> <p>Moses 4:22–25; Genesis 3:16–19</p> <p> </p> <p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> RoseAnn Benson, “The Marriage of Adam and Eve: An Ancient Covenant” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2003), 72–73, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4522/.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> John H. Sailhamer, <em>Genesis</em>, in vol. 2 of<em> The Expositor’s Bible Commentary</em>, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 58.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Genesis 3:22 New English Translation.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> Victor P. Hamilton, <em>The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17</em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 202.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> Nahum M. Sarna, <em>Genesis</em><em>: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary</em>, The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna and Chaim Potok (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 21.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> <em>The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter</em>, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1997), 152.</p> <p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> James E. Talmage, “The Eternity of Sex,” <em>Young Woman’s Journal </em>25, no. 10 (October 1914): 600–604, <a href="https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/YWJ/id/17248/rec/25">https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/YWJ/id/17248/rec/25</a>.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Author:</strong> Jeffrey M. Bradshaw<br /><strong>General Editor:</strong> Taylor Halverson<br /><strong>Associate Editor:</strong> Morgan Tanner<br /><strong>Senior Editor:</strong> Sarah Whitney Johnson<br /><strong>Assistant Editor:</strong> Sam Lofgran<br /><strong>Assistant Editor:</strong> Verlanne Johnson</p>
Old Testament Minute: Genesis by BMC
