Questions on the Octateuch preface–1.17

Other studious men too have undertaken to resolve what seem to be problems in the divine Scripture: to unfold the meaning of some, to show the reasons for others, and, in a word, to make plain what does not appear plain to most people. But you in particular, Hypatius, dearest of sons, have urged me to do this, insisting strongly that this treatise too would be of benefit to many. For this reason, although my body is not in good health, I have taken on this labor, trusting not in myself but in him who commanded that these things be written as they are. For it belongs to him to show the meaning hidden in the letter. He himself, in the holy Gospels, both offered his teaching in parables and gave the interpretation of what was said in riddles. Having begged, then, to receive from him the ray of understanding, I shall try to venture into the inner sanctuary of the all-holy Spirit. Before all else it must be known that not all who ask questions have the same aim. Some ask impiously, thinking to refute the divine Scripture, now as teaching what is not right, now as teaching contradictory things. Others inquire out of love of learning and long to find what they are seeking. With God's help, then, we shall stop the blasphemous mouths of the former, showing both the harmony of the divine Scripture and its excellent teaching; and to the latter we shall offer, as far as we can, the solution of their difficulties. I shall make the beginning of creation the beginning of these questions; for it is the beginning and prologue of the inspired Scripture.

Why did the writer not place teaching about God before the creation of the universe? The divine Scripture usually measures its lessons to those being taught: to the perfect it offers what is perfect, to the imperfect what is elementary and suited to their capacity. Since, then, the Egyptians deified the visible creation, and Israel, after living among them for a very long time, had come to share in this impiety, he necessarily offers them lessons about creation, and teaches expressly both that it had a beginning of its existence and that it has the God of the universe as its maker. Yet he has not left out the teaching about God either. For by saying that heaven and earth and the other parts of creation came into being, and by showing that their creator is the God of the universe, he provided a teaching about God sufficient for the people of that time. He showed the beginning of the creatures, but could find no beginning of God. Knowing God, then, to be eternal, and naming him maker of the universe, and a good maker, he very wisely joined teaching about God to teaching about nature. Besides, those who were being taught these things had already learned that God is eternal. For when the inspired Moses was sent to Egypt by the God of the universe, he was commanded to say to his kinsmen, “He Who Is has sent me to you.” And “He Who Is” signifies the eternal. It is clear to the studious that those words were spoken before these; for he gave them that teaching while they still lived in Egypt, but wrote these things in the desert.

Why did he not mention the creation of the angels? Those who received the Law had nothing firm or steady about them. At any rate, straight after the many indescribable miracles they proclaimed the image of the calf to be God. Those who so easily deified the likenesses of cattle, what would they not have done if they had received knowledge of the invisible natures? For this reason, until the perfection of Abraham, the God of the universe spoke to none of the people of old through an angel; and it was in the case of Hagar that the inspired Moses first mentioned an angel, and very fittingly, for Hagar is a type of the old covenant, according to the divine Apostle: “For Hagar,” he says, “is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem.” Since, then, the Law was given through angels (“ordained,” he says, “through angels by the hand of a mediator,” and again, “If the word spoken through angels proved firm”), very fittingly the God of the universe, through an angel, both reminded her of her servitude and foretold what concerned the child who was to be born. That angels and archangels, and anything else that is incorporeal, except the Holy Trinity, have a created nature, the divine Scripture clearly teaches us. For the prophet David urges these too to sing hymns: “Praise him,” he says, “all his angels; praise him, all his powers.” And, teaching the reason, he added: “For he spoke, and they came into being; he commanded, and they were created.” And again in another psalm: “He who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” And the three blessed young men, weaving the divine hymn in the furnace, after saying that most excellent and very fitting opening, “Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord,” added at once, “Bless the Lord, you angels of the Lord, all you powers of the Lord.” But I think it superfluous to speak at length about this; the whole inspired Scripture is full of this teaching.

Do the angels exist before heaven and earth, or did they come into being with them? I for my part have taken such inquiries to be superfluous. What profit will come to those who know the time when the angels were created? I know, too, that the divine Apostle charges the admirable Timothy “to instruct certain people not to teach a different doctrine, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies.” Yet I will say what I have taken to agree with the aim of the divine Scripture. We have been taught that the divine nature alone is uncircumscribed, inasmuch as it is uncreated, without beginning, and eternal; but things that began to exist plainly have a circumscribed existence. So when we say that the nature of angels is incorporeal, we say that their being is circumscribed. For how could anyone conceive of “thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads,” as the divine Daniel says, without reckoning each to be within its own bounds? But that the angels have a circumscribed substance no one, I think, will deny. For Christ the Master said that each human being is assigned to the care of one: “See,” he says, “that you do not despise one of the least of those who believe in me; for their angels always see the face of my Father in heaven.” And the divine Scripture says that an angel is set over each nation. For the angel conversing with the prophet Daniel spoke of a prince of the Persians, and a prince of the Greeks, and Michael, prince of the Jews. And the great Moses says in his song: “When the Most High divided the nations, when he scattered the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.” If, then, one was appointed to rule these and another those, and each human being is under the care of one, it is plain that they have a circumscribed substance. And if this is true, as indeed it is, they need a place. For only the divine, being uncircumscribed, is not in a place. But if what is circumscribed is in a place, how could the angels exist before heaven and earth? If what bears them did not exist, how could what is borne exist?

“But,” some say, “one must say that the angels existed before heaven and earth. For if there were no angels,” they say, “how was the God of the universe hymned?” But those who say this do not see that this argument makes them both without beginning and eternal. For if the God of the universe needed those who hymn him, and always had them hymning him, then the angels are coeternal with the God of the universe. But if not always, and he created them when he willed, then there was an age in which the God of the universe did not have those who hymn him. … possible. Therefore God the Master does not need those who hymn him, for he has a nature free of need. Out of goodness alone he has granted being to angels and archangels and the whole creation. And what ministry would they have had, existing before creation, when there was no one in need of their help? For that they serve the God of the universe in caring for human beings, the divine Apostle is witness, crying out: “Are they not all ministering spirits sent out for service, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?” It is plain, then, that we need their help, while God is in no way in need of anything; but, being an abyss of goodness, he willed to give a share in being even to what in no way existed. But those who insist that the angels existed before heaven and earth put forward against us, as strong and unanswerable, what the God of the universe said to Job: “When I made the stars, all my angels praised me.” And they do not see that the God of the universe brought forth the stars on the fourth day, together with the sun and the moon. It is likely that the angels were created together with heaven and earth, so that, seeing the light created from no underlying matter, and the firmament made solid in the middle of the water, and the watery substance separated from the earth, and the earth adorned with plants of every kind at the divine word, and all the other things coming to be at the divine will, they might know through what they saw that they too have a created nature, having received their being from him. For the divine Apostle too joins them to the world, saying, “We have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.” I say this not as a pronouncement; I think it rash to pronounce on what the divine Scripture does not expressly say; but I have said what I took to fit pious reasoning. This, however, it is necessary to know: everything that exists, except the Holy Trinity, has a created nature. Once this is agreed, it does no harm to the doctrine of piety to say that the hosts of angels came into being before heaven and earth. But wrangling over words, which is useful for nothing and ruins those who listen, the divine Apostle expressly forbids.

If the earth already was, how did it come into being? For the writer says, “And the earth was.” The question is very silly and senseless. For he who said, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” did not say that the earth was eternal, but that it received its being after heaven, or together with heaven. Besides, the writer did not say absolutely, “And the earth was,” but joined to it what follows, “And the earth was invisible and unformed”; that is, it had come into being by the act of the God of the universe, but it was still invisible, since the water lay upon it, and unformed, since it was not yet adorned with plants, nor blooming with meadows, groves, and crops.

Did Moses not teach us that God created the waters too? Yes, he did: by saying, “The earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss,” he showed that the nature of the waters was created together with the earth. And the God of the universe, giving the law about the Sabbath, said: “Six days you shall work, but the seventh is a Sabbath, a rest to the Lord your God. For in six days the Lord God made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them.” So it is plain that anything at all that is in these, whether visible or invisible, perceptible or intelligible, except the divine substance, has a created nature. And the most divine David, having said, “Blessed is he whose helper is the God of Jacob, his hope is in the Lord his God, who made heaven and earth,” added, “the sea, and all that is in them.”

What kind of light, then, was the place within the world suddenly found to lack, so that darkness was over the water? We reason that if anything existed before this perceptible world, it was plainly in light. For neither the ranks of the angels nor all the heavenly hosts passed their existence in darkness, but in light and all spiritual joy. And no one will contradict this who expects the light above the heavens among the promised good things, about which Solomon says, “Light for the righteous always,” and the Apostle, “giving thanks to the Father who has made us fit for a share in the inheritance of the saints in the light.” Since, then, the heaven came into being at God's command, stretched all at once around what was enclosed within its circumference, and having a continuous body able to separate what is inside from what is outside, it necessarily left the space within it without light, cutting off the brightness from outside. For three things must come together for a shadow: the light, the body, and the unlit place. The darkness within the world, then, came about as the shadow of the heavenly body.

If God created light, how did he himself make darkness? For these are opposed to each other. Opposed to each other, yes, but both are necessary for human beings. The one assists people in work and industry, shows what is seen, and prepares them to hymn the maker of these things. The other gives people rest and renews them, and dissolves the weariness that comes from work. It gathers people home, and gives the wild beasts freedom to feed. The divine David teaches us this clearly: “You made darkness,” he says, “and it became night; in it all the beasts of the field will go about; young lions roaring to seize prey and to seek their food from God. The sun rose, and they gathered together, and they will lie down in their dens. Man will go out to his work and to his labor until evening.” Having said this, he marvels at the maker's mighty work and says, “How great are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you have made them all.” That darkness is necessary, then, we have learned precisely. That it is not a substance, but an accident, is easy to see. It is the shadow of heaven and earth; that is why it vanishes when the light rises. But light is a substance and has real existence: when it sets it rises again, and when it departs it returns. For just as our body is a substance, while the shadow it casts is an accident, not a substance, so heaven and earth, the greatest bodies, are distinct substances; but the shadow cast by them when the light is not present is called darkness, and when the light comes in, it does away with the darkness. One could learn this from another quarter too. A house without windows is full of darkness. When a lamp is brought in, it is lit, not because the darkness moves elsewhere (for it has no real existence; it is a thing without substance), but because it is wholly destroyed by the presence of the light. For it is a shadow formed by the roof, the floor, and the walls, and then dissolved by the gleams of the light. We see this happening every day. When the light withdraws, the shadow of heaven and earth produces darkness; when it rises again, this is dissolved. Darkness, then, is neither an uncreated substance nor a created reality, but a necessary condition arising from created things and proclaiming the wisdom of God. So the prophet hymns the God of the universe for this too: “He who made light,” he says, “and fashioned darkness.” He set each word very fittingly: “made” of the light, “fashioned” of the darkness; for it is an accident, arising and dissolving. And the three blessed young men, calling the whole creation to sing hymns, joined night to day and darkness to light. By their succession time is measured and human life is sustained.

What spirit was borne over the water? Some think it is the all-holy Spirit, giving life to the nature of the waters and prefiguring the grace of baptism. But I think the other explanation is truer: that here he calls the air “spirit.” For having said that he made heaven and earth, and having mentioned the waters by speaking of the abyss, he necessarily mentioned the air too, which extends from the surface of the water up to heaven. It is the nature of air to be borne over the bodies lying below. And he said very aptly “was borne” and not “lay upon”; for “was borne” indicated the mobile substance of the air. If anyone does not accept this explanation, because it is written, “The Spirit of God was borne over the water,” let him hear blessed David saying of the God of the universe, “He will blow his wind, and waters will flow.” That he called the wind so is clear even if I do not say it; for when the east wind or the south wind blows, frozen water naturally melts.

To whom does God say, “Let there be light,” and “Let there be a firmament”? He does not command anyone else to create; he calls the things that are not. Here the command is the will; for “whatever God willed,” it says, “he has done.” And if he did use some voice, it was plainly not for the sake of the lifeless elements, but for the sake of the invisible powers, so that they might know that at his command what is not comes to be.

Why did the writer put, “God saw that it was good”? To persuade the ungrateful not to find fault with what the divine verdict names good.

Is there one heaven, or are there two? Since the divine Scripture teaches that in the beginning God made heaven and earth, and then says that after the creation of light, on the second day, the firmament came into being, the question shows great folly in those who ask it. They ought to have recognized the difference both from the time and from the manner of creation. The one was before the light, the other after the light; the one was made from nothing, the other from waters. “Let there be,” it says, “a firmament in the middle of the water, and let it separate between water and water.” Then, having said that the word became deed (for this is what “and it was so” shows), it teaches also how it came to be: “God made the firmament; and God separated between the water that was under the firmament and the water above the firmament. And God called the firmament heaven.” But the first heaven was not called firmament; it was named heaven from the beginning. This one received its name from the thing itself. Since it was formed from the flowing substance of the waters, and the fluid nature became very tight and solid, it was called firmament. Then, as lying above us and fulfilling for us the use of the former heaven, it was named heaven as well. The God of the universe divided the nature of the waters in two: some he set above the firmament, some he left below, so that the waters lying above, by their moisture and coldness, might not allow the fire of the luminaries to harm the firmament, and those remaining below might nourish with their vapors the air, which is dried out and parched by the fire lying above. So the one who disbelieves in the second heaven goes off the straight road, and the one who tries to count more heavens follows myths, despising the teaching of the divine Spirit. The divine Scripture names the heavens in the plural, saying, “The heavens of the heavens,” because the language of the Hebrews cannot name either heaven or water in the singular. One could find many such cases in Greek too. No one names the city of Athens in the singular, but always in the plural; and again no one calls the city of Delphi by a singular name, but always in the plural. So the divine Scripture spoke in the plural not because there are many heavens, but keeping the idiom of the Hebrew tongue. For in another psalm it teaches us this more clearly, leaving aside the idiom of that tongue, and says, “The heaven of heaven is the Lord's.” So it is plain that just as this heaven is a roof for us and the earth a floor, so the visible heaven has the heaven lying above it as its roof.

Why, after speaking of one gathering of the waters, does he afterwards indicate many? For he says, “Let the water under heaven be gathered into their gatherings.” There is one gathering of the waters, for the seas are joined to one another, some below through underground channels, others at the very surface. But again he named the gatherings in the plural, since the Indian Sea is one, the Pontic another, and the Tyrrhenian another; the Propontis is one and the Hellespont another; the Aegean is another, and again the Ionian Gulf another. And outside these lies the greatest sea, which some name the Atlantic and others Ocean. For this reason he named it one gathering as joined together, and gatherings as divided.

Why did God command plants that are not edible to spring up? There are many kinds of irrational animals: some are called wild beasts, others cattle; some are creeping things, others winged. For all of these God prepared food beforehand, and these too he made for the use of human beings. Indeed he says that they too are fed for our sake: “who makes grass spring up for the cattle, and green plants for the service of men.” What is useless to one, then, is useful to another, and what is not needed by human beings suits the creatures made for humanity's sake. Besides this, the Lord, foreseeing that sicknesses would also befall human beings, since because of sin they had received the sentence of death, commanded the earth to put forth not only edible plants but also plants that ward off sicknesses. One could learn this more exactly from those trained in the art of medicine: even what seem to be poisons are remedies for sicknesses; for mixed with other herbs they become protective and productive of health.

When the luminaries had been created, what became of the earlier light? God the Master both makes things from what does not exist and creates from what exists. The first heaven he created from nothing; the second he made from waters. So too he brought forth the earth when it did not exist, but commanded it to put forth the kinds of trees and seeds. In the same way he created the light as he willed. And just as by the firmament he divided the nature of the waters, setting some above and leaving some below, so, dividing that light as he willed, he fashioned the luminaries, the great and the small.

What does “for signs, and for seasons, and for years, and for days” mean? The sun, by rising and setting, makes the days; and by running to the southern and northern regions it completes the yearly cycle. It also produces the turnings, which the divine Scripture called seasons. Passing from the region of the equinox toward the north, it makes spring; then, going on from there up to those limits, it produces the summer solstice; as it proceeds from there toward the south, autumn comes; and returning again, it makes winter. From the course of the moon we learn the number of the months; for it completes its own course in thirty days, less six hours. For this reason we call the number of so many days a month (mēn), since they also call the moon mēnē. But we do not understand “for signs” as the senseless do. For not even Pythagoras, nor Socrates, nor Plato, nor the Stoics accepted the idle talk of casting nativities. If those brought up on myths loathed the impiety of this myth, who that believes the divine oracles would put up with words that are not only impious but utterly senseless? By signs, then, the divine Scripture means knowing the time for sowing, for planting, for pruning, and for cutting wood fit for shipbuilding and house building. From this too seafarers have learned when they should set sail and when bring the vessel into harbor, when they must spread the sail and when take it down; for experience has taught them the risings and settings of the stars. And often we too, on seeing a comet, or a bearded star, or a beam-shaped meteor, have recognized an attack of enemies, or an invasion of locusts, or a destruction of cattle or of men. These, then, it called signs, not those things full of every folly and impiety.

Why did he make the plants before the luminaries, and the animals after them? Animals have eyes, and would not have borne the excess of the light. But this light, divided among the small and great luminaries, sends out a brightness proportioned to the sight of animals. The nature of plants has no share in sensation.

Why did he not bless the plants, but said to the animals, “Increase,” and so on? By his will he filled the whole earth at once with meadows and crops and plants and trees of every kind; but the irrational animals he brought forth two by two. Fittingly, then, he gave them the blessing, so that through their fruitfulness some might fill the seas and lakes and rivers, others the air, and others the earth.