Charles Ellicott Commentary Genesis 3:1

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?" — Genesis 3:1 (ASV)

Now the serpent.— Literally, And. The Hebrew language, however, is very poor in particles, and the intended contrast would be made clearer by rendering, “Now they were both naked (arumim)... but the serpent was subtil (arum), more than every beast of the field.” This quality of the serpent was in itself innocent, and even admirable, and accordingly the Septuagint translates it as prudent. However, this quality was used by the tempter to deceive Eve; for, it has been remarked, she would not be surprised on finding herself spoken to by so sagacious a creature.

If this is so, it follows that Eve must have lived in Paradise long enough to have learned something of the habits of the animals around her, though she had never studied them so earnestly as Adam, not having felt that lack of a companion which had made even his state of happiness so dull.

And he said unto the woman.— The leading point of the narrative is that the temptation came upon man from without, and through the woman. Such questions, therefore, as whether it was a real serpent or Satan under a serpent-like form, whether it spoke with a real voice, and whether the narrative describes a literal occurrence or is allegorical, are better left unanswered.

God has given us the account of man’s temptation and fall, and the entry of sin into the world, in this actual form; and the more reverent course is to draw from the narrative the lessons it was evidently intended to teach us, and not enter upon too curious speculations. We are dealing with records of a vast and hoar antiquity, given to man when he was in a state of great simplicity, and with his intellect only partly developed, and we cannot expect to find them as easy to understand as the pages of modern history.

Yea, hath God said...?— There is a tone of surprise in these words, as if the tempter could not bring himself to believe that such a command had been given. Can it really be true, he asks, that Elohim has subjected you to such a prohibition? How unworthy and wrong of Him! Neither the serpent nor the woman use the title—common throughout this section—of Jehovah-Elohim, a sure sign that there was a thoughtful purpose in giving this appellation to the Deity. It is the impersonal God of creation to whom the tempter refers, and the woman follows his guidance, forgetting that it was Jehovah, the loving personal Being in covenant with them, who had really given them the command.