And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
All Commentaries on Genesis 3:2 Go To Genesis 3
Ambrose of Milan
AD 397
Although you are aware that the serpent is wiser than all creatures, his cunning is especially noticeable here. As he sets his snares, he pretends to give utterance to the words of God, for God had already said: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for the day you eat of it you must die. [ Gen 2:16 ] The serpent inserted a falsehood in questioning the woman thus: 'Did God say, you shall not eat of any tree?' Whereas God had actually said: 'From every tree of the garden you may eat, but from one tree you must not eat,' meaning, by that, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which was not to be tasted. We need not wonder at the manner of deception. Deceit accompanies any effort at ensnaring an individual. The serpent's question was not without its purpose. But the woman's reply will indicate that there was nothing questionable in the command of God: 'Of the fruit of all the trees in the garden we may eat, but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it neither shall you touch it, lest you die.' There was nothing inexact about the command itself. The error lay in the report of the command. The Scriptural passage under discussion is self-explanatory. We realize that we ought not to make any addition to a command even by way of instruction. Any addition or qualification of a command is in the nature of a falsification. The simple, original form of a command should be preserved or the facts should be duly set before us. It frequently happens that a witness adds something of himself to a relation of facts. In this way, by the injection of an untruth, confidence in his testimony is wholly shattered. No addition therefore--not even a good one--is called for. What is, therefore, at first sight objectionable in the addition made by the woman: 'Neither shall you touch anything of it'? God did not say this, but, rather: 'you must not eat.' Still, we have here something which leads to error. There are two possibilities to the addition she made: Either it is superfluous or because of this personal contribution she has made God's command only partly intelligible. John in his writings has made this clear: 'If anyone shall add to them, God will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone shall take away from these words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life.' [ Rev 22:18,19 ] If this is true in this case, how much truer is it that nothing should be taken away from the commands laid down by God! From this springs the primary violation of the command. And many believe that this was Adam's fault-not the woman's. They reason that Adam in his desire to make her more cautious had said to the woman that God had given the additional instruction: 'Neither shall you touch it.' We know that it was not Eve, but Adam, who received the command from God, because the woman had not yet been created. Scripture does not reveal the exact words that Adam used when he disclosed to her the nature and content of the command. At all events, we understand that the substance of the command was given to the woman by the man. What opinions others have offered on this subject should be taken into consideration. It seems to me, however, that the initial violation and deceit was due to the woman. Although there may appear to be an element of uncertainty in deciding which of the two was guilty, we can discern the sex which was liable first to do wrong. Add to this the fact that she stands convicted in court whose previous error is afterward revealed. The woman is responsible for the man's error and not vice versa. Hence Paul says: 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and was in sin.' [ 1 Tim 2:14 ]
Now let us examine another question relative to the addition which was made to the command. Does this addition in itself seem to be objectionable? If the words, 'neither shall you touch it,' are actually advantageous and tend to put one on his guard, why did not God expressly forbid this even to the point of seemingly permitting it by not forbidding it? Wherefore, both points must be examined; namely, the reasons why He neither permitted it nor forbade it. Some raise the question: Why did He not order that the object which He had made should be seen and touched? But, when you realize that there was in that tree the knowledge of good and evil, you can understand that He did not wish you to touch what is evil. Sufficient is it for us, using the words of the Lord, 'to watch Satan fall as lightning from heaven,' [ Luke 10:18 ] and giving to his sons not the meat of life, but that of night and darkness, as it is written: 'He gave him to be meat for the people of the Ethiopians.' [ Ps 73:14 ] Thus far on the subject of the reason why He did not command the tree to be touched. Here are the reasons, as I understand them, why God did not prohibit this act. There are many things which do us harm, if we make up our minds to touch them before we know what they are. We often learn, in fact, by experience to be resigned if we know beforehand that a certain food or drink is bitter. You learn to be tolerant if you believe that what is bitter is beneficial, lest your sudden realization of its bitterness may offend you and cause you to reject what may prove to be salutary. It is advantageous, therefore, first to have knowledge of this bitter quality, so that you may not be squeamish and that you may realize what is good for you. These are examples of what may harm us just to a slight degree. From the discussion which now follows, take warning of what may cause us more serious damage unless we make provision against it.
Take the case of the Gentile who is eager for the faith. He becomes a catechumen and desires a greater fullness of doctrine to strengthen his faith. See to it that in his willingness to learn he is not exposed to false doctrine. Take care that he does not learn from Photinus or from Arius or from Sabellius. See that he does not hand himself over to teachers of this sort who would attract him by their airs of authority, so that his untrained mind, impressed by the weight of such august prestige, will be unable to discriminate the right from the wrong. He should first, therefore, determine with the eyes of his mind what are the logical sequences. Let him note where life exists by touching the life giving qualities of holy Scripture, so that no interpreter will stand in his way. Sabellius reads for him: 'I am in the Father and the Father in me,' [ John 14:10 ] and says that means one Person. Photinus reads that 'there is one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.' [ 1 Tim 2:5 ] And elsewhere: 'Why do you wish to kill me, a man?' [ John 8:40 ] Arius, too, read the following: 'For the Father is greater than I.' [ John 14:28 ] The reading is clear, but the catechumen first ought to reflect on the matter in his own mind, so as to discover the real meaning of these passages. He is influenced by the prestige of his teachers. It would have been more to his advantage if he had not investigated at all rather than have come upon such an instructor. But the Gentile, too, if he takes up the Scriptures, reads: 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.' [ Lev 24:20 ] Again: 'If thy right hand is an occasion of sin to thee, cut it off.' [ Matt 5:30 ] He does not understand the sense of this. He is not aware of the secret meaning of the divine words. He is worse off than if he had not read at all. Hence he has furnished a lesson to these men on how they should have investigated the meaning of the Word of God. A careful, not a superficial, examination of the context of the passage should be made. It is written: 'What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have investigated: of the Word of Life. And we have seen and now testify and announce to you.' [ John 1:1,2 ] You see how he investigated, so to speak, with his hands the Word of God and afterward announced it. Hence, the Word would not perhaps have caused injury to Adam and Eve if they had first touched and handled it, as it were, with the hands of the mind. Those who are infirm can by careful examination and handling investigate the nature of each and every object which they do not understand. Certainly, those weak first parents of ours should have studied beforehand the problem presented to them: How were they to touch the tree in which they knew there was knowledge of evil? The knowledge of evil, in fact, can frequently be of advantage to us. Wherefore we read in the oracular words of Scripture of the wiles of the Devil, so that we learn how we can escape his arts. We should be aware of his temptations, not that we may follow his lead, but that by instruction we may avoid these pitfalls.
At this point there are some who doubt whether God meant that the fruit of every tree should be eaten-this injunction to include every tree, inclusive of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil-or whether, in fact, He referred to every tree, but excluded only the tree of knowledge of good and evil? These people are of the opinion that this matter is not without significance, because, although the fruit of this tree is harmful in itself, still, if it were combined with that of the other trees, it could not be injurious. They cite as example of this fact the belief that an antidote can be obtained from the body of a serpent which, being poisonous since it is extracted from a serpent, is harmful when taken alone, but when mixed with other drugs has medicinal properties. The knowledge of good and evil, also, if one possesses wisdom that is ever an aid toward survival and if one reaches out after the other types of virtue, is considered to be of no inconsiderable value. On that account, therefore, many hold that we can even understand the reason why God made this prohibition. He did not wish that tree of the knowledge of good and evil should be eaten alone and not in combination with the fruit of the others. He did not prohibit this if the other trees are taken into consideration at the same time. Wherefore what God said to Adam is cited: 'Who told you that you were naked? You have eaten, then, of the tree which alone I commanded you not to eat.' [ Gen 3:11 ] This would seem to offer an occasion for disputation. In the preceding passage the woman might well have not made any reply to the serpent's question: 'Did God say, you shall not eat of any tree of the garden?' But she answered: 'Of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, you shall not eat of it.' In this incident, as she was on the point of sinning, the woman's faith may appear to have been weak. Moreover, I shall not despoil Adam of all the virtues, so that he would appear to have attained no virtue in Paradise and would seem to have eaten nothing from the other trees, but had fallen into sin before he had obtained any fruit. I shall, therefore, not despoil Adam lest I may despoil the whole human race, which is innocent before it acquires the capacity to know good and evil. Not without reason was it said: 'Unless you turn and become like this child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' [ Matt 18:3 ] The child, when he is scolded, does not retaliate. When he is struck, he does not strike back. He is not conscious of the allurements of ambition and self-seeking.
The truth seems to be, then, that He commanded the tree not to be eaten, not even along with the fruit of the other trees. Knowledge of good, in fact, although of no use to a perfect man, is, on the other hand, of no value to a man who is imperfect. Paul speaks of himself as imperfect: 'Not that I have already obtained this or already have been made perfect, but I press on hoping that I may lay hold of it already.' [ Phil 3:12 ] Hence the Lord says to the imperfect: 'Do not judge that you may not be judged.' [ Matt 7:1 ] Knowledge is, therefore, of no use to the imperfect. Hence we read: 'I did not know sin unless the Law had said, thou shalt not lust.' And further on we read: 'For without the Law sin is dead.' [ Rom 7:7,8 ] What advantage is it to me to know what I cannot avoid? What avails it for me to know that the law of my flesh assails me? Paul is assailed and sees 'the law of his flesh warring against that of his mind and making him prisoner to the law of sin.' He does not rely on himself, but by the grace of Christ is confident of his 'deliverance from the body of death.' [ Rom 7:23:24 ] Do you think that anyone with knowledge of sin can avoid it? Paul says: 'For I do not the good that I wish, but the evil that I do not wish.' [ Rom 7:19 ] Do you consider that this knowledge which adds to the reproach of sin can be of help to man? Granted, however, that the perfect man is unable to sin. God foresaw all men in the person of Adam. Hence it was not fitting that the human race in general should have a knowledge of good and evil-a knowledge which he could not utilize because of the weakness of the flesh.
