And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
All Commentaries on Genesis 3:7 Go To Genesis 3
John Chrysostom
AD 407
Consider, I ask you dearly beloved, what height they had fallen from and how the devil's advice had cast them into a deep abyss. Whereas, you see, they had been clothed in such glory, now they stitch together fig leaves and make themselves skirts. This is the advantage to be gained from the devil's deceit, this is the scope of his advice not merely to fail to provide greater benefits but to render us naked and devoid of those we have. Since therefore such a pretext of eating led to disobedience, Scripture accordingly says, "They ate, and their eyes were opened," referring not to the eyes of the senses but to their mental awareness. You see once they disobeyed what had been commanded, they were now made to become aware of things that previously they had no awareness of on account of the benevolence of the Lord shown to them. So when you hear that "Their eyes were opened," understand it in the sense that he saw to it that they would now experience their nakedness and the loss of the glory they enjoyed before eating. To be sure that this is the way with Scripture, listen to what it says elsewhere as well: when Sarah's maid ran away from service and got lost, she flung her child down next to a log and from a distance she thought about his approaching demise in these words, "God opened the eyes" [ Gen 21:19 ] of Hagar, not because she could not see before then but because he awakened her mind. Do you see that the word "opened" refers not to our bodily eyes but to mental awareness?
We would make the same point in regard to the other question that arises at this stage. That is, they ask, Why was it called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? There are, you see, many people bent on controversy who endeavor to maintain that after eating from the tree Adam had knowledge to discriminate between good and evil an opinion of the utmost absurdity. I mean, in view of this and fore seeing it earlier, we dealt with many aspects of the intelligence granted the human being by God, demonstrating it from the imposition of names which he gave to all the animals, the birds and the brute beasts, and the fact that he was endowed with prophetic grace along with this ineffable intelligence lest anyone come up with such an opinion. This person, there fore, who both imposed names and gave vent to that so remarkable prophecy about the woman, as we have already mentioned how could he have been ignorant of what is good and what is evil? I mean, if we admitted that (God forbid), once again would blasphemous references be directed to the Creator. How, after all, could an ignorant per son be commanded that transgression is wrong? This, how ever, is not the case perish the thought; on the contrary, he knew quite well. It was, after all, on that account that God from the outset equipped this creature with independence: if this had not been the case, he ought not have been punished when he broke the command nor considered worthy of praise for keeping it. You see, the fact that he fell under death's sway on account of the fall is clear both from the command itself and from what happened later. Listen, in fact, to the woman in person speaking to the serpent: "From fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden." God said, "You are not to eat, lest you die." It follows that before eating they were in fact not subject to death; if this were not the case, he would not have imposed death on them by way of a penalty after the eating.
Who therefore (l32d) could bear with those people who insist on saying that the human being had knowledge of good and evil after eating from the tree, that creature who before such eating was liberally endowed with intelligence, and along with intelligence had been granted also the prophetic gift? How do these two things make sense on the one hand, knowing goats and sheep and all the species of brute beasts, what vegetation was suitable for food and what was harmful, which types to keep away from sedulously and which ones to approach; and, on the other hand, the idea that the human being, this rational creature, should be unaware of what is good and what is evil? But behold, they say, it was Scripture that called it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I know that, too: but if you are prepared to learn the characteristics of Sacred Scripture, you will know why it gave this name to the tree. You see, it wasn't because it supplied knowledge that it is called that, but because the transgression of the command happened to concern the tree, and from that event knowledge of sin then entered the scene, and shame as well that was why the name was given. It is, after all, the way with Sacred Scripture to name places from the things that happen, wherever it is they happen. So on this basis Sacred Scripture also named the tree of the knowledge of good and evil since transgression and observance of the command concerned the tree.
The loving Lord, you see, instructing the human being in the beginning and from the very outset, and wanting to teach him that he has a creator and craftsman who produces all visible realities and shapes him as well, wished to reveal to him his own dominion through this slight command. To make a comparison with a generous master who provides a great home full of wonders for someone's enjoyment: he is prepared to take not the due price but some small part so as in his own interests to protect his title of dominion and to en sure that the person may have precise understanding that he is not owner of the property but enjoys its use out of his grace and beneficence. In just the same way does our Lord entrust everything to the human being, providing him with a way of life in the garden and enjoyment of everything in it; lest he be gradually perverted in his thinking and come to regard visible things as self-sufficient and get inflated ideas of his own importance, he bids him stay away from the one tree, setting a severe penalty for transgression so that he may be aware he is under his dominion and along with everything else is a par taker of his generosity. Since, however, he was guilty of great inadvertence and together with his wife fell into this disaster through transgression of the command given him by tasting of the tree, accordingly it called it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not because he was ignorant of good and evil before this (he was, after all, not so ignorant, since his wife in conversation with the serpent said, "God said, Do not eat of it lest you die," so that he knew death was the penalty for breaking the command), but because after eating it they were divested of the glory from above and also had experience of their obvious nakedness. This was the reason it called it the knowledge of good and evil, since in connection with it there took place the contest, as you might say, between obedience and disobedience.
Have you discovered why it said, "Their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked"? Do you know why the tree is called the knowledge of good and evil? Consider, after all, how much shame they were eventually seized with after eating it and thus breaking the Lord's command: "They stitched fig leaves together, and made themselves skirts." See the depths of indignity into which they fell from a condition of such great glory. Those who previously passed their life like angels on earth contrive covering for themselves out of fig leaves. Such is the evil that sin is: not only does it deprive us of grace from above, but it also casts us into deep shame and abjection, strips us of goods already be longing to us, and deprives us of all confidence.
But in case we make this sermon completely melancholy by going on and on about this sin that consisted of eating of the tree and of the disobedience overwhelming the human being, come now, if you don't mind, let us change the topic from the tree to that other one, from this tree to the tree of the Cross, and let us see what harm the former caused and what good the latter introduced. Rather, it was not the tree that caused the harm, but slothful will and contempt displayed for God's command. The former tree brought death, death entering the scene after the Fall, remember, whereas the latter endowed us with immortality; one drove us from paradise, the other led us up to heaven; the former rendered Adam liable to such a terrible penalty for one transgression, whereas the latter freed us from the countless burdens of our sins and restored to us confidence in the Lord's sight. Do you see the difference between the one tree and the other? do you see the devil's malice, man's indifference, and the lord's loving kindness? Accordingly, let us arm ourselves, I beg you, dear people, with the armor of this life giving tree, and in its power let us do to death deadly passions, as the Apostle also instructs us in these words: "Those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts." [ Gal 5:24 ] 17 What he means is this: people giving themselves completely to Christ have crucified every improper desire affecting the flesh and risking impairment to the soul's whole vitality. Let us too imitate these people and put our bodies on the alert against the tyranny imposed on us by the devil's activity so that even in this present life we may cross this rough and dangerous ocean serenely, put in to the calm haven of God's love, and be deemed worthy to attain the good things promised to those who love him, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.
