The Man gives his wife a name, while God gives them both
clothing. The substitution of the flimsy covering of fig leaves with the more
durable one of animal’s skin might demonstrate God’s care, but at the same time
confirms the permanence of the human dilemma (Hasuer 1982: 32). Ironically, an
animal was instrumental in humans becoming aware of their nakedness and animals
are used to hide that nakedness, just as eating from a tree produced knowledge
of nakedness, and leaves from a tree were used to hide that nakedness.
The Lord God’s words show that the Serpent was a seducer
rather than a blatant liar. He had merely been economical with the truth. His
prediction that on eating the fruit the couple would become like God, knowing
good and evil (i.e., achieving autonomy), is confirmed by God (3.22), though
apparently not realized by the couple (see 3.107). The Serpent’s reassurance
that they would not die (3.4), however, while true in the short term, is not
confirmed for the long term. The Lord God has already announced that humanity
will return to the dust (3.19), and here he denies access to the tree of life,
which would have bestowed immortality (3.22b). That is to say, the Man and
Woman achieved the autonomy they desired, but it would not last. Denied access
to the tree of life they are exiled eastward. This is the first enforced move
to the east that is experienced by the dispossessed in Genesis, and confirms
the negative connotations introduced in the earlier description of the rivers
(see 2.10-14; 4.8-16; 11.1-9; 13.8-13; 29.1-14). (Laurence A. Turner, Genesis
[2d ed.; Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press, 2009], 25-26)