John Calvin Commentary Genesis 3

Now the serpent was more subtle. In this chapter, Moses explains that man, after he had been deceived by Satan and revolted from his Maker, became entirely changed and so degenerate that the image of God, in which he had been formed, was obliterated.

He then declares that the whole world, which had been created for the sake of man, fell together with him from its original state; and that in this way much of its native excellence was destroyed.

But here many and difficult questions arise. For when Moses says that the serpent was crafty beyond all other animals, he seems to imply that it had been induced to deceive man, not by the instigation of Satan, but by its own malignity.

I answer that the innate subtlety of the serpent did not prevent Satan from making use of the animal for the purpose of bringing about the destruction of man.

For since he required an instrument, he chose from among animals that which he saw would be most suitable for him. Finally, he carefully contrived the method by which the snares he was preparing might more easily take the mind of Eve by surprise.

Until then, he had held no communication with men; therefore, he used an animal as his guise, under which he might gain access.

Yet it is not agreed among interpreters in what sense the serpent is said to be ערום (aroom, subtle), by which word the Hebrews designate the prudent as well as the crafty.

Some, therefore, would take it in a good, others in a bad sense. I think, however, Moses does not so much point out a fault as attribute praise to nature because God had endowed this beast with such singular skill as rendered it acute and quick-sighted beyond all others.

But Satan perverted to his own deceitful purposes the gift which had been divinely imparted to the serpent. Some captiously cavil that more acuteness is now found in many other animals.

To whom I answer, that there would be nothing absurd in saying that the gift which had proved so destructive to the human race has been withdrawn from the serpent, just as we shall later see, other punishments were also inflicted upon it.

Yet, in this description, writers on natural history do not materially differ from Moses, and experience gives the best answer to the objection; for the Lord does not in vain command His own disciples to be prudent as serpents (Matthew 10:16).

But it appears, perhaps, scarcely consistent with reason that the serpent only should be presented here, all mention of Satan being suppressed.

I acknowledge, indeed, that from this place alone nothing more can be concluded than that humans were deceived by the serpent. But the testimonies of Scripture are sufficiently numerous, in which it is plainly asserted that the serpent was only the mouth of the devil; for not the serpent but the devil is declared to be the father of lies, the fabricator of imposture, and the author of death.

The question, however, is not yet solved, why Moses has withheld the name of Satan. I willingly subscribe to the opinion of those who maintain that the Holy Spirit then purposely used obscure figures, because it was fitting that full and clear light should be reserved for the kingdom of Christ.

In the meantime, the prophets prove that they were well acquainted with the meaning of Moses when, in different places, they cast the blame of our ruin upon the devil.

We have elsewhere said that Moses, by a simple and unrefined style, accommodates what he delivers to the capacity of the people, and for the best reason: for not only did he have to instruct an untaught people, but the existing age of the Church was so immature that it was unable to receive any higher instruction.

Therefore, there is nothing absurd in the supposition that they, whom we know and confess to have been at that time like infants, were fed with milk. Or (if another comparison is more acceptable) Moses is by no means to be blamed if he, considering the role of a schoolmaster as assigned to him, insists on the rudiments suitable for children.

Those who have an aversion to this simplicity must necessarily condemn the whole economy of God in governing the Church. This, however, should be enough for us: that the Lord, by the secret illumination of His Spirit, supplied whatever clarity was lacking in outward expressions, as appears plainly from the prophets, who saw Satan to be the real enemy of the human race, the contriver of all evils, furnished with every kind of fraud and villainy to injure and destroy.

Therefore, though the impious may object loudly, there is nothing that should justly offend us in this mode of speaking by which Moses describes Satan, the prince of iniquity, under the guise of his servant and instrument, at the time when Christ, the Head of the Church, and the Sun of Righteousness, had not yet openly shone forth.

Add to this, the baseness of human ingratitude is more clearly perceived from this: that when Adam and Eve knew that all animals were given by the hand of God into subjection to them, they yet allowed themselves to be led away by one of their own slaves into rebellion against God.

Whenever they saw any one of the animals in the world, they ought to have been reminded both of the supreme authority and of the singular goodness of God. But, on the contrary, when they saw the serpent an apostate from its Creator, not only did they neglect to punish it, but, in violation of all lawful order, they subjected and devoted themselves to it, as participants in the same apostasy.

What can be imagined more dishonorable than this extreme depravity? Thus, I understand the name of the serpent, not allegorically, as some foolishly do, but in its genuine sense.

Many people are surprised that Moses simply, and as if abruptly, relates that humans have fallen by the impulse of Satan into eternal destruction, and yet never by a single word explains how the tempter himself had revolted from God.

And this has led to fanatical people imagining that Satan was created evil and wicked as he is here described.

But the revolt of Satan is proved by other passages of Scripture; and it is an impious madness to ascribe to God the creation of any evil and corrupt nature, for when He had completed the world, He Himself gave this testimony to all His works: that they were very good.

Therefore, without controversy, we must conclude that the principle of evil with which Satan was endowed was not from nature but from defection, because he had departed from God, the fountain of justice and of all rectitude.

But Moses here passes over Satan’s fall because his object is briefly to narrate the corruption of human nature; to teach us that Adam was not created for those multiplied miseries under which all his posterity suffer, but that he fell into them by his own fault.

In reflecting on the number and nature of those evils to which they are subject, people will often be unable to restrain themselves from raging and murmuring against God, whom they rashly censure for the just punishment of their sin. These are their well-known complaints that God has acted more mercifully to swine and dogs than to them.

Why is this, except that they do not refer the miserable and ruined state under which we languish to the sin of Adam as they ought? But what is far worse, they fling back upon God the charge of being the cause of all the inward vices of the mind (such as its horrible blindness, contumacy against God, wicked desires, and violent propensities to evil), as if the whole perverseness of our disposition had not been adventitious.

The design, therefore, of Moses was to show, in a few words, how greatly our present condition differs from our original state, so that we may learn, with humble confession of our fault, to bewail our evils. We should not then be surprised that, while intent on the history he intended to relate, he does not discuss every topic that anyone might wish for.

We must now address that question by which vain and inconstant minds are greatly agitated: namely, why God permitted Adam to be tempted, since the sad result was by no means hidden from Him?

That He now relaxes Satan’s reins to allow him to tempt us to sin, we ascribe to judgment and to vengeance, in consequence of man’s alienation from God; but there was not the same reason for doing so when human nature was yet pure and upright.

God, therefore, permitted Satan to tempt man, who was conformed to His own image and not yet implicated in any crime. Moreover, on this occasion, He allowed Satan the use of an animal which otherwise would never have obeyed him. And what else was this but to arm an enemy for the destruction of man?

This seems to have been the basis on which the Manichaeans maintained the existence of two principles. Therefore, they have imagined that Satan, not being in subjection to God, laid snares for man in opposition to the divine will, and was superior not only to man but also to God Himself.

Thus, to avoid what they dreaded as an absurdity, they have fallen into execrable and monstrous errors, such as that there are two Gods, and not one sole Creator of the world, and that the first God has been overcome by his antagonist.

All, however, who think piously and reverently concerning the power of God, acknowledge that the evil did not take place except by His permission.

For, in the first place, it must be granted that God was not ignorant of the event which was about to occur; and then, that He could have prevented it, had He seen fit to do so. But in speaking of permission, I understand that He had appointed whatever He wished to be done.

Here, indeed, a difference of opinion arises from many, who suppose Adam to have been so left to his own free will that God did not wish him to fall. They take for granted, which I grant them, that nothing is less probable than that God should be regarded as the cause of sin, which He has avenged with so many and such severe penalties.

When I say, however, that Adam did not fall without the ordination and will of God, I do not mean by this that sin had ever been pleasing to Him, or as if He simply wished that the precept which He had given should be violated.

Insofar as the fall of Adam was the subversion of equity and of well-constituted order, insofar as it was contumacy against the Divine Lawgiver and the transgression of righteousness, it was certainly against the will of God. Yet none of these things make it impossible that, for a certain reason (although unknown to us), He might will the fall of man.

It offends the ears of some when it is said God willed this fall; but what else, I ask, is the permission of Him who has the power of preventing, and in whose hand the whole matter is placed, but His will?

I wish that people would rather allow themselves to be judged by God than, with profane recklessness, pass judgment upon Him; but this is the arrogance of the flesh to subject God to its own test.

I hold it as a settled axiom that nothing is more unsuitable to the character of God than for us to say that man was created by Him for the purpose of being placed in a condition of suspense and doubt. Therefore I conclude that, as was fitting for the Creator, He had previously determined what man’s future condition should be.

From this, the unskilled rashly infer that man did not sin by free choice. For man himself perceives, convicted by the testimony of his own conscience, that he has been all too free in sinning.

Whether he sinned by necessity or by contingency is another question, concerning which see the Institutes and the treatise on Predestination.

And he said unto the woman. The impious assail this passage with their sneers because Moses ascribes eloquence to an animal which only faintly hisses with its forked tongue.

And first they ask, at what time animals began to be mute, if they then had a distinct language, and one common to us and them.

The answer is ready: the serpent was not eloquent by nature, but when Satan, by divine permission, procured it as a fit instrument for his use, he also uttered words by its tongue, which God Himself permitted.

Nor do I doubt that Eve perceived it to be extraordinary and for that reason received with greater eagerness what she admired.

Now, if people decide that whatever is unusual must be fabulous, God could work no miracle. Here God, by accomplishing a work above the ordinary course of nature, constrains us to admire His power.

If then, under this very pretext, we ridicule the power of God because it is not familiar to us, are we not excessively preposterous?

Besides, if it seems incredible that beasts should speak at the command of God, how does man have the power of speech, except because God has formed his tongue? The Gospel declares that voices were uttered in the air, without a tongue, to illustrate the glory of Christ; this is less probable to carnal reason than that speech should be elicited from the mouths of brute animals.

What then can the petulance of impious people find here deserving of their invective? In short, whoever holds that God in heaven is the Ruler of the world will not deny His power over the creatures, so that He can teach brute animals to speak when He pleases, just as He sometimes renders eloquent people speechless.

Moreover, the craftiness of Satan betrays itself in this: that he does not directly assail the man, but approaches him, as through a mine, by means of his wife.

This insidious method of attack is more than sufficiently known to us at the present day, and I wish we might learn prudently to guard ourselves against it.

For he warily insinuates himself at that point where he sees us to be the least fortified, so that he may not be perceived until he has penetrated where he wished.

The woman does not flee from conversation with the serpent because until then no dissension had existed; she, therefore, regarded it simply as a domestic animal.

The question arises: what had impelled Satan to contrive the destruction of man? Curious sophists have feigned that he burned with envy when he foresaw that the Son of God was to be clothed in human flesh; but the speculation is frivolous.

For since the Son of God was made man in order to restore us, who were already lost, from our miserable overthrow, how could that be foreseen which would never have happened unless man had sinned?

If there is room for conjectures, it is more probable that he was driven by a kind of fury (as the desperate are accustomed to be) to hurry man away with himself into sharing eternal ruin. But it is fitting for us to be content with this single reason: that since he was the adversary of God, he attempted to subvert the order established by Him.

And, because he could not drag God from His throne, he assailed man, in whom His image shone. He knew that with the ruin of man the most dreadful confusion would be produced in the whole world, as indeed it happened, and therefore he endeavored, through man, to obscure the glory of God.

Rejecting, therefore, all vain fictions, let us hold fast this doctrine, which is both simple and solid.

Yea, has God said? This sentence is variously expounded and even distorted, partly because it is in itself obscure, and partly because of the ambiguous import of the Hebrew particle. The expression אף כי (aph ki) sometimes signifies “although” or “indeed,” and sometimes, “how much more.”

David Kimchi takes it in this last sense and thinks that many words had passed between them on both sides before the serpent descended to this point; namely, that having slandered God on other accounts, he at last thus concludes: Hence it much more appears how envious and malignant He is towards you, because He has forbidden you the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But this interpretation is not only forced, it is proved to be false by the reply of Eve. More correct is the explanation of the Chaldean paraphrast: ‘Is it true that God has forbidden? etc.’

Again, to some this appears a simple, to others an ironical interrogation. It would be a simple interrogation if it injected a doubt in the following manner: ‘Can it be that God should forbid the eating of any tree whatever?’ But it would be ironical if used for the purpose of dissipating vain fear, as: ‘It greatly concerns God, indeed, whether you eat of the tree or not! It is, therefore, ridiculous that you should think it to be forbidden you!’

I subscribe more freely to the former opinion (that it is a simple interrogation) because there is greater probability that Satan, in order to deceive more covertly, would gradually proceed with cautious prevarications to lead the woman to a contempt of the divine precept.

There are some who suppose that Satan expressly denies that the word which our first parents had heard was the word of God. Others think (with whom I rather agree) that, under the pretext of inquiring into the cause, he would indirectly weaken their confidence in the word.

And certainly the old interpreter has translated the expression, ‘Why has God said?’ which, although I do not altogether approve, I have no doubt that the serpent urges the woman to seek out the cause, since otherwise he would not have been able to draw away her mind from God.

The temptation is very dangerous when it is suggested to us that God is not to be obeyed except insofar as the reason for His command is apparent. The true rule of obedience is that we, being content with a bare command, should persuade ourselves that whatever He enjoins is just and right.

But whoever desires to be wise beyond measure, Satan, seeing that person has cast off all reverence for God, will immediately precipitate into open rebellion.

Regarding grammatical construction, I think the expression ought to be translated, ‘Has God even said?’ or, ‘Is it so that God has said?’ Yet the artifice of Satan is to be noticed, for he wished to inject into the woman a doubt that might induce her to believe that something was not the word of God if a plausible reason for it did not manifestly appear.

Of every tree of the garden. Commentators offer a double interpretation of these words. The first supposes Satan, for the sake of increasing envy, to insinuate that all the trees had been forbidden: “Has God indeed enjoined that you should not dare to touch any tree?”

The other interpretation, however, is: “Have you not then the liberty granted you of eating indiscriminately from whatever tree you please?” The former more accords with the disposition of the devil, who would malignantly amplify the prohibitions and seems to be sanctioned by Eve’s reply.

For when she says, We do eat of all, one only excepted, she seems to repel the slander concerning a general prohibition. But because the latter sense of the passage, which suggests the question concerning the simple and bare prohibition of God, was more apt to deceive, it is more credible that Satan, with his accustomed guile, should have begun his temptation from this point: ‘Is it possible for God to be unwilling that you should gather the fruit of any tree whatever?’

The woman’s answer, that only one tree was forbidden, is meant as a defense of the command, as if she would deny that it ought to seem harsh or burdensome, since God had only excepted one single tree out of such a great abundance and variety as He had granted to them.

Thus, in these words there will be a concession that one tree was indeed forbidden; then, the refutation of a slander, because it is not arduous or difficult to abstain from one tree when others without number are supplied, of which the use is permitted.

Eve could not have more prudently or courageously repelled the assault of Satan than by objecting against him that she and her husband had been so bountifully dealt with by the Lord that the advantages granted to them were abundantly sufficient, for she intimates that they would be most ungrateful if, instead of being content with such affluence, they should desire more than was lawful.

When she says God has forbidden them to eat or to touch, some suppose the second word is added for the purpose of charging God with too great severity because He prohibited them even from the touch. But I rather understand that she until then remained in obedience and expressed her pious disposition by anxiously observing the precept of God.

Only, in proclaiming the punishment, she begins to give way by inserting the adverb “perhaps,” when God had certainly pronounced, Ye shall die the death. For although with the Hebrews פן (pen) does not always imply doubt, yet, since it is generally taken in this sense, I willingly embrace the opinion that the woman was beginning to waver. Certainly, she did not have death so immediately before her eyes, should she become disobedient to God, as she ought to have had. She clearly proves that her perception of the true danger of death was distant and cold.

And the serpent said unto the woman Satan now springs more boldly forward; and because he sees a breach open before him, he breaks through in a direct assault, for he is never accustomed to engage in open war until we voluntarily expose ourselves to him, naked and unarmed.

He cautiously approaches us at first with flatteries; but when he has stolen in upon us, he dares to exalt himself insolently and with proud confidence against God; just as he now, seizing upon Eve’s doubt, penetrates further, that he may turn it into a direct negative. We ought to be instructed by many examples to beware of his snares and, by making timely resistance, to keep him far from us, so that he is not permitted nearer access.

He now, therefore, does not ask doubtingly, as before, whether or not the command of God, which he opposes, is true, but openly accuses God of falsehood, for he asserts that the word by which death was threatened is false and deceptive. Fatal temptation! When God is threatening us with death, we not only sleep securely, but hold God himself in derision!

For God does know. Some think that God is here craftily praised by Satan, as if He would never prohibit people from using wholesome fruit. But they clearly contradict themselves, for at the same time they confess that in the preceding part of the sentence, Satan had already declared God to be unworthy of trust, as one who had lied.

Others suppose that Satan charges God with malice and envy, as wishing to deprive humanity of its highest perfection; this opinion is more probable than the former. Nevertheless, (in my judgment) Satan attempts to prove what he had recently asserted by reasoning from opposites: he argues that God has forbidden you the tree so that He might not be compelled to admit you to share in His glory. Therefore, the fear of punishment is quite needless.

In short, Satan denies that a fruit which is useful and beneficial can be harmful. When he says, God does know, he criticizes God as being motivated by jealousy, and as having given the command concerning the tree for the purpose of keeping humanity in an inferior rank.

You shall be as gods. Some translate this as, ‘You shall be like angels.’ It might even be rendered in the singular: ‘You shall be as God.’

I have no doubt that Satan promises them divinity; as if he had said, “God deprives you of the tree of knowledge for no other reason than because He fears having you as companions.”

Moreover, it is not without some semblance of reason that Satan makes divine glory, or equality with God, consist in the perfect knowledge of good and evil; but this is a mere pretense, designed to ensnare the unfortunate woman.

For the desire for knowledge is naturally inherent in us, and happiness is often thought to be found in it. However, Eve erred by not regulating the extent of her knowledge according to the will of God.

And we all daily suffer from the same affliction, because we desire to know more than is right and more than God allows; whereas the principal point of wisdom is well-ordered self-control in obedience to God.

And when the woman saw—This impure look of Eve, infected with the poison of concupiscence, was both the messenger and the witness of an impure heart. She could previously look at the tree with such sincerity that no desire to eat of it affected her mind, for the faith she had in the word of God was the best guardian of her heart and of all her senses.

But now, after her heart had declined from faith and from obedience to the word, she corrupted both herself and all her senses, and depravity spread through all parts of her soul as well as her body. It is, therefore, a sign of impious defection that the woman now judges the tree to be good for food, eagerly delights herself in looking at it, and persuades herself that it is desirable for the sake of acquiring wisdom, whereas before she had passed by it a hundred times with an unmoved and tranquil look.

For now, having shaken off the bridle, her mind wanders dissolutely and intemperately, drawing the body with it to the same licentiousness. The word להשכיל (lehaskil) has two explanations: that the tree was desirable either to be looked upon or to impart prudence. I prefer the latter sense, as better corresponding with the temptation.

And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible. Yet it might be that he soon joined her, and that, even before the woman tasted the fruit of the tree, she related the conversation held with the serpent and entangled him with the same fallacies by which she herself had been deceived. Others refer the particle עמה (immah), “with her,” to the conjugal bond, which can be accepted. But because Moses simply relates that he ate the fruit taken from his wife's hands, the opinion has commonly been received that he was captivated by her allurements rather than persuaded by Satan’s impostures. For this purpose, the declaration of Paul is cited:

Adam was not deceived, but the woman (1 Timothy 2:14).

But Paul in that place, as he is teaching that the origin of evil was from the woman, only speaks comparatively. Indeed, it was not only for the sake of complying with his wife’s wishes that he transgressed the law laid down for him, but being drawn by her into fatal ambition, he became a participant in the same defection with her. And truly, Paul elsewhere states that sin came not by the woman, but by Adam himself (Romans 5:12). Then, the reproof which soon afterwards follows, Behold, Adam is as one of us, clearly proves that he also foolishly coveted more than was lawful and gave greater credit to the devil's flatteries than to the sacred word of God.

It is now asked, what was the sin of both of them? The opinion of some of the ancients, that they were allured by intemperance of appetite, is childish. For when there was such an abundance of the choicest fruits, what daintiness could there be about one particular kind? Augustine is more correct, who says that pride was the beginning of all evils, and that by pride the human race was ruined.

Yet a fuller definition of the sin may be drawn from the kind of temptation which Moses describes. For first, the woman is led away from the word of God by the wiles of Satan, through unbelief. Therefore, the beginning of the ruin by which the human race was overthrown was a defection from the command of God.

But observe that people then revolted from God when, having forsaken his word, they lent their ears to the falsehoods of Satan. Hence we infer that God will be seen and adored in his word, and therefore, that all reverence for him is shaken off when his word is despised.

This is a most useful doctrine to know, for the word of God receives its due honor from only a few, so that those who rush onward with impunity in contempt of this word yet claim for themselves a chief rank among the worshippers of God. But as God does not reveal himself to people otherwise than through the word, so neither is his majesty maintained, nor does his worship remain secure among us any longer than we obey his word.

Therefore, unbelief was the root of defection, just as faith alone unites us to God. From this flowed ambition and pride, so that the woman first, and then her husband, desired to exalt themselves against God. For truly they did exalt themselves against God when, after honor had been divinely conferred upon them, they, not content with such excellence, desired to know more than was lawful, so that they might become equal with God.

Here also monstrous ingratitude betrays itself. They had been made in the likeness of God, but this seemed a small thing unless equality were added. Now, it is not to be endured that designing and wicked people should labor absurdly and in vain to extenuate the sin of Adam and his wife.

For apostasy is no light offense, but detestable wickedness, by which a person withdraws from the authority of their Creator, even rejecting and denying him. Besides, it was not simple apostasy, but combined with atrocious abuses and reproaches against God himself. Satan accuses God of falsehood, envy, and malignity, and our first parents assent to a slander so vile and detestable.

At length, having despised God's command, they not only indulge their own lust but also enslave themselves to the devil. If anyone prefers a shorter explanation, we may say unbelief opened the door to ambition, but ambition proved to be the parent of rebellion, so that people, having cast aside the fear of God, might shake off his yoke.

On this account, Paul teaches us that by the disobedience of Adam sin entered into the world. Let us imagine that there was nothing worse than the transgression of the command; even so, we will not have succeeded much in extenuating Adam's fault. God, having made him free in everything and appointed him as king of the world, chose to test his obedience by requiring abstinence from one tree alone.

This condition did not please him. Perverse arguers may make excuses, saying that the woman was allured by the tree's beauty and the man ensnared by Eve's blandishments. Yet the milder God's authority, the less excusable was their perverseness in rejecting it. But we must search more deeply for the origin and cause of sin.

For they never would have dared to resist God unless they had first disbelieved his word. And nothing allured them to covet the fruit but mad ambition. As long as they firmly believed God’s word and freely allowed themselves to be governed by Him, they had serene and duly regulated affections. Indeed, their best restraint was the thoughts that entirely occupied their minds: that God is just, that nothing is better than to obey his commands, and that to be loved by him is the consummation of a happy life.

But after they had yielded to Satan’s blasphemy, they began, like fascinated persons, to lose reason and judgment. Indeed, since they had become Satan’s slaves, he held their very senses captive. Furthermore, we know that sins are not estimated in God's sight by external appearance but by inward disposition.

Again, many find it absurd that the defection of our first parents is said to have led to the destruction of the whole human race, and for this reason, they readily accuse God. Pelagius, on the other hand, lest, as he falsely feared, God should be blamed for the corruption of human nature, ventured to deny original sin.

But such a gross error is plainly refuted not only by solid testimonies of Scripture but also by experience itself. The corruption of our nature was unknown to the philosophers who, in other respects, were sufficiently, and more than sufficiently, acute. Surely this stupor itself was a clear proof of original sin.

For all who are not utterly blind perceive that no part of us is sound: that the mind is struck with blindness and infected with innumerable errors; that all the affections of the heart are full of stubbornness and wickedness; that vile lusts, or other equally fatal diseases, reign there; and that all the senses burst forth with many vices.

Since, however, God alone is a proper judge in this cause, we must acquiesce in the sentence which he has pronounced in the Scriptures. In the first place, Scripture clearly teaches us that we are born vicious and perverse. The cavil of Pelagius—that sin proceeded from Adam by imitation—was frivolous.

For David, while still enclosed in his mother’s womb, could not be an imitator of Adam, yet he confesses that he was conceived in sin (Psalms 51:5). A fuller proof of this matter, and a more ample definition of original sin, may be found in the Institutes; yet here, briefly, I will attempt to show how far it extends.

Whatever in our nature is vicious—since it is not lawful to ascribe it to God—we justly reject as sin. But Paul (Romans 3:10) teaches that corruption does not reside in one part only, but pervades the whole soul and each of its faculties. From this it follows that they childishly err who regard original sin as consisting only in lust and in the inordinate motion of the appetites, whereas it seizes upon the very seat of reason and upon the whole heart. Condemnation is annexed to sin, or, as Paul speaks:

By man came sin, and by sin, death (Romans 5:12).

Therefore, he elsewhere pronounces us to be the children of wrath, as if he would subject us to an eternal curse (Ephesians 2:3). In short, that we are stripped of the excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit, of the light of reason, of justice, and of rectitude, and are prone to every evil; that we are also lost and condemned, and subjected to death—this is both our hereditary condition and, at the same time, a just punishment which God, in the person of Adam, has inflicted on the human race.

Now, if anyone should object that it is unjust for the innocent to bear the punishment of another’s sin, I answer that whatever gifts God had conferred upon us in the person of Adam, he had the best right to take away when Adam wickedly fell. Nor is it necessary to resort to that ancient figment of certain writers, that souls are derived by descent from our first parents.

For the human race has not naturally derived corruption through its descent from Adam; rather, that result is to be traced to the appointment of God, who, as he had adorned the whole nature of mankind with most excellent endowments in one man, so in the same man he again stripped it bare. But now, from the time we were corrupted in Adam, we do not bear the punishment of another’s offense but are guilty by our own fault.

Some raise a question concerning the time of this fall, or rather ruin. The opinion has been widely received that they fell on the day they were created; and therefore, Augustine writes that they stood for only six hours. The conjecture of others, that Satan delayed the temptation until the Sabbath to profane that sacred day, is but weak.

And certainly, by instances like these, all godly people are admonished to indulge sparingly in doubtful speculations. As for myself, since I have nothing to assert positively regarding the time, I think it may be inferred from Moses’ account that they did not long retain the dignity they had received. For as soon as he has said they were created, he passes to their fall without mentioning anything else.

If Adam had lived only a moderate amount of time with his wife, God’s blessing would not have been unfruitful in producing offspring. But Moses intimates that they were deprived of God’s benefits before they had become accustomed to using them.

I therefore readily subscribe to Augustine’s exclamation: “O wretched freewill, which, while yet entire, had so little stability!” And, to say no more regarding the shortness of the time, Bernard’s admonition is worthy of remembrance: “Since we read that such a dreadful fall took place in Paradise, what shall we do on the dunghill?”

At the same time, we must remember by what pretext they were led into this delusion, so fatal to themselves and to all their posterity. Plausible was Satan’s adulation, Ye shall know good and evil; but that knowledge was therefore accursed because it was sought in preference to God’s favor.

Therefore, unless we wish, of our own accord, to bring the same snares upon ourselves, let us learn entirely to depend upon the sole will of God, whom we acknowledge as the Author of all good. And since Scripture everywhere admonishes us of our nakedness and poverty and declares that we may recover in Christ what we have lost in Adam, let us, renouncing all self-confidence, offer ourselves empty to Christ, that he may fill us with his own riches.

And the eyes of them both were opened. It was necessary that the eyes of Eve should be veiled until her husband also was deceived; but now both, being alike bound by the chain of an unhappy consent, begin to be aware of their wretchedness, although they are not yet affected by a deep knowledge of their fault.

They are ashamed of their nakedness, yet, though convinced, they do not humble themselves before God, nor fear His judgments as they ought; they still resort to evasions. Some progress, however, is made; for whereas recently they would, like giants, assault heaven by storm, now, confounded by a sense of their own ignominy, they flee to hiding places.

And truly, this opening of the eyes in our first parents to discern their baseness clearly proves that they were condemned by their own judgment. They are not yet summoned to the tribunal of God; there is no one who accuses them. Is not the sense of shame, which rises spontaneously, then a sure sign of guilt?

The eloquence, therefore, of the whole world will be of no avail to deliver from condemnation those whose own conscience has become the judge compelling them to confess their fault. Rather, it is fitting for us all to open our eyes, so that, being confounded by our own disgrace, we may give God the glory that is His due.

God created man flexible. He not only permitted but willed that man should be tempted. For He adapted the serpent's tongue beyond the ordinary use of nature for the devil’s purpose, just as if someone were to furnish another with a sword and armor. Then, although the unhappy event was foreknown by Him, He did not apply the remedy, which He had the power to do.

On the other hand, when we speak of man, he will be found to have sinned voluntarily and to have departed from God, his Maker, by a movement of the mind no less free than perverse. Nor should we call that a light fault which, refusing to believe God's word, exalted itself against Him through impious and sacrilegious emulation, would not be subject to His authority, and finally, both proudly and perfidiously revolted from Him.

Therefore, whatever sin and fault there is in the fall of our first parents remains with them. However, there is sufficient reason why the eternal counsel of God preceded it, though that reason is concealed from us.

Indeed, we daily see some good fruit springing from such a dreadful ruin, as God instructs us in humility through our miseries and then more clearly illustrates His own goodness. For His grace is more abundantly poured forth upon the world through Christ than it was imparted to Adam in the beginning. Now, if the reason for this lies beyond our reach, it is not surprising that the secret counsel of God should be like a labyrinth to us.

And they sewed fig leaves together. What I recently said—that they had not been brought to repentance by either true shame or serious fear—is now more evident. They sew together for themselves girdles of leaves. To what end? So that they might keep God at a distance, as if by an invincible barrier!

Their sense of evil, therefore, was only confused and combined with dullness, as is usually the case in restless sleep. We all smile at their folly, since, certainly, it was ridiculous to place such a covering before the eyes of God. Meanwhile, we are all infected with the same disease; for, indeed, we tremble and are covered with shame at the first compunctions of conscience, but self-indulgence soon creeps in and leads us to resort to vain trifles, as if it were an easy thing to delude God.

Therefore, unless conscience is more closely pressed, no shadow of an excuse is too faint and fleeting to gain our acceptance. Even if there is no pretext whatever, we still create pleasures for ourselves and, by a three-day oblivion, imagine that we are well covered. In short, the cold and faint knowledge of sin, which is inherent in the minds of men, is described here by Moses so that they may be rendered inexcusable. Then, as we have already said, Adam and his wife were still ignorant of their own vileness, since they attempted to hide themselves from the presence of God with such a light covering.