John Calvin Commentary Genesis 3:1

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?" — Genesis 3:1 (ASV)

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that there would be nothing absurd in saying that the gift which had proved so destructive to the human race has been withdrawn from the serpent, just as we shall later see, other punishments were also inflicted upon it.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