The translation of the commentary on Gen 2:7 ff was done using ChatGPT, while that on Gen 3:1-7 was done by Claude.
Consequently Moses more fully and more distinctly narrates in this place what in the first chapter he wrote obscurely and briefly concerning the production of man and of both sexes.
Gen 2:7 “Therefore God formed man from the slime of the earth.” Here a part is put for the whole, namely the body of man for man himself. Or, if it is understood of the whole man, it is verified of him only according to part of himself. Therefore He formed man — that is, the body of the first man, or the first man as regards his body — from the slime of the earth; not because that body was not composed of the four elements, but therefore he expressly mentions slime of the earth, because earth abounds most in the human body according to quantity; and then water, and thus he says “slime,” because slime is earth mixed with water.
“And He breathed into his face the breath of life.” Just as God formed the body of the first man not with bodily hands, so He breathed into his face not with a material mouth, lips, or throat, but He did both intellectually, by commanding and by the sole practical concept, that is, by willing. Therefore He breathed in, that is, by creating, He sent in or poured into his face — that is, into his whole body, understanding the whole by synecdoche through the name of a part. And he specially mentions the face, because in it the vital operations are chiefly shown, and the senses are more vigorous and more apparent in it. It is also in a way a more principal and more beautiful part of man.
“The breath of life,” that is, the living soul or the rational spirit. “And man was made a living soul,” that is, a living soul and a body made living and immortal, which he received from God through the aforesaid inspiration or creation.
Concerning these things it is first asked: since God Himself immediately made the bodies of irrational animals in the first institution of things, as also the body of the first man, why does Scripture now use a special mode of speaking, describing the formation of man according to body and soul? For of the others it is generally said: “Let the earth bring forth,” and “Let the waters bring forth,” but now it says: “God formed man.” But the easy solution of this question is this: it was done to insinuate the dignity of man. For just as among forms the rational soul is far nobler than others, so also his body is of a nobler complexion, of a more heavenly equality, of a more beautiful figure and organization. It is of upright stature, to signify that his soul was created to contemplate and love heavenly and divine things.
To insinuate also that the soul of man is altogether created from without and immediately by God, Scripture says: “He breathed into his face.” Another translation has: “He breathed” or “He blew into his face.” For in Scripture the soul is called a breath (flatus), according to that in Isaiah: “Thus says the Lord, who gives breath to the people upon the earth” (Isaiah 42:5). And again through Isaiah God testifies: “I will make breath, and the spirit shall go forth from my face” (cf. Isaiah 57:16). The soul is also called the breath of life, because through it man breathes and lives. Some, however, call the “breath of life” a certain bodily spirit in the animal body which operates in the five senses and little by little is extinguished in one who is dying. For when an animal dies, in one part of the body that spirit is still felt, while in another part it is extinguished.
It is asked whether the body of the first man was immediately formed by God. To this Thomas, in the First Part, question ninety-one, responds: the body of the first man could not have been formed except immediately by God. For just as it is proper to God alone to create the soul, so also it fittingly belongs to Him alone to produce a form in matter without the assistance of a preceding substantial form. Hence not even angels can transform bodies to some form except by applying certain seeds, as Augustine speaks in the third book On the Trinity. But before the production of the first man there was no formed human body by whose power another similar in species could be formed by way of generation. Therefore it was necessary that the body of the first man be formed immediately by God. It could, however, be that angels provided some ministry around this body, just as in the final resurrection they will gather the dust of bodies to be raised.
Augustine also asks whether the soul of the first man was made outside the body. And he seems above, on Genesis, to think so. But doctors now commonly say otherwise; nor does Augustine say it simply. Therefore the doctors say that just as afterward in others, so also in the first man the soul was created and infused at the same time. For it is naturally the form of the body and part of the composite. In that act the act or form does not precede the body.
It can also be asked whether that soul was infused into a body previously formed and organized. And from the text it seems so, since it is written that God breathed into his face. But if this is granted, it will be asked what substantial form was in that body before the infusion of the soul, and whether that form was corrupted when the soul came. To this it should be answered, in my judgment, that the body of man was formed and perfectly organized by God in an instant, because to infinite power it belongs to work instantaneously; and in the same instant his soul was created and infused into the body. Just as the doctors also say happened in the formation of Christ’s body and the infusion of His soul.
Moreover it is now commonly held that the first man was made in the age and strength of manhood and fit for generation. For the works of God are perfect, and each thing is called perfect when it can produce something similar to itself in species.
If, however, it is asked whether he was made mortal or rather immortal, it is answered that he was made in some way mortal and in some way immortal: mortal in this sense, that he was so constituted that he would never die if he remained obedient to God; but if he sinned, he would be subjected to death. Immortality did not belong to him from his nature, because he had a mixed body composed of contraries, although the contrary qualities of the elements in him were reduced to a certain principal equality and tempering. Hence Augustine in the thirteenth book of The City of God says: “It must be confessed that the first men were so constituted that, if they had not sinned, they would have experienced no kind of death.”
In the scholastic history it is said that Plato did not understand this place well, saying that God created the soul, but that angels formed the body, there calling them “gods of gods.” Nevertheless, in those words written in the second book of the Timaeus, Plato by “gods of gods” literally understands the heavenly spheres and stars, as Thomas also testifies. Nor does he there openly say that the gods of gods formed the body of the first man, but that the supreme craftsman committed to them the execution of the production of mortal earthly animals.
Gen 2:8 “But the Lord God planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning.” This paradise is terrestrial and is a part of the elemental earth which was created in the beginning. Thus paradise, as to its substance, which is part of the earth, was made on the first day or at the beginning of time and of the first day; but as to what pertains to the distinction of paradise, namely as to herbs, shrubs, and fruits, it was planted on the third day, when, after the waters were gathered into one, God commanded: “Let the earth bring forth green herb.”
It is called a paradise of pleasure because it is a most delightful and most beautiful place and a wide and spacious region. “In which He placed man whom He had formed.” From this it is clear that God first created man outside paradise, and that the woman was made afterward.
Concerning these things many questions arise. First, whether paradise is a corporeal place. To this Augustine responds in On Genesis Literally, book eight, saying that there are three opinions about paradise. One is of those who posited paradise as spiritual only; and this was Origen’s opinion, who said that all things written in this chapter about paradise are to be understood spiritually, to signify that the first man was constituted in great abundance of spiritual graces and internal delight. Augustine reproves this opinion, also in the twenty-first book of The City of God. Epiphanius also, bishop of Cyprus, in a certain epistle translated by Jerome, reproves it.
The second position is of those who say that the things said about paradise are to be taken only corporeally; but this is not sufficiently said, because all these things are also expounded spiritually, and Adam himself was constituted in spiritual delights, as will be shown in the following article.
The third doctrine is of those who understand paradise both corporeally and spiritually; and this is the position of Augustine, and indeed of the Church of God. Concerning this Bonaventure says on the second book, distinction seventeen, as the Master reports: there were three opinions about paradise. The first, that it was only corporeal. Others, attending to the fact that the beatification of man consists in spiritual paradise, which is the enjoyment of God, and not in corporeal pleasantness, said that the paradise of which Scripture speaks is spiritual and not corporeal, and that all things said of paradise in the letter are metaphorically said, so that man is said to have been placed in paradise not as if transferred there bodily or locally situated, but because he was placed in spiritual pleasantness from the love and knowledge of God, as is said of the fallen angel in Ezekiel 28: “You were in the delights of the paradise of God.”
The third position is that there is a corporeal paradise and that there is a spiritual paradise which designates a state of rest and spiritual delight. And this spiritual paradise is twofold according to the twofold state of the Church: for there is the state of the Church militant and the state of the Church triumphant. Thus one spiritual paradise is in the Church militant, another in the triumphant; and what is said of paradise can be expounded of both, at least in part.
Moreover, the corporeal paradise is a place of delight and pleasantness. And this also is twofold according to the twofold state of man, namely perfect and imperfect. According to the perfect state, paradise is the empyrean heaven; according to the imperfect state, it is the terrestrial paradise, in which it was fitting for man to be placed so that he might have the ability to arrive at his homeland, and so that God might show His benevolence to man, for whom He prepared and granted so delightful a place to dwell, so that the pleasantness of the external dwelling might correspond to the interior delights which the soul, existing as the temple of God, had — and which the soul of the first man had. Thus Bonaventure.
Second, it is asked why the first man was formed outside paradise. To this Thomas answers in the First Part, question 102: the immortality of man was a supernatural gift; but paradise belonged to man by reason of immortality. Therefore it was fitting that man be created outside paradise and then transferred into it, so that it might be recognized what belonged to man by nature and what by grace; that is, so that it might be known that paradise did not belong to him by nature.
Finally, according to the same doctor, paradise was a fitting place for human habitation, because by the temperateness of the air it preserved man from external corruptive influences, and by the fruits of its trees it availed man against the internal corruptive principle, which comes through the consumption of the radical moisture. It also belonged to man by reason of his incorruptibility, because his body also was incorruptible, not from its own nature but partly from the power of his soul. Thus Thomas. Hence also Bonaventure says: man ought to have been produced outside paradise so that he might better think upon the benefits of God when he saw himself brought there from elsewhere. Also to show that man was not made to dwell there eternally, but to sojourn there temporarily. And because God foresaw the fall of man, He wished to place him in paradise so that, by his ejection from so delightful a place, man might sensibly know how great spiritual goods he had lost through sin, and might know how great is the difference between one who obeys God and one who disobeys Him.
Moreover, as others also say, he was made immortal as to the body not by nature or by intrinsic qualities as if unable to die (as after the final resurrection the bodies of the elect will be altogether immortal and impassible through the gifts which will overflow into them from their glorious souls), but he was made immortal by grace, as one able not to die if he remained in innocence. Thus this immortality was in man by the removal of those things which could make him corruptible. This removal was principally from the providence of God preventing external corruptive things from reaching man; then it was partly from the power of the soul, which by a divinely granted power could preserve the body from internal injury. Since, therefore, a fitting place contributes to the preservation of life, just as a corrupted place is destructive of life, God therefore provided man with the most fitting place.
Third, it is asked where and what kind of place paradise is. To this Damascene answers in the second book: because God was about to create man from visible and invisible nature according to His own image and likeness, and to constitute him as a kind of king and prince over all the earth and over those things which are in it, He prepared before him, as it were, a royal place — that is, a royal dwelling — in which, dwelling, he would lead a blessed and wealthy life. And this is the divine paradise planted by God in Eden, a storehouse of universal exultation and joy, which is placed in the East, higher than all the rest of the earth, with most temperate, most subtle, and most pure air, shining round with most splendid flowers, adorned with good odor and filled with light, surpassing understanding by the beauty of universal form and sensible order, a divine region and worthy of the conversation of him who was made according to the image of God.
Hence others say that paradise is a place set on high and extending even to the sphere of the moon, and therefore that the waters of the flood did not reach it. Eusebius, Bede, and the scholastic history also say this, which nevertheless cannot be understood as to bodily altitude or physical proximity, but can be saved if it is understood as to likeness — that it has a fittingness with the properties of heavenly bodies in temperateness, quality, and beauty. And according to Thomas in the First Part, paradise does not reach even to the middle region of the air, because in that region there is the greatest intemperateness of air. Nevertheless Bonaventure affirms that paradise is of such altitude that vapors raised in the air do not ascend to it, but that there is there pure and clean air suitable to a state of perpetuity. And because vapors do not reach paradise, it is said to reach to the lunar sphere, for the moon is said to rule vapors.
Fourth, it is asked where paradise is. To this it is answered that where our translation has “from the beginning,” the ancient translation has “toward the East.” Therefore paradise is said to be in the East; but in what part of the East is variously handed down. For some say that it is in the equinoctial East, because according to them between the two tropics under the equinoctial circle is the most temperate region. To this Bonaventure, author of the Sphere, adduces many reasons. Hence Bonaventure also says: since paradise is near the equinoctial, there is there great temperateness of warmth, and on account of the purity of the air there is there a moderation of heat and cold. But because Aristotle says in the second book of the Meteorologica that between the two tropics there cannot be a habitable region on account of excessive heat, because the sun passes there twice each year, therefore those who in this follow the philosopher say that paradise is outside the tropics toward the summer or winter East. And this Saint Thomas says is more reasonable. For Thomas says that the lands near that place are intemperate because of proximity to the sun. But paradise is removed and hidden from habitable lands by mountains, waters, or even by intemperateness of air interposed in intermediate places, so that it cannot be reached, nor can knowledge of it be had except by revelation. Therefore philosophers and historians have not spoken of it.
Gen 2:9 “And the Lord God brought forth from the soil,” that is, from the moist earth of paradise, “every tree beautiful to the sight and sweet for eating.” That is, all trees, beautiful and fruit-bearing, whose fruits were sweet for eating. As was touched upon, God did this on the third day. And not only in paradise were there beautiful and fruitful trees, but everywhere on the earth; but much more abundantly in paradise, in which there were also trees which had wondrous and special virtues. Hence it is now added: “God also brought forth the tree of life in the midst of paradise.” Concerning this the Master says in the second book: the tree of life, as Bede and Strabus teach, is so called because it received divinely this power, that whoever should eat of its fruit, his body would be strengthened with stable health and perpetual solidity, and would not fall into any infirmity or weakness of age. Hence Strabus says more openly, and it is found in the Gloss: the tree of life naturally had this nature, that whoever should eat of its fruit would be strengthened with perpetual solidity and clothed with blessed immortality, to be fatigued by no infirmity, anxiety, old age, or weakness.
But it seems wondrous and can be asked how a purely corporeal thing could have such great power. To this one could briefly respond that many gems and herbs and the like have very hidden and most wonderful and very marvelous powers — which especially belongs to those things which are born in paradise.
Concerning this Thomas writes in the First Part, question ninety-seven: two remedies were given to man in the state of innocence against two defects. One defect is the loss of natural moisture from the action of natural heat; and against this defect man was aided, or rather would have been aided if he had not sinned, by the eating of the common trees of paradise, according to what is said below: “Of every tree of paradise you shall eat.” The other defect is from the admixture of foreign nourishment with the vital natural moisture, from whose mixture the natural vigor of the complexion is weakened more and more successively, according to the philosopher in the book On Generation, just as wine by the admixture of water is made weak, the more it is mixed, so that finally by being made watery it is corrupted. And against this defect man would have been aided by the eating of the tree of life.
For which reason Augustine in the fourteenth book of The City of God says: “Food was at hand for man lest he hunger, drink lest he thirst, the tree of life lest old age dissolve him.” Hence it is said below: “See lest perhaps he take from the tree of life and live forever.” Indeed Augustine testifies that man could have lived forever after sin, if it had been permitted him to eat of the tree of life.
Moreover, concerning this matter Bonaventure writes on the Second Book, distinction seventeen. The universality of the trees of paradise is comprehended under three differences, according to a threefold ordering of usefulness. For the trees of paradise could be ordered to man in three ways: either they could benefit him with respect to the body, or with respect to the soul, or with respect to both together.
If in the first way, thus there were fruit-bearing trees, which provided him with nourishment for the sustenance of the body. If with respect to the soul, thus there was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was ordered to the probation of man’s obedience. If with respect to the whole composite, thus there was the tree of life, which could contribute to the perpetuation of human life.
And these two trees alone are specially named on account of their special effects, for which God placed those two in the midst of paradise near one another, so that from the one — namely from the tree of life — man might conceive an affection of love, and from the other an affection of fear. The tree of life is so called not from the effect which it actually had, but from that to which it was ordained, which it would also have had if man had stood (that is, if he had persevered in innocence). These things Bonaventure says.
But concerning the other tree it is added: The tree, that is, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That tree is so called from the event, because when man ate of the fruit of that tree, he learned and knew by experience, to his own harm, what is the virtue of obedience and what is the vice of disobedience, and how greatly these differ from one another — which nevertheless before he knew habitually by a simple knowledge, but not experimentally.
Nevertheless, in these words by “good and evil” there can be understood both bodily goods and evils and spiritual goods and evils. Hence in the scholastic history it is said that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is so called from what followed after the eating, namely from the punishment inflicted for that sin. For previously man did not know what evil was, because he had not yet experienced it. We say that good is health and strength; evil, however, is sickness and weakness, which he had not yet felt. He did indeed know these by knowledge, because one contrary is known from the other; but not by experience — just as a physician who has never been sick knows diseases, but when he becomes ill he knows them more, because he both knows and feels them. Thus also it is said of a child delicately brought up that he does not know what evil is, namely poverty.
Again, in the same history it is had that Plato understood the tree of life through the tree also of the knowledge of good and evil — that is, he understood man himself — because Damascene thought that those names did not properly belong to trees.
Moreover, concerning these trees Damascene says in the second book: In the midst of paradise God planted the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, for experience and for the testing and exercise of the obedience and disobedience of man. Therefore it is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But the tree of life is so called either as if having an operation bestowing life, or because it was alone edible by those worthy of life and not subject to death.
Some refer here to Josephus, because Josephus says in the first book of the Antiquities that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had the power of accelerating the use of reason. But he rejects this, saying that this is false, because a corporeal virtue does not extend itself to such an acceleration. But whatever be the truth of Josephus’ statement — whom Jerome says was a most learned man — the reason for rejecting it does not hold. For even granting that a corporeal virtue does not directly extend itself to the aforesaid acceleration, which is a spiritual effect, nevertheless dispositively and cooperatively and instrumentally a corporeal virtue could extend itself to that effect. For some gems have a power of influencing and impressing the rational soul and of causing in it diverse affections, indeed even of inducing it to many virtuous acts.
It is also read in the book of Tobit that the smoke of the heart of a certain fish has the power of driving out every kind of demon.
Finally, Damascene says in the second book that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is so called either for the expressed cause, or because it gave to those who took it a power of knowing their own nature — which was good for the perfect but evil or imperfect for the imperfect — just as solid food is bad for those who are still weak and in need of milk.
Moreover, these are the words of Josephus: That planting, namely of the tree, was for the sake of prudence, for sharpness and understanding, which according to the things previously said could be drawn to a pious understanding.
ELUCIDATION OF THE THIRD CHAPTER
“But also the serpent was more crafty than all the beasts of the earth,” etc.
Article twenty-third.
The description is now recounted of how the first man was established in paradise, and how the woman was formed from him, and how both were cast out of paradise.
Gen 3:1 “But also the serpent was more crafty than all the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made, who said to the woman: Why has God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?”
As Bonaventure says on the Second Book, distinction twenty-one, although there are certain brute animals that are more crafty and, as it were, more prudent than serpents, nevertheless the serpent is the most crafty animal for laying ambushes and for harming man bodily. Therefore the immeasurable wisdom of God so ordained that the most crafty invisible spiritual enemy, who lies in wait and harms spiritually, should attack man through the serpent, so that there might be a proportion between the instrument and its mover.
But why did he not approach in the form of a dove, or of a most splendid angel, or of a religious man? For in that case his persuasion would have had a greater appearance of goodness, and his fraud would have been more deeply hidden. To this Augustine answers on Genesis that it is not to be thought that the devil chose the serpent by his own will in order to tempt, but that when he desired to deceive by tempting, he was not permitted to attempt this except through the serpent.
Hence the Master of the Sentences, in the second book, distinction twenty-one, says more fully: Because the devil could not harm by violence, he turned himself to fraud, so that he might overthrow man by deceit, whom he could not overcome by power. Moreover, lest his fraud should be too manifest, he did not come in his own species, lest he be openly recognized. Again, lest his fraud should be too hidden, which could scarcely be guarded against, and lest man should seem to suffer injustice if he were permitted to be circumvented in such a way that he could not take precaution, the devil was permitted to come in another species, but in such a one in which his malice could easily be detected. Hence it was from his own will that he did not come in his own form, but that he should come in a form suitable to his malice, namely serpentine, was divinely ordained. And if he had been permitted, perhaps he would more gladly have come in the form of a dove. Thus the Master.
Concerning this it may be asked: since the devil is an invisible spirit in his own nature, how could he have come in his own proper form or species? It is answered that in his own nature he could not appear visibly; nevertheless that most horrible, most foul, and most ugly form in which he is accustomed to be painted can in a certain way be called his proper species, because by it he is more fittingly signified. And if he had appeared in it, he would at once have been recognized.
Furthermore, it is asked what moved the devil to tempt man. To this it is answered from that which is found in the Book of Wisdom, chapter two: “By the envy of the devil death entered into the world.” Bonaventure, however, responds to this in his commentary on the Second Book: These two sins, pride and envy, especially possess the mind of the devil, and these two sins are, as it were, inseparable, so that envy accompanies pride. For the proud man loves excellence and therefore does not wish to have an equal; immediately he desires to possess excellence singularly, and for that reason he at once envies in act or in habit.
Therefore the devil, seeing man established in a state in which he could be brought under his power, and in which he could also ascend to the heavenly happiness from which he himself had fallen, was moved by pride and envy to attack man: by pride, that he might subject him to himself; by envy, that he might hinder him from eternal beatitude. Thus pride was as it were the first mover, and envy as the immediate and proximate mover. For even if he could not have subjected man to himself, he would nevertheless have been content to deprive him of the happiness and joys of paradise. Hence it is chiefly said that he tempted man out of envy. Thus Bonaventure.
It is further asked why the devil did not approach man invisibly, tempting him inwardly by a pestilent suggestion. To this Albert responds that interior demonic suggestion is fitting for corrupted sensuality; therefore Christ and man in the state of innocence were tempted by the devil by exterior suggestion. Hence Thomas more clearly says in the First Part and on the Second Book that as long as the higher part of the soul remained in man subject to God, nothing disordered could happen in the lower powers of the soul.
Again it is asked: which of the demons tempted the first-formed humans? To this the answer is clear from what is handed down in the scholastic history: Lucifer, cast down from the paradise of spirits, that is, from the empyrean heaven, envied man who was placed in the paradise of bodies, knowing that if he caused him to transgress, he would be driven out from there. Hence it is commonly said that Lucifer, who tempted Christ, also tempted the first parents.
It is also asked why he first attacked the woman and not rather the man. To this, on the Second Book, Bonaventure responds: The reason for this is taken both from the wisdom of God and from the craftiness of the devil. From the side of God: because God permitted the devil to tempt in this way, first for the exercise of the man, namely Adam. For he was so strong and endowed with a spiritual mind that he could resist not only the temptation of the serpent but even the suggestion of the woman; hence he was permitted to be tempted more strongly. Second, in order to remove an excuse from the woman. For if the man had sinned first, it would not have seemed very strange if the woman had consented to him, since the man is the head of the woman. Third, for our instruction: because from the mode and order of that first temptation we know the mode and progress of our invisible temptations. For just as that temptation came from the serpent to the man through the woman, so our temptation comes from sensuality to the higher reason through the lower reason.
Moreover, from the side of the craftiness of the devil, the reason is taken thus: The devil considered the woman to be of lesser wisdom, of weaker constancy, and of more importunate attachment. Because she was of lesser wisdom, she was easier to seduce; therefore the devil wished to make for himself through her a way and a passage. Because she was of weaker constancy, she was easier to pervert; therefore the tempter attacked man first through that part in which he was less fortified. Because of her more importunate attachment, the devil knew that if he conquered her first, she herself would not rest until she had perverted the man. Thus Bonaventure.
In the scholastic history it is also said that the devil, fearing to be detected by the man, attacked the woman first, for he saw her to be more flexible. Finally, that most crafty tempter, very keenly considering how intensely the first man loved the woman taken from himself, judged that if he first conquered the woman, she herself would draw the man to the same by her love.
Again it is asked why the devil began that temptation from an interrogation, saying: “Why has God commanded you?” To this the answer is clear from the words of the Master in the second book, who says that the proud enemy, standing before the woman, did not dare to break forth into words of persuasion, fearing to be detected, but attacked her under the form of a question, so that from her response he might gather how he ought to proceed in tempting. Thus the devil said: “Why has God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?” that is, from the fruits of all the trees, one excepted.
Finally, someone writes here that the devil was not permitted to tempt man in a gracious form. And he adds: Some, however, say that that serpent had a gracious and virginal face, which has no authority from Scripture. Therefore it must be known that Bede says this, and Bonaventure cites it. In the scholastic history it is also added that he walked upright and erect; and it is also handed down that the phareas walked erect. In the deeds of Alexander it is also reported that in a certain place there are things which seem to agree with the text, as will be explained below. Thus this statement is judged to have sufficient authenticity.
Finally, the devil spoke through the serpent, forming words through the tongue of the serpent, so that the serpent did not understand those words, just as he speaks through energumens and fanatics, that is, those possessed and obsessed, whose intellect he deprives, as Strabo says. Thus also a good angel spoke through the donkey of Balaam.
But it appears wonderful that the woman was not afraid at the address of the serpent (Numbers 22). To this the Master responds in the second book that she thought that he had received from God the office of speaking. And some say that she judged that the serpent was illuminated as some rational creature, from which the aforesaid opinion about the virginal face and upright gait of that serpent receives greater appearance.
But Bonaventure also testifies on this that the woman believed that the one speaking in the serpent was not an adversary but a good counselor. Moreover, Thomas, on the Second Book, distinction twenty-three, says: The woman believed that the serpent had received the use of speech, not indeed by condition of nature, but by the ministry of a spiritual creature. Nor did she consider whether this was done by the power of a good angel or of a bad one, or whether it was done by God permitting or by God commanding. And Thomas says this, solving and expounding the authority of the Master of the Sentences in the second book, distinction twenty-one, who says: The woman therefore did not shrink from the serpent, because she knew that it was created by God and believed that it had received from Him the use of speech.
From these things it follows that the woman did not think that the serpent was of a rational nature. Nevertheless, this exposition does not seem fully consonant with the intention of the Master, for if the woman thought that a rational spirit was speaking through the serpent, she would have had cause to be afraid; nor would the cause of fear have been removed by such an opinion, especially since she was not accustomed to experience anything of that sort, as Balaam was.
Nor is it said that the creature properly received the use of speech from God, since it is moved to speak by an extrinsic principle, namely an angel or a devil. But since the actual recollection of the command is accustomed to draw a sinner back, it is wonderful that the tempter began the temptation from the remembrance of the divine command: “Why,” he says, “has the Lord commanded you?” To this Augustine says on Genesis that by this the transgression of the woman might be made heavier and more inexcusable. For he made use of this so that from the woman’s response he might find an occasion of leading her to his evil intention, as in fact was done.
Finally, someone writes here that while the state of innocence stood, there could not be disorder in the lower powers unless there were first in the reason. This agrees with the sayings of the authentic doctors; but from this he concludes that therefore the devil did not first tempt man concerning the eating of the tree, but concerning the restriction of the command. This consequence does not seem to hold. First, because Christ, who was in the state of innocence, was first tempted concerning gluttony, when it was said: “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread” (Matthew 4). Second, because since gluttony is of its own kind appetitive, disorder could arise in it not only in the lower part of the soul of man, but also in the higher. Third, because Gregory says: The devil tempted the first parents in three ways, namely by gluttony, vainglory, and avarice: by gluttony when he persuaded them to eat the forbidden food, etc.
Gen 3:2 To which the woman replied: “Of the fruit of the trees which are in paradise we eat,” that is, we have both permission and command to eat at the fitting time. But if they were in paradise for so short a time, as is commonly said and as will be touched on below, it does not seem very probable that they had eaten of the fruits of paradise.
Gen 3:3 “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise,” namely of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which tree perhaps stood nearer to the middle of paradise, either directly in its center, or it is said to be in the middle specially as something notable, namely as something singularly forbidden.
“God has commanded us,” either immediately to both of us together, or to the man first and to me through the man, as was touched on above.
“Not to eat, and not to touch it,” for eating, or for taking something from its fruits.
“Lest perhaps we die,” incurring death of the body by necessity through disobedience, and in the soul by transgression of the divine command.
The woman added this adverb forte (“perhaps”) from herself, because God had threatened affirmatively: “In whatever day you shall eat of it,” etc., where the Septuagint translates in the plural, “you shall eat.” Therefore the woman added this note of doubt, not with respect to the divine command, because about that she had already spoken affirmatively, but with respect to the punishment threatened. Therefore it is not fittingly said, as someone writes here, that she added from herself forte, which is an adverb of doubting, since God had commanded affirmatively. Rather it should be said that although God had threatened affirmatively, there is a kind of threat which is absolutely affirmative, as when it is said: “Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.”
Again, the same writer says in this place that the woman added this clause “and we must not touch it” from herself. For God had not prohibited the touching of the tree, but only the tasting; therefore the woman added this from displeasure at the command, because one to whom a command displeases is accustomed to aggravate it when recounting it.
Some, however, say that even the touching of the tree was prohibited to them, so that they might be more withdrawn from tasting; but because this is not had from the letter or from its first circumstance, the first exposition is better.
And because from displeasure at the command, which is reckoned as undue, there follows doubt about the punishment imposed for transgression, therefore the woman added: “Lest perhaps we die.”
But in these words many things appear worthy of rational reprobation.
First, because if God prohibited only the tasting of the tree and not the touching, then the woman would have lied in saying that God prohibited also the touching. But every lie is a sin; and because, according to the doctors, the first sin of the first parents was not a venial sin, that lie would have been mortal, and thus she would have sinned mortally before the suggestion of the serpent.
Second, because it is said that this is not had from the letter, namely that God prohibited the touching of the tree; but it does seem to be had from the letter, since the letter says that the woman said this before her fall.
Third, that which the woman said, “and we must not touch it,” ought not necessarily to be expounded of bare touching, but can be understood as “touching tending to eating.”
Fourth, that it is said that the woman was displeased with that command. For that displeasure would have been a great sin and would have preceded the suggestion of the serpent.
Fifth, that it is asserted that from displeasure at the divine command, which is reckoned as undue, the woman added this — where it is insinuated that the woman judged the divine command to be undue, which would have been enormous blasphemy and perfidy. Thus all these vices would have been in Eve before the suggestion of the serpent saying: “You shall not surely die.”
Sixth, that it is said that the woman added “and we must not touch it” from displeasure at the divine command. But this rather seems to have been said from a weighing of the divine command, insinuating how diligently it had been forbidden to them to eat of that tree. And one to whom a command displeases does not always aggravate it when recounting it; indeed he often diminishes it, so that he may see it as less culpable to transgress it.
Moreover, that the woman added forte was not because she doubted the truth of the words of God, but because she did not fully know how that threat was to be understood, namely whether only to terrify and restrain, or also as an absolute assertion, as Thomas, Bonaventure, and others write on the Second Book.
Again, Bonaventure on the Second Book, distinction twenty-two, says: The woman did not doubt that what God had said was true, but she doubted how the Lord understood it, namely whether He understood it of bodily death or spiritual death, or in some other way.
But concerning this it can be argued, because the Master says in the second book: Attend to the order and progress of human perdition. First God said: “In whatever hour you eat of it, you shall surely die.” Then the woman said: “Lest perhaps we die.” Lastly the serpent said: “You shall not surely die.” God affirmed; the woman, as it were, hesitated; the serpent denied. Therefore she withdrew from God affirming and approached the demon denying. But to withdraw from God affirming and to approach the demon denying does not lack fault.
Again, to hesitate about the words of God is a sin; therefore there was sin in the woman before the suggestion of the serpent — the opposite of which the Master determines in the second book, and the doctors write concordantly.
It must therefore be answered that not every withdrawal from God is a withdrawal of guilt, but a withdrawal from God by aversion of the mind. But withdrawal by mere dissimilarity from God is not always sin. And thus it was in the woman, who is said to have withdrawn from God affirming insofar as she failed from the perfect knowledge of the sense of the words of God. And to hesitate about the understanding of the words of God is not always impious; it is not always iniquitous to doubt about their meaning. And insofar as she approached the devil, it was because she failed from perfection. Hence Bonaventure says: That doubt was not a fault nor a punishment, but ignorance only, which also has place in the angels.
Gen 3:4 “But the serpent said to the woman: You shall not surely die.” Concerning this the Master says in the second book that in order that the devil might freely persuade the woman to the evil of guilt which he intended, he removed the evil which the woman feared, namely death, by denying it, and added promises. And so that his promise might be received more quickly, he doubled the promise. For by eating the forbidden tree he proposed two things as reward: namely likeness to God and knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 3:5 For it is added: “For God knows that in whatever day you shall eat of it, your eyes shall be opened,” that is, your hearts shall be filled with knowledge. “And you shall be like gods,” that is, like divine beings and angels, indeed even like God. “Knowing good and evil.”
In these words, according to the Master, and indeed according to Gregory in the Homilies, the devil tempted man in three things: namely in gluttony, persuading food when he said, “In whatever day you shall eat”; in vainglory, adding, “You shall be like gods”; in avarice, subjoining, “Knowing good and evil.” For avarice is not only greed for money, but also for height and for knowledge, when sublimity beyond measure is sought. Yet avarice so taken is not properly a spiritual vice, nor is it properly called avarice; rather such greed for knowledge is curiosity.
Furthermore, concerning these words, in the scholastic history it is read: When the woman, as it were doubting, had said, “Lest perhaps we die,” the devil, as it were secure of victory, because one who doubts on either side is easily bent, said: “You shall not surely die. Rather God did not wish you to be made like Him in knowledge; and knowing that whenever you eat of this tree you will be like gods, knowing good and evil, He forbade it out of envy.”
But it seems astonishing that the woman could believe the tempter speaking so impurely about God. And it must be answered that the woman from the promise of the serpent conceived a certain elation, which thereafter corrupted the judgment of right reason. And although she did not believe that God had spoken falsely, she nevertheless believed the words of the serpent to be true, and that the words of God had been uttered to terrify or to signify something else, as Augustine speaks on Genesis.
Hence the Master says in the second book: Such was the process of the temptation. The devil, tempting, said: “If you eat, you shall be like gods, knowing good and evil.” Which having been heard, at once there crept into the woman a certain elation and love of her own power, from which it pleased the woman to do what the devil persuaded, and she did it. Thus from elation followed the sin of deed and the punishment of sin.
Moreover, Augustine on Genesis says: It is clear from the very words of the devil that persuasion was effected through elation, because he said, “You shall be like gods,” where he notes that it was so persuaded that they did not wish to be under God, but in their own power, not serving the law of God by obedience, but wishing to rule themselves, not needing the inward light of the Creator, but using their own prudence as their own eyes to know good and evil — which God had forbidden. Thus it was persuaded to them that they might love their own power too much; therefore they lost what they had received, because they usurped what they had not received, namely that by their own power, with God not ruling, they might be blessed. And in this they wished in a certain way to be equal to God. For this is proper to God: to be blessed by His own power, with no other ruling Him.
From these words of Augustine this exposition of the letter is taken: “God knows that in whatever day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened,” interiorly by more perfect knowledge. “And you shall be like gods,” that is, made like God insofar as you will not be so bound by any prohibition nor subject to one to whom you must obey, “knowing good and evil,” that is, by yourselves knowing and by your own heart understanding what is expedient for you, and likewise what you ought to do and what to reject.
Concerning these things someone writes: The woman sinned by elation and by doubt before she ate the forbidden fruit, which some see as false. To this I say that no intelligent person says this is false, because interior guilt preceded the exterior. Then, however, he concedes that the elation of the woman followed the persuasion of the serpent. But by this he does not escape those things which have already been brought against him in this article from the beginning of the chapter.
The exposition of this third chapter continues from that place: "And the woman saw the tree"
Article Twenty-Fourth
Consequently is described the fall of the first parents.
Gen 3:6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for eating," that is, after she had heard the words of the serpent, moved by pride and exaltation, she believed the words of the tempter and consented to him. She looked upon the tree both with corporeal and interior eyes, upon that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and she considered it. The fruit of that tree, as considered in itself or by its own nature, was fitting for eating — for the first parents it was neither harmful nor evil except by the prohibition.
She saw, then, that the fruit of that tree was fitting for eating, which she could perceive by its smell and touch. "And pleasant to the eyes to look upon" — for a naturally beautiful sight delights the eye, just as something sweet delights the taste. And since all the trees of Paradise were not inconsiderably beautiful and delightful to behold, having been produced not long before with fruits and green leaves and leafy adornment, this tree stood out as specially beautiful to look upon and sweet to eat. "And she took of its fruit." Hence it is clear that the beauty, lovableness, and sweetness of the tree and its fruit moved even the woman to transgress the commandment. And first, evil concupiscence began to be fulfilled in her, as is written in Wisdom 14: "The creature made by God became a snare and a trap for the feet of the unwise, and a deception of the souls of men."
"And she ate." But where was Adam then? It is quite clear that he was absent from the woman for some period of time, such that he neither saw the serpent standing beside her nor saw her eating of the fruit of the tree. For, being endowed with a spiritual and good mind, he was occupied with God, and at that moment did not concern himself with the corporeal presence of his wife, although she had been formed from him and brought to him not long before.
"She gave also to her husband, who ate." Indeed, when she had eaten according to the suggestion of the serpent, I believe the serpent had then suggested to her that she should bring her husband to the same. She herself also, wishing her husband — whom she greatly loved — to be a companion and partner in her deed, and because she was already delighted in the eating of the forbidden fruit, supposed from this that she would obtain what the serpent had promised, and wished her husband to obtain the same. It is probable that she told her husband what she had heard from the serpent, and through words counseled her husband to eat of that fruit. To this the man consented, although he did not believe that the words of the serpent were truly, nor that he would gain advantage from that eating.
Why then did he consent and eat, and how did he himself sin through pride? To this the answer is apparent from the words of the Master [Peter Lombard] in the second book, twenty-second distinction, saying: "It is also sometimes asked whether such pride and love of one's own power was in one [sin]. To this we say that Adam was not seduced in the manner in which the woman was, nor was he previously seduced, nor in that in which the woman was — that is, to believe that God had forbidden to touch that tree because, if he touched it, he would become like God" (as in 1 Timothy 8). "Nevertheless, Adam was a transgressor" as the Apostle testifies in Romans. There could, therefore, have been some pride in his mind immediately after the temptation, from which he wished to taste the forbidden tree with the woman, not seeing that the food received was death. Hence Augustine, commenting on Genesis, says: "Adam did not believe that God had forbidden that tree to be touched by himself and by the woman, because God knew they would become like gods if they touched it — as though He envied them the divinity, He who had made them men." But if the man was stirred by some mental pride and by certain desires of experience with the woman, seeing that the food received was not immediately deadly, "nonetheless, I do not think he believed what the devil was suggesting." Again the Master says, from the words of Augustine: "Adam consented to the persuasion of his wife, as though to behave toward her with customary kindness, not wishing to sadden her nor to leave her alienated from him, believing that he could do both — that is, both show kindness to his wife and obtain forgiveness for his guilt through repentance." And Augustine himself says: "After the woman, seduced, ate and gave to her husband, he did not wish to sadden her, whom he believed would wither away without his comfort and be utterly estranged from him — not, therefore, overcome by carnal concupiscence, which he did not then feel, but by a certain amiable benevolence, by which it very often happens that one offends God so as not to offend a friend."
From these things it is known that Adam ate of the forbidden fruit from that root by which Solomon worshipped idols — that is, so as not to sadden his beloved in his wife. Hence in the fourteenth book On the City of God, Augustine asserts: "It is not believable that Solomon supposed from error that idols were to be served, but that he was led to those sacrifices by the blandishments of women, so likewise it is to be believed that Adam acquiesced" (cf. 3 Kings). Eusebius also says: "He did this not as though speaking truly to transgress the law of God, but from a certain social necessity." Therefore the Apostle says that Adam was not seduced in his transgression, but the woman was. Further, in the Scholastic History it is said that Adam easily acquiesced to his wife, because when he believed he would die immediately and saw that she was not dead, he estimated the words of God about death to be spoken merely to terrify.
Hence also Thomas [Aquinas], commenting on the second Sentences, twenty-second distinction, testifies: "The first parents did not believe that God had said something false, but the words were perhaps to be understood differently, or spoken metaphorically, or signifying something else." Nevertheless, a difficulty arises here: if Adam did not believe the words of the devil, in which he promised "You shall be like God," to be true, then he did not sin from pride, nor from inordinate desire of divine likeness. To this Thomas responds: "The pride that moved the woman was greater than that which moved the man. In the woman, the progress of pride was such that, at the words of the serpent, she conceived an appetite for excellence that perverted the judgment of reason, and she truly believed what the serpent had said — therefore it is said she was seduced. In the man, however, the love of his own excellence did not grow so much at first, nor did it pervert the judgment of his reason, so that he believed this would come to pass. But because he wanted it, if it were possible — therefore it is said he was not seduced, though such pride incited him to experience it. Hence his pride produced in him a certain doubt, whereas in the woman it made the estimation firm. Therefore the will of the woman had a perfect appetite for divine likeness, while the will of the man had an imperfect and conditional one — namely, if it were possible." This is Thomas.
Thus, in effect, in this matter Adam was in some way deceived: he supposed that this sin was not so grave as it was, and that after his transgression he could obtain forgiveness and not be expelled from Paradise, but remain in his state.
Gen 3:7 "And their eyes were opened." This is said concerning the corporeal and spiritual — that is, interior and mental — eyes of the first parents, and can be expounded thus: neither the exterior nor the interior eyes were entirely closed before, for before the sin they saw one another and used the fruit of the tree which they ate, and they employed reason. But the eyes, both corporeal and intellectual, are said to have been opened after the transgression because through both kinds of eyes they saw and knew differently after they had sinned than before. Before the sin they saw one another's bodies and their own genital members without shame, because no dishonest motion would arise in them. But when, by sinning, they had been deprived of original justice, they began to look upon one another with modesty, because they felt arising in themselves, from mutual sight, lustful motions. For by the habit and virtue of original justice, which was created with them, their reason and will were subject to God without rebellion; the sensible part too was subject to reason, and the flesh to the spirit, and no inordinate motion could arise in the sensible part or in the body, so long as the superior part of the soul remained obedient and subject to God.
That this exposition is apt is made clear from the customary manner of Scripture's speaking, as in 4 Kings 6, where it is written below that the angels struck the men of Sodom with blindness — not that they saw nothing at all. Similarly, in the fourth book of Kings, Elisha prayed: "Lord, open the eyes of these," whom the Lord had also struck with a certain blindness, yet who nonetheless saw before that opening of the eyes, even during that blindness — though not in the same way as after their eyes were opened, though it is not entirely the same in all respects.
Furthermore, the interior eyes of the first parents were opened after the fault, after which they began to see differently by intellectual vision than before, because what before they knew by simple and speculative knowledge, they then began to know through experience — for instance, what is the difference between the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, which they then came to know from their own inordinate motions and the rebellion of the flesh against the soul and of the sensible parts against the dominion of reason.
"When they knew that they were naked" — that is, having now considered through the aforementioned experience their corporeal nakedness, which was shameful and dishonest, and which they also began to apprehend corporally, because intellectual knowledge takes its beginning from sensible knowledge. There is no doubt that even before the transgression they knew themselves to be naked, which they saw with their eyes, but they did not know it in the manner in which they afterward did. Hence Augustine says over Genesis: "Their eyes were opened to desire one another and to the punishment of sin, so that they should have not only an animal body but also a body of sin, in which the law — that is, the concupiscence of the members — rebels against the mind" (Romans 7). "For they were not made blind, nor did they pluck the forbidden fruits by groping, but just as in the breaking of bread the eyes of the disciples were opened, so that they knew whom they previously could not know, though they had seen Him present. So their eyes were opened to that which they previously could not [perceive]." Augustine continues: "The rational soul was ashamed of the bestial motion in its flesh; it had not only the shame which it did not feel before, but also because that motion descended from the transgression." And Eusebius: "When he felt where before he was clothed, and in nakedness he suffered no indignity, then..." Hence in the Scholastic History it is read: "Just as the first parents were disobedient to their superior, so the members of the body began to move against their superior — that is, reason — and first they felt the motion of concupiscence contrary to reason in their genital members, seeing their own members moving about them, and they were ashamed; therefore those members are called shameful parts. For the other members stand or move at the nod of man, but not the shameful parts. Moreover, the gate of propagation is there; therefore the disobedience of the members, as a sign of the disobedience of the first parents, was written in that gate."
When they thus knew themselves to be naked in this way, troubled and covered with confusion, sorrowful, and seeing themselves to be deceived — that is, deprived of their pristine tranquility and spirituality — "they sewed together fig leaves and made for themselves loinloths" — coverings by which they covered their shameful parts, made from fig leaves sewn together. Some also say, and it is reported that the Hebrews affirm, that the fig tree was that forbidden tree, and just as they sinned eating beneath it, so they immediately made coverings for themselves from its leaves.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment