{"author":null,"canonical_references":[],"database_sha256":"8cfbe7284c6936871d57c02dc6aa63ebbdfd4722422d539dd9f716e46e91112e","date_end":null,"date_start":null,"edition_year":null,"id":"sermonindex-ecf-5981","native_reference":{"book_number":10,"chapter_from":3,"chapter_to":3,"system":"MyBible module coordinates (mapping unverified)","verse_from":7,"verse_to":7},"public_import_allowed":false,"record_kind":"verse-keyed-module-record","review_required":["English edition and exact text","author/work attribution","dating","verse mapping and citation kind","reuse and attribution","split author quotations and deduplicate"],"review_status":"unreviewed","source_html":"<p><b>Augustine of Hippo</b>: If someone asks, therefore, why God allowed man to be tempted when he foreknew that man would yield to the tempter, I cannot sound the depths of divine wisdom, and I confess that the solution is far beyond my powers. There may be a hidden reason, made known only to those who are better and holier than I, not because of their merits but simply by the grace of God. But insofar as God gives me the ability to understand or allows me to speak, I do not think that a man would deserve great praise if he had been able to live a good life for the simple reason that nobody tempted him to live a bad one. For by nature he would have it in his power to will not to yield to the tempter, with the help of him, of course, \"who resists the proud and gives his grace to the humble.\" Why, then, would God not allow a man to be tempted, although he foreknew he would yield? For the man would do the deed by his own free will and thus incur guilt, and he would have to undergo punishment according to God's justice to be restored to right order. Thus God would make known his will to a proud soul for the instruction of the saints in ages to come. For wisely he uses even bad wills of souls when they perversely abuse their nature, which is good.<br/><i>— ON THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF Genesis 11.4.6</i></p><p><b>Augustine of Hippo</b>: It was not in order to see outward things that \"their eyes were opened,\" because they could see such things already. It was in order that they might see the difference between the good they had lost and the evil into which they had fallen. That is why the tree is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They had been forbidden to touch it because if they did it would bring on the experience of this distinction. It takes the experience of the pains of sickness to open our eyes to the pleasantness of health.<br/><i>— City of God 14.17</i></p><p><b>Augustine of Hippo</b>: As soon as our first parents had disobeyed God's commandment, they were immediately deprived of divine grace and were ashamed of their nakedness. They covered themselves with fig leaves, which perhaps were the first thing noticed by the troubled pair. The parts covered remained unchanged except that previously they occasioned no shame. They felt for the first time a movement of disobedience in their flesh, as though the punishment were meant to fit the crime of their own disobedience to God. The fact is that the soul, which had taken perverse delight in its own liberty and disdained the service of God, was now deprived of its original mastery over the body. Because it had deliberately deserted the Lord who was over it, it no longer bent to its will the servant below it, being unable to hold the flesh completely in subjection as would always have been the case, if only the soul had remained subject to God. From this moment on, then, the flesh began to lust against the spirit. With this rebellion we are born, just as we are doomed to die and because of the first sin to bear, in our members and vitiated nature, either the battle with or defeat by the flesh.<br/><i>— City of God 13.13</i></p><p><b>Augustine of Hippo</b>: Then they saw that they were naked by perverted eyes. Their original simplicity, signified by the term nakedness, now seemed to be something to be ashamed of. And so that they might no longer be simple, they made aprons for themselves from the leaves of the fig tree, as if to cover their private parts, that is, to cover their simplicity, of which that cunning pride was ashamed. The leaves of the fig tree signify a certain itching, if this is correctly said in the case of incorporeal things, which the mind suffers in wondrous ways from the desire and pleasure of lying. As a result those who love to joke are even called \"salty\" in Latin. For in jokes pretense plays a primary role.<br/><i>— TWO BOOKS ON GENESIS AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS 2.15.23</i></p><p><b>Bede</b>: And indeed, the fig tree sometimes in Scriptures insinuates the sweetness of heavenly love, whence it is written: \"He who keeps the fig tree eats its fruit; and he who guards his master will be honored\" (Prov. XXVII); but because our first parents, confused by the guilt of transgression, made for themselves coverings of fig leaves, the fig tree can not incongruously signify the sweetened habit of sinning in humanity...<br/><i>— Homilies on the Gospels 1.17</i></p><p><b>Bede</b>: When they realized that they were naked, they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. \"The rational soul felt shame about the bestial movement in the members of its body, and it instilled this shame, not only because it felt this sensation where it had never felt anything like it before; but also because that shameful movement came from the transgression of the commandment. For there it sensed the grace with which it was previously clothed, when in its nakedness it did not suffer anything improper. Finally, in that disturbance, they rushed to the fig leaves, which they perhaps found first in their confusion: they sewed loincloths, that is, girdles; and since they lost what was to be glorified, they covered what was shameful. Nor do I think they considered anything in those leaves suitable to cover their now prurient members, but by a hidden instinct they were compelled in that disturbance so that even the signification of such a punishment might be made clear to those unaware, which would convict the doer and teach the reader from what was written.\" The mystery of this tree under which the Lord saw Nathanael still placed, S. Ambrose briefly but clearly explained by saying: \"Blessed are those who tie their horses under the vine and the olive, dedicating the course of their labors to the face of joy. As for me, the fig still, that is, the prurient lust of world delights, shades the lowly, fragile to work, soft to use, barren of fruit.\" And elsewhere he says: \"What is more serious,\" he says, \"is that Adam girded himself with this interpretation where he should have girded himself more with the fruit of chastity, for in the loins where we are girded it is said there are some seeds of generation, and therefore Adam was wrongly girded there with useless leaves, where he marked not the fruit of future generations, but certain sins.\"<br/><i>— Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)</i></p><p><b>Ephrem the Syrian</b>: Once Eve had enticed Adam and gotten him to eat, Scripture says that \"the eyes of the two of them were opened and they knew that they were naked.\" [ Gen. 3:7 ] So their eyes were opened, not that they might become like God, as the serpent had said, but that they might see their own exposure, just as the enemy had hoped. For their eyes had thus been both open and closed: open, in that they could see everything; but closed, in that they did not see either the Tree of Life or their own exposure.</p><p>The enemy was envious for this reason too, because they surpassed everything on earth in possessing glory and reason, and eternal life which is provided by the Tree of Life was promised to them alone. Thus the enemy was envious of Adam and Eve both for what they had and for what they were to receive; accordingly, he plotted against them and in the course of a momentary struggle he took from them what they should not have lost even if it meant a great struggle.</p><p>For had the serpent been rejected, along with the sin, they would have eaten of the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge would not have been withheld from them any longer; from the one they would have acquired infallible knowledge, and from the other they would have received immortal life. They would have acquired divinity in humanity; and had they thus acquired infallible knowledge and immortal life they would have done so in this body.</p><p>Thus by what it promised, the serpent annulled what they were to have had: it made them think that they would receive this by transgressing the commandment, thus effecting that they would not receive it as a result of keeping the commandment. It withheld divinity from them by means of the divinity which it promised them, and it brought about that those, to whom it had promised enlightenment from the Tree of Knowledge, should not have their eyes illumined by the Tree of Life, as promised.</p><p>Now had they been willing to repent after transgressing the commandment, even though they would not have received what they had possessed prior to their transgression, nevertheless they would have escaped from the curses pronounced over the earth and over themselves. For the whole reason for God's delay in coming down to them was in case they might rebuke one another and so, when the Judge did come to them, they might ask for mercy. The serpent's arrival was not delayed, so that their temptation at the beautiful sight of the Tree might not be too great. The Judge, on the other hand, did delay in coming to them, in order to give them an opportunity to prepare a plea. However, the haste on the part of the tempter did not help them, even though this haste was designed to help them; nor did they profit from the Judge's delay, even though His delay, too, was intended for that very purpose.</p><p><b>Irenaeus</b>: The case of Adam, however, had no analogy with this, but was altogether different. For, having been beguiled by another under the pretext of immortality, he is immediately seized with terror, and hides himself; not as if he were able to escape from God; but, in a state of confusion at having transgressed His command, he feels unworthy to appear before and to hold converse with God. Now, \"the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;\" the sense of sin leads to repentance, and God bestows His compassion upon those who are penitent. For [Adam] showed his repentance by his conduct, through means of the girdle [which he used], covering himself with fig-leaves, while there were many other leaves, which would have irritated his body in a less degree. He, however, adopted a dress conformable to his disobedience, being awed by the fear of God; and resisting the erring, the lustful propensity of his flesh (since he had lost his natural disposition and child-like mind, and had come to the knowledge of evil things), he girded a bridle of continence upon himself and his wife, fearing God, and waiting for His coming, and indicating, as it were, some such thing [as follows]: Inasmuch as, he says, I have by disobedience lost that robe of sanctity which I had from the Spirit, I do now also acknowledge that I am deserving of a covering of this nature, which affords no gratification, but which gnaws and frets the body. And he would no doubt have retained this clothing for ever, thus humbling himself, if God, who is merciful, had not clothed them with tunics of skins instead of fig-leaves.<br/><i>— Against Heresies 3.23.5</i></p><p><b>John Chrysostom</b>: Consider, I ask you dearly beloved, what height they had fallen from and how the devil's advice had cast them into a deep abyss. Whereas, you see, they had been clothed in such glory, now they stitch together fig leaves and make themselves skirts. This is the advantage to be gained from the devil's deceit, this is the scope of his advice not merely to fail to provide greater benefits but to render us naked and devoid of those we have. Since therefore such a pretext of eating led to disobedience, Scripture accordingly says, \"They ate, and their eyes were opened,\" referring not to the eyes of the senses but to their mental awareness. You see once they disobeyed what had been commanded, they were now made to become aware of things that previously they had no awareness of on account of the benevolence of the Lord shown to them. So when you hear that \"Their eyes were opened,\" understand it in the sense that he saw to it that they would now experience their nakedness and the loss of the glory they enjoyed before eating. To be sure that this is the way with Scripture, listen to what it says elsewhere as well: when Sarah's maid ran away from service and got lost, she flung her child down next to a log and from a distance she thought about his approaching demise in these words, \"God opened the eyes\" [ Genesis 21:19 ] of Hagar, not because she could not see before then but because he awakened her mind. Do you see that the word \"opened\" refers not to our bodily eyes but to mental awareness?<br/>We would make the same point in regard to the other question that arises at this stage. That is, they ask, Why was it called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? There are, you see, many people bent on controversy who endeavor to maintain that after eating from the tree Adam had knowledge to discriminate between good and evil an opinion of the utmost absurdity. I mean, in view of this and fore seeing it earlier, we dealt with many aspects of the intelligence granted the human being by God, demonstrating it from the imposition of names which he gave to all the animals, the birds and the brute beasts, and the fact that he was endowed with prophetic grace along with this ineffable intelligence lest anyone come up with such an opinion. This person, there fore, who both imposed names and gave vent to that so remarkable prophecy about the woman, as we have already mentioned how could he have been ignorant of what is good and what is evil? I mean, if we admitted that (God forbid), once again would blasphemous references be directed to the Creator. How, after all, could an ignorant per son be commanded that transgression is wrong? This, how ever, is not the case perish the thought; on the contrary, he knew quite well. It was, after all, on that account that God from the outset equipped this creature with independence: if this had not been the case, he ought not have been punished when he broke the command nor considered worthy of praise for keeping it. You see, the fact that he fell under death's sway on account of the fall is clear both from the command itself and from what happened later. Listen, in fact, to the woman in person speaking to the serpent: \"From fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden.\" God said, \"You are not to eat, lest you die.\" It follows that before eating they were in fact not subject to death; if this were not the case, he would not have imposed death on them by way of a penalty after the eating.<br/>Who therefore (l32d) could bear with those people who insist on saying that the human being had knowledge of good and evil after eating from the tree, that creature who before such eating was liberally endowed with intelligence, and along with intelligence had been granted also the prophetic gift? How do these two things make sense on the one hand, knowing goats and sheep and all the species of brute beasts, what vegetation was suitable for food and what was harmful, which types to keep away from sedulously and which ones to approach; and, on the other hand, the idea that the human being, this rational creature, should be unaware of what is good and what is evil? But behold, they say, it was Scripture that called it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I know that, too: but if you are prepared to learn the characteristics of Sacred Scripture, you will know why it gave this name to the tree. You see, it wasn't because it supplied knowledge that it is called that, but because the transgression of the command happened to concern the tree, and from that event knowledge of sin then entered the scene, and shame as well that was why the name was given. It is, after all, the way with Sacred Scripture to name places from the things that happen, wherever it is they happen. So on this basis Sacred Scripture also named the tree of the knowledge of good and evil since transgression and observance of the command concerned the tree.<br/>The loving Lord, you see, instructing the human being in the beginning and from the very outset, and wanting to teach him that he has a creator and craftsman who produces all visible realities and shapes him as well, wished to reveal to him his own dominion through this slight command. To make a comparison with a generous master who provides a great home full of wonders for someone's enjoyment: he is prepared to take not the due price but some small part so as in his own interests to protect his title of dominion and to en sure that the person may have precise understanding that he is not owner of the property but enjoys its use out of his grace and beneficence. In just the same way does our Lord entrust everything to the human being, providing him with a way of life in the garden and enjoyment of everything in it; lest he be gradually perverted in his thinking and come to regard visible things as self-sufficient and get inflated ideas of his own importance, he bids him stay away from the one tree, setting a severe penalty for transgression so that he may be aware he is under his dominion and along with everything else is a par taker of his generosity. Since, however, he was guilty of great inadvertence and together with his wife fell into this disaster through transgression of the command given him by tasting of the tree, accordingly it called it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not because he was ignorant of good and evil before this (he was, after all, not so ignorant, since his wife in conversation with the serpent said, \"God said, Do not eat of it lest you die,\" so that he knew death was the penalty for breaking the command), but because after eating it they were divested of the glory from above and also had experience of their obvious nakedness. This was the reason it called it the knowledge of good and evil, since in connection with it there took place the contest, as you might say, between obedience and disobedience.<br/>Have you discovered why it said, \"Their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked\"? Do you know why the tree is called the knowledge of good and evil? Consider, after all, how much shame they were eventually seized with after eating it and thus breaking the Lord's command: \"They stitched fig leaves together, and made themselves skirts.\" See the depths of indignity into which they fell from a condition of such great glory. Those who previously passed their life like angels on earth contrive covering for themselves out of fig leaves. Such is the evil that sin is: not only does it deprive us of grace from above, but it also casts us into deep shame and abjection, strips us of goods already be longing to us, and deprives us of all confidence.<br/>But in case we make this sermon completely melancholy by going on and on about this sin that consisted of eating of the tree and of the disobedience overwhelming the human being, come now, if you don't mind, let us change the topic from the tree to that other one, from this tree to the tree of the Cross, and let us see what harm the former caused and what good the latter introduced. Rather, it was not the tree that caused the harm, but slothful will and contempt displayed for God's command. The former tree brought death, death entering the scene after the Fall, remember, whereas the latter endowed us with immortality; one drove us from paradise, the other led us up to heaven; the former rendered Adam liable to such a terrible penalty for one transgression, whereas the latter freed us from the countless burdens of our sins and restored to us confidence in the Lord's sight. Do you see the difference between the one tree and the other? do you see the devil's malice, man's indifference, and the lord's loving kindness? Accordingly, let us arm ourselves, I beg you, dear people, with the armor of this life giving tree, and in its power let us do to death deadly passions, as the Apostle also instructs us in these words: \"Those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.\" [ Galatians 5:24 ] 17 What he means is this: people giving themselves completely to Christ have crucified every improper desire affecting the flesh and risking impairment to the soul's whole vitality. Let us too imitate these people and put our bodies on the alert against the tyranny imposed on us by the devil's activity so that even in this present life we may cross this rough and dangerous ocean serenely, put in to the calm haven of God's love, and be deemed worthy to attain the good things promised to those who love him, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.</p><p><b>John Chrysostom</b>: It wasn't the eating from the tree that opened their eyes: they could see even before eating. Instead the eating from this tree was the symptom of their disobedience and the breaking of the command given by God; and through their guilt they consequently divested themselves of the glory surrounding them, rendering themselves unworthy of such wonderful esteem. Hence Scripture takes up the point in its customary way with the words, \"They both ate. Their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked.\" Because of the fall they were stripped of grace from above, and they felt the sense of their obvious nakedness so that through the shame that overcame them they might know precisely what peril they had been led into by breaking the Lord's command.<br/><i>— HOMILIES ON Genesis 16.14</i></p><p><b>John Chrysostom</b>: I know that some at this point might accuse the Lawgiver and assert that the law is the cause of the fall. We absolutely must oppose that argument. We must plainly argue and demonstrate that God gave the law not because he hated humanity or wanted to mark our nature with shame but because he loved us and cared for us. In order that you learn that the law was given as a means to help, listen to the words of Isaiah: \"He gave the law in our support.\" One who pursues hatred does not give help. Again the prophet declares, \"Your word is the lamp guiding my steps and the light for my paths.\" But one who pursues hatred does not dispel the darkness with his lamp, nor does he provide light to one who is wandering. Solomon says, \"The command of the law is the lamp, the light, the life, the reproach and the rule.\" So the law is not only a help, not only a lamp but also light and life. Therefore these things are not for those who pursue hatred, not for those who will to be lost, but for those who hold out and lift up their hand.<br/><i>— SERMONS ON Genesis 8</i></p><p><b>Origen of Alexandria</b>: The eyes of sense were then opened, which they had done well to keep shut, that they might not be distracted and hindered from seeing with the eyes of the mind. It was those eyes of the mind which in consequence of sin, as I imagine, were then closed. To that time they had enjoyed the delight of beholding God and his paradise. This twofold kind of vision in us was familiar to our Savior, who said, \"For judgment I have come into this world, that those who see not might see and that those who see might be made blind\"—meaning by \"the eyes that see not\" the eyes of the mind, which are enlightened by his teaching; and \"the eyes that see,\" meaning the eyes of sense, which his words render blind.<br/><i>— AGAINST CELSUS 7.39</i></p><p><b>Philoxenus of Mabbug</b>: The Enemy did not contend against the heads of our race with fornication, or with avarice, or with vain-glory, or with the adornment of apparel, or with envy and pride, or with any of the other passions, but only with the lust of the belly, because he saw that it was capable of becoming a leader of all the lusts; for the Tempter was crafty, and he saw which passion was the strongest and foremost in us, and he drew nigh thereunto, and stimulated it, and after that he sowed the seeds of laxity, and after that the seeds of lust, and then fornication also entered in, for immediately \"they had eaten, the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked.\" And it is evident that it was because the lust for connexion moved in the members of union, that they also perceived that they were naked, and were ashamed at the sight of each other, for until food had gone into them lust was not stirred up, and until lust had been stirred up shame and fear did not rule over them.<br/><i>— 13 Ascetic Discourses, Discourse 10 -- On Gluttony</i></p>","source_html_sha256":"fcccef31f5d46215f1ed31a0ad57760d4dd16c8e0aa9b64062b0fe4b4807ceb0","source_module":"ECF","source_row_id":5981,"source_url":"https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/ecf/","text_sha256":"469b23ae1c0f6ecac3fdfffd7c1a0daf6a3b960160a0a2602f22511f9f2d91c0","translator":null,"work":null}