Книга 11

“And Adam and his wife were both naked, and they were not ashamed. The serpent was more cunning than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God created. And the serpent said to the woman: Did God truly say: You shall not eat from any tree in the garden? And the woman said to the serpent: We can eat fruit from the trees, only from the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God said, do not eat it or touch it, lest you die. And the serpent said to the woman: No, you will not die; but God knows that on the day you eat of them, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil. And the wife saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes and desirable because it gave knowledge; and she took of its fruit and ate; and she gave it also to her husband, and he ate. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed together fig leaves and made aprons for themselves. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day; and Adam and his wife hid from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of paradise. And the Lord God called to Adam and said to him: Where are you? He said: I heard Your voice in paradise, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. And he said: Who told you that you were naked? have you not eaten from the tree from which I forbade you to eat? Adam said: The wife whom You gave me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate. And the Lord God said to the woman: Why have you done this? The woman said: The serpent deceived me, and I ate. And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle and above all the beasts of the field; on your belly you will go, and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it will bruise your head, and you will bruise its heel. He said to his wife: I will multiply your sorrow in your pregnancy; in illness you will give birth to children; and your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. And he said to Adam: Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree, about which I commanded you, saying: You shall not eat from it; cursed is the ground because of you; you will eat from it in sorrow all the days of your life. She will bring forth thorns and thistles for you; and you will eat the grass of the field. By the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground from which you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return. And Adam called his wife's name Eve, for she became the mother of all living. And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said: Behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, as it were, he did not stretch out... his hand, and also took from the tree of life, and did not eat, and did not live forever. And the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken. And he drove out Adam, and placed a cherubim and a flaming sword that turned around at the east of the Garden of Eden to guard the way to the tree of life” (Gen. 2:25, Gen. 3:1–24) Before we begin to consider the above text of Scripture, we should (as I have said more than once before) recall that it is imperative for us to defend the events that the writer narrates in the literal sense. If, however, the words of God or of any person invested with the prophetic ministry express something that, if taken literally, would be absurd, then, of course, they must be recognized as being said in a figurative sense for the sake of some kind of teaching; but what it is said, in any case, cannot be doubted: both the integrity of the writer and the promise of the interpreter vouch for it. So, “they were both naked” (there is no doubt that the bodies of both inhabitants of paradise were naked) and “they were not ashamed.” For why did they have to be ashamed when in their members they did not feel any law contrary to the law of their mind? This punishment for sin appeared in them after the commission of the crime as something born of willful disobedience and revealed by punishing truth. Before this happened, they were, as it is said, naked and not ashamed: there was not a single movement in their body that they should be ashamed of; they did not consider it necessary to cover themselves, because they did not feel anything that needed to be curbed. The question of how they gave birth to children has already been considered before; in any case, one must think, not in the same way as they began to give birth later, when the crime committed was followed by the foreseen revenge, although, however, even before they began to die, the embryo of death, according to the fair law of reflection, had already begun to produce in the body of disobedient people the indignation of disobedient members. But Adam and Eve were not yet like that when they were both naked and not ashamed. “The serpent was more cunning than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made” (Gen. 3:1). He is called the most cunning or, as we can read in many Latin codes, the wisest in the figurative sense of the word (and not in the proper sense, in which the good side of the wisdom of God, or angels, or the rational soul is understood), just as we call bees and even ants wise for their actions that represent a semblance of wisdom. However, this serpent can be called the wisest of all animals not because of its unreasonable soul, but because of someone else’s, that is, the devil’s spirit. For although the apostate angels were cast down from the high seats for their perversity and pride, yet in their intelligence they are much higher than all the beasts. And is it surprising that the devil, having filled the serpent with his instinct and imparted to him his spirit, with which he usually fills demonic prophets, made him the wisest of all animals living in accordance with a living and unreasonable soul? For metaphorically wisdom is called in a bad sense, just as cunning is called in a good sense; although in their proper and most common meaning in the Latin language, they are called wise in a praiseworthy sense, and cunning means smart - in a bad sense. Therefore, in many of our codes this snake is called the most cunning, and not the wisest of all animals. And what the (corresponding) Hebrew word literally means and whether the wise can be called in Hebrew in a bad, not allegorical, but proper sense, let those who know the Hebrew language well decide. However, in another place in Holy Scripture we clearly read about the wise in a bad, and not in a good sense (Jer. 4:22), and the Lord calls the sons of this age wiser than the sons of light (Luke 16:8), in the sense of caring for themselves, however, in a deceptive, and not in a legitimate way. It goes without saying that we should not think that the devil himself chose the serpent, with the help of which he tempted and tempted to sin. Although, due to a perverted and envious will, he had a desire to seduce, he could only do this through the medium of the animal through which he was allowed to commit seduction. For in every spirit there may be a perverted will to harm, but the power to harm only comes from God, and therefore from the hidden and highest justice, since with God there is no injustice. Therefore, if they ask why God allowed a person to be subjected to temptation, although he foresaw that he would yield to the tempter, then I, not being able to comprehend the depth of this, admit that this is beyond my strength. There is probably some hidden reason for this, which is reserved for better and more holy people, and rather by the grace of God than by their merits. However, as far as God has given me the understanding and permission to speak, a person, it seems to me, would not deserve much praise if he could live virtuously only because no one inclined him to live viciously, as long as he had both in nature the opportunity and in the will the desire not to follow the suggestion; with the help, however, of the One who resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). So, why wouldn’t God allow a person to be subjected to temptation, although He foresaw that he would yield to the tempter, since a person voluntarily had to do this through his own fault and had to become the subject of justice through punishment, so that God could thus show the proud soul, for the edification of future saints, how correctly He uses even the evil will of souls, while they perversely use good natures? Nor should we think that the tempter would have succeeded in seducing a person, even if there had not been some exaltation in the latter’s soul that needed to be curbed, so that through humiliation through sin he would learn how erroneously he was exalted. For it is very truly said: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). Perhaps the voice of this man is heard in the psalm: “And I said in my prosperity: “I will never be shaken” (Ps. 29:7). Then, having already been taught by experience how much evil there is in proud exaltation of one’s own strength and how much good there is in help from the grace of God, he says: “By Thy good pleasure, O Lord, Thou hast strengthened my mountain; but You hid Your face, and I was troubled” (Ps. 29:8). But whether this is said about him, or about some other person, in any case, the soul that was exalted and, so to speak, relying too much on its own strength had to be made to feel through testing and punishment how bad it is for created nature if it turns away from Its Creator. It is primarily in this way that one is taught what kind of good God is, since no one who turns away from Him experiences good things; because even those who enjoy mortal pleasures cannot be free from the fear of sorrows, and those who, due to the greater numbness of pride, absolutely do not feel the evil of their falling away, in the eyes of others who can notice a similar state, seem completely unhappy; so if they themselves do not want to take medicine to avoid such a condition, then let them serve as an example for others to avoid it. For, as the Apostle James says: “Everyone is tempted, being drawn away and enticed by his own lust; But lust, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin, and sin once it has been committed gives birth to death” (James 1:14–15). Having been healed by this example from the ulcer of pride, a person is restored if his will, which was previously too weak to remain with God, has become so strong after the test that it has become capable of returning to God. Meanwhile, the question of the temptation of the first man in the sense of why God allowed it to happen confuses others so much that it seems that even now they do not see that the entire human race is constantly tempted by the deceit of the devil. Why does God allow this too? Is it because in this way virtue is strengthened and exercised and that the reward for it is much more glorious if it did not succumb to temptation than if it was not subjected to temptation at all, for those who, having left the Creator, follow the tempter, in turn, themselves tempt those who remain faithful to the word of God, set an example for them to evade and instill in them a pious fear of pride. Therefore, the apostle advises everyone to watch themselves, “so as not to be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). For it is worthy of wonder with what constant care all the divine Scriptures instill in us this humility, which makes us submissive to the Creator, so that we do not rely on our own strength, no matter how much we need His help. So, if even the righteous are perfected through the unrighteous, and the pious through the wicked, then it is in vain to say: “Let God not create those who, as He foresaw, would be evil.” For why should He not create those who, as He foresaw, would be useful to the good, being born for the useful purpose of exercising and admonishing good wills and justly bearing punishment for their evil will? “It would be better,” they say, “He created man in such a way that he would not want to sin at all.” Yes, we agree that that nature is better that does not want to sin at all: let them also agree that that nature is not evil, which was created in such a way that it could, if it wanted, not sin, and that the sentence with which it is punished is just, having sinned by will, and not by necessity. Hence, just as sound reason teaches us that that nature is better which is not seduced by what is unlawful, so sound reason teaches us that that nature is also good which can curb illicit inclinations, should they appear in it, enjoying not only everything that is permitted and rightly done, but even the curbing of this vicious inclination itself. So, if this nature is good, and that one is better, then why did God create only one, and not both? Therefore, those who are ready to glorify God for one should glorify Him all the more for both. The first belongs to the holy Angels, the last to the holy people. As for those who preferred depravity and, by their own reprehensible will, perverted a praiseworthy nature, they should not have been created because God foresaw them to be such. They have their place which they occupy in the world for the benefit of the saints. For God himself does not need the righteousness of a virtuous person, much less the unrighteousness of a vicious one. Who, guided by common sense, will say: “It would be better if God did not create someone who, as He foresaw, could be corrected through the depravity of another, rather than also create someone who, as He foresaw, should be punished for his depravity.” This would mean the same thing as saying: “It is better not to be the one who, taking advantage of the evil of another, will receive a crown through mercy, than to be the one who, according to his deserts, will be justly punished.” For if the mind points to two unequal goods: one is higher, and the other is lower, then those who say: “Let one and the other of them be such and such” do not understand, due to the dullness of the heart, what this means: “Let there be only this.” But since they want to equalize two types of goods in this way, then they reduce their number and, increasing one type beyond measure, eliminate the other. But who will listen to them if they say: “Since the sense of sight is superior to the sense of hearing, then let there be four eyes and not a single ear”? In the same way, if that rational nature is superior which is submissive to God apart from any fear of punishment, apart from all pride; and, on the contrary, in people it is created in such a way that it can recognize God’s favor towards itself only by seeing the punishment of another, “not being proud, but fearing” (Rom. 11:20), that is, relying not on itself, but trusting in God: then whoever, being in his right mind, will say: “Let this one be the same as that one,” and will not understand what it would mean to say: “Let there not be this one, but only that one”? If it is ignorant and stupid to say this, then why cannot God create those who, as He foresaw, would be evil, desiring to show wrath and demonstrate His power and therefore with great longsuffering spare the vessels of wrath, ready for destruction, in order to show the riches of His glory over the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared for glory (Rom. 9:22-23). )? Thus, “he who boasts, boast in the Lord” (2 Cor. 10:17), realizing that not only is your being not from yourself, but from God, but also your good being is from the same one from whom your being is. So, it is extremely inappropriate to say: “Let there not be those to whom God would impart such benefits of His mercy, if they can only exist if there are those on whom the justice of vengeance would appear.” For why cannot there be both, when the goodness and justice of God are revealed in both? On the other hand, if God wanted, there would be good and evil. All the better did He want them to be what they themselves want to be, but so that the good do not remain fruitless, and the evil unpunished and therefore useless for others. But did He foresee that their will would be evil? Of course, He foresaw, and since His foresight cannot sin, then it is not His will that is evil, but their will. Why did He create them, although He foresaw that they would be like this? Because He foresees both how much evil they will do and how much good He will derive from their deeds. For He created them in such a way that they have something left, thanks to which they can do something themselves, and no matter what they choose to be reprehensible, they can, however, find Him working in them praiseworthy. They have an evil will from themselves, but from Him they have a good nature and just punishment, (occupying) their due place and (serving) others as a support for exercise and an example for fear. But, they say, He could turn their will to good, because He is omnipotent. Of course he could. Why didn't he do that? Because I didn't want to. And why he didn’t want to is His business. We must “not think of ourselves more than we ought to think” (Rom. 12:3). But a little higher, we, I believe, have sufficiently shown that even that rational nature is no small good, which avoids evil by comparing evils; and this kind of good nature, of course, would not have existed if God had turned all evil wills into good and did not punish depravity with a deserved punishment: in that case, only one kind of good nature would remain, which remains perfect without any comparison sin and punishment for evil. Thus, with the destruction, so to speak, of the number of the most excellent race, the number of the races themselves (of the good nature) would decrease. So, they say, there is something in the works of God that needs the evil of another, which God uses for good? Is it possible for people to be so deaf and blinded by the passion for argument that they do not hear or see how many are corrected at the sight of the punishments of others? What pagan, what Jew, what heretic does not experience this daily in his home? Meanwhile, when it comes to considering and studying this truth, people do not even want to know from what action of divine providence this arousal to the perception of discipline occurs in them, forgetting that even if those punished are not corrected, others are still kept in fear by their example and the just death of others contributes to their salvation. Is God really the author of the malice and lewdness of those whose just punishment He directs for the benefit of others, about whom He decided to care in this particular way? Although He foresaw that they would be evil by their own vicious will, He did not refuse to create them, having in mind the benefit of those whom He created such that they could not succeed in good except by having before them an example of the evil. For if these were not there, then, of course, they would be completely useless. But is it really a trivial matter for there to exist those who are undoubtedly useful to this genus, and anyone who does not want this genus to exist, what does he want if not not to be in it himself? “Great are the works of the Lord, desirable to all who love them” (Ps. 111:2): he foresees that they will be good and does them; foresees that they will be evil, and creates; providing Himself to the good for enjoyment, and generously endowing the evil with many of His mercies, mercifully forgiving and justly punishing, and also mercifully punishing and justly forgiving, not at all afraid of anyone’s malice and not at all in need of anyone’s righteousness, not taking anything for Himself even from good deeds and turning the punishments themselves to the good of the good. Why would He not allow the temptation of a man who, through this temptation, had to be tested, defeated and punished, since with an arrogant lust for his own power he achieved what he had previously planned, with his deed he brought himself into disorder, and with just punishment he instilled fear of evil pride and disobedience in his descendants, to whom this story was described and became known? If they ask why the devil was allowed to commit temptation specifically through the serpent, then who will not be convinced by the Scripture that this was done not without intent - a Scripture of such high authority, using for prophetic purposes as many proofs of the deity as the world is filled with actions? We do not want to say by this that the devil wanted to show us something for our edification; but since he could not begin the temptation except by permission, he could only do this with the help of someone whose help he was allowed to do. Hence, whatever the serpent means, all this must be attributed to that industry, under whose power the devil, although he has a desire to harm, receives the ability to harm only that which is given to him either for the seduction and destruction of the vessels of wrath, or for the humility and strengthening of the vessels of mercy. We know where the nature of the serpent comes from: according to the word of God, the earth produced all livestock, beasts and reptiles; and all this creation, having within itself a living unreasonable soul, according to the law of divine providence, is subject to rational, good or evil, nature. Is it surprising if the devil was allowed to do something through the serpent, when Christ himself allowed the demons to enter the pigs? Even more subtle questions are usually raised about the very nature of the devil, which some heretics, amazed by his evil will, try to completely remove from the ranks of the creatures of the Most High and True God and give him a different beginning, contrary to God. They cannot understand that everything that exists, insofar as it is some kind of substance, is something good and can only come from that true God, from whom all good things come, but the evil will moves randomly, preferring lower goods to higher ones; And so it happened that the spirit of rational nature, carried away by its power, became arrogant with pride, as a result of which it lost the bliss of spiritual paradise and began to be tormented by envy. However, there is something good in it, namely, that it lives and animates the body - whether airy, like the spirit of the devil or demon himself, or earthly, like the soul of some evil and perverted person. Thus, not allowing anything created by God to sin, they call the substance of God himself damaged and perverted, first by necessity, and then by will. But we have already talked about this crazy delusion of theirs elsewhere. In this work, we must talk about the devil on the basis of Holy Scripture. And first of all, from the very beginning of the world, carried away by his power, did he fall away from that society and that love with which the blessed angels delight in God, or did he spend some time in the host of angels, being himself also righteous and blessed? Some say that he fell from the highest degrees, envying man created in the image of God. But envy follows from pride, and does not precede it, for envy is not the cause of pride, but pride is the cause of envy, since pride is love for one’s own superiority, and envy is aversion to the well-being of others. As a result of the love of his own superiority, everyone envies either his equals because they are equal to him, or his inferiors, fearing that they will not become equal to him, or his superiors, since he himself is not equal to them. So, everyone is envious out of pride, but not out of envy, everyone is proud. Therefore, Scripture defines pride as the beginning of all sin, saying that the beginning of all sin is pride (Sir. 10:15). What is consistent with this testimony is what the apostle says: “The love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10), if by “love of money” we mean greed, as a result of which everyone desires something more than he should, in the name of his own superiority and because of a certain love of property, to which the Latin wisely assigned the name private (privatum) since, obviously, it received its name rather from loss than profit. For every loss of a part (privatio) makes (the whole) smaller. Hence, by what pride wants to rise, it plunges it into crampedness and insufficiency, as soon as reprehensible love for oneself is directed from the general to one’s own. But there is a special greed, which is called the love of money. By denoting a particular type with this name, the apostle wanted to make it clear that he meant greed as such. For as a result of greed, the devil also fell, who loved, of course, not money, but his own power. Therefore, perverted self-love deprives the proud spirit of holy company, and when it becomes satiated with untruth, it plunges it into misfortune. Therefore, in another place, having said: “For people will be lovers of themselves” (2 Tim. 3:2), the apostle then adds “lovers of money,” moving from greed in the general sense, the head of which is pride, to greed in the particular sense, which is characteristic of people. For people would not be lovers of money if they did not consider themselves superior to the rich. The opposite of this illness, love “does not envy, ... does not exalt itself, is not proud” (1 Cor. 13:4), that is, it does not delight in private superiority, and therefore does not exalt itself. These are two kinds of love, of which one is holy and the other unclean; one is public and the other is private; one is concerned about the common good in the name of high society, and the other even directs the common good to its own power in the name of selfish domination; one submissive to God, and the other competing with Him; one is calm and the other is passionate; one is peaceful and the other is rebellious; one is preferring the truth to the praises of the erring, and the other is greedy for all kinds of praise; one is friendly and the other is envious; one is the one who wants the same for her neighbor as she wants for herself, and the other who wants the neighbor’s subordination to herself; one governing one’s neighbor in the name of the neighbor’s benefit, and the other in the name of one’s own benefit—these two kinds of love existed in the angels, one in the good, and the other in the evil, and they set the distinction between the two cities formed in the human race under the wondrous and ineffable power of God’s providence, which governs all creation—the city of the righteous and the city of the wicked. From their temporary confusion the present age passes, until at the last judgment they are separated, and one, united with the good angels, will inherit eternal life with his King, and the other, united with the evil angels, will be sent with his king into eternal fire. About these two cities, if the Lord wills, perhaps we will say more in detail in another place. But when it was pride that persuaded the devil to pervert his good nature with a vicious will, Scripture does not speak about this; however, it is obvious that this happened before he envied the man. For everyone who pays attention to this subject understands that pride is born not from envy, but from pride - envy. And it is not without reason to think that the devil fell into pride from time immemorial and that there was no time before when he lived peacefully and blissfully with the angels, but that he fell away from his Creator from the very beginning; so in the words of the Lord: “He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth” (John 8:44), “from the beginning” must be understood in application to both: not only to the fact that he was a murderer, but also to the fact that he did not stand in the truth. However, he became a murderer from the time when a person could be killed, and a person could not be killed before the one who could be killed appeared. Thus, the devil is “a murderer from the beginning” because he killed the first man, before whom there was no other man. But he has not stood in the truth since the time from which he himself was created, who could, if he wanted, stand in it. How is it possible that the one who knew in advance about his future sin and the punishment for it, that is, the apostasy and eternal fire, enjoyed a blessed life among the blessed angels? If he didn’t know about this in advance, then it’s natural to ask why he didn’t know? The Holy Angels know about their eternal life and their bliss. For how blessed would they be if they did not have this knowledge? Perhaps, let's say that God did not want to reveal to him, when he was still a good angel, neither what he would be, nor what he would have to endure; while he revealed to the rest that they would forever abide in His truth? And if so, it means that he was not blessed to the same degree as them, he was not even blessed at all, because the blessed are completely confident in their bliss, so that they are no longer embarrassed by any fear. In what evil way was he different from the rest so that God did not reveal to him the future that concerned him? Was God really an avenger before the devil became a sinner? It won't happen! God does not punish the innocent. Or, perhaps, the devil belonged to another kind of angels, to whom God did not communicate foreknowledge of their future? But I do not understand how they could be blessed if they did not know their own blessedness. Others believe that the devil did not belong to that higher nature of the angels who are above the heavens, but to the nature of those who were created and endowed with service in a somewhat lower part of the world. Let us assume that such angels could become carried away by something prohibited; However, if they did not want to sin, they could curb such a passion with the help of free will, just like man, especially the first man who did not yet have in his members the punishment for sin, since with the help of the grace of God even this punishment is overcome by the piety of saints and people devoted to God. Further, the question of whether someone who does not know whether he will constantly lead a blissful life, or whether it will someday be replaced by misfortune for him, can be called blessed - this question may also arise regarding the blessed life of the very first person. In fact, if he knew in advance about his future sin and divine punishment, then how could he be blessed? Therefore, he was not blessed in heaven. But maybe he didn’t know about his future sin? But then, as a result of this ignorance, he was either not confident in his bliss, and in that case, how could he be truly blessed, or was confident with false hope, and in that case was a fool. But we can, however, have an idea of ​​​​a kind of blessed life of a person who is still in the spiritual body and who, for an obedient life, should be given the community of angels and the change of the spiritual body into a spiritual one, even if he did not know about his future sin. For those to whom the apostle says: “If a man falls into any sin, you who are spiritual do not know this, correct him in the spirit of meekness, looking to each one of you for yourselves, lest you be tempted” (Gal. 6:1), and nevertheless it will not be strange and absurd if we say that they were blessed already because they were spiritual, not in body, but in the righteousness of faith, “comforted by hope and in sorrow... patient” (Rom. 12:12). The first man was all the more and more completely blessed in paradise, although he did not know about his future fall, since the reward of the future change filled him with such joy that there was no sorrow in him, for which patience would be important for him to endure. For his confidence was not a vain hope in the unknown, like that of a fool, but a believer's hope; Before reaching that state when he had to be completely confident in his eternal life, he could rejoice, as it is written, with trembling (Ps. 2:11), and with this joy he could remain in paradise much more blessed than the saints are blessed in this life, although, of course, in some lower way than the saints will be blessed in the eternal life of the holy and heavenly Angels, but in any case - in his own way. To say about some angels that they could be blessed in a certain way, not being sure of their future unrighteousness and condemnation, or, at least, of constant well-being, since for them in such a case there would be no hope that they, as a result of a certain change for the better, would be sure of this - it is hardly permissible to say so; unless we say that these angels were so created and in their worldly service they were subordinate to other higher and more blessed angels, so that for the correct fulfillment of the duties assigned to them they could receive a blessed and higher life, about which they could be completely confident and, rejoicing in the hope of which, they could already be called blessed. If the devil fell from among them with the accomplices of his unrighteousness, then this is similar to how people who deviate from the right path due to similar pride, either deceiving themselves, or obediently following the same deceiver, fall away from the righteousness of faith. But let anyone who can affirm these two classes of angels - the heavenly ones, among which was never the one who, as a result of the fall, became the devil, and the worldly ones, among whom he was - I, for my part, admit that I have not yet found anything in Scripture that would confirm the presence of these two classes, but in view of the question whether the devil knew about his fall before he fell, I, not to say that the angels are either now unsure, or were ever unsure of in his blessedness, he spoke in such a way that there is reason to think that the devil fell and did not stand in the truth at the very beginning of creation, that is, either from the very beginning of time, or from the beginning of his creation. Therefore, others believe that he fell into this malice not of his own free will, but was created with it, although he was created by the Most High and True Lord God, the creator of all natures, and cite evidence from the book of Job, in which, when talking about the devil, it is written: “This is the height of the ways of God; only He who created him can bring His sword closer to him” (Job 40:14) (and this saying corresponds to what is written in the psalm: “There is this leviathan whom You created to play in him” (Ps. 103:26), unless the expression: “this is the top of the ways of God” is identical with the expression: “whom You created”, i.e., as if it were In the beginning, God created him as an evil, envious deceiver; he was not corrupted by his own will, but was created that way. But how can this opinion be reconciled with what is written that God created everything “very good” (Gen. 1:31)? True, they try to justify themselves and, not without exaggeration, assert that not only in their first creation, but even at the present time, with the existence of so many corrupt wills, everything created as a whole, that is, the entire creation, is “good but very good” not because the evil ones in it are good, but because they do not show their evil so much that the beauty and order of the universe under the authority, wisdom and power of God the Provider is disfigured and violated in any part of it, for each of the wills, even the evil one, has certain and corresponding boundaries of power and a certain amount of merit, so that even with the existence of this kind of will, ordered in an appropriate and fair manner, the universe remains beautiful. But since it seems true and obvious to everyone that it would be unjust if God, without any previous merit, condemned in someone what He Himself created, and since we find an undoubted and clear story about the condemnation of the devil and his angels in the Gospel, in which the Lord foretold that He would say to those on His left: “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), then one must think that condemnation to eternal fire should await the devil not by the nature that God created, but by his own evil will. And with the words: “This is the height of God’s ways; only He who created him can bring His sword closer to him” (Job 40:14) it is not his nature that is indicated at all, but either the airy body with which God appropriately provided such a will, or the order by which He created him as an involuntary instrument of benefit for the good, or the fact that although God foresaw that he would be evil of his own free will, he nevertheless created him, not sparing His goodness for life and substance, which must reveal itself by a harmful will, and at the same time foreseeing how much good He will make of it by His amazing goodness. He is called the pinnacle of the Lord’s creation not because God initially or in the beginning created him evil, but because although God knew that the devil would be evil of his own free will in order to harm the good, he nevertheless created him so that he would thereby be useful to the good. It is the beginning of reproach because evil people, the vessels of the devil and, as it were, the body of his head, which although God foresaw that they would be evil, nevertheless created them for the benefit of the saints, are reproached in exactly the same way when, despite their desire to harm, their example instills in the saints a warning, reverent submission to God, the understanding of grace, exercise in tolerance towards the evil and in love for enemies. But he is the pinnacle of the creation that is subjected to such desecration because he surpasses them both in his antiquity and the primacy of malice. God arranges this reproach for him through the holy Angels according to the action of His providence, according to which He governs the created natures, subordinating the evil angels to the good ones so that the wickedness of the evil, and, moreover, evil not only angels, but also people, has power not to the extent that it strives to have it, but to the extent that the very truth by which they are alive from faith and which is now being revealed in people with longsuffering, will turn to judgment, so that they too could judge not only the twelve tribes of Israel, but also the angels themselves. Thus, the idea that the devil never stood in the truth and that he never spent a blessed life with the angels, but fell from the very beginning of his creation, must be understood to mean that he was corrupted by his own will, and was not created by God as evil; otherwise it would not be necessary to say that he fell from the beginning, for he did not fall, since he was created that way. But being created, he constantly turns away from the light of truth, puffed up with pride and corrupted by the lust of his own power; why did he not taste the sweetness of the blessed and angelic life, which he did not abhor, having already received it, but left and bypassed it, not wanting to accept it. Hence, he could not know in advance about his fall, since wisdom is the fruit of piety. He, being constantly wicked and, therefore, blind in mind, fell not from what he had already received, but from what he would have received if he had wished to be submissive to God; and since he did not want this, he fell away from what he had to receive, and did not hide from Him Whom he did not want to submit. Therefore, it completely deservedly happened to him that he could neither enjoy the light of truth nor free himself from its sentence. Hence, the words of the prophet Isaiah: “How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the dawn! crashed to the ground, trampling the nations. And he said in his heart: “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mountain in the assembly of gods, on the edge of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” But you were cast into hell, into the depths of the pit” (Is. 14:12-15), - the words that mean the devil by the Babylonian king very much refer to his body, which he recruits from the human race, and especially to those who, having fallen from the commandments of God, unite with him with pride. For just as in the Gospel the one who was the devil is called a man, for example in the words: “The enemy man did this” (Matthew 13:28), so in the Gospel the one who was a man is called the devil, for example, in the words: “Have I not chosen twelve of you? but one of you is the devil” (John 6:70). And in the same way, the body of Christ, i.e. the Church, is called Christ, for example in the words: “You are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29), for a little higher the apostle said: “But the promises were given to Abraham and to his seed. It is not said, “And to your descendants, as if they were many,” but as if they were one, “And to your seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). And again: “For just as the body is one, but has many members, and all the members of one body, although there are many, form one body, so is Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12). Likewise, the body of the devil, whose head is the devil, that is, the multitude of the wicked, especially those who fall away from Christ or the Church, as if falling from heaven, is called the devil, and much that befits not so much the head as the body and members, in an allegorical sense refers to this body. Thus, by the star, which rose in the morning and fell, one can understand the race of apostates either from Christ or from the Church; for just as he turns to darkness, having lost the light of which he was the bearer, so those who turn to God pass from darkness to light, that is, having been darkness, they become light. Also, by the image of the prince of Tire they mean the devil, and the words of the prophet Ezekiel: “You are the seal of perfection, the fullness of wisdom and the crown of beauty. You were in Eden, in the garden of God; your garments were adorned...” (Ezek. 28:12-13), etc., befit not so much the spirit itself - the prince of wickedness - as his body. For the Church is called paradise, as we read in the Song of Songs: “A closed garden is my sister, my bride, a closed well, a sealed spring” (Song 4:12). The heretics fell away from it, either visibly, in a bodily way, or hidden, in a spiritual way, remaining in it for appearances, for they needed not so much to learn the path of righteousness, but, having learned it, to again turn away from the holy commandment preached to them. The Lord describes this most indecent generation when he says that an unclean spirit comes out of a person, then returns with seven others and settles in the house, which he found already cleansed; “And the last thing for that person is worse than the first” (Matthew 12:45). The following words also apply to this kind of people, which is already becoming the body of the devil: “You were an anointed cherub to overshadow (i.e. the throne of God, which translated means “many varied knowledge”), and I have appointed you to it; you were on the holy mountain of God (i.e., in the Church), walking among the fiery stones (i.e., the saints, the living stones serving in the spirit). You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, until iniquity was found in you” (Ezek. 28:14–15). These places should be subjected to more careful consideration, as a result of which, perhaps, a different understanding of them will be found, but such an understanding, of course, is fair. But since this would lead us too far, and, meanwhile, our question requires completely different reasoning from us, it will be sufficient to say that either the devil, through wicked pride, from the very beginning fell from the bliss that he could have had if he wanted, or there are other angels of lower service in our world, among whom he lived, enjoying, without knowing it, some bliss and from the community with whom he fell away through proud wickedness along with his angels, as archangel If this latter can somehow be asserted (which, however, would be strange), then it is necessary to find an explanation either for how all the holy angels, if the devil once lived among them along with his angels in the same blissful life, did not yet know about his constant bliss, but received this knowledge after his fall, or for what crime he was excommunicated with his accomplices from the rest of the angels even before his sin, since he did not know about his future fall, and they were confident in their firmness, unless we do not doubt at all, on the one hand, that the sinned angels were cast into the prison of this airy darkness lying on top of the earth, in accordance with the apostolic faith, that they are preserved for punishment at judgment (2 Pet. 2:4), on the other hand, that in the highest bliss of the angels there is no uncertainty regarding eternal life. After all, by the mercy and grace of God and by the True Promise, we are not unaware of the future life, when, after the resurrection and change of our present bodies, we will be united with the holy angels. For this hope we live and for this promise we are created. However, everything else that can be said about the devil, namely: why God created him if he foresaw that he would be like this, and why, being omnipotent, did not turn his will to good - all this will become clearer, or at least will be revealed a little, when we talk about evil people. So, He who has supreme power over all creation through the holy angels, by whom the devil is mocked when even his very malice is turned to the benefit of the Church of God, allowed the devil to tempt a wife only through the medium of a serpent, and a husband only through a wife. But in the snake he spoke, using it as an organ and moving its nature as he could move it, and she could move it to express words and bodily signs, with the help of which the wife could understand the will of the seducer; in the wife, rational nature, which can use her own movement to utter words, it was no longer the devil who spoke, but his action and conviction, although with the help of a secret instinct he more internally contributed to what he had previously accomplished externally with the help of the serpent. In a soul seized by a proud love of his own power, he could have done this with the help of instinct alone, internally, as he acted in Judas, so that he would betray Christ; but, as I have already said, the devil has the will to tempt, but it was not in his power either to carry out the temptation or how to carry it out. Hence, he committed the temptation because it was allowed to him, and he did it as he was allowed; but he did not know and did not want any kind of people to benefit from what he did, and this is why he was reproached by the angels. Thus, the snake did not understand the verbal sounds that his wife heard from him. For it is inconceivable that his soul should be transformed into a rational nature, since people themselves, although their nature is rational, do not know what they are saying when a demon speaks in them in their painful state, in which spells are needed; the less the serpent understood the verbal sounds that the devil made through him and from him, since he would not have understood a speaking person if he had heard him in a state free from the devil’s influence. Even in the case when, as they think, the snakes hear and understand the words of the Mars, crawling out of their lairs during their spells, even then the devil’s power acts, revealing what and to what the general industry subordinates according to the natural order and what it with wise power allows even to evil wills; as a result, snakes obey the spells of people more often than any other kind of animal. The last circumstance serves as evidence that human nature was initially seduced by the speech of the serpent. Demons rejoice in the power given to them that, by conjuring people, they can use snakes to deceive those they want to deceive. People are allowed to do this in order to perpetuate in them the memory of the original event, which establishes some of their commonwealth with this genus of animals. And this event itself was allowed in order for the human race, for whose edification it was necessary to describe this incident, through the serpent to give an example of every devilish temptation, which will become clearer when we talk about the divine verdict on the serpent. The serpent is called the most cunning of all animals because of the devil’s cunning, which produced deceit in him and from him, just as the tongue that moves a prudent or cunning person is called prudent or cunning in order to prudently or cunningly convince (others) of something. For language is not called the power of a bodily organ, but, without a doubt, the power of the mind that uses language. In the same way, the style of the scribes is called deceitful, although being deceitful is a property only of a living and sentient being; but the style is called deceitful because with its help the deceitful one acts deceitfully, just as if that serpent were called deceitful because the devil deceitfully used it as a style. I considered it necessary to remind about this so that anyone, based on the idea that animals devoid of human reason can have understanding or suddenly turn into rational animals, will not be carried away by the strange and harmful opinion about the transformation of souls or people into animals, or animals into people. If the serpent spoke to a man, just as the donkey on which Balaam sat spoke to a man, then the first was the action of the devil, and the last was the angelic. For good and evil angels have some similar actions, like Moses and Pharaoh's magicians. But in these actions the good angels are much more powerful, and if the evil angels can do something similar, it is only because God allows them to do so through the good angels, so that everyone may be rewarded according to his heart or according to the grace of God, but in both cases, justly and mercifully, through the depth of the riches of the wisdom of God. “And the serpent said to the woman, Has God truly said, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden? And the woman said to the serpent: We can eat the fruit of the trees, but only the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said, “Do not eat it or touch it, lest you die” (Genesis 3:1–3). First the serpent asks, and then the wife answers; from this it is clear that the crime was inexcusable, for it is no longer possible to say that the wife forgot the commandment of God. Although, however, forgetting a commandment, especially one that is so necessary, would make her guilty of reprehensible negligence; but the crime of this commandment is more obvious when it is remembered and when God, as if present in memory, is offended. “And the serpent said to the woman, No, you will not die, but God knows that in the day that you eat of them, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4–5). If, on the basis of these words, she believed that they were forbidden from God something good and useful, then didn’t there already exist in her soul a love for her own power and proud self-exaltation, which needed to be defeated and destroyed by this temptation? Then, not satisfied with the serpent’s words, she looked at the tree, “saw... that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes and desirable” and not believing that it was possible to die from it (probably she thought that the words “so that you do not die” were spoken by God for some sign), took from its fruit, ate it and gave it to her husband, with some, perhaps, a word of conviction, about which the Scripture was silent and left only to guess (Gen. 3:6). Or perhaps, however, the husband no longer needed any convincing, since he saw that his wife did not die from this eating. “And the eyes of them both were opened” (Gen. 3:7). For what? Nothing other than mutual lust - this, generated by death, is the punishment of the flesh itself for sin; so that their body was no longer a spiritual body, which, if they remained obedient, could change into a better and spiritual property without death, but a body of death, in which the law existing in the members opposes the law of the mind. After all, they were not created with their eyes closed, and in the paradise of sweets they did not remain blind and did not grope the road in order to reach, without knowing the way, the forbidden tree and grope to pick the forbidden fruit. And how were the animals and birds brought to Adam, to whom he gave names, if he did not see them? And how was the wife brought to the husband when she was created, so that he, without seeing her, would say that she was “bone of his bones” (Gen. 2:23) and so on? Finally, how would the wife see that “the tree is good for food” (Gen. 3:6) if their eyes were closed? However, due to the figurative meaning of one word, in no case should everything be taken in an allegorical sense. It is not my business in what sense the serpent said: “Your eyes will be opened” (Gen. 3:5); what he said so, the writer of the book talks about this, and in what sense he said it - this is left for the reader to discuss. But what is written: “And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked,” is written in the same sense in which all the events that happened then are narrated and should not lead us to an allegorical interpretation. For the Evangelist is not quoting someone else’s allegorical sayings, but is telling on his own behalf what happened when he speaks of two disciples, one of whom was Cleopas, that while the Lord was breaking bread for them, “their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him” (Luke 24:31), recognized Him Whom they did not recognize along the way; undoubtedly, they did not walk with their eyes closed, but with those who could not recognize the Lord. Thus, both there and in this place the narration is allegorical, although Scripture in the present case uses a figurative expression in order to call open eyes that were open before - open, of course, for contemplation and knowledge of something that they had not previously noticed. For there arose a greedy curiosity about the transgression of the commandment, passionately wanting to experience the unknown, namely, what would follow the forbidden eating, and enjoying the harmful freedom of throwing off the bonds of the prohibition in the assumption that the death they feared would not follow. Indeed, the apples on the forbidden tree, one must think, were the same as they were on other trees, and they knew from experience that they were harmless; It was easier for them to think that God would forgive them when they sinned than to patiently endure ignorance of something, even why God forbade them to take fruit from this tree. Therefore, immediately following the transgression of the commandment, they, deprived of the grace that had left them internally, which they had offended by arrogance and proud love of their own power, fixed their gaze on their members and felt in them a lust that they had not known before. So, their eyes were opened to something to which they had not been open before, although they were open to everything else. On the same day on which what God had forbidden happened, death appeared. For with the loss of their wondrous state, their body, which was supported by a mysterious power from the tree of life, thanks to which they could neither be subject to illness nor change in age, so that by eating from the tree of life in their flesh, although still soulful and then supposed to change for the better, it was signified that in the angels, due to their participation in eternity, comes from the spiritual nourishment of wisdom (of which the tree of life served as a symbol), so that they could not change for the worse - so, I say, with the loss of a wondrous state, their body acquired a painful and mortal property, inherent in the flesh of cattle, and hence the very movement as a result of which the desire for intercourse arises in cattle, so that those who are born succeed the dying; but, being in this very punishment the torch of its nobility, the rational soul felt shame in front of this bestial movement, shame that penetrated into it not only because it felt a shameful movement where it had never felt anything like it before, but also because this movement was a consequence of the transgression of the commandment. For she now felt the grace with which she had previously been invested, when in her nakedness she did not experience anything obscene. In this case, the words were fulfilled: “According to Your good pleasure, O Lord, You have strengthened my mountain; but You hid Your face, and I was troubled” (Ps. 29:8). In a state of this confusion, they resorted to fig leaves, sewed aprons and, having lost the honorable, covered the shameful with them. I don’t think that they saw anything in these leaves that they considered decent to cover their already itching members; but in their then confusion, without knowing it themselves, by secret instinct they decided to arrange such a designation of their punishment that would expose the act of sinners and, being described, edify the reader. “And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Gen. 3:8). At precisely this (pre-evening) hour it was fitting to visit those who had fallen away from the light of truth. Perhaps, before, God spoke to them in other ways, internally, as He speaks to the angels, enlightening their minds with immutable truth, to which it is given to know at once everything that happens in time, even more than once. Perhaps, I say, He spoke to them, although not with such attention to divine wisdom as the angels receive, but, by human standards, with much less, but in the same way, and perhaps in such a way that it is accomplished through the medium of a creature, or in a state of ecstasy through bodily images, or through bodily organs, when some image appears either to sight or to hearing, as God is usually seen in the form of his angels or sounds from the cloud. But in the present case, they heard the voice of God walking in paradise, not otherwise than visibly through the medium of creation, so that they would not have the thought that the invisible and omnipresent substance of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit appeared to their bodily senses through a local and temporary movement. “And Adam and his wife hid from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden” (Gen. 3:8). If a person, when God turns his face away from him, is confused, then we should not be surprised that something similar to madness occurs, due to extreme shame and fear, as well as from a restless secret instinct, under the influence of which they unconsciously did what was important for posterity, for whose sake these events are described. “And the Lord God called to Adam, and said to him, “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9) This is the voice of one who reproaches, and not one who does not know, and undoubtedly has some sign, because just as the commandment was given to the husband, through whom it reached the wife, so the husband is asked forward. For a commandment from the Lord comes through a husband to a wife, and a commandment from the devil comes through a wife to a husband. All this is full of mysterious signs, not on the part of the characters themselves with whom this happened, but on the part of the all-powerful wisdom of God operating in them. But in the present case we are not revealing mysterious meanings, but defending the events that took place. Adam answers: “I heard Your voice in paradise, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself” (Gen. 3:10). It is quite possible that God usually appeared to the first people in human form through a creature suitable for this action; but, directing their attention to the highest, He allowed them to notice their nakedness only when, after sin, they felt a shameful movement in their members. Therefore, they found themselves in a state in which people usually come when the eyes of people are fixed on them, and this state, as a consequence of punishment for sin, was such that they wanted to hide from Him from whom nothing can be hidden, and (from Him) Who sees the heart, they wanted to hide their flesh. But is it surprising if the proud, who wanted to become “like gods” (Gen. 3:5), “became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Rom. 1:21)? They called themselves wise, but when He turned His face away from them, they became fools. In fact, they were already ashamed of themselves, which is why they made aprons for themselves; the more they were afraid to appear, even in these aprons, before Him Who, through the medium of visible creatures, looked up in a friendly manner at them, as it were, like human beings. For if He appeared so that people would speak to Him as a man, just as Abraham spoke to Him at the oak of Mamre (Gen. 18:1), then this friendliness, which before the sin served as a source of boldness for them, after the sin was suppressed by shame, and they no longer dared to show Him to the eyes of their nakedness, which offended their own views. The Lord, wishing to punish those interrogated according to the custom accepted in legal proceedings with a greater punishment than what was the one from which they were already forced to be ashamed, says: “Who told you that you are naked? have you not eaten from the tree from which I forbade you to eat?” (Genesis 3:11) Death, which began from that moment, according to the terrible sentence of God, forced them to pay lustful attention to their members, from which their eyes were called open, and what followed was what made them ashamed. “Adam said: The wife whom You gave me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate” (Gen. 3:12). That's what pride is! Did he say, “I have sinned”? No, he feels all the ugliness of embarrassment and does not reveal a humble consciousness! All this is described because the questions themselves were asked with the sole purpose of making the description truthful and useful (for since it is false, it is useless), so that we could see what a disease of pride people have now fallen into, trying to shift onto the Creator what they did bad, and wanting to take credit for what they did good. “The wife you gave me”! As if she was given for this purpose, so that she would not obey her husband, and both of them - God! “And the Lord God said to the woman: Why have you done this? The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Gen. 3:13). She also does not confess the sin, but blames it on someone else, different in kind, but equal in deceit. However, he was born from them, but did not imitate them, but was obviously oppressed by a multitude of evils, the one who said and will say until the end of time: “Lord! have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned before You” (Ps. 40:5). Shouldn't they have done the same? But the Lord has not yet cut off the necks of sinners. What remains are labors, mortal sorrows, every contrition of the century and, finally, the grace of God, which in times of need helps people, whom it, depressing, teaches that they should not exalt themselves. “The serpent deceived me, and I ate!” As if she had to prefer anyone’s conviction to God’s commandments! “And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all livestock and above all the beasts of the field; on your belly you will go, and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it will bruise your head, and you will bruise its heel” (Gen. 3:14–15). This whole saying is allegorical, and if the writer’s conscientiousness and the truth of the narrative can serve him in any way, it is that we should not doubt that it was said. For only the words: “And the Lord God said to the serpent” are the words of the writer and must be understood in their own meaning. There is no doubt that this saying is addressed to the serpent. Further words are already the words of God, which are left to the free interpretation of the reader, whether in their own sense or in a figurative sense, they must be understood, as we said at the beginning of this book. From the fact that the serpent is not asked why he did this, we can conclude that he did this not by his nature and his own will, but from him, through him and in him, the devil acted, who, due to the sin of wickedness and pride, was already destined for eternal fire. Hence, in the present case it is said to the serpent and, of course, refers to the one who acted through the serpent, no doubt allegorically; for in these words the tempter is described as he will be for the human race, which began to spread when these words in the person of the serpent were addressed to the devil. But how, after explaining the allegory, we must understand these words, we have spoken about this, as far as we could, in the two works published against the Manichaeans about the book of Genesis, and, if we could say something about it more carefully and more appropriately in another place, we are ready to do it with the help of God; now our attention must be turned to something else. “He said to the woman, “By multiplying I will multiply your sorrow in your pregnancy; in illness you will give birth to children; and your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). And it is much more convenient to take these words addressed to the wife allegorically and prophetically. But since the wife has not yet given birth and the illness and groans of the woman in labor come only from the body of death, which began from the moment the commandment was violated, although even then the members of the body were spiritual, but not subject, if the person had not sinned, to death and should live in another, happier state, until after a well-spent life they deserve a change for the better (as we have already pointed out this more than once above), then the punishment (spoken to the wife) can be understood literally, with the exception of the words: “To your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” which require consideration of how to understand them in their proper sense. For the wife, one must think, even before sin was not created otherwise than in such a way that the husband ruled over her. But real dependence, in justice, can be understood as a transformative dependence, which seems more a matter of a certain state than of love, so that slavery itself, as a result of which people later began to be slaves of people, arose from punishment for sin. The Apostle said: “By love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13); he would never say, “Dominion over one another.” Thus, spouses can serve each other with love, but the apostle does not allow the wife to “rule over her husband” (1 Tim. 2:12). This dominion, by the verdict of God, is given to the husband, and the husband is honored to receive dominion over his wife, from failure to preserve which nature will become more corrupted and guilt will increase. God said to Adam: “Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree of which I commanded you, saying: You shall not eat from it; cursed is the ground because of you; you will eat from it in sorrow all the days of your life; She will bring forth thorns and thistles for you; and you will eat the grass of the field; By the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground from which you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return” (Gen. 3:17–19). Who does not know that the labors of the human race are related to the earth? And since they would not have existed if a person had retained the bliss that he enjoyed in paradise, then there is no doubt that these words should be understood in their own sense. However, it is necessary to preserve for them the meaning of prophecy, which is especially meant here by the attention of the speaking God. It was not in vain that Adam himself, through some amazing insight, gave his wife the name “Life,” “for she became the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). And these words must be understood as the words not of the narrating or affirming writer, but of the very first person; Having said this, he seems to give the reason why he called it “Life”. “And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). And this, although it was done for the sake of a sign, was still done, just like what was said, although for the sake of a sign, was still said. For, as I have often said and will not stop saying, the narrator of past events is required to talk about what happened as if it happened, and about what was said as if it were said. But just as in actions there is a difference between what was done and what it meant, so there is a difference in words between what was said and what it meant. For whether allegorically or in its own meaning, what is narrated as being said is said, but it should not be considered an allegory about what was said. “And the Lord God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of Us, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:22). Since these words, no matter how they were spoken, were spoken by God, the expression “one of Us” should be understood in no other way than that the plural is placed here because of the Trinity, just as it was previously said: “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26), and as the Lord says about Himself and the Father: “We will come to him and make an abode with him” (John 14:23). So, the proud man is reminded for what reason he desired what was suggested by the serpent: “You will be like gods” (Gen. 3:5). “Adam became like one of Us” - these are the words of God not so much laughing at him as frightening others so that they would not be the same proud: for their sake all this is described. And what else must be understood here, if not an example given to incite fear, because Adam not only did not become what he wanted to be, but did not even preserve what he was created with. “And now, as if he did not stretch out... his hand, and also took from the tree of life, and did not eat, and began to live forever. And the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken” (Gen. 3:22–23). The first half contains the words of God, and the second half contains the action that followed these words. It goes without saying that being alienated not only from the life that he could have received on an equal basis with the angels if he had kept the commandment, but even from that which he spent in paradise in a certain blissful state of the body, Adam was also subject to removal from the tree of life. And this is either because the tree of life would maintain in him the former blissful state of the body, or because this tree contained the visible sacrament of invisible wisdom, which is why Adam had to be removed from it, either as subject to death, or as if excommunicated, just as in real paradise, that is, in the Church, people are usually excommunicated by church discipline from the visible sacraments of the altar. "And he drove out Adam". And this was done, although for the sake of a sign, but still it was done so that the sinner, even in misfortune, would live not far from paradise, which marked a blessed life spiritually. “And he placed a cherubim and a flaming sword that turned toward the garden of Eden on the east to guard the way to the tree of life” (Gen. 3:24). Of course, according to the arrangement of the heavenly Authorities, there was some fiery guard in the visible paradise through the agency of angelic service; but there should be no doubt that this was done, with the exception of a certain sign, and in relation to the spiritual paradise. Some, as I have heard, think that the first people succumbed too early to the desire to know good and evil and prematurely wanted to receive what was delayed for them until a more favorable time; Having, at the suggestion of the tempter, taken possession ahead of time of something that was still unusual for them, they offended God and, being expelled and punished, they lost that useful thing, which, if they had turned to it in a timely manner, in accordance with the will of God, they could have used savingly. This opinion, from the point of view of right faith and truth, would have some probability if we wanted to understand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not in its own meaning, as a true tree and with true fruits, but allegorically. Some also think that the first people secretly consummated their marriage and had intercourse before the Creator united them; which was indicated by the name of the tree, which was prohibited by him before the timely union. As if we should think that they were created at such an age that they had to wait until puberty - as if this was not legal when it could have happened, and if it could not have happened, then, of course, it would not have happened? Or, perhaps, it was necessary to receive the bride from the hands of the father, wait for the solemn vows, the celebration of the wedding feast, the accounting of the dowry and the inventory of the registers?! A strange opinion, and besides, it deviates from the literal meaning of events, which we defended and defend, as far as God was pleased to grant it to us. A much more interesting question is how Adam, if he had been spiritual, even if only in spirit, and not in body, could have believed the words of the serpent that God forbade them to eat the fruits of that tree, knowing that if they did this, they would be like gods in their ability to distinguish between good and evil: The Creator seemed to envy his creature in this good. It would be strange if a person gifted with spiritual intelligence could believe this. Or, precisely because he himself could not believe it, he was given a wife who was gifted with less understanding and lived, perhaps, still according to the sense of the flesh, and not according to the spirit of the mind, why does the apostle not attribute to her the image of God? “The husband,” he says, “should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the wife is the glory of the husband” (1 Cor. 11:7). And this was not because the female mind could not perceive the same image, since, according to the word of the Apostle, there is neither male nor female in grace, but because the wife, perhaps, had not yet received what is created in the knowledge of God, and had to receive it gradually under control and order husband It is not in vain that the apostle says: “For Adam was created first, and then Eve; and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the wife, being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Tim. 2:13–14), i.e., through the wife, the husband also fell into transgression. For the apostle also calls him a criminal when he says: “Like the crime of Adam, who is the image of the future” (Rom. 5:14), but does not call him deceived. Is it possible to believe that Solomon, that man of great wisdom, recognized any benefit of idols? And yet he could not resist the love of his wives, which drew him to this evil, doing what he knew should not be done, so as not to darken his deadly pleasures in which he drowned and died. In the same way, Adam, after his wife, deceived, ate from the forbidden tree and gave it to him so that they both could eat, did not want to sadden her, believing that she might feel sad without his consolation, since he would be alien to her soul, and would completely perish as a result of this separation. He was overcome not by the lust of the flesh, which he had not yet felt in the law of the members, which is opposed to the law of the mind, but by some friendly benevolence, as a result of which a person very often offends God, fearing that from a friend he might become an enemy; and that Adam should not have done so was shown by the just execution of the divine sentence. Hence, he was deceived in some other way; but by the cunning of the serpent, with which the wife was seduced, he, in my opinion, could not be seduced as she could. Meanwhile, the apostle meant deception in the proper sense of the word, as a result of which what the wife was convinced of was considered true by her, although it was false, that is, as if God forbade them to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, knowing that if they touched it, they would be like gods, and thus, as if envying the deity of those whom he had created as men. But even if the husband was possessed by a certain desire to carry out an experiment due to a kind of mental exaltation, which could not hide from God, since the husband saw that his wife did not die after eating from the forbidden tree, as we have already said above, then still, since he was gifted with a spiritual mind, in no case could he believe that God had forbidden them the fruits of this tree out of envy. What more? The inclination to sin occurred as it could have happened in them, and is described as it should be read by everyone, even if not many understood it as it should. You might be interested in: