Literal Commentary on Genesis 3.11–3.23

“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living soul according to its kind: four-footed animals and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind.’ And it was so done. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind and all the creeping things of the earth according to their kind. And God saw that they were good.” Now it followed that he should adorn with its living creatures the other part of this lowest region, which is properly called earth; the whole region, with all the abysses and the cloudy air, Scripture elsewhere includes under the general name of earth. The kinds of living creatures that the earth brought forth at the word of God are clear. But since all the animals without reason are often understood by the name of cattle or by the name of beasts, it is rightly asked which he now calls beasts in the proper sense and which cattle. As for creeping or crawling things of the earth, there is no doubt that he meant all serpents to be understood, although they could also be called beasts; but the name of cattle does not usually fit serpents. Again, the word “beasts” usually fits lions and leopards and tigers and wolves and foxes, dogs too and apes and others of that kind. But the name of cattle is usually applied more fittingly to those animals that are in human use, either to help with labour, like oxen and horses and the like, or for wool or for food, like sheep and pigs. What, then, are “four-footed animals”? For although all these, except certain serpents, walk on four feet, yet unless he had wished certain animals to be understood by this name in the proper sense, he would surely not have named four-footed animals here too, although he was silent about them in the repetition. Or are deer and fallow deer and wild asses and boars (because they cannot be joined to those beasts among which are lions, for they are like those cattle, yet they are not under human care) called four-footed animals in the proper sense, as though these were the remaining animals, to which this name, general indeed and shared with many because of the number of feet, was given nevertheless with a special meaning? Or, because he said “according to its kind” three times, does he invite us to attend to three kinds? First, “according to their kind, four-footed animals and creeping things”: where I think it is indicated which four-footed animals he meant, namely those that are in the kind of creeping things, such as lizards, geckos and anything of that sort. And so in the repetition he did not repeat the name of four-footed animals, because perhaps he included them under the word “creeping things”: that is why there he does not say simply “creeping things” but adds “all the creeping things of the earth”: “of the earth,” because there are also creeping things of the waters; and “all,” so that those are understood there which also rest on four feet, which were properly signified above by the name of four-footed animals. And the beasts, of which he likewise says “according to their kind,” are whatever is savage with mouth or claws, except serpents. And the cattle, of which he says “according to their kind” the third time, are those that tear with neither, but either with horns or not even with them. For I said before both that the wide extent of the name “four-footed animals” is easily recognized from the number of feet itself, and that by the name of cattle or beasts every irrational animal is sometimes included. And the word ferae (“wild animals”) usually has just as wide a meaning in the Latin language. Yet that was no reason to neglect the question how these names, which are not set in this place of Scripture without purpose, can also be distinguished by a special distinction, which can easily be noticed in the usage of everyday speech.

It also moves the reader, not without reason, whether “according to its kind” is said at random and as if by chance, or for some reason, as though they had existed before, though they are narrated as being created for the first time. Or is their kind to be understood in the higher reasons, spiritual ones surely, according to which they are created below? But if that were so, it would be said of the light, of the heaven, of the waters and lands, of the lights of heaven. For which of them is there whose eternal and unchangeable reason is not alive in the very Wisdom of God, which “reaches mightily from end to end and orders all things sweetly”? But it begins to be said with the plants and trees and continues up to these land animals. For in those created from the waters too, although it is not said in the first mention, it is said in the repetition: “And God made great sea monsters and every soul of creeping creatures, which the waters brought forth according to their kind, and every winged flying thing according to its kind.” Or, because these came into being in such a way that others would be born from them and preserve the form of their origin by succession, are they said to be “according to their kind” because of the propagation of offspring by which they were created to endure? But why is it said of trees and plants not only “according to its kind” but also “according to its likeness,” since living creatures too, of the waters or of the lands, beget according to their likeness? Or, because likeness follows kind, did he not wish to repeat it everywhere? For he did not repeat “seed” everywhere either, although it is present in animals as well as in plants and trees, though not in all. For it has been observed that some are born from waters or earth in such a way that they have no sex, and so their seed is not in them but in the elements from which they arise. So this is “according to its kind”: where both the power of seeds and the likeness of those succeeding to those passing away is understood, because none of them was created to exist once, either to remain forever or to pass away with no one succeeding. Why, then, was it not said of man too, “Let us make man in our image and likeness according to his kind,” since the propagation of man is also obvious? Is it because God had not made man so that he would die, if he had been willing to keep the commandment, and so a successor was not needed for one passing away? But after sin he was compared to senseless cattle and became like them, so that now the children of this age beget and are begotten, in order that the mortal race may endure by keeping up succession. What then does that blessing mean after man was made, “Increase and multiply and fill the earth,” which certainly could be done by begetting? Or should nothing be said rashly about this until we come to that place of Scripture where these things must be investigated and treated more carefully? For it may perhaps be enough for now that it was not said of man “according to his kind” because one was being made, from whom the woman too was made. For there are not many kinds of men, as there are of plants, trees, fish, birds, serpents, cattle and beasts, so that we should take “according to its kind” to be said as if it meant “kind by kind,” so that those that are similar among themselves and belong to one origin of seed might be distinguished from the others.

It is also asked what the creatures of the waters deserved so much of the Creator that they alone were blessed, as human beings were. For God blessed them too, saying, “Increase and multiply and fill the waters of the sea, and let the flying things multiply upon the earth.” Was it that it had to be said in one kind of creature, so that it would be understood as a consequence in the others that increase by generation? Then it would have been said first in the first thing of that kind to be created, namely the plant and the tree. Or perhaps he judged those that would have no affection for propagating offspring and would generate without any sense unworthy of those words of blessing, “Increase and multiply,” and where such affection was present, there he said it first, so that it would be understood in the land animals too, even though it was not said? But it was necessary to repeat it in the case of man, so that no one would say that there is any sin in the duty of begetting children, as there is in lust, whether in sexual immorality or in using marriage itself without moderation.

There is also some question about certain very tiny animals, whether they were created in the first establishing of things or from the later decay of mortal things. For most of them are born either from the diseases, the waste, or the exhalations of living bodies, or from the rotting of corpses; some also from the decay of wood and plants, and some from the decay of fruits. Of all of these we cannot rightly say that God is not the creator. For in all of them there is a certain beauty of nature proper to their kind, so that in them the wonder of one who considers them well is greater, and the praise of the almighty Craftsman richer, who “made all things in wisdom.” This Wisdom, “reaching from end to end and ordering all things sweetly,” does not leave without form even those last of things which are dissolved according to the order of their kind, and whose dissolution we dread because of the punishment of our mortality; but it creates living creatures tiny in body and keen in sense, so that we are amazed with greater attention at the nimbleness of a flying fly than at the size of a walking beast of burden, and admire the works of little ants more than the loads of camels. But whether, as I said, we are to believe that these smallest creatures too were established in the first establishing of things, which is narrated as created in this order of six days, or afterward from the later dissolution of corruptible bodies, this is the question. It can indeed be said that the tiniest creatures that arise from waters or lands were created then. Among these may reasonably be understood also those that are born from the things that arose when the earth brought forth plants, both because these had preceded the establishing not only of the animals but also of the lights, and because they are joined to the earth by the connection of their roots, from which they arose on the day when the dry land appeared, so that they would be understood to belong to the furnishing of the dwelling rather than to the number of the inhabitants. But as for the others, which are born from the bodies of animals, and especially of dead ones, it is most absurd to say that they were created then, when the animals themselves were created; unless it be that there was already present in all animate bodies a certain natural power and, as it were, the pre-sown and in some way interwoven first beginnings of future animals, which were to arise from the decay of such bodies, each according to its kind and differences, by the ineffable governance of the Creator, who moves all things while remaining unchangeable.

It is also often asked about the poisonous and harmful kinds of animals, whether they were created after man’s sin for punishment, or rather were created harmless and only afterward began to harm sinners. Nor is this surprising, since even in the times of this toilsome and wretched life (when no one is so righteous that he dares to call himself perfect, as the apostle faithfully testifies when he says, “Not that I have already received or am already perfect”; and when temptations and bodily troubles are still necessary for exercising virtue and perfecting it in weakness, as the same apostle again makes clear when he says that, lest he be exalted by the greatness of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given him, an angel of Satan to buffet him, and that when he asked the Lord three times that it might depart from him, the Lord answered him, “My grace is sufficient for you, for virtue is made perfect in weakness”), holy Daniel nevertheless lived safe and unafraid among lions, though he certainly did not lie to God when in his prayer he confessed not only the sins of his people but also his own; and a deadly viper fastened on the hand of the apostle himself and did not harm him. So these creatures too, though created, could have done no harm, if there had not arisen the cause either of frightening and punishing vices or of testing and perfecting virtue; because examples of patience must be shown for the progress of others, and man comes to know himself more surely in temptations, and that everlasting salvation which was shamefully lost by the will is justly recovered bravely through pain.

Someone will say: “Why then do beasts harm one another, when they have no sins, so that this could be called punishment, and they gain no virtue by such exercise?” Clearly because some are food for others. And we cannot rightly say, “There should not be some on which others feed.” For all things, as long as they exist, have their measures, numbers and orders; all of these, rightly considered, are praised, and even when they change, passing from one into another, it is not without a hidden governance of temporal beauty proper to their kind. If this is hidden from fools, it glimmers for those who are making progress and is clear to the perfect. And certainly in all such movements of lower creation wholesome warnings are offered to man, that he may see how much he must strive for his spiritual and everlasting salvation, by which he surpasses all irrational living creatures, when he sees them, from the largest elephants to the smallest worms, doing whatever they can, whether by resisting or by taking care, for the bodily and temporal safety allotted to them in the lower ordering of their kind. This appears only when some seek to restore their own bodies from the bodies of others, while others protect themselves by the strength to fight back, or by the help of flight, or by the protection of hiding places. For even bodily pain in any living creature is a great and wonderful power of the soul, which holds that structure together in life by an ineffable mingling and brings it into a kind of unity according to its measure, since it suffers it to be corrupted and dissolved, not with indifference, but, so to speak, with indignation.

This too may perhaps move someone: if harmful animals either injure living human beings as punishment, or exercise them for their good, or test them usefully, or teach them without knowing it, why do they also tear apart the bodies of dead human beings for their food? As if it made any difference to our advantage through what passages this flesh, now lifeless, goes into the deep secret places of nature, from which it will be brought out again to be re-formed by the wonderful omnipotence of the Creator. And yet from this too there comes a warning to the prudent, that they should so entrust themselves to the faithful Creator, who governs all things, the greatest and the least, by his hidden will, and by whom even our hairs are numbered, that they should not dread any kind of death because of empty cares for their lifeless bodies, but should not hesitate to prepare the sinews of devout courage for anything.

A similar question often arises about thorns and thistles and certain fruitless trees, why or when they were created, since God said, “Let the earth bring forth the plant of pasture sowing seed, and the fruit-bearing tree making fruit.” But those who are moved in this way do not understand, at least from the usual formulas of human law, what is called usufruct; for a certain benefit to those who enjoy it is considered under the name of fruit. And how great the benefits, whether evident or hidden, of all that the earth brings forth and nourishes by roots, let them both observe some for themselves and inquire about the rest from those who have experience. And about thorns and thistles a more complete answer can be given, because after sin it was said to man about the earth, “It will bring forth thorns and thistles for you.” Yet it is not to be said lightly that these began to grow from the earth only then. For perhaps, since many benefits are found in these kinds of seeds too, they could have had their place without any punishment of man. But that they should grow also in the fields in which he was now labouring as a punishment may be believed to serve to heap up the punishment, since they could grow elsewhere, either as pasture for birds and cattle or for some uses of men themselves. And yet that other sense too is not out of keeping with these words, by which “It will bring forth thorns and thistles for you” is understood to mean that the earth brought these forth before too, yet not for man to labour over, but as suitable food for animals of every kind (for there are animals that feed conveniently and pleasantly on these kinds, both the softer and the drier); but that it began to bring them forth for man as a wretched business when after sin he began to labour on the earth. Not that these grew in other places before and afterward in the fields that man cultivated to gain crops, but both before and after in the same places, yet before not for man, and afterward for man; so that this is signified by the added “for you,” because it is not said, “It will bring forth thorns and thistles,” but, “It will bring them forth for you,” that is, so that these things now begin to grow for you, for labour, which previously grew only as food for other animals.

“And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness; and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven and all cattle and all the earth and all creeping things that creep upon the earth.’ And God made man; in the image of God he made him; male and female he made them. And God blessed them, saying, ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven and all cattle and all the earth and all creeping things that creep upon the earth.’ And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you all seed-bearing pasture sowing seed, which is upon all the earth, and every tree that has in it the fruit of seed-bearing seed; it will be food for you and for all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of heaven and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, which has in it the spirit of life; and all green pasture for food.’ And it was so done. And God saw all the things that he had made, and behold, they were very good. And evening came, and morning came, the sixth day.” There will be a fuller place later for considering again and again the nature of man and discussing it more carefully. Now, however, so that our inquiry and treatment may conclude the works of the six days, we say this first briefly: it is not to be taken as indifferent that in the other works it is said, “God said, ‘Let there be,’” but here, “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’”: namely, to suggest, if I may put it so, a plurality of persons, because of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yet immediately it warns that the unity of the Godhead is to be understood, saying, “And God made man in the image of God”; not as though the Father made him in the image of the Son, or the Son in the image of the Father (otherwise “in our image” would not be truly said, if man was made in the image of the Father alone or of the Son alone); but it is said, “God made him in the image of God,” as if it were said, “God made him in his own image.” And when it now says, “in the image of God,” after it said above, “in our image,” it is signified that that plurality of persons does not lead us to say or believe or understand many gods, but that we should take the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (because of which Trinity it is said, “in our image”) as one God, because of which it is said, “in the image of God.”

Here too this must not be passed over: that after saying, “in our image,” he immediately added, “and let him have power over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven” and the other animals without reason, so that we may understand that man was made in the image of God in that by which he surpasses the irrational living creatures. And this is reason itself, or mind, or understanding, or whatever other word it may more fittingly be called by. That is why the apostle too says, “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, who is being renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of him who created him,” showing clearly enough where man was created in the image of God: not in the lineaments of the body, but in a certain intelligible form of the enlightened mind. And so, just as in that first light (if by that name is rightly understood the making of an intellectual light sharing in the eternal and unchangeable Wisdom of God) it was not said, “And so it was done,” so that it might then be repeated, “And God made,” because, as we have already discussed as far as we could, there was not first some knowledge of the Word of God in the first creature, so that after that knowledge there might be created below what was being created in that Word; but the light itself was first created, in which the knowledge of the Word of God, through whom it was being created, might come about, and that knowledge itself was for it to be turned from its formlessness to God who forms it, and to be created and formed; whereas afterward, in the other creatures, it is said, “And so it was done,” where it is signified that the knowledge of the Word came about first in that light, that is, in the intellectual creation, and then, when it is said, “And God made,” it is shown that the kind of creature itself comes into being which had been spoken in the Word of God that it should be made: this is kept in the establishing of man too. For God said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” and so on. And then it is not said, “And so it was done,” but next is added, “And God made man in the image of God,” because this nature too is intellectual, like that light, and therefore for it to be made is the same as to know the Word of God through whom it is made. For if it were said, “And so it was done,” and afterward it were added, “And God made,” it would be understood as though it were made first in the knowledge of the rational creature and then in some creature that was not rational; but because this too is a rational creature, it too was perfected by that same knowledge. For just as after the fall into sin man is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of him who created him, so he was created in that very knowledge before he grew old in sin, from which he might be renewed again in the same knowledge. But the things that were not created in that knowledge, because they were created either as bodies or as irrational souls, their knowledge came about first in the intellectual creation from the Word by whom it was said that they should be made; and because of this knowledge it was first said, “And so it was done,” to show that the knowledge itself came about in that nature which could know this beforehand in the Word of God; and then the bodily and irrational creatures themselves came into being, because of which there was added next, “And God made.”

But how man was made immortal and yet received for food, with the other animals, the plant of pasture bearing seed and the fruit-bearing tree and the green plant, is hard to say. For if he was made mortal by sin, then before sin he certainly did not need such food; for that body could not be corrupted by hunger. As for what was said, “Increase and multiply and fill the earth,” although it seems that this could not be done except through the union of male and female (from which there also arises an indication of mortal bodies), it can nevertheless be said that there could have been another way in immortal bodies, so that children would be born by the affection of devotion alone, with no lust belonging to corruption; they would neither succeed parents who had died nor die themselves, until the earth was filled with immortal human beings; and so, when a just and holy people had been established, such as we believe there will be after the resurrection, there would also be an end to being born. This can indeed be said, and how it could be said is another consideration; but no one will dare to say this too: that a need for food by which to be restored could exist except in mortal bodies.

Some have also supposed that the inner man was made then, but the body of man afterward, when Scripture says, “And God formed man from the slime of the earth,” so that “made” refers to the spirit and “formed” to the body; and they did not notice that male and female could have been made only according to the body. For although it may be argued very subtly that the very mind of man, in which he was made in the image of God, a kind of rational life, is divided into the truth of eternal contemplation and the administration of temporal things, and thus becomes as it were male and female, one part counselling and the other obeying, yet in this division it is not rightly called the image of God except for that which cleaves to the contemplation of the unchangeable truth. In figure of this, the apostle Paul says that only the man is the image and glory of God; “but the woman,” he says, “is the glory of the man.” So although what is understood inwardly in the one mind of a human being is figured outwardly in two human beings of different sex according to the body, yet the woman too, who is a woman in body, is herself also renewed in the spirit of her mind in the knowledge of God according to the image of him who created, where there is no male and female. For just as women are not separated from this grace of renewal and re-forming of the image of God, although in the sex of their body something else is figured, according to which the man alone is said to be the image and glory of God, so also in the first establishing of man, in that the woman too was a human being, she certainly had her mind, and the same rational mind, according to which she too was made in the image of God. But because of the unity of the union, “God made,” it says, “man in the image of God.” And so that no one would think that only the spirit of man was made, although he was made in the image of God according to the spirit alone, it says, “He made him male and female; he made them,” so that the body too is now understood to have been made. Again, so that no one would think that he was made in such a way that both sexes were expressed in a single human being, as sometimes those are born whom they call androgynes, it shows that it used the singular number because of the unity of the union, and because the woman was made from the man, as will be made clear later when what is said briefly here begins to be explained more carefully; and so it immediately added the plural number, saying, “He made them, and he blessed them.” But, as I have already said, we shall inquire more carefully into the creation of man in the Scripture that follows.

Now we must notice that after saying, “And so it was done,” he immediately added, “And God saw all the things that he had made, and behold, they were very good.” Here is understood the power and ability itself given to human nature to take for food the pasture of the field and the fruit of the tree. For he brought in “And so it was done” with reference to what he had begun from the place where he said, “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you seed-bearing pasture,’” and so on. For if we refer “And so it was done” to everything said above, it will follow that we must admit that they had already increased and multiplied and filled the earth on the same sixth day, which, by the testimony of the same Scripture, we find happened after many years. So since this ability to eat had been given, and man had come to know it as God spoke, it is said, “And so it was done,” certainly in that man came to know it as God spoke. For if he had also done it then, that is, had also taken by eating the things that were given for food, the custom of Scripture would be kept, so that after it was said, “And so it was done,” which serves to express the preceding knowledge, the act itself would then be brought in, and it would be said, “And they took and ate.” For it could have been said so even if God were not named again, as in that place where, after it was said, “Let the water that is under heaven be gathered into one gathering, and let the dry land appear,” there is added, “And so it was done,” and then it is not said, “And God made,” but it is nevertheless repeated thus, “And the water was gathered into its gathering,” and so on.