Genesis 3

Key Terms

Translator Notes

1. 'Crafty' translates arum (עָרוּם), which can mean 'shrewd,' 'prudent,' 'cunning,' or 'crafty.' In Proverbs, arum is a positive quality — the shrewd or prudent person (Proverbs 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12). Here the context gives it a negative edge. The crucial wordplay with 2:25 is that arummim ('naked') and arum ('crafty') sound nearly identical in Hebrew. The chapter transition pivots on this pun: the man and woman were arummim (naked/innocent); the serpent is arum (crafty/shrewd). Innocence and cunning are placed side by side, and the narrative tension unfolds between them.
2. The serpent is identified as one of the wild animals that God made — it is a creature, not a deity or cosmic rival. The text does not identify the serpent as Satan; that identification develops later in Jewish and Christian tradition (cf. Wisdom 2:24; Revelation 12:9; 20:2). The rendering follows the text as it stands.
3. The serpent's opening question is rhetorically distorted. God's actual command (2:16–17) was generous: 'You may freely eat from every tree of the garden' except one. The serpent reframes it as a blanket prohibition: 'You shall not eat from any tree?' The distortion invites the woman to correct it — and in doing so, to engage in a conversation about God's command on the serpent's terms.
4. The serpent refers to 'God' (Elohim), not 'the LORD God' (YHWH Elohim) as the narrator and God himself do throughout chapters 2–3. The omission of the personal covenant name may be significant — the serpent depersonalizes God, referring to him by his generic title rather than his relational name.
5. 'Did God really say' translates aph ki-amar Elohim (אַף כִּי־אָמַר אֱלֹהִים). The particle aph (אַף) introduces surprise, incredulity, or emphasis — 'Really? Is it true that...?' The serpent's tone casts doubt not on God's existence but on his word and his character.

Translator Notes

1. The woman begins correctly — they may eat from the garden's fruit. Her response corrects the serpent's distortion (v. 1), but as verse 3 will show, her recounting of God's command introduces its own alterations. God's speech continues into verse 3; the quotation remains open.

Translator Notes

1. The woman's recounting of God's command differs from the original (2:16–17) in three notable ways: (1) She adds 'you shall not touch it' (velo tig'u bo, וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ) — God said nothing about touching. (2) She softens the death penalty from 'you will certainly die' (mot tamut, an emphatic infinitive absolute construction in 2:17) to 'or you will die' (pen temutun, פֶּן תְּמֻתוּן — 'lest you die'), removing the emphasis. (3) She follows the serpent in using 'God' (Elohim) rather than 'the LORD God' (YHWH Elohim). Whether these alterations reflect misunderstanding, embellishment, or the effects of the serpent's framing is not stated by the text.
2. The woman refers to 'the tree that is in the middle of the garden' rather than 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' (its name in 2:9, 17). This could indicate vagueness or avoidance, or simply that the tree was known by its location.

Translator Notes

1. The serpent directly contradicts God. God declared 'dying you will die' (mot tamut, 2:17); the serpent says 'not dying you will die' (lo mot temutun, לֹא מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן) — the same emphatic construction, negated. The serpent matches God's emphasis precisely while reversing the content. This is the Bible's first recorded lie — a flat denial of God's stated consequence.
2. The serpent's speech continues into verse 5. The quotation remains open.

Translator Notes

1. The serpent impugns God's motives — the prohibition exists not for the humans' protection but because God is guarding his own prerogatives. The serpent reframes God's warning as God's insecurity. This is the heart of the temptation: not merely 'eat the fruit' but 'distrust God's character.'
2. 'Like God' translates kelohim (כֵּאלֹהִים), which is genuinely ambiguous. It can mean: (1) 'like God' — like the one God who has been the subject throughout; (2) 'like gods' or 'like divine beings' — a more general category. The KJV renders 'as gods' (lowercase). Since the serpent is speaking about the specific God (Elohim) who gave the command, 'like God' is used here. The ambiguity is noted.
3. 'Knowing good and evil' (yode'ei tov vara, יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע) — the serpent promises the same knowledge associated with the forbidden tree (2:9, 17). Ironically, God himself will confirm in 3:22 that the humans have indeed gained this knowledge. The serpent's statement contains a partial truth, which makes it more dangerous than a simple lie: they will know good and evil, but the knowledge will not make them like God in the way the serpent implies.

Key Terms

Translator Notes

1. The woman's evaluation of the tree follows a threefold pattern: (1) 'good for food' (tov lema'akhal) — physical appetite; (2) 'a delight to the eyes' (ta'avah-hu la'einayim) — aesthetic desire; (3) 'desirable for gaining wisdom' (nechmad lehaskil) — intellectual/spiritual aspiration. This threefold appeal — body, eyes, mind — is often compared to 1 John 2:16 ('the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life').
2. The word nechmad ('desirable') in 'desirable for gaining wisdom' is the same word used in 2:9 to describe all the trees God made: 'every tree that is pleasing (nechmad) to look at.' The forbidden tree shares the same desirability as God's good provision — the temptation lies not in some obviously repulsive thing but in something genuinely attractive.
3. 'Who was with her' (immah, עִמָּהּ) indicates that the man was present. The text does not describe him as absent during the conversation with the serpent and then arriving later — he was 'with her.' His silence throughout the exchange is striking. He does not correct the serpent's distortion, does not invoke God's command, does not refuse the fruit. He simply takes and eats.
4. The act itself is described with devastating brevity: 'she took... she ate... she gave... he ate.' Four verbs, no elaboration, no internal dialogue, no described hesitation. The narrative restraint is powerful — the most consequential human act in the story is told in the fewest words.

Translator Notes

1. The serpent's promise comes partially true — 'your eyes will be opened' (3:5), and indeed 'the eyes of both of them were opened' (3:7). But the knowledge gained is not the god-like wisdom the serpent promised. The first thing they 'know' is their own nakedness — their vulnerability, their exposure. The promised elevation becomes an experience of diminishment.
2. 'They knew that they were naked' (vayyede'u ki eirummim hem) — the word for 'naked' here is eirummim (עֵירֻמִּם), a variant spelling of the arummim (עֲרוּמִּים) of 2:25. In 2:25 they were naked and unashamed; now they are naked and aware — and the awareness produces the need for concealment.
3. 'Coverings' translates chagorot (חֲגֹרֹת), meaning 'girdles,' 'loin coverings,' or 'belts.' The KJV's 'aprons' is misleading in modern English. These are minimal coverings for the waist — an attempt to hide from each other what they can no longer bear to expose. The sufficiency of these coverings will be implicitly judged in verse 21, when God replaces them with garments of skin.

Translator Notes

1. 'Sound' translates qol (קוֹל), which can mean 'voice' or 'sound.' Here it likely refers to the sound of God's approach — footsteps, rustling, the audible presence of God moving through the garden. The KJV's 'voice' is possible but 'sound' better fits 'walking.'
2. 'Walking' translates mithallekh (מִתְהַלֵּךְ), the hitpael participle of halakh ('to walk'). The hitpael form suggests 'walking about,' 'strolling,' or 'going back and forth' — a leisurely, habitual presence, not a sudden arrival. This implies that God's presence in the garden was a regular occurrence, not a special visitation. The same verb form is used for God's presence in the tabernacle (Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 23:14; 2 Samuel 7:6–7), reinforcing the garden-as-sanctuary connection.
3. 'In the cool of the day' translates leruach hayyom (לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם), literally 'at the wind/breeze of the day.' Ruach here means 'wind' or 'breeze' — the same word that meant 'Spirit' in 1:2. The phrase likely refers to the late afternoon or evening when a cooling breeze arises. An alternative reading takes ruach as 'spirit' — 'at the spirit of the day' — though this is less commonly adopted.
4. The man and his wife hide from God — the relational rupture that follows disobedience. Where once they had unashamed openness before God and each other (2:25), now they conceal themselves. The trees of the garden, which were given for their delight and sustenance (2:9, 16), become instruments of concealment.

Translator Notes

1. 'Where are you?' translates ayyekkah (אַיֶּכָּה), a single Hebrew word combining 'where' (ayy) with the second person suffix (ka). God's question is not a request for geographical information — the omniscient Creator knows where the man is hiding. The question is relational and confrontational: it invites the man to reckon with where he is — not physically but existentially. He is hiding from God, and God calls him to account.
2. God addresses the man (ha'adam) directly, though both the man and his wife are hiding. The interrogation proceeds in the order of responsibility: the man first (vv. 9–12), then the woman (v. 13). The serpent is not questioned but directly sentenced (vv. 14–15).

Translator Notes

1. This is the first occurrence of fear in the Bible. Before disobedience, there was no fear of God — only openness and trust. Fear is presented as a consequence of the broken relationship, not as an original feature of the human-divine encounter.
2. The man's answer is both honest and evasive. He admits to hearing, fearing, and hiding — but he attributes his fear to nakedness rather than to guilt. He does not mention eating from the tree. God's follow-up questions (v. 11) will press past this evasion.
3. 'The sound of you' translates et-qolekha (אֶת קֹלְךָ), literally 'your sound/voice.' The same word qol from verse 8. The man heard God's approach and responded with fear rather than welcome.

Translator Notes

1. God's questions move from the general ('Where are you?') to the specific ('Have you eaten from the tree?'). The first question ('Who told you that you were naked?') implies that knowledge of nakedness could only have come from one source — the forbidden tree. Awareness of nakedness is itself evidence of disobedience.
2. The question 'Have you eaten...?' uses the Hebrew interrogative particle ha- (הֲ), which expects a yes-or-no answer. God does not ask 'What have you done?' but the more pointed 'Have you eaten?' — a direct question that demands confession rather than explanation.

Translator Notes

1. The man's response deflects blame in two directions simultaneously. First, he implicates God: 'the woman whom YOU gave to be with me' (asher natattah immadi, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה עִמָּדִי) — the emphasis falls on God's act of giving the woman. Second, he blames the woman: 'SHE gave me' (hi natnah-li, הִוא נָתְנָה לִי) — the emphatic pronoun 'she' shifts responsibility. The man does finally admit 'and I ate' (va'okhel), but it comes as an afterthought, tacked on after the blame has been distributed.
2. The man who greeted the woman with a poem of joyful recognition ('bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,' 2:23) now speaks of her as an object of blame — 'the woman whom you gave.' The relational rupture extends in all directions: between human and God, between man and woman.

Translator Notes

1. God's question to the woman — 'What is this you have done?' (mah-zot asit, מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂית) — is not an inquiry but an accusation framed as a question. It echoes the same formulation used in later legal and prophetic accusation (cf. Genesis 12:18; 26:10; 29:25).
2. 'Deceived me' translates hishshi'ani (הִשִּׁיאַנִי), from the root n-sh-' (נָשָׁא), meaning 'to deceive, to mislead, to beguile.' The hiphil form emphasizes causation — the serpent caused her to be deceived. Like the man, the woman deflects blame, though her claim of deception has a basis in the narrative: the serpent did lie about the consequences (v. 4) and misrepresent God's motives (v. 5). Paul references this in 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:14.
3. The chain of blame runs: man blames woman and God (v. 12); woman blames serpent (v. 13). God does not question the serpent — there is no defense offered or invited. The judgments proceed in reverse order: serpent (vv. 14–15), woman (v. 16), man (vv. 17–19).

Key Terms

Translator Notes

1. 'Cursed' translates arur (אָרוּר), the passive participle of arar (אָרַר, 'to curse'). This is the first curse in the Bible. Significantly, the serpent is the only one of the three parties that is directly cursed. The woman's consequences (v. 16) are not called a curse, and in the man's case, the ground is cursed 'because of him' (v. 17) — the man himself is not cursed. The serpent alone bears the direct curse.
2. 'Above all livestock and above every wild animal' (mikkol habehemah umikkol chayyat hassadeh) — the preposition min can mean 'more than' or 'from among.' The serpent is cursed beyond all other animals — set apart in its degradation as it was once set apart in its craftiness (v. 1).
3. 'On your belly you will go' (al-gechonkha telekh) — this implies a change in the serpent's mode of locomotion, suggesting that crawling on its belly was not its original condition. The text does not elaborate on what the serpent was like before.
4. 'Dust you will eat' (ve'aphar tokhal) — serpents do not literally eat dust, but the idiom of 'eating dust' or 'licking dust' signifies utter humiliation and defeat in the ancient Near East (cf. Psalm 72:9; Isaiah 49:23; Micah 7:17). The curse consigns the serpent to perpetual degradation.
5. God's speech to the serpent continues into verse 15.

Key Terms

Translator Notes

1. 'Enmity' translates eivah (אֵיבָה), meaning 'hostility, hatred, deep antagonism.' God himself establishes this enmity — it is not a natural development but a divinely decreed state of conflict between the serpent (and its offspring) and the woman (and her offspring). The conflict is perpetual and multigenerational.
2. 'Offspring' translates zera (זֶרַע), literally 'seed.' The word can refer to agricultural seed, semen, a single descendant, or descendants collectively. Both the serpent's 'seed' and the woman's 'seed' are mentioned — the conflict extends beyond these two individuals to their respective lines.
3. 'He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel' — the pronoun hu (הוּא, 'he') is masculine singular, referring grammatically to the woman's 'seed/offspring.' This could be read collectively ('they/her descendants will') or individually ('he/a specific descendant will'). The Septuagint translates with the masculine pronoun autos, maintaining the ambiguity. Christian tradition (from at least the 2nd century) has read this as a reference to a specific future deliverer — the 'protoevangelium' or 'first gospel.' Jewish tradition generally reads it as describing the ongoing natural enmity between humans and snakes. The rendering preserves the singular 'he' of the Hebrew without interpretive addition.
4. 'Strike' translates yeshufkha/teshufennu, from the verb shuf (שׁוּף). This is a rare and difficult verb, occurring only here, in Job 9:17, and in Psalm 139:11. Its meaning is debated: 'to crush,' 'to strike,' 'to bruise,' 'to snap at,' or 'to trample.' The same verb is used for both parties — the offspring strikes the serpent's head, and the serpent strikes the offspring's heel — but the targets differ. A strike to the head is potentially fatal; a strike to the heel is painful but not lethal. The asymmetry suggests that the conflict, while mutual, ultimately favors the woman's offspring.
5. This verse has generated more theological interpretation than perhaps any other in Genesis. The rendering follows the Hebrew text without resolving the interpretive questions, which belong in commentary rather than translation.

Key Terms

Translator Notes

1. 'I will greatly increase' translates harbah arbeh (הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה), the infinitive absolute construction expressing emphatic intensification — 'increasing I will increase.' The same construction appeared in God's emphatic permission (2:16, 'eating you shall eat') and prohibition (2:17, 'dying you shall die'). The pattern of emphatic divine speech continues.
2. 'Your pain in childbearing' — the Hebrew reads itstsevonekh veheronekh (עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ), literally 'your pain and your conception/pregnancy.' This is likely a hendiadys — two nouns joined by 'and' expressing a single concept: 'your pain in your pregnancy' or 'your painful labor.' The word itstsavon (עִצָּבוֹן, 'pain, toil, hardship') is from the same root ('-ts-b) that will appear in verse 17 for the man's toil with the ground. The man and woman receive parallel consequences: both face increased itstsavon in the spheres of their primary vocations — she in bearing children, he in working the ground.
3. 'Your desire will be for your husband' — teshuqah (תְּשׁוּקָה, 'desire, longing, yearning') is a rare word, occurring only three times in the Hebrew Bible: here, in 4:7 (sin's 'desire' for Cain), and in Song of Solomon 7:10 (the beloved's 'desire' for the woman). The meaning is debated: (1) sexual or emotional desire/longing for the husband; (2) desire to control or dominate the husband (based on the parallel with 4:7, where sin's teshuqah for Cain is paired with the imperative to 'rule over' it); (3) a yearning for the pre-fall relational harmony. The ambiguity is preserved.
4. 'He will rule over you' (vehu yimshol-bakh, וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל בָּךְ) — from mashal (מָשַׁל, 'to rule, to govern, to have dominion'). Whether this is prescriptive (how marriage should function), descriptive (what will happen as a consequence of sin), or punitive (a judgment/sentence) is one of the most contested questions in biblical interpretation. The rendering presents it as a statement of consequence without resolving the theological question.

Translator Notes

1. 'Because you listened to the voice of your wife' (ki shamata leqol ishtekha) — the issue is not that the man listened to his wife but that he listened to her rather than to God's command. The verb shama (שָׁמַע, 'to hear, to listen, to obey') with the preposition le- can mean 'to obey, to heed.' The man heeded his wife's leading into disobedience rather than heeding God's prohibition.
2. 'Cursed is the ground because of you' (arurah ha'adamah ba'avurekha) — note carefully: the man himself is not cursed. The ground (adamah) is cursed 'because of' (ba'avur) the man. The adam/adamah wordplay continues: the man (adam) was taken from the ground (adamah) to work it (2:5, 7, 15), and now the ground is cursed because of him. His relationship to his origin is disrupted.
3. 'In painful toil' translates be'itstsavon (בְּעִצָּבוֹן), the same root as the woman's 'pain' (itstsavon) in verse 16. The deliberate verbal parallel links their consequences: she will bear children in itstsavon; he will eat from the ground in itstsavon. Both primary human vocations — generating life and sustaining life — are now marked by the same painful toil.
4. God's speech to the man continues through verse 19.

Translator Notes

1. 'Thorns and thistles' (qots vedardar, קוֹץ וְדַרְדַּר) — a paired phrase that appears only here and in Hosea 10:8. The alliterative Hebrew (qots... dardar) has a harsh, prickly sound quality that mimics its content. The cursed ground will now resist human cultivation, producing obstacles alongside (or instead of) food.
2. 'Plants of the field' (esev hassadeh, עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה) — the man's diet shifts from the abundant, freely given fruit of the garden (2:16) to the 'plants of the field' that must be wrested from resistant, cursed soil. The same phrase appeared in 2:5, where these plants had 'not yet sprouted' because 'there was no man to work the ground.' Now that context of labor finds its fullest expression.

Key Terms

Translator Notes

1. 'By the sweat of your face' (bezei'at appekha, בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ) — a vivid image of exhausting physical labor. Appekha is literally 'your nose/face,' and zei'at is 'sweat.' Food will come only through bodily exertion.
2. 'Bread' (lechem, לֶחֶם) is often used broadly for 'food' in general, not specifically leavened bread. The man will labor for his sustenance — the freely given food of the garden is replaced by food earned through sweat.
3. 'Until you return to the ground' (ad shuvkha el-ha'adamah) — death is framed as a return. The man came from the ground (adamah, 2:7) and will return to it. The adam-adamah wordplay reaches its conclusion: from adamah the man was taken, and to adamah he will return. His existence is bookended by the soil.
4. 'For dust you are, and to dust you will return' (ki aphar attah ve'el-aphar tashuv, כִּי עָפָר אַתָּה וְאֶל עָפָר תָּשׁוּב) — this echoes 2:7, where God formed the man from the 'dust of the ground.' The cycle is explicit: dust → life → dust. This is one of the most quoted lines in scripture, used in burial liturgies across Christian traditions ('ashes to ashes, dust to dust' derives from this verse). Mortality is presented not as the arrival of something alien but as a return to what the man already is.

Key Terms

Translator Notes

1. 'Eve' translates Chavvah (חַוָּה), a name related to the root ch-y-h (חָיָה, 'to live'). The name means 'life,' 'living,' or 'life-giver.' The Hebrew wordplay is between Chavvah and chai (חַי, 'living') — she is 'Life' because she is the mother of all the living.
2. The timing of this naming is remarkable. It comes immediately after the pronouncement of death ('to dust you will return,' v. 19) and before the expulsion from the garden (vv. 23–24). In the face of a death sentence, the man names his wife 'Life.' This has been read as an act of faith — trusting that life will continue despite the curse — or simply as a statement about her biological role. The text does not explain the man's motivation.
3. 'Mother of all the living' (em kol-chai) — this is a title of extraordinary scope. It establishes the woman not merely as the first woman but as the ancestral mother of all human beings.

Translator Notes

1. 'Garments of skin' translates kotnot or (כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר). The kotonet (כֻּתֹּנֶת) is a tunic or long garment — the same word used for Joseph's famous garment (Genesis 37:3) and for priestly vestments (Exodus 28:4, 39–40). These are substantial garments, not the minimal fig-leaf coverings the humans made for themselves (v. 7). God replaces the inadequate human attempt at covering with something durable and effective.
2. 'Of skin' (or, עוֹר) implies the death of an animal. The first clothing requires the first death. God himself provides covering for human shame, and that covering comes at the cost of a life. Many commentators see this as the first act of sacrifice and a foreshadowing of the sacrificial system — God covers sin through death. The text itself does not draw this conclusion explicitly, but the narrative implication is present.
3. God's action here is one of provision and care even in the midst of judgment. After pronouncing consequences, God personally clothes the man and his wife. The verb 'clothed them' (vayyalbishem, וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם) portrays God dressing them — an act of intimate care performed for those he has just judged.

Translator Notes

1. 'Like one of us' (ke'achad mimmennu, כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ) — another instance of divine plural language (cf. 1:26, 'Let us make'). The same interpretive options apply: divine council, royal plural, or trinitarian reference. God confirms what the serpent predicted — the man has indeed gained knowledge of good and evil. The serpent's lie was not in the promise of knowledge but in the denial of its cost.
2. The sentence breaks off mid-thought — 'lest he reach out his hand... and eat, and live forever—' The consequence is not stated; instead, God acts (v. 23). This is a rhetorical figure called aposiopesis — breaking off a sentence before its conclusion, leaving the implication to the hearer. The unstated but implied completion is something like: 'this must be prevented.' The prospect of fallen humanity living forever is treated as so dire it is left unspoken.
3. 'The tree of life' (ets hachayyim) — which was freely available (no prohibition against it was stated in 2:16–17) — now becomes dangerous. Eternal life in a state of alienation from God, knowing good and evil but unable to undo the knowledge, would be an eternal curse rather than a blessing. The expulsion from the garden (vv. 23–24) is thus an act of mercy as well as judgment: God prevents humanity from becoming irredeemably trapped in a fallen immortality.
4. 'See' (hen, הֵן) is the attention-getting particle, similar to hinneh. The KJV's 'Behold' is rendered as 'See' for modern readability.

Translator Notes

1. 'Sent him out' translates vayeshallchehu (וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ), from shalach (שָׁלַח, 'to send, to send away, to let go'). This is a milder term than what follows in verse 24 (garash, 'to drive out'). The progression from 'sent out' to 'drove out' intensifies the finality of the expulsion.
2. 'To work the ground from which he was taken' — the man's vocation remains: he will work (avad, עָבַד) the ground (adamah). But instead of working the garden of Eden (2:15), he will work the cursed ground (3:17) from which he was originally taken (2:7). The work continues; the conditions have changed. The verb avad ('to work/serve') links 2:5, 2:15, and 3:23 — the man's purpose endures through the fall, though it is now marked by painful toil.

Key Terms

Translator Notes

1. 'Drove out' translates vayegaresh (וַיְגָרֶשׁ), from garash (גָּרַשׁ), a strong verb meaning 'to drive out, to expel, to banish, to divorce.' It is stronger than 'sent out' (shalach, v. 23). Garash is used for driving out inhabitants from a land (Exodus 23:28–31), for divorce (Leviticus 21:7, 14), and for the expulsion of Hagar (Genesis 21:10). The expulsion from Eden is not a gentle departure but a forcible removal.
2. 'Stationed' translates vayyashken (וַיַּשְׁכֵּן), from shakan (שָׁכַן, 'to dwell, to settle, to cause to dwell'). God causes the cherubim to dwell or take up permanent residence at the garden's entrance. The same root gives rise to the word Shekinah (the divine dwelling presence) in later Jewish theology.
3. 'Cherubim' translates keruvim (כְּרֻבִים), heavenly beings associated with God's throne and the guarding of sacred space. In later biblical texts, cherubim are depicted on the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:18–22), woven into the curtains of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1, 31), and carved in the temple (1 Kings 6:23–28). They are guardians of holy space — the same function they perform here at the entrance to Eden. Their presence reinforces the garden-as-sanctuary interpretation.
4. 'A flaming sword that turned in every direction' (lahat hacherev hammithappekhet, לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת) — literally 'the flame of the sword, the one turning itself.' Whether the sword is a separate entity from the cherubim or wielded by them is not specified. The hitpael form of haphakh ('turning itself') suggests autonomous, ceaseless rotation — a perpetually revolving blade of fire blocking all approach.
5. 'To guard the way to the tree of life' (lishmor et-derekh ets hachayyim) — the verb shamar ('to guard') is the same verb used in 2:15 for the man's commission to 'keep/guard' the garden. The profound irony is unmistakable: the man was placed in the garden to shamar (guard) it, and now cherubim shamar (guard) it against him. The guardian has become the one guarded against. What the man failed to protect is now protected from the man.