Unfinished Literal Commentary on Genesis 1–4

Obscure questions about natural things, which we perceive to have been made by God, the almighty craftsman, should be treated not by affirming but by inquiring, above all in the books which divine authority commends to us. In them, rashness in asserting an uncertain and doubtful opinion can hardly escape the charge of sacrilege; yet such hesitation in inquiring must not go beyond the bounds of the catholic faith. And since many heretics are accustomed to drag the interpretation of the divine scriptures toward their own view, which is outside the faith of catholic teaching, the catholic faith must be briefly set out before this book is treated. It is this: that God the Father almighty made and established the whole creation through his only-begotten Son, that is, his Wisdom and Power, consubstantial with him and coeternal, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, also himself consubstantial and coeternal. Catholic teaching, then, commands us to believe that this Trinity is called one God, and that he made and created all things that are, insofar as they are, so that every creature, whether intellectual or bodily — or, to say it more briefly in the words of the divine scriptures, whether invisible or visible — was not born of God but made by God from nothing; and that there is nothing in it which belongs to the Trinity, except that the Trinity founded it and it was founded. Therefore it is not lawful to say or believe that the whole creation is either consubstantial with God or coeternal with him. And it teaches that all the things God made are very good, but that evils are not natural; rather, everything that is called evil is either sin or the punishment of sin. And sin is nothing but the perverse consent of the free will, when we incline toward what justice forbids and from which we are free to abstain; that is, sin lies not in things themselves but in their unlawful use. The lawful use of things is that the soul abide in the law of God and be subject to the one God with the fullest love, and manage the other things subject to it without greed or lust, that is, according to God's command. For in this way it will manage them without difficulty and misery and with the greatest ease and happiness. But the punishment of sin is when the soul is tormented by the very creatures that do not serve it, since it does not itself serve God; the creature obeyed it when it obeyed God. So fire is not evil, because it is a creature of God; yet our weakness is burned by it as the desert of sin. And those sins are called natural which must of necessity be committed before the mercy of God, after we have fallen into this life through the sin of free choice. And man is renewed through Jesus Christ our Lord, when the ineffable and unchangeable Wisdom of God herself deigned to take up full and entire manhood and to be born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, to be crucified, buried, and to rise again and ascend into heaven, which has already happened; and to come to judge the living and the dead at the end of the world, and the resurrection of the dead in the flesh, which is proclaimed as still to come. And the Holy Spirit has been given to those who believe in him. And he established mother church, which is called catholic because it is universally complete and limps in nothing and is spread through the whole world. And former sins are forgiven to the repentant, and eternal life and the kingdom of heaven are promised.

In accordance with this faith we must consider what can be inquired into and discussed in this book. ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth.’ Four ways of interpreting the law are handed down by certain commentators on the scriptures; their names can be stated in Greek, but defined and explained in Latin: according to history, according to allegory, according to analogy, according to aetiology. It is history when something done, whether by God or by man, is recorded; allegory, when things said figuratively are understood; analogy, when the agreement of the Old and New Testaments is demonstrated; aetiology, when the causes of things said and done are given.

So of what is written, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ it can be asked whether it is to be taken only according to history, or whether it also signifies something figuratively, and how it agrees with the gospel, and for what reason this book began in this way. According to history, one asks what ‘in the beginning’ means: whether in the beginning of time, or in the Beginning, in the very Wisdom of God, since the Son of God himself also called himself the Beginning, when it was said to him, ‘Who are you?’ and he said, ‘The Beginning, which I am also speaking to you.’ For there is a beginning without a beginning, and there is a beginning with another beginning. The beginning without a beginning is the Father alone; therefore we believe that all things are from one beginning. But the Son is a beginning in such a way that he is from the Father. Even the first intellectual creature itself can be called a beginning for those things God made of which it is the head. For since a head is rightly called a beginning, in that gradation the apostle did not call only the woman the head of anything. For he called the man the head of the woman, and Christ the head of the man, and God the head of Christ; so the creature is joined beneath the creator. Or was ‘in the beginning’ said because it was made first? Or could heaven and earth not have been made first among creatures, if the angels and all intellectual powers were made first? For we must believe that the angels too are God's creation and were made by him. For the prophet also listed the angels in the hundred and forty-eighth psalm when he said, ‘He commanded, and they were made; he gave the order, and they were created.’ But if the angels were made first, it can be asked whether they were made in time, or before all time, or at the beginning of time. If in time, there was already time before the angels were made; and since time itself is also a creature, it begins to be necessary to accept that something was made before the angels. But if we say they were made at the beginning of time, so that time began with them, we must say that what some hold is false, that time began with heaven and earth. But if the angels were made before time, we must ask how it is said in what follows: ‘And God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to shine upon the earth and to divide between day and night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years.’ For here it can seem that times began then, when heaven and the lights of heaven had begun to run their ordered courses. If this is true, how could there be days before there was time, if time began from the course of the lights, which are said to have been made on the fourth day? Or was this arrangement of days ordered according to the custom of human frailty, by the law of narration and of conveying lofty things humbly to the humble — a law by which the very speech of a narrator cannot but have some first, middle, and last parts? Or were the lights said to be for those times which men measure by intervals of duration in the motion of a body? For these times would not exist if there were no motion of bodies, and they are more evident to men. If we admit this, we must ask whether apart from the motion of bodies there can be time in the motion of an incorporeal creature, such as the soul or the mind itself, which certainly moves in its thoughts and in that very motion has something earlier and something later, which cannot be understood without an interval of time. If we accept this, time can be understood to have existed even before heaven and earth, if the angels were made before heaven and earth. For there was already a creature that would carry on time by incorporeal motions; and time is rightly understood to exist with it, as in a soul that has become accustomed to bodily motions through the bodily senses. But perhaps it is not so in the principalities and the supereminent creatures. But however this may be — for it is a most secret matter and impenetrable to human conjectures — this at least must be accepted in faith, even if it exceeds the measure of our thinking: that every creature has a beginning, and that time itself is a creature and therefore itself has a beginning and is not coeternal with the creator. ‘Heaven and earth’ can also seem to have been put for the whole creation, so that both this visible ethereal firmament and that invisible creation of the supereminent powers are called heaven, and in turn the whole lower part of the world with the living things that inhabit it is called earth. Or is every lofty and invisible creature called heaven, and every visible one earth, so that in this way too what was said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ could be understood as the whole creation? For perhaps not inappropriately everything visible is called earth in comparison with the invisible creation, so that the latter is named by the word heaven; since the soul too, which is invisible, when it swelled with love of visible things and was puffed up by obtaining them, was called earth, as it is written: ‘Why is earth and ashes proud?’ But it can be asked whether he called ‘heaven and earth’ all things already distinguished and composed, or whether he named by the word heaven and earth the very formless matter of the universe at first, which was ordered into these formed and beautiful natures at God's ineffable command. For although we read it written, ‘You who made the world from formless matter,’ yet we cannot say that even that matter, of whatever kind it may be, was not made by him from whom we confess and believe all things are. So the very arrangement and ordering of each and every formed and distinct thing may be called the world, while the matter itself may be called heaven and earth, as if the seed of heaven and earth, and heaven and earth, as it were, confused and mixed, fit for receiving forms from God the craftsman. Let this be enough inquiry about what was said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth’; for none of these things could be rashly affirmed.

‘But the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss; and the Spirit of God was borne over the water.’ The heretics who oppose the Old Testament are accustomed to raise a false charge against this passage, saying: ‘How did God in the beginning make heaven and earth, if the earth already was?’ They do not understand that this was added to explain what kind of earth it was of which it had already been said, ‘God made heaven and earth.’ So it must be taken thus: in the beginning God made heaven and earth; but this earth which God made was invisible and unformed, until it was set apart by the same God and established out of confusion in a definite order of things. Or is it better understood thus, that in this continuation the same matter of things is again presented which above was named by the words heaven and earth, so that the sense is: ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth; but this which was called heaven and earth was earth invisible and unformed, and darkness over the abyss’ — that is, what was called heaven and earth was a certain confused matter from which the world, which consists of two very great parts, namely heaven and earth, would be fashioned when the elements had been set in order and it had received form? This confusion of matter could be conveyed to popular understanding in this way, if it were called earth invisible and unformed, or unordered, or unprepared, and darkness over the abyss, that is, over a most vast depth — a depth which is perhaps so named because no one's understanding can penetrate it on account of its very formlessness. ‘And darkness was over the face of the abyss.’ Was the abyss below and darkness above, as though places were already distinct? Or, since it is still the confusion of matter that is being described, which in Greek is also called chaos, was it said, ‘darkness was over the abyss,’ because there was no light? If there had been light, it would certainly have been above, because it would be more eminent and would illuminate what was beneath it. And indeed, whoever considers carefully what darkness is finds it to be nothing but the absence of light. So ‘darkness was over the abyss’ was said as if it had been said, ‘there was no light over the abyss.’ Therefore this matter, which by God's subsequent working is ordered and distinguished into the forms of things, was called earth invisible and unformed and a depth lacking light; and above it was called by the name of heaven and earth as the seed, as has already been said, of heaven and earth — unless, by saying heaven and earth, he wished first to set forth the universe, so as afterward, having introduced the matter, to go through the parts of the world. ‘And the Spirit of God was borne over the water.’ He had nowhere said, ‘God made water’; yet we must in no way believe that God did not make water and that it already existed before he established anything. For he is the one from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things, as the apostle says. So God made water too, and to believe otherwise is a great error. Why, then, was it not said that God made water? Or did he wish to call the same matter, which he had named heaven and earth, or earth invisible and unformed, and abyss, by the name of water as well? For why should it not be called water, if it could be called earth, when as yet there was neither water distinguished and formed, nor earth, nor anything else? But perhaps it was first called heaven and earth, secondly unformed earth and an abyss lacking light, and thirdly, not inappropriately, water: so that by the first name the matter of heaven and earth would be named after the universe itself, for whose sake matter was made from absolutely nothing; by the second name, of unformed earth and abyss, its formlessness would be conveyed, since among all the elements earth is more formless and less luminous than the rest; and by the third name, water, matter subject to the work of the craftsman would be signified, for water is more mobile than earth. And therefore, because of the ease of working it and its easier motion, matter subject to the craftsman had to be called water rather than earth. Air, indeed, is more mobile than water, and ether is not absurdly believed or perceived to be more mobile than air itself; but matter would be less suitably called by the name of air or ether. For these elements are believed rather to have the power of acting, while earth and water have that of being acted upon. If this is obscure, this at least I think is most evident, that wind moves water and some earthly things, and wind is air in motion and, as it were, surging. So since air plainly moves water, while it is obscure from where air itself is moved so as to become wind, who would doubt that matter is more fittingly called by the name of water, which is moved, than of air, which moves? For to be moved is to be acted upon, to move is to act. Add to this that the things the earth produces are watered by water so that they can be born and grow, so that the same water almost seems to be turned into these very growing things. Therefore matter would more fittingly be called by the name of water, when it was presented as subject to the work of the craftsman, because of its mobility and its turning into all kinds of growing bodies, than by the name of air, in which only mobility could be noticed, while the other features by which matter is more expressly signified would be lacking. So the whole sense is this: ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ that is, matter which could take the form of heaven and earth; this matter was earth invisible and unformed, that is, a formless depth lacking light; yet, since it was subject to the craftsman who moves and works it, for this very reason, that it yields to the one who works it, it was also called water. In this signification of matter, then, its end is presented first, that is, for what it was made; secondly, its very formlessness; thirdly, its service and subjection under the craftsman. So first, heaven and earth — for matter was made for this; secondly, earth invisible and unformed and darkness over the abyss, that is, formlessness itself without light — whence the earth was also called invisible; thirdly, water subject to the Spirit for taking on condition and forms. Therefore the Spirit of God was borne over the water, so that we may understand the Spirit as working, and the water as that from which he worked, that is, fashionable matter. For when we speak of these three names of one thing — the matter of the world, formless matter, fashionable matter — to the first name heaven and earth is well joined; to the second, obscurity, confusion, depth, darkness; to the third, the ease of yielding, over which the Spirit of the craftsman is now borne in order to work. ‘And the Spirit of God was borne over the water.’ He was not borne over it as oil over water or water over earth, that is, as though contained by it; but, if examples are to be taken from visible things for this, as this light of the sun or moon is borne over those bodies on earth which it illuminates; for it is not contained by them, but, while it is contained by heaven, it is borne over them. Again, we must take care not to think that the Spirit of God is borne over matter as if by spaces of place, but by a certain effective and fashioning power, so that what he is borne over may be effected and fashioned, as the will of a craftsman is borne over wood, or over anything put before him to work on, or even over the very members of his body, which he moves in order to work. And this likeness, although it is already more excellent than any body, is nevertheless small and almost nothing for understanding how the Spirit of God is borne over the matter of the world put beneath him for working; but we find no clearer likeness, and none closer to the matter of which we speak, among the things that can in any way be grasped by men. Therefore in thinking of this kind the precept is best kept which is written: ‘Blessing the Lord, exalt him as much as you can; he will still surpass it.’ But let this be said if in this place the Spirit of God is taken to be the Holy Spirit, whom we worship in the ineffable and unchangeable Trinity itself. But it can also be understood otherwise, so that by the Spirit of God we understand the vital creature by which this whole visible world and all bodily things are held together and moved, to which almighty God has granted a certain power of serving him in working on the things that are brought forth. Since this spirit is better than any ethereal body, because every invisible creature surpasses every visible creature, it is not absurdly called the spirit of God. For what among the things he founded is not God's, since even of the earth itself it is said, ‘The earth is the Lord's and its fullness,’ and, with a universal embrace, what is written: ‘For all things are yours, Lord, who love souls’? But this spirit can be understood thus only if we take what was said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ to have been said only of the visible creation, so that over the matter of visible things, at the start of their fashioning, an invisible spirit was borne, which nevertheless was itself a creature, that is, not God, but a nature made and established by God. But if the matter of the whole creation — that is, intellectual, animal, and bodily — is believed to be expressed by that word water, then in this place the Spirit of God can in no way be understood except as that unchangeable and holy Spirit who was borne over the matter of all the things that God made and founded. A third opinion about this spirit can arise, that the element of air is believed to be expressed by the word spirit, so that in this way the four elements from which this visible world rises are presented — namely heaven and earth and water and air — not because they were already distinct and adorned, but because they were foreshadowed as about to arise in the confusion of that matter, formless though it was; which formless confusion was presented by the name of darkness and abyss. But whichever of these opinions is true, we must believe that God is the author and founder of all things that have arisen, those that are seen and those that are not seen — not as regards the vices which are against nature, but as regards the natures themselves — and that there is absolutely no creature which does not have from him the beginning and perfection of its kind and substance.