Ambrose of Milan

Not without significance, too, is the fact that woman was made out of the rib of Adam. She was not made of the same earth with which he was formed, in order that we might realize that the physical nature of both man and woman is identical and that there was one source for the propagation of the human race. For that reason, neither was man created together with a woman, nor were two men and two women created at the beginning, but first a man and after that a woman. God willed it that human nature be established as one. Thus from the very inception of the human stock he eliminated the possibility that many disparate natures should arise. He said, “Let us make him a helper like himself.” We understand that to mean a helper in the generation of the human family—a really good helper. If we take the word helper in a good sense, then the woman’s co-operation turns out to be something of major import in the process of generation, just as the earth by receiving, confining and fostering the seed causes it to grow and produce fruit in time. In that respect, therefore, woman is a good helper even though in a position of lesser strength. We find examples of this in our own experience. We see how people in high and important offices often enlist the help of people who are below them in rank and esteem.

In the statement 'the serpent was more cunning' you understand to whom reference is made. This is our Adversary, whose wisdom is of this world. Gratification of pleasure has been fittingly called wisdom, because it is called the wisdom of the flesh as in the statement, 'The wisdom of this flesh is hostile to God.' [ Rom 8:7 ] The seekers after pleasure are shrewd in their choice of means for its gratification. If you understand, therefore, gratification of pleasure to be, in fact, an act contrary to the divine command and hostile to our senses, this is in accord with what Paul states: 'I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and making me prisoner in the law of sin. [ Rom 7:23 ] If you ascribe this to the Devil, what other cause of enmity is there except envy? As Solomon says: 'By the envy of the devil death came into the world.' [ Wisd. 2:24 ] The cause of envy was the happiness of man placed in Paradise, because the Devil could not brook the favors received by man. His envy was aroused because man, though formed in slime, was chosen to be an inhabitant of Paradise. The Devil began to reflect that man was an inferior creature, yet had hopes of an eternal life, whereas he, a creature of superior nature, had fallen and had become part of this mundane existence. This is the substance of his invidious reflection: 'Will this inferior acquire what I was unable to keep? Will he leave the earth and attain heaven, whereas I have fallen to earth thrust down from heaven? I have many ways and means by which to deceive man. He was made of slime, earth is his mother, and he is involved in things corruptible. Although of superior nature, his soul is nevertheless subject to temptation, since it exists in the prison house of the body-witness my own experience in being unable to avoid sin. This, therefore, is my first approach, namely, to deceive him while he is desirous of improving his condition. In this way an attempt will be made to arouse his ambition. The next approach is by way of the flesh, promising fulfillment of all his desires. Finally, how else can I appear to be wiser than all men if not by the exercise of cunning and fraud in my warfare of entrenchment against man?' Accordingly, he contrived not to attack Adam first. Rather, he aimed to circumvent Adam by means of the woman. He did not accost the man who had in his presence received the heavenly command. He accosted her who had learned of it from her husband and who had not received from God the command which was to be observed. There is no statement that God spoke to the woman. We know that he spoke to Adam. Hence we must conclude that the command was communicated through Adam to the woman.
The nature of the temptation presented on this occasion is now clear. In addition to this, there are other occasions when many other kinds of temptations are in store for us. Some of these come from the Prince of this world, who has vomited into this world what might be called poisonous wisdom, so that men believe the false to be true and are emotionally carried away by mere appearance. The Enemy's attack is not always in the open. There are certain powers who put on the external form of what is desirable and gratifying so as to pour into our thoughts the poison of their iniquities. From this source come those sins which arise from indulgence in pleasures or from some infirmity of the mind. There are still other powers who may be said to wrestle with us, as the Apostle says: 'For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood but against the Principalities and Powers, against the worldrulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness on high.' [ Eph 6:12 ] They wish by this belligerency of theirs to break us and, so to speak, to force out the breath of life from our bodies. Wherefore, like a good athlete, Paul knew how to parry the blows of the opposing powers and even to strike them as they advanced to the attack. Hence he says: 'I strike with my fists, not as one beating the air.' [ 1 Cor 9:26 ] And so like a good athlete he merited the crown of victory. [ 2 Tim 4:8 ] The temptations of the Devil, then, are manifold. For that reason he is believed to be a deadly, doubletongued serpent, doing the Devil's work by saying one thing with the tongue and by harboring other thoughts in his mind. There are other servants of the Devil who aim at us poisonous shafts of word and thought, such as are described by the Lord: 'You brood of vipers, how can you speak good things when you are evil?' [ Matt 12:34 ]

Although you are aware that the serpent is wiser than all creatures, his cunning is especially noticeable here. As he sets his snares, he pretends to give utterance to the words of God, for God had already said: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for the day you eat of it you must die. [ Gen 2:16 ] The serpent inserted a falsehood in questioning the woman thus: 'Did God say, you shall not eat of any tree?' Whereas God had actually said: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat, but from one tree you must not eat,' meaning, by that, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which was not to be tasted. We need not wonder at the manner of deception. Deceit accompanies any effort at ensnaring an individual. The serpent's question was not without its purpose. But the woman's reply will indicate that there was nothing questionable in the command of God: 'Of the fruit of all the trees in the garden we may eat, but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it neither shall you touch it, lest you die.' There was nothing inexact about the command itself. The error lay in the report of the command. The Scriptural passage under discussion is self-explanatory. We realize that we ought not to make any addition to a command even by way of instruction. Any addition or qualification of a command is in the nature of a falsification. The simple, original form of a command should be preserved or the facts should be duly set before us. It frequently happens that a witness adds something of himself to a relation of facts. In this way, by the injection of an untruth, confidence in his testimony is wholly shattered. No addition therefore--not even a good one--is called for. What is, therefore, at first sight objectionable in the addition made by the woman: 'Neither shall you touch anything of it'? God did not say this, but, rather: 'you must not eat.' Still, we have here something which leads to error. There are two possibilities to the addition she made: Either it is superfluous or because of this personal contribution she has made God's command only partly intelligible. John in his writings has made this clear: 'If anyone shall add to them, God will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone shall take away from these words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life.' [ Rev 22:18,19 ] If this is true in this case, how much truer is it that nothing should be taken away from the commands laid down by God! From this springs the primary violation of the command. And many believe that this was Adam's fault-not the woman's. They reason that Adam in his desire to make her more cautious had said to the woman that God had given the additional instruction: 'Neither shall you touch it.' We know that it was not Eve, but Adam, who received the command from God, because the woman had not yet been created. Scripture does not reveal the exact words that Adam used when he disclosed to her the nature and content of the command. At all events, we understand that the substance of the command was given to the woman by the man. What opinions others have offered on this subject should be taken into consideration. It seems to me, however, that the initial violation and deceit was due to the woman. Although there may appear to be an element of uncertainty in deciding which of the two was guilty, we can discern the sex which was liable first to do wrong. Add to this the fact that she stands convicted in court whose previous error is afterward revealed. The woman is responsible for the man's error and not vice-versa. Hence Paul says: 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and was in sin.' [ 1 Tim 2:14 ]
Now let us examine another question relative to the addition which was made to the command. Does this addition in itself seem to be objectionable? If the words, 'neither shall you touch it,' are actually advantageous and tend to put one on his guard, why did not God expressly forbid this even to the point of seemingly permitting it by not forbidding it? Wherefore, both points must be examined; namely, the reasons why He neither permitted it nor forbade it. Some raise the question: Why did He not order that the object which He had made should be seen and touched? But, when you realize that there was in that tree the knowledge of good and evil, you can understand that He did not wish you to touch what is evil. Sufficient is it for us, using the words of the Lord, 'to watch Satan fall as lightning from heaven,' [ Luke 10:18 ] and giving to his sons not the meat of life, but that of night and darkness, as it is written: 'He gave him to be meat for the people of the Ethiopians.' [ Ps 73:14 ] Thus far on the subject of the reason why He did not command the tree to be touched. Here are the reasons, as I understand them, why God did not prohibit this act. There are many things which do us harm, if we make up our minds to touch them before we know what they are. We often learn, in fact, by experience to be resigned if we know beforehand that a certain food or drink is bitter. You learn to be tolerant if you believe that what is bitter is beneficial, lest your sudden realization of its bitterness may offend you and cause you to reject what may prove to be salutary. It is advantageous, therefore, first to have knowledge of this bitter quality, so that you may not be squeamish and that you may realize what is good for you. These are examples of what may harm us just to a slight degree. From the discussion which now follows, take warning of what may cause us more serious damage unless we make provision against it.
Take the case of the Gentile who is eager for the faith. He becomes a catechumen and desires a greater fullness of doctrine to strengthen his faith. See to it that in his willingness to learn he is not exposed to false doctrine. Take care that he does not learn from Photinus or from Arius or from Sabellius. See that he does not hand himself over to teachers of this sort who would attract him by their airs of authority, so that his untrained mind, impressed by the weight of such august prestige, will be unable to discriminate the right from the wrong. He should first, therefore, determine with the eyes of his mind what are the logical sequences. Let him note where life exists by touching the life-giving qualities of holy Scripture, so that no interpreter will stand in his way. Sabellius reads for him: 'I am in the Father and the Father in me,' [ John 14:10 ] and says that means one Person. Photinus reads that 'there is one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.' [ 1 Tim 2:5 ] And elsewhere: 'Why do you wish to kill me, a man?' [ John 8:40 ] Arius, too, read the following: 'For the Father is greater than I.' [ John 14:28 ] The reading is clear, but the catechumen first ought to reflect on the matter in his own mind, so as to discover the real meaning of these passages. He is influenced by the prestige of his teachers. It would have been more to his advantage if he had not investigated at all rather than have come upon such an instructor. But the Gentile, too, if he takes up the Scriptures, reads: 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.' [ Lev 24:20 ] Again: 'If thy right hand is an occasion of sin to thee, cut it off.' [ Matt 5:30 ] He does not understand the sense of this. He is not aware of the secret meaning of the divine words. He is worse off than if he had not read at all. Hence he has furnished a lesson to these men on how they should have investigated the meaning of the Word of God. A careful, not a superficial, examination of the context of the passage should be made. It is written: 'What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have investigated: of the Word of Life. And we have seen and now testify and announce to you.' [ John 1:1,2 ] You see how he investigated, so to speak, with his hands the Word of God and afterward announced it. Hence, the Word would not perhaps have caused injury to Adam and Eve if they had first touched and handled it, as it were, with the hands of the mind. Those who are infirm can by careful examination and handling investigate the nature of each and every object which they do not understand. Certainly, those weak first parents of ours should have studied beforehand the problem presented to them: How were they to touch the tree in which they knew there was knowledge of evil? The knowledge of evil, in fact, can frequently be of advantage to us. Wherefore we read in the oracular words of Scripture of the wiles of the Devil, so that we learn how we can escape his arts. We should be aware of his temptations, not that we may follow his lead, but that by instruction we may avoid these pitfalls.
At this point there are some who doubt whether God meant that the fruit of every tree should be eaten-this injunction to include every tree, inclusive of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil-or whether, in fact, He referred to every tree, but excluded only the tree of knowledge of good and evil? These people are of the opinion that this matter is not without significance, because, although the fruit of this tree is harmful in itself, still, if it were combined with that of the other trees, it could not be injurious. They cite as example of this fact the belief that an antidote can be obtained from the body of a serpent which, being poisonous since it is extracted from a serpent, is harmful when taken alone, but when mixed with other drugs has medicinal properties. The knowledge of good and evil, also, if one possesses wisdom that is ever an aid toward survival and if one reaches out after the other types of virtue, is considered to be of no inconsiderable value. On that account, therefore, many hold that we can even understand the reason why God made this prohibition. He did not wish that tree of the knowledge of good and evil should be eaten alone and not in combination with the fruit of the others. He did not prohibit this if the other trees are taken into consideration at the same time. Wherefore what God said to Adam is cited: 'Who told you that you were naked? You have eaten, then, of the tree which alone I commanded you not to eat.' [ Gen 3:11 ] This would seem to offer an occasion for disputation. In the preceding passage the woman might well have not made any reply to the serpent's question: 'Did God say, you shall not eat of any tree of the garden?' But she answered: 'Of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it.' In this incident, as she was on the point of sinning, the woman's faith may appear to have been weak. Moreover, I shall not despoil Adam of all the virtues, so that he would appear to have attained no virtue in Paradise and would seem to have eaten nothing from the other trees, but had fallen into sin before he had obtained any fruit. I shall, therefore, not despoil Adam lest I may despoil the whole human race, which is innocent before it acquires the capacity to know good and evil. Not without reason was it said: 'Unless you turn and become like this child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' [ Matt 18:3 ] The child, when he is scolded, does not retaliate. When he is struck, he does not strike back. He is not conscious of the allurements of ambition and self-seeking.
The truth seems to be, then, that He commanded the tree not to be eaten, not even along with the fruit of the other trees. Knowledge of good, in fact, although of no use to a perfect man, is, on the other hand, of no value to a man who is imperfect. Paul speaks of himself as imperfect: 'Not that I have already obtained this or already have been made perfect, but I press on hoping that I may lay hold of it already.' [ Phil 3:12 ] Hence the Lord says to the imperfect: 'Do not judge that you may not be judged.' [ Matt 7:1 ] Knowledge is, therefore, of no use to the imperfect. Hence we read: 'I did not know sin unless the Law had said, thou shalt not lust.' And further on we read: 'For without the Law sin is dead.' [ Rom 7:7,8 ] What advantage is it to me to know what I cannot avoid? What avails it for me to know that the law of my flesh assails me? Paul is assailed and sees 'the law of his flesh warring against that of his mind and making him prisoner to the law of sin.' He does not rely on himself, but by the grace of Christ is confident of his 'deliverance from the body of death.' [ Rom 7:23:24 ] Do you think that anyone with knowledge of sin can avoid it? Paul says: 'For I do not the good that I wish, but the evil that I do not wish.' [ Rom 7:19 ] Do you consider that this knowledge which adds to the reproach of sin can be of help to man? Granted, however, that the perfect man is unable to sin. God foresaw all men in the person of Adam. Hence it was not fitting that the human race in general should have a knowledge of good and evil-a knowledge which he could not utilize because of the weakness of the flesh.

Let us learn, therefore, that the temptations of the Devil are full of guile. Of the things that he promised, scarcely one of them seems to be true. He contrived falsehoods, as we can see if we read elsewhere: 'And the serpent said to the woman, you shall not die.' [ Gen 3:4 ] Here we have one falsehood, for man, who followed the promises of the serpent, is subject to death. Hence he added: 'For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened.' [ Gen 3:5 ] This alone is true, because further on we read: 'They both ate and their eyes were opened.' [ Gen 3:7 ] But the truth is that as a result of this act harm followed. Hence, opening one's eyes is not to everyone's advantage, for it is written: 'They will see and will not see.' [ Isa 6:9 ] But the serpent was quick to attach a falsehood to his statement, when he said: 'And you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.' [ Gen 3:5 ] Hence you may note that the serpent is the author of idolatry, for his cunning seems to be responsible for man's error in introducing many gods. His deceit lay in stating that they will be like gods, for not only have men ceased to be like gods, but even those men who were like gods (to whom it was spoken, 'I have said you are gods') [ Ps 81:6 ] have fallen from His favor.
'And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes and beautiful to gaze upon.' [ Gen 3:6 ] She showed her weakness in passing judgment on what she had not tasted. It is not easy under any circumstance to make such an assumption without deep reflection and a careful examination of the facts. 'She took of its fruit,' we are told, 'and ate it and also gave some to her husband and they both ate.' [ Gen 3:6 ] Omission is made, and rightly so, of the deception of Adam, since he fell by his wife's fault and not because of his own.
'And their eyes were opened,' we are told, 'and they realized that they were naked.' [ Gen 3:7 ] They were naked, it is true, before this time, but they were not devoid of the garments of virtue. They were naked because of the purity of their character and because nature knows nothing of the cincture of deceit. Now, on the other hand, the mind of man is veiled in many folds of deception. When, therefore, they saw that they had been despoiled of the purity and simplicity of their untainted nature, they began to look for objects made by the hand of man wherewith to cover the nakedness of their minds and hearts. They added gratification so as to increase the idle pleasures of this world, sewing, as it were, leaf upon leaf in order to conceal and cover the organ of generation. But how explain the fact that Adam had his bodily eyes closed, whereas he was able to see all living creatures and confer names upon them? Well, just as by way of an inner and deeper knowledge they were able to realize, not that they were without garments, but that the protective covering of virtue was no longer theirs.
'So they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves coverings.' [ Gen 3:7 ] We are taught by the content of holy Scripture how we should interpret the meaning of the word 'fig' in this passage. Scripture relates that the saints are those who find rest beneath the vine and the fig. [ Mich 4:4 ] Solomon has said: 'Who plants the fig tree and does not eat the fruit thereof?' [ Prov 27:18 ] Yet the owner may come to the fig tree and may be offended by finding there merely leaves and no fruit. I have information from Adam himself, in fact, about the significance of the leaves. He proceeded to make a covering for himself out of the leaves of the fig tree after he had sinned, whereas he should have had its fruit instead. The just man chooses the fruit; the sinner, the leaves. What is the fruit? We read: 'The fruit of the spirit is charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, modesty, continency, love.' [ Gal 5:22 ] He who possessed no fruit possessed no joy. The person who violated the command of God did not have faith, and he who ate of the forbidden tree did not have the virtue of continency.
Whoever, therefore, violates the command of God has become naked and despoiled, a reproach to himself. He wants to cover himself and hide his genitals with fig leaves, making use, as it were of empty and idle talk which the sinner interweaves word after word with fallacies for the purpose of shielding himself from his awareness of his guilty deed. Desiring to conceal his fault, he throws leaves over himself, at the same time indicating that the Devil is responsible for his crime. He offers allurements of the flesh or the recommendations of another individual as excuses for his wrongdoing. He frequently produces examples from holy Scripture, citing them as instances of how a just man may fall into sin, the sin of adultery: 'And Abraham lay with his handmaid and David loved a strange woman whom he made his wife.' [ Gen 16:13; 2 Kings 11:4 ] He patches together examples for his purposes from the list of prophetical books of Scripture. He sees the leaves and ignores the fruit.
Do not the Jews seem to you to be patchers of leaves when they interpret in a material manner the words of the spiritual Law? Their interpretation, condemned to eternal aridity, loses all the characteristic greenness of the fruit. There is a correct interpretation, therefore, which points to a fruitful and spiritual fig tree beneath which just men and saints find their rest. [ Micah 4:4 ] Whoever plants this tree in the souls of every man will eat the fruit thereof, as Paul says: 'I have planted, Apollos watered.' [ 1 Cor 3:6 ] But the wrong interpretation will not confer the fruit nor conserve its viridity.
It was a serious matter, therefore, when, following this interpretation, Adam girded himself in that place where it would have been better that he havhad girded himself with the fruit of chastity. Seeds of generation are said to exist in our loins around which we bind our garments. Hence, Adam did wrong on that occasion when he girded himself with leaves that have no utility, inasmuch as by this act he implied, not the fruit of a future generation, but certain sins which remained until the coming of our Lord and Saviour. But, when the master came, He found the fig tree uncultivated. Elsewhere, when requested that he should order it to be cut down, the owner of the fig tree allowed it to be cultivated. [ Matt 21:19; Luke 13:6-9 ] And so we gird ourselves, not with leaves, but with the divine Word, as the Lord Himself says: 'Let your loins be girt about and your lamps burning.' [ Luke 12:35 ] Wherefore He prohibits us to carry money even in our girdles. [ Matt 10:9 ] Our girdles ought not to store up worldly objects, but things of eternal nature.

What does 'walking' mean in reference to God, who is everywhere? In my opinion God may be said to walk wherever throughout Scripture the presence of God is implied, when we hear that He sees all things and ' the eyes of the Lord are upon the just.' [ Ps 33:16 ] We read, too, that Jesus knew their thoughts and we read: ' Why do you harbor evil thoughts in your hearts?' [ Luke 6:8: Matt 9:4 ] When we reflect, therefore, on these statements, we have a knowledge of God in the act of walking. The sinner, in fact, had tried to hide away from the sight of God. He wished to conceal himself in his thoughts and was unwilling that his works appear in the light of day.' [ Matt 5:16 ] The just man saw Him face to face, [ Deut 34:10; 1 Cor 13:12 ] because the mind of the just man is in the presence of God and even converses with Him, as it is written: ' Judge for the fatherless and defend the widow said the Lord.' [ Isa 1:17,18 ] When a sinner, therefore, reads these passages from Scripture, he hears the voice of God walking towards evening, so to speak. What does the phrase 'towards evening' mean? Does it not mean that the sinner realizes his sin too late and that the shame which should have forestalled the fault before it occurred was itself too late?
While the sinner is physically overcome by passions that affect the soul, he in his errant fashion does not heed, that is to say, does not hear, God, as He in holy Scripture walks in the hearts and minds of each and every one of us. God says: ' For I will dwell in their midst and I will walk among them and will be their God.' [ Lev. 26:12 ] Therefore, the dread of divine power returns to the soul when we are eager to hide ourselves. Then, placed as we are by the thought of our sins in the midst of the trees of Paradise where we committed sin, we are discovered to be desirous of concealing ourselves and to be thinking of hidden things which God does not demand of us. But He who is ' the discerner of our thoughts and intentions of our hearts, extending to the division of soul and spirit,' [ Heb 4:12 ] says: ' Adam, where are you?' [ Gen 3:9 ]
How does God speak? Is it with the voice of the body? Not at all. He utters oracular words with a voice that is far more significant than is the voice of the body. The prophets heard this voice. It is heard by the faithful, but the wicked do not comprehend it. Wherefore we find the Evangelist in the Gospel listening to the voice of the Father speaking: ' I have glorified it and will glorify it again.' But the Jews did not listen. Hence they said: ' I had thundered.' [ John 12:28.29 ] We have given an instance above wherein God was thought to be walking when He was not. Here is an occasion when He was heard speaking, whereas to some people He spoke not.
But let us take note of what He speaks: 'Adam, where, are you?' Even now these words have the healing power of salvation for those who hear the Word of God. Hence it is that the Jews who closed their eyes lest they hear do not deserve to hear even today. It follows that those who conceal themselves have a remedy, for he who hides himself is ashamed and he who is ashamed is converted, as it is written: ' Let them be much troubled and let them all be turned back speedily.' [ Ps 6:11 ] The very fact of His calling a person is a testimony of salvation to him who comes, because the Lord calls those for whom He feels pity. When He says, therefore, 'where are you?' it is not a question of a locality to one who knows what is hidden. God did not have His eyes closed, so that a man in hiding was able to escape His notice. For that reason He said: ' Adam has become like one of us,' [ Gen 3:22 ] because his eyes were opened. He, in fact, opened his eyes, so that he saw his own sin which he was unable to avoid. It happens that after we have sinned, we become, somehow or other, more aware of our crimes. We are then aware of the sin which we did not consider to be such before we actually fell into sin. Certainly we did not then believe that a sin was subject to our disapproval, for, if we had felt guilty, we would not have committed it. God sees the faults of all men and knows their offenses. His eyes penetrate into the secrets of the souls of each and every one of us. What, then, does He mean by 'Adam, where are you?' Does He not mean 'in what circumstances' are you; not, 'in what place'? It is, therefore, not a question, but a reproof. From what condition of goodness, beatitude, and grace, He means to say, have you fallen into this state of misery? You have forsaken eternal life. You have entombed yourself in the ways of sin and death. Where is that noble confidence and trust of yours? That fear that you show is evidence of your wrongdoing and that hiding place of yours betrays your dereliction. 'Where are you?' does not mean 'in what place,' but 'in what condition.' Where have your sins led you, so that you fled the God whom before you sought after? Perhaps you are disturbed by the fact that Adam is the first to be rebuked, although the woman was the first to eat the fruit. But the weaker sex begins by an act of disobedience, whereas the stronger sex is more liable to feelings of shame and forgiveness. The female furnished the occasion for wrongdoing; the male, the opportunity to feel ashamed.

That fault is pardonable which is followed by an admission of guilt. The woman, therefore, is not to be despaired of, who did not keep silent before God, but who preferred to admit her sin-the woman on whom was passed a sentence that was salutary. It is good to suffer condemnation for our sins and to be scourged for our crimes, provided we are scourged along with other men. Hence, Cain, because he wanted to deny his guilt, was judged unworthy to be punished in his sin. He was forgiven without prescribed penalty, not, perhaps, for having committed such a serious crime as parricide-he was responsible for his brother's death-as one of sacrilege, in that he thought he had deceived God when he said: ' I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?' [ Gen 4:9 ] And so the accusation is reserved for his accuser, the Devil, prescribing that he be scourged along with his angels, since he did not wish to be scourged with men. Of such, therefore, has it been said: ' There is no regard for their death and they shall not be scourged like other men.' [ Ps 72:4,5 ] The woman's case is, accordingly, of a different character. Although she incurred the sin of disobedience, she still possessed in the tree of Paradise food for virtue. And so she admitted her sin and was considered worthy of pardon. ' The just is first accuser of himself in the beginning of his speech.' [ Prov 18:17 ] No one can be justified from sin unless he has first made confession of his sin. Wherefore the Lord says: ' Tell if thou hast anything to justify thyself.' [ Isa 43:26 ]
Because Eve has admitted her crime, she is given a milder and more salutary sentence, which condemned her wrongdoing and did not refuse pardon. [ Gen 3:16 ] She was to serve under her husband's power, first, that she might not be inclined to do wrong, and, secondly, that, being in a position subject to a stronger vessel, she might not dishonor her husband, but on the contrary, might be governed by his counsel. [ 1 Peter 3:7 ] I see clearly here the mystery of Christ and His Church. The Church's turning toward Christ in times to come and a religious servitude submissive to the Word of God-these are conditions far better than the liberty of this world. Hence it is written: ' Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and shall serve him only.' [ Deut 6:13; Luke 4:8 ] Servitude, therefore, of this sort is a gift of God. Wherefore, compliance with this servitude is to be reckoned among blessings. We have the example of Isaac granting it as a blessing to his son Esau that he should serve his brothers. Hence he asked for his father's blessing. Although he knew that one blessing had been taken from him, he asked for another: ' Have you only one blessing, father?' [ Gen 27:40,38 ] By this servitude, therefore, Esau, who had before he sold birthright to satisfy his appetite and who in his zeal for hunting in the field had not the benefits derived from a blessing, [ Gen 25:27 ] had now come to believe that he would fare better in the future if he would pay reverence to his brother as a type of Christ. By this kind of servitude Christian folk grow strong, as we have it expressed in the words of the Lord to His disciples: ' Whoever wishes to be first among you, let him be the slave of all of you.' [ Matt 20:27 ] Hence charity, which is greater than hope and faith, brings this servitude to pass, for it is written: ' By charity serve one another.' [ Gal 5:13 ] This, then, is the mystery mentioned by the Apostle in reference to Christ and the Church. [ Eph. 5:32 ] The servitude existed formerly, in fact, but in a condition of disobedience which was to be later made salutary by the generation of children ' in faith and love and holiness with modesty.' [ 1 Tim 2:15 ] What was certainly among the fathers a generation brought into existence in sin shall become salutary in the children, so that what was a stumbling block to the Jews shall in the society of Christians undergo improvement.
' The serpent urged me,' she said. This seemed to God to be pardonable, inasmuch as He knew that the serpent found numerous ways to deceive people. ' Satan disguises himself as an angel of light' and 'his ministers as ministers of justice,' [ 2 Cor 11:14,15 ] imposing false names on individual things, so as to call 'rashness' a virtue and avarice 'industry.' The serpent, in fact, deceived the woman and the woman led the man away from truth to a violation of duty. The serpent is a type of the pleasures of the body. The woman stands for our senses and the man, for our minds. Pleasure stirs the senses, which, in turn, have their effect on the mind. Pleasure, therefore, is the primary source of sin. For this reason, do not wonder at the fact that by God's judgment the serpent was first condemned, then the woman, and finally the man. The order of condemnation, too, corresponded to that of the crimes committed, for pleasure usually captivates the senses and the senses, the mind. To convince you that the serpent is the type of pleasure, take note of his condemnation.

The serpent is a type of the pleasures of the body. The woman stands for our senses and the man for our minds. Pleasure stirs the senses, which in turn have their effect on the mind. Pleasure, therefore, is the primary source of sin. For this reason, do not wonder at the fact that by God’s judgment the serpent was first condemned, then the woman and finally the man. The order of condemnation, too, corresponded to that of the crimes committed, for pleasure usually captivates the senses, and the senses captivate the mind. To convince you that the serpent is the type of pleasure, take note of his condemnation. “On your breast and on your belly shall you crawl,” we read. Only those who live for the pleasures of the stomach can be said to walk on their bellies, “whose god is their belly and their glory is their shame,” who eat of what is earthy and who, weighed down with food, are bent over toward what is of earth. The serpent is well called the symbol of pleasure in that, intent on food, he seems to feed on the earth: “On your breast and on your belly shall you crawl, dust shall you eat all the days of your life.”

The two sentences seem to have a certain similarity, yet in that similarity there is a great difference. There is a difference in the way a person eats of the earth, as the serpent is related to have done and the manner in which this is recorded of the man: 'In sadness shall you eat.' That very phrase 'in sadness' makes the precise difference. Note how important this difference is. It is for my benefit that I should eat the earth in sadness rather than with delight, that is to say, that I should appear to feel a certain sadness in my bodily acts and senses rather than experience pleasure in sin. Many, in fact, because of their manifold iniquities have no awareness of sin. But he who says: ' I chastise my body and bring it into subjection,' [ 1 Cor 9:27 ] feels sadness because of regret for the sins to which we are subject. He himself did not have such serious faults for which he ought to feel sorrow. Hence he teaches us that that kind of sorrow is of value which has, not this world, but God, as its end. It is right, he says, that you become sorrowful, so as to feel repentance in the face of God: ' For the sorrow that is according to God produces salvation, whereas the sorrow that is according to the world produces death.' [ 2 Cor 7:9,10 ] Take note of those who in the Old Testament were sorrowful in the midst of their bodily labors and who attained grace, while those who found delight in such pleasures continued to be punished. Hence the Hebrews, who groaned in the works of Egypt, [ Exod 2:23 ] attained the grace of the just and those ' who ate bread with mourning and fear,' [ Tob 2:5 ] were supplied with spiritual good. The Egyptians, on the other hand, who, in their service to a detestable king, carried out such works with joy, received no favor. [ Exod 16:14-18 ]

There, too, is that distinction between the serpent who is said to eat the earth and Adam, to whom God said: ' You shall eat in sadness the herbs of the field.' [ Gen 3:18 ] We may note here a certain gradation. When we eat the earth, it seems that we are in a sort of warfare. when we eat the herbs, there is a certain advance. when finally, we eat bread, then our life of trial has reached it terminus. Let us experience a series of advancements in this life as Paul did: ' It is now no longer I that live,' that is, not I who before this ate the earth, not I who ate grass, for 'all flesh is grass,' but 'Christ lives in me.' [ Gal 2:20 ] This signifies that living bread which comes from heaven, [ John 6:50 ] and that wisdom, too is living, together with grace, justice, and resurrection. Again, consider the fact that it is the serpent and not man who is cursed. And the earth is not curses in itself but is 'cursed in your work.' This is said in refernece to the soul. The earth is cursed if your works are earthly, that is of this world. It is not cursed as a whole. It will merely bring forth thorns and thistles, if it is not diligently cared.

Still another problem arises. “From what source did death come to Adam? Was it from the nature of a tree of this sort or actually from God?” If we ascribe this to the nature of the tree, then the fruit of this tree seems to be superior to the vivifying power of the breath of God, since its fruit would have drawn into death’s toils him on whom the divine breath had bestowed life. If we maintain that God is the responsible cause of death, then we can be held to accuse him of inconsistency. We seem to accuse him of being so devoid of beneficence as to be unwilling to pardon when he had the power to do so or of being powerless if he was unable to forgive. Let us see, therefore, how this question can be resolved. The solution, unless I am mistaken, lies in the fact that since disobedience was the cause of death, for that very reason not God but man himself was the agent of his own death. If, for example, a physician were to prescribe to a patient what he thought should be avoided, and if the patient felt that these prohibitions were unnecessary, the physician is not responsible for the patient’s death. Surely in that case the patient is guilty of causing his own death. Hence God as a good physician forbade Adam to eat what would be injurious to him.