Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Six — the temptation and fall

Their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked. (Verse 7.)

LatineEnglish

Their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked. (Verse 7.)1

Aperti sunt oculi eorum, & cognoverunt se esse nudos. VERS. 7.

Non sunt aperti eis oculi, quasi antea fuissent clausi: nam quomodo Adamus clausis oculis vidisset animalia ad se adducta, & mulierem ex latere suo formatam? quomodo mulier vidisset serpentem, fructum arboris vetitae pulchrum esse oculis? Nec aperti sunt eis oculi, quasi tunc primum usu rationis, ac liberi arbitrij pollere coeperint: quae enim antea dixisse Adamum & Evam legimus, satis declarant eos perfecto fuisse rationis usu. Nec propterea tunc oculi dicuntur eis aperti, quod per esum fructus vetiti, ut significat Iosephus, maius ingenij acumen, acrioremque vim ad intelligendum sint adepti: siquidem neque id per esum eius fructus potuit effici: neque si factum esset, damno eis, sed magno lucro esus illius fructus fuisset. Nec probanda est Rabbi Salomonis sententia, antea primos illos homines solius boni cognitionem tenuisse: post illius autem fructus esum, etiam mali notitiam eis contigisse: namque contrariorum eadem est disciplina. Itaque bonum & malum, tam ante quam post cognoverunt, dissimili tamen ratione. Ante noverant bonum per possessionem, malum vero ex boni oppositione: postea bonum noverunt per privationem, malum per experientiam, infelici nempe & execranda cognitione.
Their eyes were not opened as if they had previously been closed: for how would Adam, with closed eyes, have seen the animals brought to him, and the woman formed from his side? How would the woman have seen the serpent, and that the fruit of the forbidden tree was beautiful to the eyes? Nor were their eyes opened as if they had then for the first time begun to be strong in the use of reason and free will: for what we read that Adam and Eve said before sufficiently declares that they had the perfect use of reason. Nor are their eyes said to have been opened then because, by eating the forbidden fruit, they had (as Josephus signifies) acquired greater sharpness of wit and a keener power of understanding: since neither could that be brought about by eating that fruit, nor, if it had been, would the eating of that fruit have been to their harm, but to their great gain. Nor is the opinion of Rabbi Solomon to be approved, that those first human beings before held the knowledge of good only, but after eating that fruit the knowledge of evil also befell them: for the discipline of contraries is one and the same. And so they knew good and evil both before and after, but in a different manner. Before, they knew good by possession, and evil by its opposition to good; afterward they knew good by privation, and evil by experience — by an unhappy and execrable knowledge, indeed.2
Quomodo igitur Moses dixit tunc fuisse apertos eis oculos? Nimirum tunc primum advertere coeperunt nuditatem corporis sibi turpem & ignominiosam esse, propter inordinatos & obscoenos carnis adversus rationem rebellantis motus, statim enim ut peccarunt, mutua exarserunt libidine, quam per membra corporis contra iudicium & voluntatem rationis immoderate sese efferentem, & comprimendam iudicabant, & comprimere tamen non valebant: quapropter maiorem in modum erubescebant, & illas corporis partes quamprimum occultare & velare satagebant. At nuditas quidem earum partium ante peccatum non magis pudori eis fuerat, quam est nobis vel manus, vel oris nuditas. Ergo accidit eis similiter quodammodo ut pueris, qui priusquam ad rationis usum perveniant, de nuditate earum partium minime verecundantur: ubi autem ratio vim discernendi bonum a malo exercere, & ipsi libero arbitrio uti coeperint: continuo de earum partium nuditate erubescunt. quod igitur pueris propter aetatem contingit, hoc illis propter iustitiae originalis praesentiam vel absentiam evenit.
How, then, did Moses say that their eyes were then opened? Namely, then for the first time they began to notice that the nakedness of the body was base and shameful to them, on account of the disordered and obscene motions of the flesh rebelling against reason. For as soon as they sinned, they burned with mutual lust, which, raising itself immoderately through the bodily members against the judgment and will of reason, they judged ought to be suppressed, yet could not suppress: wherefore they blushed exceedingly, and hastened to hide and veil those parts of the body. But the nakedness of those parts before the sin had been no more a cause of shame to them than the nakedness of our hand or face is to us. Therefore it happened to them somewhat as to children, who, before they reach the use of reason, are not at all ashamed of the nakedness of those parts; but when reason begins to exercise its power of discerning good from evil, and they begin to use free will, at once they blush at the nakedness of those parts. What therefore befalls children on account of their age, this befell them on account of the presence or absence of original justice.3

This interpretation, like very many others, we have drawn from the sources of Augustine, in whom, in book 14 of the City of God, chapter 17, it goes thus: 'They were naked, and were not confounded: not because their nakedness was unknown to them, but because it was not yet shameful, since lust did not yet move those members beyond the will...'4

Hanc interpretationem, ut alia permulta, ex fontibus hausimus Augustini, apud quem in libro 14. de Civitate Dei capite. 17. sic est: Nudi erant, & non confundebantur: non quod eis sua nuditas esset incognita, sed turpis nondum erat, quia nondum libido membra illa praeter arbitrium commo...

'...moved them: not yet, to convict man's disobedience, did the flesh by its own disobedience in some way bear witness. For they were not created blind, as the ignorant crowd supposes: since he saw the animals, on which he imposed names, and of her it is read, The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes to behold. Their eyes therefore were open, but not yet opened — that is, not attentive to recognize what was furnished them by the garment of grace, when their members did not know how to resist their will. When that grace was removed, so that the disobedience might be punished by a reciprocal penalty, there arose in the motion of the body a certain shameless novelty, and it made them attentive and rendered them confused. Hence it is that, after they had violated God's command by open transgression, it is written of them: And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. The eyes of both were opened, he says, not to seeing — for they saw before too — but to discerning between the good which they had lost and the evil into which they had fallen. Whence the tree itself, because it would produce that discernment if it were touched for eating against the prohibition, took its name from that fact, so that it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For having experienced the trouble of illness, the pleasantness of health becomes the more evident. They knew, therefore, that they were naked: stripped, namely, of that grace by which it came about that the nakedness of the body did not confound them, no law of sin resisting in their members. This, then, they came to know, which they would more happily have been ignorant of, had they, believing and obedient to God, not committed what forced them to experience what infidelity and disobedience harm.' Thus Augustine.5

commovebat: nondum ad hominis inobedientiam redarguendam, sua inobedientia caro quodammodo testimonium perhibebat. Neque enim caeci creati erant, ut imperitum vulgus opinatur: quandoquidem & ille vidit animalia, quibus nomina imposuit, & de illa legitur, Vidit mulier quia bonum est lignum in escam, & quia placet oculis ad videndum. Patebant ergo oculi eorum, sed adhuc non erant aperti, hoc est, non attenti ut cognoscerent quid eis indumento gratiae praestaretur, quando membra eorum voluntati repugnare nesciebant. Qua gratia remota, ut poena reciproca inobedientia plecteretur, extitit in motu corporis quaedam impudens novitas, & fecit attentos, reddiditque confusos. Hinc est quod posteaquam mandatum Dei aperta transgressione violarunt, scriptum est de illis, Et aperti sunt oculi amborum, & cognoverunt quia nudi erant, & consuerunt folia fici, & fecerunt sibi campestria. Aperti sunt, inquit, oculi amborum non ad videndum, nam & antea videbant, sed ad discernendum inter bonum, quod amiserant, & malum in quod ceciderant. unde & ipsum lignum eo quod istam faceret dignoscentiam, si ad vescendum contra vetitum tangeretur, ex ea re nomen accepit, ut appellaretur lignum scientiae boni & mali. Experta enim morbi molestia, evidentior fit etiam iucunditas sanitatis. Cognoverunt ergo quia nudi erant: nudati scilicet ea gratia qua fiebat, ut nuditas corporis nulla eos lege peccati membris eorum repugnante confunderet. Hoc itaque cognoverunt quod felicius ignorarent, si Deo credentes & obedientes non committerent, quod eos cogere, experiri, infidelitas & inobedientia quid nocerent. Sic Augustin.

The reader will find very similar things in the same Augustine, in book 11 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 31: 'How,' he says, 'were the eyes of both opened, except to coveting one another? For they were not made with closed eyes, nor did they wander blind and groping in the Paradise of delights, so as to touch the forbidden tree even unknowingly, and, groping, pluck the prohibited fruits in ignorance. For how were the animals brought to Adam, that he might see what he would call them, if he did not see? How was the woman brought to the man, that he might say of her, whom he did not see, This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh? How did the woman see that fruit to be beautiful to the eyes, if her eyes were closed? And yet Scripture says their eyes were opened, using a transferred word and a figurative narration — opened, namely, to looking at and thinking of something which they had never before noticed. For when bold curiosity was moved to transgress the command, eager to experience what hidden thing would follow upon touching the forbidden fruit, and delighting with harmful liberty to break the reins of the prohibition, it more probably judged that the death which it had feared would not follow. Soon therefore, as they transgressed the command, inwardly deserted by grace — which by a certain pride and proud love of their own power they had offended — completely stripped, they cast their eyes upon their own members, and coveted them with a motion which they had not known. To this, therefore, their eyes were opened, to which before they were not open, although they were open to other things.'6

Horum simillima reperiet lector apud eundem Augustinum in libro undecimo de Genesi ad litteram, capite trigesimo primo, Quomodo ait, aperti sunt oculi amborum, nisi ad invicem concupiscendum? Neque enim clausis oculis facti erant, neque in Paradiso deliciarum caeci palpantesque oberrabant, ut vetitum lignum etiam nescientes attingerent, palpantesque fructus prohibitos ignorando decerperent. Quomodo enim animalia adducta sunt ad Adamum, ut videret quid vocaret ea, si non videbat? Quomodo mulier ad virum ducta est, ut de illa quam non videbat diceret, Hoc nunc os de ossibus meis, & caro de carne mea? Quomodo vidit mulier fructum illum esse pulchrum oculis, si clausi erant eius oculi? & tamen apertos dicit Scriptura eorum oculos, translato verbo & figurata narratione utens, apertos utique ad aliquid intuendum, & cogitandum, quod antea nunquam adverterant. Ubi enim ad transgrediendum praeceptum audax curiositas mota est, avida experiri latentia quidnam tacto fructu vetito sequeretur, & noxia libertate habenas prohibitionis rumpere delectata, probabilius existimavit non esse mortem, quam timuerat secuturam. Mox ergo ut praeceptum transgressi sunt, intrinsecus gratia deserente omnino nudati, quam typo quodam & superbo amore suae potestatis offenderant, in sua membra oculos iniecerunt, eaque motu, quem non noverant, concupiverunt. Ad hoc igitur aperti sunt oculi, ad quod antea non patebant, quamvis ad alia paterent.

The same Augustine, in book 1 of the Locutions on Genesis, number 9: 'What is finally written of Adam and Eve, Their eyes were opened — since it would be absurd to believe that they wandered blind in Paradise, or with eyes previously closed — is a manner of speaking, the same by which it is also written of Hagar, She opened her eyes, and saw a well; for she was not sitting with eyes previously closed. And as for what at the breaking of bread was open[ed]...'7

Idem Augustinus lib. 1. Locutionum in Genesim, numero 9. Quod scriptum demum est de Adam & Eva, Aperti sunt oculi eorum, cum absurde credatur eos in Paradiso caecos, vel oculis clausis prius oberrasse, locutionis est, qua etiam de Agar scriptum est, Aperuit oculos suos, & vidit puteum, neque enim clausis prius oculis sedebat. Et quod in fractione panis aper...

'...were opened the eyes of those who recognized the Lord after the resurrection. For they were not walking along the way with him with closed eyes.' Thus Augustine.8

nis aperti sunt oculi eorum, qui cognoverunt Dominum post resurrectionem. Neque enim per viam cum illo clausis oculis ambulabant. Sic Augustinus.

Illud praeterea posset dici apertos fuisse eis oculos, quia tunc clare viderunt, quod antea libidine peccandi obcaecati non viderant: Deum scilicet veracem esse, diabolum vero mendacem ac fallacem. Simulque illud, quam verum esset cognoverunt, quod multis post saeculis David cecinit, Mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est, ponere in domino Deo spem meam. & Illud, Qui elongant se a te peribunt: perdidisti omnes, qui fornicantur abs te. Et illud videbant, quam non leve sit nec parvipendendum Dei non obtemperare voluntati.
It could moreover be said that their eyes were opened, because they then clearly saw what before, blinded by the lust of sinning, they had not seen: namely, that God is truthful, but the devil a liar and deceiver. And at the same time they knew how true was that which David sang many ages later, 'It is good for me to adhere to God, to put my hope in the Lord God'; and that, 'They who go far from you shall perish: you have destroyed all who fornicate away from you.' And they saw this, how not light a thing it is, nor to be slighted, to fail to obey the will of God.9
Fit quidem quotidie, ait Serapion scriptor Graecus, in nobis, quod in primis illis hominibus factum est quando peccamus, tunc caeci sumus: ubi peccavimus, tunc demum agnoscimus, quantum mali admisimus, nostrique facti nos pudet, taedet, ac poenitet. Divina Scriptura, inquit Theodoretus, apertionem oculorum, vocat sensum peccati, & pudorem sceleris admissi: nam patrato flagitio insurgit continuo adversus nos conscientia, nosque vehementer obiurgat & condemnat. unde est illud Pauli, Quem fructum habuistis in his, in quibus nunc erubescitis?
'It happens indeed daily,' says Serapion, the Greek writer, 'in us, what happened in those first human beings: when we sin, then we are blind; when we have sinned, then at last we recognize how much evil we have committed, and we are ashamed, wearied, and repentant of our deed.' 'Divine Scripture,' says Theodoret, 'calls the opening of the eyes the sense of sin and the shame of the crime committed: for when the disgrace has been perpetrated, conscience at once rises against us, and vehemently rebukes and condemns us.' Whence is that saying of Paul, 'What fruit had you in those things, of which you are now ashamed?'10

I wish the reader also to know how Rupert interpreted this very passage, namely quite piously, gravely, and eloquently. For in book 3 On the Trinity and its works, chapter 10, he writes in this manner: 'How, finally, was it said, And the eyes of both were opened? Were they blind before they ate, and by eating were they illuminated? Not at all, for the woman had already seen that the tree was good for food, and beautiful to the eyes, and delightful to behold. And the Lord had already brought all living things to Adam, that he might see what he would call them. Therefore not the exterior, but the interior eyes of both — which they had closed against God — were opened: namely, because they recognized God as truthful, but the serpent, in his misery, as most false. For at once it follows, And when they knew that they were naked, they sewed fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. Therefore what was said, And the eyes of both were opened, clearly has a double sense. For if you look to their expectation, which they had conceived from the serpent's promise saying, Your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil — it is too bitter an irony, and the groaning complaint of the writer saying, and the eyes of both were opened: which is the same as if it were said, and not according to the serpent's promise were the eyes of both opened — except that it is now said more bitterly under an ironic affirmation, as if it were denied with an open voice. But if you await the true outcome, it is a great demonstration or recognition of confusion, about which there is at once subjoined what was already said, And when they knew that they were naked, etc. When, he says, they knew that they were naked: that is, when they perceived themselves to be despoiled of the honor in which they had been placed and created, and compared to the beasts, stripped naked without any protection of God. For such also is that which this same truthful Scripture — which calls things by their true names and recounts deeds in fitting words, as is proper — declares: Moses, therefore, seeing the people that it was naked, for Aaron had stripped it.'11

Volo ut etiam lector cognoscat, quemadmodum hunc ipsum locum interpretatus sit Rupertus, scilicet pie admodum, graviter, ac diserte. Nam in libro tertio de Trinitate & eius operibus, capite decimo, hoc modo scribit: Quomodo tandem dictum est, Et aperti sunt oculi amborum? Numquid caeci erant antequam comederent, & comedendo illuminati sunt? Non utique, iam enim & mulier viderat, quod bonum esset lignum ad vescendum, & pulchrum oculis, aspectuque delectabile. Iam & ad Adam adduxerat Dominus cuncta animantia, ut videret quid vocaret ea. Non ergo exteriores, sed interiores, quos contra Deum clauserant aperti sunt oculi amborum: quia scilicet veracem Deum, serpentem vero in sua miseria falsissimum cognoverunt. Namque protinus sequitur, Cumque cognovissent se esse nudos, consuerunt folia ficus, & fecerunt sibi perizomata. Ergo id quod dictum est, Et aperti sunt oculi amborum, duplicem constat habere sensum. Nam si ad expectationem illorum respicias, quam ex promissione serpentis conceperant dicentis, Aperientur oculi vestri, & eritis sicut Dii, scientes bonum & malum, acerba nimis ironia est, & gemebunda conquestio scriptoris dicentis, & aperti sunt oculi amborum: quod idem est, ac si diceretur, & non iuxta promissum serpentis aperti sunt oculi amborum: nisi quod acerbius nunc sub affirmatione ironica dicitur, quasi aperta voce negaretur. Porro si verum eventum expectes, magna confusionis demonstratio vel agnitio est, de qua & protinus subinfertur quod iam dictum est, Cumque cognovissent se esse nudos, &c. Cum, inquit, nudos se esse cognovissent: id est, cum se honore in quo positi erant & conditi, spoliatos & iumentis comparatos, sine omni protectione Dei nudatos esse animadvertissent. Nam tale est & illud quod item Scriptura haec veridica, quae veris nominibus res appellat & congruis acta verbis, prout oportet enunciat, Videns igitur Moses populum quod esset nudatus, spoliaverat enim eum Aaron.

'...because of the ignominy of dishonor, and had set the people naked among their enemies,' etc. There is therefore indeed a double sense in what was said, 'And the eyes of both were opened.' But the true groan in both is the great reproach, on every side, of their mutual confusion: God angry, the devil expanded with laughter and cackling, each sex struck with ignominy; and amid all these, the souls of the guilty were tormented, and their eyes confounded. For at once the genital part of the body began, with unbidden motions, to buffet each sinner alike, on account of the desert of pride. That the ignominy of this passion is shameful, nature recognizes of its own accord, understands without a teacher, and confesses by spontaneous flight. Why is this? Because it ought not to have been in a rational creature, but was imposed by God, offended, upon man who did not understand his own honor, so that he might be compared to the beasts. For whatever has been appointed for man by God, whether propitious or angry, the nature of man cannot at all be ignorant of. Therefore, just as he cannot lack the reason which propitious God gave, so it is impossible for him to be ignorant that this passion of lust is confounding. It blushes in the spouses themselves, and each flees the mutual gaze of nakedness — just as those first spouses, who, having nothing yet to blush at except their very selves, who were one flesh, sewed fig leaves and made themselves aprons, that is, girdles. Thus far the words of Rupert.12

propter ignominiam sordis, & inter hostes constituerat nudum, &c. Igitur duplex quidem sensus, in eo quod dictum est, Et aperti sunt oculi amborum. Sed verus utrobique gemitus, magnum undique est mutuae confusionis opprobrium, Deus iratus, diabolus risu & cachinno dilatatus, uterque sexus ignominia percussus, & inter haec omnia reorum & animi torquebantur, & oculi confundebantur. Statim namque genitalis pars corporis utrumque peccatorem ob superbiae meritum, iniussis motibus similiter colaphizare incepit. Ignominiam huius passionis pudendam esse natura sponte cognoscit, sine doctore intelligit, ultronea fuga confitetur. Cur hoc? quia rationali creaturae inesse non debuit, sed ab offenso Deo, non intelligenti honorem suum imposita est, ut compararetur iumentis. Quicquid enim homini a Deo sive propitio sive irato institutum est, hoc omnino natura hominis nescire non potest. Idcirco sicut ratione, quam propitius Deus dedit carere non potest, sic istam passionem libidinis confusibilem esse, nescire illi impossibile est. Erubescit in ipsis coniugibus, & mutuum alterutra nuditatis refugit intuitum, sicut & isti coniuges primi, qui nondum habentes quod erubescerent, nisi se metipsos qui erant caro una, consuerunt folia ficus, & fecerunt sibi perizomata, id est, succinctoria. Hactenus sunt verba Ruperti.

Translator’s notes

  1. New lemma: Genesis 3:7. Running head misprinted '653'; true printed page 663. ↩
  2. Three wrong readings of 'their eyes were opened' rejected: (1) not literal prior blindness; (2) not that they then first got reason, nor (against Josephus, Antiquities 1.1) sharper wit; (3) not Rabbi Solomon's (Rashi's) view that they knew only good before and evil after. They knew good and evil both before and after, differently. Marginal glosses: 'Quomodo intelligendum sit apertos fuisse primis hominibus oculos'; 'Iosephus lib. 1. Antiquit. c. 1.' ↩
  3. The true sense: at the Fall they first perceived their nakedness as shameful, through the now-rebellious concupiscence of the flesh — like children before the age of reason, but here owing to the presence or absence of original justice. Marginal gloss: 'Quomodo Adamus & Eva se nudos esse cognoverint.' ↩
  4. Augustine, De Civitate Dei 14.17 (quotation begins). Marginal gloss: 'Augustinus.' Catchword: 'commovebat' (continues on the next page). ↩
  5. Conclusion of the Augustine quotation (De Civitate Dei 14.17). Running head misprinted '654'; true printed page 664. ↩
  6. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 11.31: 'their eyes were opened' is a figurative expression; they plainly saw before (Adam named the animals, Gen 2:23 'Hoc nunc os de ossibus meis'). Marginal gloss: 'Augustinus.' ↩
  7. Augustine, De Locutionibus in Genesim 1.9: 'their eyes were opened' is an idiom, the same as Hagar's 'she opened her eyes and saw a well' (Gen 21:19), and the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:31). Marginal glosses: 'Gen. 21'; 'Luc. 24.' Catchword: 'aperti' (continues on the next page). ↩
  8. Conclusion of the Augustine quotation (De Locutionibus in Genesim 1.9), referring to the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:31). Marginal gloss: 'Luc. 24.' Running head misprinted '655'; true printed page 665. ↩
  9. A further sense of 'their eyes were opened': they then saw clearly that God is truthful and the devil a liar. Citations: Ps 72:28 ('Mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est'); Ps 72:27 ('Qui elongant se a te peribunt'). Marginal glosses: 'Quomodo aperti sunt eorum oculi'; 'Psal. 72.' ↩
  10. Two further authorities: Serapion (a Greek writer) and Theodoret (Quaestiones in Genesim, q.33) — 'the opening of the eyes' = the awakened sense of sin and the shame of conscience (Rom 6:21). Marginal glosses: 'Theodoretus q. 33. in Genesim'; 'Rom. 6.' ↩
  11. Rupert of Deutz, De Trinitate (et operibus eius) III.10, on the 'double sense' of 'their eyes were opened': (1) bitter irony against the serpent's promise (Gen 3:5); (2) a true recognition of their being stripped of honor and confounded — likened to Israel stripped naked by Aaron (Exod 32:25). Catchword: 'pro'; page footer 'Comm. in Gen. Tom. 1.' and signature 'PPP'. ↩
  12. Conclusion of the Rupert of Deutz quotation (De Trinitate III.10). The closing allusion is to Exod 32:25 (Israel set naked among enemies, stripped by Aaron). Running head misprinted '656'; true printed page 666. ↩