Chapter XII.
The wisdom of the serpent: how he approached the woman; and what her response was, followed by a lengthy digression on a certain doubt concerning the matter.
But the serpent was wiser than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and the serpent said to the woman: What did God indeed say, that you shall not eat from any tree of paradise? When it says that the serpent was wiser, you understand of whom it speaks, that is, our adversary who possesses only the wisdom of this world. But pleasure and delight are also said to be wise, because wisdom is also called wisdom of the flesh, as you have: For the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God (Rom. VIII, 7). And they are clever in seeking the kinds of pleasures, because they are desirous of pleasures. Therefore, if you understand delight, it is opposed to the divine commandment, and it is inimical to our senses. Hence, Saint Paul says: I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin (Rom. VII, 23). But if you refer to the devil, he is the true enemy of the human race. And what is the cause of enmities if not envy? As Solomon says: Because the envy of the devil death entered into the world (Wisdom 2:24). But the cause of envy is the blessedness of man placed in paradise, and therefore, because the devil himself could not hold onto the grace he had received, he envied man, since he was formed from clay to be a dweller in paradise, and man was chosen. For the devil considered that he, who had been of superior nature, had fallen into these worldly and mundane things; while man, of inferior nature, hoped for eternal things. Therefore, he envied, saying: Does this inferior one achieve what I could not preserve? Will this one who is of the earth migrate to heaven, while I, who have fallen from heaven, am on earth? I have many ways by which I can deceive man. He was made from clay, earth is his mother, he is enveloped in corruption. And if the soul of a higher nature can still be subject to lapses, while being confined in the prison of the body; when I myself could not avoid falling. Therefore, the first way is to deceive it, while it desires greater things according to its condition. For here someone has striven for industry. Then there is the flesh, which it desires but does not possess. Finally, in what way do I seem to be wiser than others, unless I limit myself and strive with cunning and deceit? Therefore, he planned that Adam would not first approach, but that Adam would try to deceive through the woman. He did not approach the one who had received the heavenly command in person, but he approached the one who had learned from the man, not from God, what she should observe. For indeed, you do not have that God said to the woman, but that he said to Adam; and therefore, the woman should be considered to have learned through Adam.
Therefore, understanding this type of temptation in this place, you will also find many other types of temptation in other places. Some are through the prince of this world, who has vomited certain poisons of wisdom into this world, so that people would believe that what is false is true, and their affections would be captivated by a certain appearance of humanity. For he does not always enter as an obvious enemy, but there are certain powers that feign love and pretend grace, gradually infusing the poison of their iniquity into our thoughts, from which arise those sins that are born either from pleasure or from a certain ease of the mind. There are also other powers that struggle against us. Hence the Apostle says: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12). They want to break us with this kind of contention, and as if to destroy the body of our soul. And so Paul, like a good athlete, not only knew how to avoid the blows of opposing powers, but also how to strike back. Therefore he says: I beat my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (1 Corinthians 9:27). And so, like a good athlete, he deserved to reach the crown. Therefore, the temptations of the devil are manifold. And therefore, the serpent is considered to be both double-tongued and deadly, because the devil's servant speaks one thing with his tongue and meditates on another in his heart. There are also other ministers who, with the poison of their words, boast about the corruption of their hearts and voices, as if they were throwing arrows, to which the Lord says: Generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, when you are evil? (Matthew 12, 34).
56. And the serpent said to the woman: What did God indeed say, that you may not eat from every tree of paradise? And the woman said to the serpent: Of every tree of paradise we will eat: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die (Genesis 3:2-3). When you hear that the serpent is wiser than all other animals, search here for its cunning. It pretends to speak the words of God and weaves its own tricks. For when God had said: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death (Genesis II, 16 and 17); the serpent, as if questioning the woman, when God had said: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, put in a lie, so as to say: Of every tree ye shall not eat: whereas God had only commanded concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that they should not taste of it. However, it is not surprising that he deceived her, because it is the custom of those who try to deceive someone. Therefore, the serpent's question is not useless. But so that you may know that there could be no fault in the command, the woman answered as follows, as you have it: 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God said, 'You shall not eat it, nor touch it, lest you die.' Indeed, there is no fault in the command itself, but in the interpretation of the command. For as the present reading teaches, we learn that we should not add anything or join ourselves to the command out of caution. For if you add or subtract anything, it seems to be a violation of the command. The pure and simple form of the command must be observed, or the series of testimony must be indicated. Often, when a witness adds something to the series of events from his own, it stains the entire credibility of the testimony with the falsehood of a part. Therefore, nothing should be added just because it seems good. For here, it has the appearance of an offense that the woman added: 'Neither shall you touch it?' For God had not said, 'You shall not touch it,' but 'You shall not eat it.' But nevertheless, the slip begins to be the beginning. For what she added, she added redundantly, or by adding, she understood that what God commanded was only half-full from her own perspective. Therefore, the present series of readings teaches us that we should neither detract anything from divine commandments nor add to them. For if John judged this of his writings: If anyone adds to this, God will add the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the book of life (Rev. XXII, 18 and 19): how much more should nothing be taken away from divine commands! Hence, the first transgression of the commandment began. Moreover, some think that this vice was not of the woman, but of Adam: thus Adam said to the woman, when he wanted to make her more cautious, that God had commanded: You shall not touch it. For we have it that Adam, not Eve, received the commandment from God. For the woman had not yet been formed. Indeed, the words of Adam, by which he spoke to the woman regarding the form and series of the commandment, are not recorded, but we understand that the commandment passed from the man to the woman. However, let others see what they think; to me, it seems that the fault began with the woman, and falsehood started with her. For even though it may seem uncertain regarding the two, the gender reveals which one could have erred first. Note that the woman is condemned because of the prejudice that was found before her first mistake. For the man is the author of the error, not the woman. Therefore, Paul says: Adam, he says, was not deceived, but the woman was deceived in the transgression.
57. Now let us see whether, apart from the addition that has been applied by command, what has been added seems to have been an obstruction. For in truth, if it is good: You will neither touch it, and it will be for your benefit, why did God not forbid this, but rather seems to have allowed it by not forbidding? Therefore, both must be investigated, by what reasoning He neither allowed nor forbade. For there are those who say, By what reasoning does what He has made seem, He not command and touch? But when you hear that there was knowledge of good and evil in that tree, it can be estimated that he did not want evil to touch you. For it is enough for us to see Satan falling like lightning from heaven, according to the voice of the Lord (Luke 10:18), and giving food not of light, but of darkness and sons of darkness; because it is written: He has given him as food to the peoples of Ethiopia (Psalm 74:14). Therefore, this is said of him, that he did not give command to be touched. But what it does not prohibit, understand what I mean. There are many things that can harm us if we choose to indulge in them before knowing what they are. For often it is through the experience of food and drink that harm comes. Indeed, if you know beforehand what is bitter, you can endure it; and if you understand that those things that are bitter are beneficial, you can tolerate them, so that sudden bitterness does not offend you, and you do not begin to reject what is beneficial. Therefore, it is advantageous to know beforehand; so that from what you know, it will be beneficial, and you will not despise bitterness. But these things can cause less harm: be attentive to that which, unless precautions are taken, could cause more harm.
A certain person is a Gentile, he tends towards faith: he is a catechumen, he desires to receive the fullness of doctrine and faith; let him beware that while he wants to learn, he may learn wrongly, and learn from Photinus, learn from Arius, learn from Sabellius: let him entrust himself to such teachers of whom some authority holds him; and led by a certain presumption of the teachers, he may not know how to judge with his tender senses. Therefore, let him first understand with the eyes of his mind what follows: let him see where life is: finally, let him touch the vital parts of divine readings, so that he may not be offended by any false interpreter. They indeed read Sabellius: 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in me' (John 14:10), and he says there is one person. They also read Photinus: 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Timothy 2:5). And elsewhere: 'Why do you want to kill me, a man?' (John 8:40). They also read Arius because he said: 'The Father is greater than I' (John 14:28). It is indeed read plainly, but in what sense it is said, one must carefully consider, so that one can understand the meaning of the words. He is led by a certain authority of the teachers, and it would have benefited him not to seek, but to find such a teacher. But even if someone who is a Gentile accepts the Scriptures, he reads: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (Lev. 24:20). He also reads: If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off (Matt. 5:30); he does not understand the meaning, he does not consider the mysteries of the divine word, he slips worse than if he had not read it. And therefore he taught how they should investigate the Word of God, not superficially, not inattentively, but diligently and carefully: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched, concerning the Word of life; and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you (1 John 1:1-2). You see that he, as it were, examined the word of God with certain hands, and afterwards he announced: and therefore the word of Adam and Eve would perhaps not have harmed anything, if those hands of certain minds had touched it diligently before. For by examining and seeking diligently, the weak, who do not understand the nature of each thing, can investigate. Certainly those weak ones should have examined that tree in which they had learned that the knowledge of evil was, before they touched it, in what manner they should. For even knowledge of evil can often be beneficial to us. And therefore we read in this lesson or in the prophecy (Ezek. XXVIII, 18) about the tricks of the devil, in order to learn how to guard against his arts. For his temptations must be known, not so that we may follow them, but so that, being learned and instructed, we may beware of them.
There are those in this place who have doubt, whether God said that all wood should be tasted in the same way, as when all wood is tasted, so also the wood of knowledge of good and evil should be tasted; or rather, whether God said that all wood should be tasted, but not the wood of knowledge of good and evil. They do not think that this is an unreasonable argument, because although the food of this wood may be harmful, it cannot be harmful if it is eaten with other foods: since it is said that the antidote, theriac, is made from the body of a snake, which is harmful when taken alone but is beneficial for health when mixed with other substances. Knowledge of good and evil, if it has any wisdom, if someone always strives for life, if someone achieves the other kinds of virtues, is by no means considered useless. Therefore, many have thought that it can also be understood in this way: that God appears to have forbidden that only the tree of knowledge of good and evil be tasted without the other things, not forbidding it with the others. And they think this is the reason why it is said, because God said to Adam: 'Who told you that you are naked, unless [it was] from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat, [and] you ate from this alone' (Gen. III, 11)? Because it seemed to give someone the opportunity to interpret, unless the woman in higher places, with the serpent speaking: What indeed did God say, do not eat from every tree in the garden: she would have responded: What is in the middle of the garden, God said: You shall not eat from it. In which, although the faith of the woman's transgression seems weaker, yet I will not strip Adam of all his virtues, so that it seems he achieved no virtue in paradise, having tasted nothing from the other trees, and having incurred guilt before obtaining any fruits. Therefore, I will not rob Adam, nor will I dispossess the entire human race, which is innocent before it receives the knowledge of good and evil. For it is not said in vain: Unless you turn and become like this child, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3). For a child, when cursed, does not curse back; when struck, does not strike back; it is not familiar with the temptations of ambition and plunder.
60. Therefore, I believe, more truthfully, that he has forbidden the eating of wood even with other fruits. For although good knowledge is perfect, it is nevertheless useless when imperfect. I dare to say that every man is imperfect, since even Paul himself says as if imperfect: Not because I have received, or because I am already perfect: but I follow if I may apprehend (Philippians 3:12). And therefore, the Lord says to the imperfect: Judge not, that you may not be judged (Matthew 7:1). Therefore, with an incomplete knowledge, it is useless. In fact, I would not have known sin if the law had not said: You shall not covet (Rom. 7:7). And further: Without the law, sin is dead (ibid., 8). For what benefit is it to me to know what I cannot avoid? What benefit is it to me to know that the law of my flesh opposes me? Paul is opposed, and he sees the law of his flesh resisting the law of his mind, and he is held captive under the law of sin (Rom. 7:23), and does not presume of his own conscience (see St. Augustine, Book 2 Against Julian, Chapter 5, number 13); but by the grace of Christ, he trusts that he will be liberated from the body of death: and do you think that anyone who knows cannot sin? Paul says: For I do not do the good that I want, but the evil that I do not want, that I do (Rom. VII, 19): and do you think that knowledge benefits man, which increases envy of sin? Nevertheless, let it be that a perfect man cannot sin. In Adam, God foresaw all men, and therefore it was not fitting for the human race to possess knowledge of good and evil, which it could not exercise except through the vices of the flesh, as was necessary.