Genesis 2:17

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ver. 17. But of the tree, &c.] An exploratory prohibition. God knew well where we are weakest, and worst able to withstand; viz., about moderating the pleasures of our touch and taste, because these befall us not as men, but as living creatures. {a} Here, therefore, he lays a law upon Adam for the trial of his love, which, left to his own free will, he soon transgressed.

Thou shalt surely die.] Thou shalt surely and shortly, saith Zuinglius; or suddenly, die. {Certissime citissimeque morieris} And without doubt every man should die the same day he is born: the wages of death should be paid him presently. But Christ begs their lives for a season. For which cause he is said to be "the Saviour of all men," {1Ti 4:10} not of eternal preservation, but of temporal reservation. In which respect, also, God is said "so to have loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son," &c. {Joh 3:16} It was a mercy to all mankind that the Messiah was promised and provided, "sealed and sent into the world," that some might be saved, and the rest sustained in life, for their sakes. Symmachus renders it, Thou shalt be mortal.

{a} Arist. Ethic., l. i., c. 3.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 2:17. Of the tree of knowledge thou shalt not eat — Hitherto God has been manifested as man’s powerful Creator and bountiful Benefactor: now he appears as his Ruler and Lawgiver, and, as such, enters into covenant with him. He gives him but one positive precept, to try his obedience, which, as his Sovereign Lord, he had a right to do, annexing death to the breach, and, of consequence, life and immortality to the observance of it. It is evident, however, that this was not all God required of man, but that a law was written on his heart, requiring him to love God to the utmost extent of his capacity, and to imitate him in all holiness and righteousness. Thou shalt surely die — The death here threatened is evidently to be considered as opposed to the life (or lives rather, Gen 2:7) which God had bestowed on him. This was not only the natural life of his body, in its union with his soul, but the spiritual life of his soul, in its union with God, and the eternal life of both. The threatening then implies: Thou shalt not only lose all the happiness thou hast, either in possession or prospect, and become liable to the death of thy body, and all the miseries which precede and accompany it; but thou shalt lose thy spiritual life, and become dead to God and things divine, and shalt even forfeit thy title to immortality, and be liable to death eternal. And all this in the day thou eatest thereof.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17. Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil — It is idle to speculate on the physical nature of this mysterious tree; and the supposition that its fruit contained a natural poison, which must sooner or later have resulted in the death of the eater, is without warrant in the Scripture. Nordo we see sound reason in classing this account of the tree of knowledge with the myths and traditions of prophetic trees, or in seeking to identify it (or the tree of life) with the sacred plant or branch which appears so noticeably on Chaldean, Assyrian, and Persian monuments. All that clearly appears in this narrative is, that the fruit of a particular tree (or, perhaps, class of trees) was designated as not to be eaten, and the name seems to have been given in anticipation of what would result from eating the forbidden fruit. Its name, therefore, indicated the moral purpose which it served rather than any natural or physical character of the tree itself. The design of the prohibition of this particular fruit was to test man’s moral nature, to develop his love for his Maker by deliberate choice of the good and deliberate rejection of the evil. Thus would he come to distinguish clearly between good and evil by acquiring a godlike permanence in the good, and like steadfast opposition to all evil.

By disobedience he came to know good and evil in the Satanic way, becoming experimentally identified with the evil, and thus opposed to God.

The disposition which some have shown to ridicule the literal interpretation of this narrative, and to assume that it was unworthy of God and incompatible with the dignity of man’s original state to make his and his posterity’s happiness depend upon the non-eating of a certain tree, springs from notions of God and of man which are unscriptural. The simplicity, clearness, and positive character of the prohibition are conspicuous marks of its fitness as a moral test. The newly created Adam, with great possibilities, was yet undeveloped and undisciplined. His mental and religious nature, like that of a child, would be best trained by a positive commandment, which rested in the authority of the Creator rather than in the reason of the creature whose love and loyalty were to be tested. Moreover, as food was a natural want of man, the most convenient and suitable form of the first law given for his moral guidance was one in which a broad permission and a single prohibition related to the matter of eating.

In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die — Solemn and startling words to be uttered in the bowers of paradise! What all this terrible penalty involved was doubtless a mystery to the man, and no subsequent revelation has fully cleared the awful mystery. The comments of Muller (Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii, page 291, Edinburgh, 1868) furnish an excellent statement of the doctrine of the ancient Scripture: “If we compare the penalty of death threatened Gen_2:17, with the fulfilment of the sentence after the first transgression, (Gen_3:16-22,) two things are manifest. On the one hand we find that the death which was to follow the commission of sin included not only physical death, but the various ills that flesh is heir to — the manifold pains and miseries of our earthly lot; and these are represented as resulting from sin, which ends in death. Thus the well known difficulty involved in the word ביום, in the day, is at once obviated. In the very day of disobedience a life begins which is at the same time a death. It thus appears, too, that when the serpent in his subtlety said to Eve, ‘Ye shall not surely die,’ this was not a bare lie, but a half truth, and therefore a double deception. But, on the other hand, we find by comparing the two passages that physical death is the real kernel and gist of the punishment. For the sentence pronounced concludes with the prophecy of death, making this the most important element, by emphatic repetition; (Gen_3:19;) and the account of the execution of the sentence lays stress chiefly upon the fact of man’s exclusion from the means of imperishable life.” See Gen_3:22; Gen_3:24.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

By this death he meaneth the separation of man from God, who is our life and chief felicity: and also that our disobedience is the cause thereof.

Or, whensoever.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

thou shalt not eat of it . . . thou shalt surely die--no reason assigned for the prohibition, but death was to be the punishment of disobedience. A positive command like this was not only the simplest and easiest, but the only trial to which their fidelity could be exposed.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 17. Of the tree of the knowledge - thou shalt not eat] This is the first positive precept God gave to man; and it was given as a test of obedience, and a proof of his being in a dependent, probationary state. It was necessary that, while constituted lord of this lower world, he should know that he was only God's vicegerent, and must be accountable to him for the use of his mental and corporeal powers, and for the use he made of the different creatures put under his care. The man from whose mind the strong impression of this dependence and responsibility is erased, necessarily loses sight of his origin and end, and is capable of any species of wickedness. As God is sovereign, he has a right to give to his creatures what commands he thinks proper. An intelligent creature, without a law to regulate his conduct, is an absurdity; this would destroy at once the idea of his dependency and accountableness. Man must ever feel God as his sovereign, and act under his authority, which he cannot do unless he have a rule of conduct. This rule God gives: and it is no matter of what kind it is, as long as obedience to it is not beyond the powers of the creature who is to obey. God says: There is a certain fruit-bearing tree; thou shalt not eat of its fruit; but of all the other fruits, and they are all that are necessary, for thee, thou mayest freely, liberally eat. Had he not an absolute right to say so? And was not man bound to obey?

Thou shalt surely die.] מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17. of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] See above, on Gen_2:9. Here only one tree is mentioned, as in Gen_3:3; and it seems not unlikely that the mention of “the tree of life” did not belong to the main original version of the story, but was derived from a separate source.

thou shalt not eat of it] In this prohibition man is apprised of another element in the discipline to which he is subjected in the garden of the Lord God. In Gen_2:15 it is his physical and intellectual powers which are to be exercised: in this verse he receives warning of a moral discipline. His moral being is to be tested by a simple injunction for which no reason is assigned. No hardship is imposed: but a limitation to self-gratification is required. He who makes the requisition has given freely the enjoyment of everything beside. Man’s character is to be tested in the simplest manner. Will he shew obedience to the Divine will and trust in the Divine goodness?

in the day that … die] Literally, in the day that Adam ate of the fruit, he did not die. This is one of the minor inconsistencies in the story which are not explained for us. Either we are to assume that, in some fuller version of it, the Lord God was described as “repenting” of the sentence of immediate death, as changing His mind and sparing man in His mercy: or the words “in the day, &c.” are to be regarded as metaphorical, and the doom, “thou shalt surely die,” merely means “thou shalt become mortal.”

We must not infer from this verse that the Lord God was considered, to have made man other than mortal. It is clear from Gen_3:22, that man was created a mortal being. Perhaps, in one version of the story, he was intended to eat of the tree of life “and live for ever.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,.... Of the name of this tree, and the reasons of it; see Gill on Gen 2:9.

thou shalt not eat of it; not that this tree had any efficacy in it to increase knowledge, and improve in science and understanding, as Satan suggested God knew; and therefore forbid the eating of it out of envy to man, which the divine Being is capable of; or that there was anything hurtful in it to the bodies of men, if they had eaten of it; or that it was unlawful and evil of itself, if it had not been expressly prohibited: but it was, previous to this injunction, a quite indifferent thing whether man ate of it or not; and therefore was pitched upon as a trial of man's obedience to God, under whose government he was, and whom it was fit he should obey in all things; and since he had a grant of all the trees of the garden but this, it was the greater aggravation of his offence that he should not abstain from it:

for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or "in dying, die" (z); which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Rom 6:23. So the Jews (a) interpret this of death, both in this world and in the world to come.

(z) Pagninus, Montanus, &c. (a) Tikkune Zohar, correct. 24. fol. 68. 1. correct. 54. fol. 90. 2. correct. 66. fol. 100. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The death of the soul, and become obnoxious to that of the body; thou shalt become a mortal and lose all the privileges of innocence. Though Adam lived 930 years after this, he was dying daily; he carried along with him the seeds of death, as we do, from our very conception. He had leave to eat of any fruit in this delicious garden, one only excepted, and this one prohibition makes him more eager to taste of that tree than of all the rest. So we struggle constantly to attain what is forbidden, and covet what is denied, cupimusque negata. God laid this easy command upon Adam, to give him an opportunity of shewing his ready obedience, and to assert his own absolute dominion over him. Eve was already formed, and was apprised of this positive command, (chap. iii. 3.) and therefore, transgressing, is justly punished with her husband. True obedience does not inquire why a thing is commanded, but submits without demur. Would a parent be satisfied with his child, if he should refuse to obey, because he could not discern the propriety of the restraint? If he should forbid him to touch some delicious fruits which he had reserved for strangers, and the child were to eat them, excusing himself very impertinently and blasphemously, with those much abused words of our Saviour, It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a man, &c. would not even a Protestant parent be enraged and seize the rod, though he could not but see that he was thus condemning his own conduct, in disregarding, on the very same plea, the fasts and days of abstinence, prescribed by the Church and by God’s authority? All meats are good, as that fruit most certainly was which Adam was forbidden to eat; though some have foolishly surmised that it was poisonous; but, the crime of disobedience draws on punishment. (Haydock) --- Even when the sin is remitted, as it was to Adam, the penalty is not of course released, as some have pretended. This also clearly appears in baptized infants, who suffer the penalties due to original sin, as much as those who have not been admitted to the laver of regeneration. (St. Augustine; Worthington; Tirinus, &c.) --- If on this occasion, Eve had alone transgressed, as she was not the head, her sin would have hurt only herself. But with Adam, the representative of all his posterity, God made a sort of compact, (Osee vi. 7.) giving him to understand, that if he continued faithful, his children should be born in the state of innocence like himself, happy and immortal, to be translated in due time to a happier Paradise, &c. but if he should refuse to obey, his sin should be communicated to all his race, who should be, by nature, children of wrath. --- (St. Augustine, City of God xvi. 27; Ven. Bede in Luc. 11; &c.) --- (Haydock) (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

With a threefold death.

1. Spiritual, by the guilt and power of sin: at that instant thou shalt be dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1.

2. Temporal, or the death of the body, which shall then begin in thee, by decays, infirmities, terrors, dangers, and other harbingers of death.

3. Eternal, which shall immediately succeed the other.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT. He admonishes him against eating the fruit, for the tree itself is not edible. And so it says further on: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden. Similarly, And eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree [means “of the fruit of his vine and of the fruit of his fig-tree].” Likewise, In toil shalt thou eat it means “eat its fruit.”

IN THE DAY THOU EATEST THEREOF THOU SHALT SURELY DIE. At the time you eat of it, you will be condemned to die. Similarly, we find: On the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, thou shalt surely die.. This does not mean that he [Shimi] is to die immediately on that day; nor does it refer to his mere knowledge thereof, namely that he is to know that he will die eventually for all the living know that they shall die. But it does mean that at the time he [Shimi] goes forth from Jerusalem, he is liable to death at the hand of the king, and he will slay him when he pleases. [Similarly, in the verses:] But they shall not go in to see the holy things as they are being covered, lest they die; And they shall not bear sin for it, and die thereby. Their intent is [not that those who transgress against these prohibitions will die immediately], but only that they will be liable to death and will die on account of this sin of theirs.Now in the opinion of men versed in the sciences of nature, man was destined to die from the beginning of his formation, on account of his being a composite [of the four elements, and everything that is composite must revert to its original components]. But now He decreed that if he will sin he will die on account of his sin, like those who are liable to death at the hands of Heaven for such sins as a non-priest eating the Heave-offering, or a priest who has drunk wine or who does not wear the [required number of priestly] garments when performing the Service in the Sanctuary, and other cases. There the intent is that they will die prematurely on account of their sin. This is why in stating the punishment [after Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge] He said, Till thou return to the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, by your nature. In the beginning before he sinned, Adam also ate of the fruit of the tree and of the seeds of the earth; and if so, there was bound to be depletion in his body, and he was subject to the cause of existence and destruction. [Thus the opinion of the men of science.]But in the opinion of our Rabbis, if Adam had not sinned he would have never died, since the higher soul bestows life forever, and the Will of G-d which is in him at the time of his formation would always cleave to him and he would exist forever, as I have explained in the verse, And G-d saw that it was good. Know that composition indicates destruction only in the opinion of those wanting in faith, who hold that creation came by necessity. But in the opinion of men of faith who say that the world was created by the simple Will of G-d, its existence will also continue forever as long as it is His desire. This is clear truth. That being so, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die means that then you will be condemned to die since you will no longer exist forever by My Will. And the matter of eating [from the other trees] was to Adam at first only a source of enjoyment. And it is possible that the fruits of the garden of Eden were absorbed in his limbs as the Manna, and they sustain those that eat them. But when He decreed upon him, And thou shalt eat the herb of the field and with the sweat of his face he shall eat bread of the earth, Verse 19. this [the food] became a cause for decomposition since he is dust, and dust he eats, and unto dust he shall return.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע, one of the operative, though apparently superfluous, words in this verse is the word ממנו, “from it.” Seeing that the verse had already commenced with the words ומעץ, “and from the tree,” this word appears redundant. It may therefore have been inserted in order to emphasise the severity of the effects of ignoring this warning. Alternately, the word refers to the fruit, seeing the fruit of the tree had not been mentioned at all previously. Interestingly, G’d had not forbidden Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of life, but, on the contrary, the fruit of this tree was included in the instruction to eat “from all the trees of the garden you shall surely eat.” This subject is dealt with at greater length in the kabbalistic writings of our sages.

מות תמות, mortality will be decreed for you as something occurring far sooner than would have been the case otherwise. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,8) explain that the word ביום does not refer to a day of our lives, i.e. a period of 24 hours, but refers to a “day” in G’d’s calendar, i.e. 1000 years in terms of our lives. Man was henceforth not to reach the age of 1000 years. Adam, who had been slated to live for 1000 years, actually lived only 930 years, having bequeathed the other 70 years to his descendants. They base this on Psalms 90,10 ימי שנותנו בהם שבעים שנה, “the number of years of our lives is 70.” [according to Rabbi David Luriah the words לבניו in this Midrash refer specifically to David. Ed.] According to the above we must conclude that the sages of the Midrash consider death per se as a curse, based on Deuteronomy 30,15 כי הרע הוא המות והטוב הוא החיים, “for life is good and death is evil.” As to “knowledge of good and evil,” there are a number of explanations of these words. (Ibn Ezra) It may refer to the intimacy experienced between man and his wife when engaging in marital intercourse. The fruit of that tree created the mating instinct in man. The word טוב refers to copulation that is permitted and the word רע would refer to copulation which is forbidden. Adam was full of knowledge, and it is preposterous to assume that he had no concept of what is good and what is evil before he ate from that tree. However, he had lacked the biological urge to engage in marital intercourse. This is proved by the fact that after both he and his wife had eaten from the tree of knowledge they are quoted as saying that “their eyes were opened and they realised that they were naked,” in the sense that they lacked something which they had not been aware of needing. (Genesis 3,7). The meaning of the words והייתם כאלוקים, (3,5) is “you will be like the angels.” The common denominator between Adam and the angels at that stage was that both the angels and man had no inkling of the mating instinct. It is true that merely by observing the animals’ behaviour they realised that the males and females engaged in such activities, however they had no understanding of how such a process of creating progeny applied to themselves. Alternatively, we may understand the serpent as not having the slightest idea of what the concepts טוב ורע, “good and evil” represented. Even though Chavah is not quoted in the text of having used these words, it is quite impossible to assume that the entire dialogue between the serpent and Chavah has been recorded here. Unless there had been some discussion between them before the words recorded in the text, whence did the serpent know that G’d had forbidden the fruit of the trees, as it had claimed to know? She must have learned such details from the words of the woman. Furthermore, the very opening remark of the serpent, אף, suggests that this is a continuation of the preceding parts of the dialogue which the Torah did not consider worth reporting. Nowhere else is the word אף used as the opening remark in a dialogue. (Ibn Ezra)

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.

Ad-noy Elokim commanded. Hashem would not have commanded Adam to begin with if he possessed no intelligence. Moreover, he obviously possessed the intellect to give names to the other creatures. It was only knowledge of good and evil that he lacked.

Ibn Ezra on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0); and “Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - trans. by M. Friedlander, 1873” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.