Scholarly Context:
Franz von Hummelauer (1846–1931) was a German Jesuit biblical scholar associated with the "Biblical Commission" era. His commentary reflects the transition from purely patristic exegesis to modern critical methods, attempting to harmonize linguistic analysis with traditional dogma. This translation preserves his rigorous engagement with Hebrew grammar, ancient versions, and patristic authority.
Father Franz von Hummelauer's Commentary on Genesis 1:1, 26-31
On the Creation of the World and Man
Introduction: The Argument of the Passage
Argument: Three things are announced very briefly and concisely together:
The material world is affirmed to have been created by God primarily.
The condition of the created world is described as void of all things, immersed in waters and darkness.
The divine power is demonstrated as about to perfect the work begun.
Chapter I, Verse 1: "In the Beginning God Created Heaven and Earth"
"In the beginning" (In principio): That is, at the start (initio). For this is undoubtedly the sense of the expression bereshith (תֵּישֵׁארְבּ) [Jeremiah 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34], in all of which places it is written concerning the beginning of someone's reign. Kimchi understood it thus, substituting tehillah (הָּלְהַת). Ephrem explained the voice similarly, which in Syriac is the same. Thus alone can the Greek en archē (ἐν ἀρχῇ) be understood here, and Josephus understood it thus, who took the word unchanged and prefixed it to his historical narrative. Cf. also F.H. Patrizi, De Interpret. Script. SS. II, 2 sqq., Rome 1844.
On the Meaning of "In the Beginning":
After Theophilus of Antioch (Migne 6, 1065) and Origen (Migne 12, 145), several authors defended that "in the beginning" sounds the same as "in the Son," and hence, since immediately the Spirit of God is mentioned, a vestige of the Most Holy Trinity is discovered at the beginning of Genesis. They say [Christ] calls Himself the beginning in John 8:25. But cf. the Greek text. Christ calls Himself the beginning, and John 1:3 says "all things were made through Him," and St. Paul in Colossians 1:16 "in Him all things were created." Nevertheless, these contribute nothing to the exegesis of Genesis 1:1. The Targum Jerusalem is a paraphrase in wisdom, not a version.
Against Wellhausen:
What Wellhausen says (Prolegomena, 411), that the use of the voice bereshith to designate the beginning of some time is a more recent Hebraism and Aramaism, you will understand to be falsely asserted if you compare Hosea 9:10; Micah 1:13; Proverbs 17:14; Job 8:7; 42:12; Deuteronomy 11:12. The Jews themselves, when Aramaizing, unless they wish to allude to the fact of creation (as Targum Isaiah 40:21; 41:4), never write bereshith and similar forms (Dillmann).
Determination of the "Beginning":
Since therefore the world is truly written to be created "in the beginning," authors further inquire in the beginning of what thing, or at the start of what, it was created. The word is indeterminate in itself but determined by the context. Understand therefore "beginning" not indeterminately and absolutely, as if God created nothing at all before heaven and earth (not angels, not other worlds entirely diverse from ours), but the beginning of those things which are now about to be narrated, the works of the hexaemeron. Ephrem rightly [says]: "In the beginning of the creation of visible things." Saadia: "Before all things, first of all." Before the light was effected, from which the first day of the hexaemeron begins, God had already created heaven and earth. Hence the word competes for a merely negative or exclusive sense from opposition to those things which follow.
On Time:
Nor should you say the beginning ought to be understood altogether indeterminately, which the Masoretic punctuation excludes by omitting the determining article (bereshith, not bareshith). We concede the word is indeterminate in itself, and therefore also by force of the punctuation, but it is determined by the context of the following things. It matters little whether you translate substantively "in the beginning" or adverbially "at first" (initio), whether you translate adverbially "first" (primum) or "at first" (primo), provided you explain these adverbs according to what was just said, so that they sound nothing else but "before the things now about to be narrated."
Interpretation of Time:
Commended here is the interpretation which pleased many after Basil, that "in the beginning" is the same as "in the beginning of time." If therefore you understand that time in which the things now about to be narrated were effected, the time of the hexaemeron, it is a good interpretation. If you understand time indeterminately, so that the beginning of any time whatsoever is expressed, or that moment which was first of all and in which time itself began to be, you proceed on a less safe path, as is plain from those things which we explained above.
"Created" (Creavit):
They state the primitive signification of the root bara (אָרָבּ) as "cut," "shaped," "formed by cutting," whence however Fürst incorrectly inferred that creation out of nothing is not expressed by the same. Is not the very word "create" recalled to the root skar, which has the same signification of cutting or cleaving? (A. Fick, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, Göttingen 1871, p. 203 sqq.). Is not German schaffen derived from the same root as skaptein (σκάπτειν, to excavate)? The primitive significations of roots are accustomed to be taken from sensible things or actions, even those which are thence derived to designate purely spiritual things or actions. The signification of the word is to be defined not from etymology alone but more also from usage of speech.
Usage of Bara:
Now it is true what Malvenda affirms, that the word in the kal conjugation properly belongs only to God, not to man, nor is it ever usurped concerning man in Scripture. It is employed indeed Genesis 1:1, 21, 27; 2:3, 4; Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 148:5 concerning the first production of the earth; and Isaiah 40:26 and 45:18 concerning heaven; Genesis 1:27; 5:1, 2; 6:7; Deuteronomy 4:32; Isaiah 45:12; Ecclesiastes 12:1; Psalms 88, 89, 48, 101, 102, 19 concerning the first production of man; cf. Isaiah 43:1, 7, 15; 54:16; Ezekiel 21:30 [Hebrew 35]; Malachi 2:10; Ezekiel 28:13 concerning that cherub by whose image the king of Tyre is designated. All of which were effected only by creation of the true name. It is employed Genesis 1:21 concerning the first production of animal life, which was certainly very akin to creation; finally concerning certain portents which could be effected only by the immediate intervention of God (Exodus 34:10; Numbers 16:30; Isaiah 4:5; 41:20; 48:7; 57:19; 65:18; Jeremiah 31:22; Psalms 50, 51:12; 103, 104:30). In one word, it is employed concerning actions exclusively divine. Therefore either the Jews lacked the concept of creation or they expressed it by that voice.
Gesenius and Wellhausen:
Gesenius confesses it is used more concerning the new production of a thing than concerning the conformation and elaboration of matter. And Wellhausen (Prolegomena, 321): "The book of Genesis," he says, "uses its own voice for designating the creative action of God alone and for distinguishing it from human action and formation, nor do the Greeks or Latins or Germans have a word by which equally exclusively they express creation."
Against Reuss:
From the fact that bara indicates indeed a divine action but not necessarily always a creative one, which among others Cajetan, Bonfrerius, Pererius concede, it is explained how the LXX translated more indeterminately "epoiesen" (ἐποίησεν), more accurately Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion "ektisen" (ἔκτισεν), which word properly designates creation. Reuss orders the sense of creating bara to be banished, and this for this among other reasons: that in other places that voice is used indifferently with asah (הָשָׂע) or yatsar (רָצַי). The production of man Genesis 1:26 is expressed by bara, of animals 2:19 by yatsar. Isaiah 43:7 those three words are predicated concerning the production of man: "I created him, I formed him, I made him." But is it not evident from the very fact of these three words forced into a single sentence that there is some diversity of signification? Therefore asah (to make) indeterminately comprehends every mode of efficiency; it is as it were a genus of which bara and yatsar are two species. This latter is indeed to form, surely from pre-existing matter; that former certainly does not require pre-existing matter, denotes something instantaneous and minimally laborious. Finally, it never has annexed the name of the matter from which something was made.
Clericus and the Maccabean Mother:
But Clericus urges: "Given that the voice bara can express creation, I believe the Hebrews reading Genesis 1:1 did not think concerning creation but understood that almost which the Latin condere [to found/establish] or the Greek ktizein (κτίζειν) sounds." I would concede that not all Hebrew readers weighed sufficiently the force of the voice bara employed here, just as not all Christians know their dogmas sufficiently. But the Maccabean mother understood creation (2 Maccabees 7:28): "I beg you, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth and all that is in them, and understand that God made them out of nothing (ex nihilo fecit illa Deus), and mankind." That woman is not to be considered to have flourished with a more distinguished knowledge of divine things than her contemporaries or to have received certain revelations herself from God, but she expressed the sense which all attributed to the words of Genesis. Hence Josephus, in whose time the word ktizein was already consecrated for expressing creation, substituted the voice ektisen (ἔκτισεν) for the voice epoiesen (ἐποίησεν) which he read in the LXX. Hence Ephrem says plainly that heaven and earth are from nothing. Hence Kimchi: "The voice habberiah (הָאָירִבְּ) [creation] renews a thing and produces it from nothing, and thus he said in the verse Isaiah 43:7: 'For my glory I created him, formed him, made him.' First I created him, I produced him from nothing to being; then I formed him, I constituted him in form; finally I made him, I disposed and ordered him." The Rabbis agree.
Contextual Confirmation:
It helps finally to confirm what we have disputed by certain moments taken from the context of our verse. Therefore the author of the whole verse wished to enunciate the entire origin of the whole visible world—I say the whole visible world, for to the expression "heaven and earth" we will vindicate that sense. But he does not explain the entire origin if he introduces God only transforming pre-existing matter, therefore he demonstrates Him creating from nothing. In reality, is he not to be considered to have wished to explain the entire origin in verse 1, who in 2:1 produces the narration up to the perfect fabric of the world? Again, God wished to describe the unique cause of the world; He wished to teach us, Moses, that there is a Creator of the creature and one Himself is God, not several according to the deliria of the ethnics (Jacob of Edessa). To which falls back what others say: only God is set forth as the cause of the world, so that with other gods then angels are excluded according to that [word] Isaiah 44:24: "I am the Lord making all things, extending the heavens alone, establishing the earth, and no one with Me." But is the sole or unique author of the world God established as long as it is affirmed He transformed matter drawn from somewhere I know not?
Tertullian and Rupert:
Tertullian (Migne 2, 215): "From the fact that the operator God, the work heaven and earth are announced, but the matter from which the operator produced the work is passed over in silence, he infers that no matter was applied to the work." Surely the matter of the following works are understood to be heaven and earth created in the beginning. The origin both of the body and of the soul of Adam is accurately described in chapter 2; therefore if any matter of heaven and earth pre-existed, it ought to have been commemorated. Rupert thought therefore it is not written that God produced heaven and earth by address "Let heaven and earth be" lest God be said to have given a command to nothing, which would be incongruous. Nevertheless, this reason is weaker for establishing creation from nothing. God well inserted into this context by this voice affirms, Theodoret says, the eternity of God. He declared the origin of those, i.e., created things; of this [God] he could not find a beginning.
"Heaven and Earth":
The condition of the earth before light was created is immediately described in verse 2, whence Augustine (34, 178) incorrectly [says]: "That formless matter which God made from nothing was called first heaven and earth, not because it already was this, but because it could be this. Because it was certain that heaven and earth would be future from it, already the matter itself was called heaven and earth." The text certainly exhibits to us the earth solid, plainly distinct from heaven, although heaven is exhibited to us in that respect somewhat indistinct and confused, because the upper waters had not yet been separated from the lower. Now certainly angels are not understood by heaven, who are never called heaven, but at most are attributed to the ornament of heaven, whence the name to God Yahweh Sabaoth (cf. what we said on 1 Kings 1:3); but the ornament of heaven in verse 1 is certainly not affirmed to be created. But material heaven is understood.
Proof of Material Heaven:
Which is proved first by the context: indeed that heaven is written to be created in 1:1, which is shown to be distinct and adorned in the following things; but with the firmament established and the stars disposed, material heaven is distinguished and adorned. Again, that heaven created in 1:1 which is said to be perfected in 2:1, but this from the precedents is material heaven. Finally, by these texts heaven and earth are narrated to be created and perfected just as by other texts (Psalm 101:26; Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; Matthew 24:35; 2 Peter 3:7, 10, 12, 13; Revelation 21:1) heaven and earth are announced sometimes to be destroyed; but material heaven and earth will be destroyed. Hence the locution "heaven and earth" or "heaven and earth and sea and all things that are in them" expresses to the Hebrews the same as the material world; for they do not use a proper voice for designating the world.
Angelic Creation:
But it must be examined by us whether that locution here, while it explicitly designates corporal creature, implicitly besides designates angelic creature. Where some incorrectly appeal to Genesis 14:19, 22; 4 Kings 19:15; 2 Paralipomenon 2:12; Judith 13:24; Psalm 123:8; Jeremiah 32:17, which texts are almost word for word the same as Genesis 1:1 or 2:1, nor do they require angelic creature to be understood implicitly. We willingly permit that later Jews, when they thought of heaven and earth, i.e., the visible world, did not exclude angels whom they knew so often mixed in the Scriptures with the same, visibly descending from heaven or ascending into heaven, indeed sometimes included them. But the same locutions are accepted sometimes in a narrower sense, sometimes in a wider sense, nor does our context offer sufficient reason that we affirm angels are truly, although implicitly, designated. "Heaven and earth" created in 1:1 are the same as those said to be perfected in 2:1, and that ornament of the heavens in 2:1 ought to be understood the same which was provided in 1:6 and 1:14, i.e., the firmament and stars, not indeed angels.
Lateran IV Decree:
Authors not a few adduce to this disputation the decree of the Council of Lateran IV, chapter Firmiter: "Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporal, who by His omnipotent virtue simultaneously from the beginning of time created both creatures from nothing, spiritual and corporal, angelic namely and mundane, and then human, as it were common, consisting from spirit and body." Which decree certainly alludes to Genesis 1:1. Whence some infer that from the mind of the Council heaven and earth there ought to be understood spirituals and corporals; "in the beginning" is the same as "from the beginning of time" (rosh hazzeman); Genesis 1 necessarily sounds creation from nothing. But the matter is otherwise. The Council alludes to other texts besides Genesis 1:1. The word "simultaneously" is taken from Ecclesiasticus 18:1: "He who lives in eternity created all things simultaneously," is known to all. The Fathers, while they conspired in the words "from nothing," I would hardly believe ignored the words of the Maccabean mother. There are other things which the Fathers put forth in their own words taken from no text. Therefore you will incorrectly accept the words of the Council for the authentic interpretation of our verse; finally it is one thing to allude to a text, another to interpret the same.
Summary of Verse 1:
Some have sought whether verse 1 expresses some divine work distinct from the following, or compendiously enunciates the very works of the hexaemeron and as it were tastes them beforehand. Which latter sentence they attribute to Chrysostom, although among him, as far as I know, it is not indubitably found (cf. Migne 53, 30). It cannot be defended. For verse 2 undoubtedly describes the condition of the earth previous to the hexaemeron; the construction "wahaya ha'aretz" (וְהָיְתָה הָאָרֶץ) in verse 2 intimately connects with verse 1 and shows that to have been the condition of the earth precisely in that creation of heaven and earth, therefore the creation itself, the whole quantity, antecedes the hexaemeron. In the hypothesis of the adversaries it ought to have been written tehi ha'aretz (תְּהִי הָאָרֶץ). That they say bara never signifies only the first creation but the whole cosmogonic work, they assert this gratuitously. Why in Genesis 14:19, 22 and similar texts necessarily the whole cosmogonic work ought to be understood is not perceived. In all those texts the first creation certainly is intended potissimum, nor unless with respect to the same can the second creation also be included. Moreover, the usage of the Latin word create is altogether the same. Cf. Corluy, Spicilegium.
Error of Saadia:
Finally, those also err (Saadia, etc.) who say heaven and earth were created on the first day of the hexaemeron. Those days run from morning until morning; therefore those things which antecedes the first light are excluded from the first day.
Objection of Rashi and Abenesra:
But another and graver objection is to be discussed here. Rashi constructed: "In the beginning, when God created heaven and earth, the earth however was then inane and void, etc., God said: Let there be light." Similarly Abenesra: "In the beginning, when God created heaven and earth, the earth was inane and void, etc." But this latter construction, that it may be admitted, for "wahaya ha'aretz" (וְהָיְתָה הָאָרֶץ) ought to have been written watehi ha'aretz (וַתְּהִי הָאָרֶץ). The construction of Rashi remains, in which there is no need that with F. Böttcher (Neue exegetisch-kritische Aehrenlese zum AT, Leipzig 1863) for the preterite bara (אָרָבּ) you punctuate the infinitive bro (אֹרְבּ) (cf. 5:1) when similar constructions are read with the preterite employed and the pronoun suppressed (Hosea 1:2 kethib daber techillah [beginning when he spoke]; Deuteronomy 4:15 beyom daber [in the day when he spoke]; similarly Psalm 89, 90:15 kimai [as the days when], shenot [years when]; Job 6:17; and 2 Paralipomenon 24:11 be'et [in the time when]; indeed Isaiah 29:1 qiryat [city which]). In which examples all follows the preterite, not the infinitive. Therefore bara gam bereshith (אָרָבּ תֵּישֵׁארְבּ) can be translated "In the beginning when he created" or "had created," etc. If with this construction changed the sense remains substantially the same, creation preceded the hexaemeron. If that [other], then indeed the sense of the text is not a little changed: the beginning is now not anterior to the hexaemeron but in time the same with the production of light. Bara does not induce exclusively the signification of creating, but of effecting, forming in any mode, it comprehends all the works of the hexaemeron. The signification of creating is neither necessarily excluded nor included, nor is pre-existing matter necessarily excluded. The construction is rendered more intricate and parenthetical, but by that more similar to the inscriptions 2:4 and 5:1. Nevertheless, it remains what we demonstrated: there is no Hebrew voice more apt than the voice bara for expressing creation. It remains from 2 Maccabees 7:28 that the Hebrews actually professed creation from nothing, not in general only but specifically while they had Genesis 1:1 in mind. Which text was surely of the number which every Hebrew learned maturely and repeated frequently. Can it be feigned that the construction of that text was so handed over to oblivion among all that by degrees they professed another totally diverse?
Genesis 1:26-31: The Creation of Man
"And God said: Let us make man to our image and likeness..." (v. 26)
Argument:
Gregory (cf. Peter the Lombard, Migne 79, 687) merits attention: "Although all things were created through the Word co-eternal to the Father, nevertheless in the very relation of creation it is shown how much man is preferred to all animals, how much to things even celestial but nevertheless insensible." That indeed is first inculcated because in the production of things which ascends from the more imperfect to the more perfect, the production of man is narrated in the last and most powerful place. Second, because man is treated exempt from the species of animals and superior to them. Third, because his production is ascribed to special divine counsel: "Let us make." Fourth, because the divine image and likeness is ascribed to the same. Fifth, because precedence over animals and plants is conferred on him. Sixth, because with man created, God finally rested from the universal work. Add from the following pericope the creation of the soul proceeding immediately from God (v. 26).
"Let Us Make Man":
"And He said: Let us make man to our image and likeness." O admirable thing! The sun is created, no deliberation preceding, and in the same pact heaven, to which two nothing can be equal among created things; to the fabrication of man alone the Creator of the universe of things approaches with a certain consideration.
The Plural "Let Us Make":
Gregory of Nyssa: "Ancient is the disputation concerning the plural 'let us make,' where by itself it is plain the subject is understood either God alone or some other besides God. If you defend this latter, you have the sentence of Philo (De mundi opificio, 24; De profugis, 13) and Pseudo-Jonathan: God here speaks to angels," which Basil refuted, warning man was not made to the image of angels. Moreover, to that "let us make" corresponds verse 27 "God created," by which reason otherwise in the hexaemeron the description corresponds to the mandate. Therefore the subject is God alone.
Trinitarian Interpretation:
Where again a double explanation of the plural offers itself: for either we will say the words are a soliloquy of God to Himself, or an address of one divine person to another or others, or more accurately of all to all, since the decree of creating man is common to all three divine persons. This in controversies concerning divine persons, especially instituted against Arians, seemed to not a few Fathers: the Father speaking to the Son. Barnabas in epistle (Migne 2, 735, 741); Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autol. II, 18 (Migne 6, 1081); Epiphanius Haer. 23 (Migne 41, 304); Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. X, 6; XI, 23 (Migne 33, 668, 721); Chrysostom (Migne 53, 72); Ambrose Hex. (Migne 14, 257). The Council of Antioch I in the year 264 in the epistle to Paul of Samosata (Labbé I, 1036) and the Council of Sirmium n. 13 in the year 357 (ib. III, 258) also accede, defining: "If anyone says this word 'let us make man' not the Father to the Son but God speaking with Himself, let him be anathema." Moreover, since these authors can scarcely be considered to have wished to exclude the Holy Spirit, hence their sentence falls back into the latter holding the plural refers to the three divine persons. Ephrem (cf. on Genesis 3:22); Irenaeus Contra Haer. IV, 20; V, 1 (Migne 7, 1032, 1123); Basil (Migne 29, 205); Gregory of Nyssa (Migne 44, 140); Cyril of Alexandria Contra Julian. (Migne 76, 537); Theodoret; Augustine.
Rupert's View:
Rupert: "Hear, a great plan indeed in that plan of wisdom, in that venerable soliloquy not so much of a senate as of such persons, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, held concerning us sinners. Do you think anything of those things which were done or to be done concerning us was lacking there? Plainly there our whole cause was placed in the middle; our death or perdition which was to be was there inspected, and thence the whole plan was held, so that each person might undertake their part of the work, so that, as was already said, then indeed the Father might found, afterwards in the fullness of time the Son might redeem the lost, the Holy Spirit might perfect the remission of sins and the resurrection of the flesh, and thus by the common plan of the Trinity the deserts of the ages might be rebuilt in man and the foundations of generation and of generation might be raised."
Soliloquy and Plural of Majesty:
We indicated above the other opinion, that the words are a soliloquy of God. Where Basil somewhat more severely: "What ironworker or carpenter or what shoemaker sitting alone among the instruments of art and with no one assisting would say to himself: Let us make a sword or plow, let us join together or make a shoe? Does he not rather complete the work suitable to himself with silence?" Soliloquies of this sort occur both in common life and in Scripture (cf. Genesis 6:7), nor does God exhorting Himself to create man make more admiration than things lacking intellect He orders to be made; both indeed was done so that man might understand the production of things by God. But what has difficulty in this soliloquy is the plural of the verb; for it is disputed whether the Hebrews employed the plural of majesty. You have some vestige of the plural expressing the dignity of the thing in certain names of venerable antiquity which, although they express one holy thing, are constructed only in the plural number, thus Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), which word although the Hebrews knew, the Aramaeans and Arabs ignore, the Assyrians and Ethiopians (Schrader, KAT); and teraphim (תְּרָפִים) (cf. Genesis 31:34; 1 Kings 19:13, 16). Now if sometimes the dignity of the thing is expressed by the plural of the name, there is no reason why we deny sometimes also by the plural of the verb and suffixes, which is properly called the plural of majesty, the Hebrews expressed the dignity of the speaker. You will say a custom of this sort was introduced only later by Persians and Greeks (1 Esdras 4:18; 1 Maccabees 10:19; 11:31; 15:9). I reply that we can invoke examples of this [usage]: our text, and likewise Genesis 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 41:22; and perhaps some other texts. Nevertheless, lest with Knobel, Umbreit (Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1839, I, 200), Reinke (Beiträge V, 77 sqq.) we establish the plural of majesty in Genesis 1:26, the other text 3:22 prohibits: "Behold Adam is become as one of us," which can by no means be recalled to the plural of majesty, which Chaldean, Symmachus sensed, interpreting "minnenu" (וּנמִּן) not "from us" but "from Himself" (cf. Field); but less happily. But if in 3:22 a vestige of the Trinity is to be acknowledged, no reason suppets why such not also be admitted in 1:26.
Reinke's Objection:
From elsewhere however we ought to concede that to Reinke: those vestiges are more tenuous than which would lead a reader of the Mosaic age to acknowledge the Most Holy Trinity, which whole was uniquely intent on affirming the unity of God; certainly they were not going to assist to acknowledge three persons in God, neither more nor fewer, and much less the relation of the persons among themselves and to the divine nature. Therefore those vestiges were not provided by God for preparing the faith of the Most Holy Trinity among readers of the Mosaic age. But let us remember our Hebrew Cosmogony is not finally anything else than the very tradition of the beginnings of times and long before Moses divinely conceded to men. In which times more distinctly God can be believed to have revealed the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. Of which mystery the knowledge afterward vanished from the memory of men, remaining in the narration of the created and lapsed man and perhaps likewise in the destroyed Tower of Babel certain vestiges of the pristine faith, by which Christians might be added to the suspicion of that mystery revealed primitively. Cf. also Romans 15:4.
"Man" (Adam):
"Man" (Hominem) lacks the article, as the names in verse 24, "cattle," etc. Therefore it is not a proper name "Adam" but collective, whence in verse 27 a transition is made from the singular pronoun "him" which is governed by this name to the plural pronoun "them" (otham וֹתא). "To our image and likeness" (betsalmenu kidmuthenu וּתוּמְדִּכ וּנְלְצַכּ) is a hendiadys employed for emphasis (Corluy): "to the similar image." Those derivations of the name "Adam" (םָדא) which some authors indulge in here to be discussed, from "adam" (םָדא) "he was red," "adamah" (הָמַדא) "earth," are to be sent to the commentaries in lexicons. Scripture attributes the name Adam to the protoplast for no other reason than because it is a generic appellation of man and because the first man was to be called by a generic appellation for a proper name. Cf. other names of the first men which are likewise generic: 2:23 "Issah," i.e., woman; 3:21 "Heva," i.e., life, mother; 4:1 "Cain," i.e., production, progeny; 4:2 "Abel" (Ass. habal), i.e., son; 4:25 "Seth," i.e., placed, germ; 4:26 "Enos," i.e., man. By which forms of names we seem to be recalled to that almost age in which the various Semitic peoples were not yet more deeply separated from each other, at least they used the voice habal in common, which among the Assyrians alone was afterward preserved. Hence finally it is plain these same names in the language which the protoplasts used could have been indeed the same in signification but in sound totally diverse.
Image and Likeness:
The Vulgate, LXX, Samaritan insert a copula "to image and likeness," thus really the text can be read without even the consonants being changed (Genesis 5:3 we read bedmutho btsalmo וֹתְמֻדְבּ וֹלְצַכּ), whence it is plain either name can be constructed indifferently with either preposition. Genesis 1:27 man is said to be created bedmuth (תוּמְדִּבּ) 5:1 btsalmo (וֹלְצַכּ); note the preposition, whence it is gathered the complex expression is a hendiadys. The preposition beth (ב) also [in] Exodus 25:40; 30:32, 37 expresses the norm according to which something is made. Although Epiphanius (Haer. 70, Migne 42, 341) states ecclesiastical tradition that indeed all men were created to the image of God, yet in what that image consists he defines nullatenus; nevertheless the most ancient Fathers and ecclesiastical writers already investigated the nature of that image.
Nature of the Image:
Where that is first certainly established: that image is assigned to man in the text which is in no way found in creatures of lower order, e.g., beasts; the second: man alone is preached the image of God in the visible world. Wherefore incorrectly Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia ap. Theodoret hold those up to ridicule who pretend man was made to the image of God for this reason: that he is endowed with intelligence or dominates over other things. "Do not these same things," they say, "obtain in angels? Ought not they also to be said to be created to the image of God?" But the objection sins because the text of Genesis minimally treats concerning angels, neither affirms nor denies them to be created to the image of God. Moreover, the Fathers find the divine image sometimes in the body of man, as Tertullian De Resurr. carnis, 6 and Contra Prax., 12 (Migne 2, 802, 167 sqq.); Augustine De Gen. c. Manich. I, 17 (Migne 34, 186 sqq.); sometimes in the soul and indeed either in its immortality (Augustine De Trin. XII, 2, Migne 42, 1038) or in intelligence (Augustine in Ps. 54, Migne 36, 629) or in free will (Macarius Hom. 15, 23, Migne 34, 591) or more truly in intellect and liberty taken simultaneously (John Damascene De Fide XI, 2, Migne 94, 920; Ambrose Hex. VI, 8, Migne 14, 259). Indeed it will excel all these taken simultaneously with Gregory of Nyssa (Migne 44, 136 sqq.) to superadd the dominion of man over visible things, to which also Chrysostom (Migne 53, 72, 78) and passim consents, although he is carried further against the anthropomorphists, placing the divine image in that dominion alone. Moreover, that dominion pertains to the reason of the image the Apostle clearly teaches (1 Corinthians 11:6 sqq.).
Petavius' Conclusion:
Let us say therefore with Petavius (De sex dierum Opificio II, 4), who treated this question fundamentally: the image of God is found in the whole man, most indeed in the spiritual and immortal soul, intelligent and free, and adorned with virtues which imitate divine morals; secondarily but truly in the body, both on account of its erect habit imitating the majesty of God, and on account of speech, the interpreter of mind and will, and on account of external morals, indices of interior virtues. Which all effect the natural image of God in man. Man however, because he was made to the image of God, by that very fact is also the image of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:7: "Man is the image and glory of God").
Supernatural Image:
It must be seen whether furthermore in Genesis 1:26 the image of God in man is expressed supernatural through grace. Where it is not sought whether Adam was endowed with sanctifying grace, which is of faith; nor whether aptly man is said to be formed to the image of God by grace, which is plain both through itself and from 2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 3:10; but this alone: are we compelled by the context of Genesis 1:26 to admit by the voice "to the image" is expressed the image not natural only but supernatural? Which seems to be denied. For the Hexaemeron is in explaining the origin of the visible world; but that supernatural image altogether flees the sense. By the force of the divine image according to which man was created, precedence over inferior creatures is immediately attributed to the same; but this competes to him with regard to the natural divine image. Finally, although in the voices "let us make to our image" we acknowledge a vestige of the Most Holy Trinity, nevertheless we do not judge from thence it is effected that man is referred to the image not of God only but of the three divine persons; for although in certain things man imitates the properties of the divine persons, yet he cannot be said to be the image of the same according to those things by which they are distinguished, but according to those which are common to them, i.e., the divine nature. In which sense also the voice "our" is optimally explained, so that to that extent that one image is common to the three persons, to that extent it expresses that in which they agree.
Dominion Over Creatures:
"And let him preside over the fishes of the sea and the birds of the heaven and the beasts and the whole earth and every reptile which moves on the earth." Let the rest preside, because the voice "Adam" is a collective name. It was said in verses 16, 18 the luminaries preside (cf. what we said there); but there however with the verb "mashal" (לְשׁמ), while here the verb "radah" (הָדַר) is employed, i.e., properly to trample with the feet (cf. Psalm 8:8 sqq.: "All things You have subjected under his feet, sheep, etc."). Precedence on both sides is to be explained according to the subject matter, and here cf. Genesis 9:2: "Let your terror and trembling be upon all animals of the earth," etc., and Ecclesiasticus 17:4: "He put the fear of him upon all flesh, and he gave him power over beasts and birds." Man presides over animals because he uses them freely for his ends, which dominion the animals acknowledge with human morals by terror.
Textual Variant (Chayyah):
The copula "and" indeed expresses some connection with the precedents, so that that precedence either is something merely consequent to the divine image or is the integral image itself or some part of the same; which latter sense we warned above is to be preferred. That certainly that copula enunciates the principate over animants competes to man alone among visible things by force of the divine image which naturally inheres in him; it is so much to preside in the visible world who reflects the divine image. The Syriac against all inserts the voice "chayyah" (חַיָּה) [living creature] both to beasts and all beasts of the earth, and thus conforming the enumeration of verse 26 to the enumerations of verses 24, 25 and elsewhere. This reading, as easier according to the rules of criticism, is so much more to be rejected because even Ephrem the Syrian ignores it. It was therefore introduced into the Syriac text by the hand of some corrector and at some time all Hebrew texts, as far as we know, lacked that voice, not however primitively. For there are reasons why that voice primitively and before the most ancient versions concinnated is defended to have been in the text. No reason at all is discovered of the enumeration of verse 26 diverse from verse 24 sqq. to be written, since verse 26 indeed intends to pronounce all those classes of animals to be subjected to man which were narrated to be created in verses 20, 25 (cf. 9:2, text altogether parallel, which minimally omits the beasts of the earth, and another text 1:28 where the imperium of man over the earth is not subsumed under the same verb with the animals but is expressed by a special verb "kavash" (בָּשַׁכּ)). Moreover, if the text really besides the principate of animals attributed dominion also over the whole earth to man, at no means would it insert it in the midst of the classes of animals but would annex it to them at the end. Therefore it did not treat primitively concerning the whole earth but concerning all the beasts of the earth, and the voice "chayyah" lost antiquity the Syriac afterward restored by a wise conjecture. Moreover, some error to have crept into verse 26 is made more probable by this also, that in verse 28 to the same affine various errors are discovered among various [versions]. Indeed consenting there Hebrew, Vulgate, Chaldean, Aquila, Theodotion read "chayah" (הָיִח) for "hayah" (הָיָה); Samaria omits "kol" (לכ); Symmachus seems to have read "shamar" (רֵמְשׁ) for "hayah" (הָיָה); LXX "And these indeed lesser." But furthermore added seems to have read the LXX "ulekol behemtah ulekol ha'aretz" (לכְבוֹ הָמְהַבּ לכְבוֹ ץְרָאָה) but the Syriac only "ulebehemoth" (בְּהֵמֹובַּ). That "ulekol ha'aretz" (לכְבוֹ ץְרָאָה) surely fell here from corrupted verse 26 among the LXX.
Verse 27: Creation of Male and Female
"And God created man to His own image: to the image of God He created him: male and female He created them."
Where Symmachus proposes his interpretation of the divine image by this paraphrase: "And God created man in excellent image, upright God created him." The inspired author, with consideration of the dignity conferred on man, is carried away into a jubilation of three members. And first indeed what he had expressed by the verb "asah" (הָשָׂע) now he repeats by the verb "bara" (אָרָבּ) as exhibiting immediate divine production. What he had pronounced our divine image by suffixes only, he writes more explicitly by the added voice of God. Furthermore, he illustrates by the form of speech which they call chiasmus. By the single plural before "yardu" (וּדְרִי) the number of individuals was indicated, now he explains by the distinction of sexes, and thus simultaneously paves the way for the blessing "Increase," etc.
Sexual Distinction:
Therefore not for this reason is that distinction commemorated here so that he teaches man, just as by image to God, so by sexes to be assimilated to beasts (Gregory of Nyssa); quin even in the difference of sexes and consequent fecundity consists some affinity with the eternal fecundity of the numen, but so that he may celebrate with more [words] the benefit enunciated in verse 26. More clearly also than by the single plural "yardu" we are taught the distinction of sexes in men leads its origin from the primeval ordination of God (Corluy). Rightly finally from this verse it is concluded the creation of the woman which is narrated in chapter 2 to have had place on the sixth day. Against the nugacity of Wellhausen (cf. Dillmann).
One Pair or Many?
Now are we compelled so to interpret "zakar unqebah" (הָבְקִנ וּרָכְז) [male and female] that besides the difference of sexes it necessarily states a single pair was primitively created? Thus Delitzsch, Dillmann. But although it is indubitably plain from the following narration that a single pair was created, I would not believe that is enunciated by the laudated expression here but only the difference of sexes. Cf. 5:1: "Male and female He created them and He called their name Adam," where Adam is the name of the species discreted into two sexes; it is also the name of one individual, the first namely man, but it is not the name of them if you pretend by this voice to be expressed besides the first man and the first woman; for indeed the proper name of the first woman was not Adam.
Verse 28: The Blessing of Man
"And God blessed them and said: Increase and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea and the birds of the air and all living creatures that move upon the earth."
"And said to them": Others [read] "and God said to them," whence Delitzsch affirms the author, using parallelism as in verse 27, from the simple "lemor" (רֵמא) (cf. v. 22) has grown into a longer formula; but the mere "lemor" also the LXX read, whence the reading is uncertain.
Dominion:
Man is not ordered to fill the earth only but to subject the same and convert the whole into his uses. Animals are recited in the order in which they were created: fishes, birds, terrestrial animals. The blessing by force of the words is conferred surely to man alone; nevertheless Procopius merits to be held: animals created on the sixth day thus come into part of the blessing as in verse 22 animals created on the fifth day obtained the blessing.
Verse 29-30: Food for Man and Animals
"And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be meat for you: And to all beasts of the earth, and to all fowls of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is a living soul, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so."
Explanation:
Explained in verse 28 the mutual relation of man to beasts, in verses 29 sqq. it is explained to what end plants pertain to these and to that one; moreover, they are assigned for food, the same voice "le'oklah" (הָלְכֹאֱל) [for food] being adscribed at the end of either verse. And indeed to man are assigned in verse 29 the same two classes of plants which he distinguished in verses 11 sqq., grains and fruits; the food of animals is expressed by that voice "eseb" (בֶּשֶׁע) [herb] by which in verses 11 sqq. it was also expressed; but while there and in verse 29 those herbs were described as bearing seed, here we read "yerok eseb" (בֶּשֶׁע קוֹרֵי) [green herb], so that to the same plants rather grains and fruits are attributed to man, to animals herbs and leaves [as] food.
Dietary Laws:
Whence you will perceive with Cajetan the author describes only the common provision, i.e., of plants to animants regarded most generally. He does not lay down food laws such as were afterward sanctioned in the Old Testament; surely grains and fruits animals also, putatively birds, eat; nor does man abstain from green herb, of which sort are not a few legumes. Some Rupert, Procopius, etc. gratuitously and absurdly affirmed carnivorous animals before sin abstained from meats; man by our text is by no means interdicted from the eating of meats, nor is all his food enumerated, since among others honey and milk are desired, which surely it was lawful for men to use. The author does not lay down food laws but completes the order of created things, which is in this: that brute animants are subject to man, to brute animants plants, to man rather grains and fruits, to animals herbs and leaves are attributed as food.
Vegetarianism Before the Flood:
We easily assent to Lapide establishing men up to the deluge to have been so frugal in food that they ate herbs and fruits but abstained from meats equally as from wine; and this not on account of some precept of God but on account of a certain religion thence born, because not yet God had expressly and distinctly conceded the use of meats and of wine.
Textual Notes:
The preterite "natatti" (יִתַּתְנ) [I have given] also elsewhere (9:13, 15, 18, 23; 11:13; 41:41) is written concerning a decree irrevocably sanctioned, which word in verse 30 indeed is to be supplied but not, as Dillmann, excided. The expression "etz asher bo pri etz zore'a zera" (עֶרֶז עֹרֵז צֶרֶע צֶרֶפּ יִבּ רֶשֲׁא ץֵע) can indeed with Cajetan be so divided: "every tree in which in itself fruit, tree seminiferous seed." Nevertheless, all versions draw the other "etz" to the prior things, and the parallelism with verses 11 sqq. suggests the same. Indeed to that which is read there "oseh pri" (יִרְפּ הֵשֹׂע) responds here "zore'a zera" (עֶרֶז עֹרֵז); to the words "bo zoro" (וֹבּ זֶרֶע) responds here "asher bo pri etz" (ץֵע יִרְפּ וֹבּ רֶשֲׁא); just as there so here it is held a unique and indivisible expression.
Variants in Verse 30:
Where again it is sought how "zore'a zera" is constructed, which Aquila joins to the first, Symmachus, Theodotion to the other "etz"; the LXX to the voice "pri" [fruit]. This latter is to be preferred, because also in verses 11 sqq. fruit is described as having seed in itself. Translate therefore: "tree in which is fruit, tree progeny-procreating seed." Where in verse 30 Hebrew, Aquila, Symmachus read "shomer" (רֵמְשׁ) or "shamar" (רֵמְשׁ), there Samaria has "shamerah" (הָרֵמְשׁ) and LXX "shomer shamerah" (הָרֵמְשׁ רֵמְשׁ); cf. verse 26, which reading of the LXX is rendered so much more probable from this that the remaining versions minimally exclude the article "he" (ה).
"And It Was So":
"And it was so." The words are not referred to verse 30 only (Delitzsch, Dillmann) as if it were affirmed surely no carnivorous animals existed primitively, nor to verse 26 only, for otherwise after that they ought to have been written, but to the whole latter work of the sixth day by which created man and placed before brutes and plants assigned for food are narrated. The natures of individuals were adapted most exactly to this divine counsel.
Verse 31: "Very Good" and the Problem of Evil
"And God saw all the things that He had made, and behold they were very good; and there was made evening and morning, the sixth day."
"Very Good":
This praise indeed looks proximately to the latter work of the sixth day, since before the words "And it was so" the sixth day is inserted, nor with man excluded can the visible world be said to be very good. But the words "all things that He had made" teach the praise to look not only to that work. How does it happen that those things which considered separately were said to be good, when considered together are preached very good? If the individual works of God are considered by the prudent, they are found to have laudable measures and numbers and orders constituted in their own genus; how much more all things simultaneously, i.e., the very universe which is filled by these individuals collected into one (Augustine).
Bonfrerius' Response:
Bonfrerius suggests another response: "Not yet created man, on account of whom the rest, and not yet the last hand added to the universe, neither the world nor anything of the others could be said undiquaque perfect. According to these things also man, on account of the excellence of nature, namely the divine image, is said to be very good, which higher grade of goodness the rest subordinate to man and thus made akin to that goodness participate."
Cajetan's Note:
Cajetan beautifully [notes]: The adverb "behold" (ecce) is adjoined to demonstrate not future, not expected, but present goodness is had, the sum itself of the universe. And it is signified by this that the universe is so good that nothing is lacking to it, that nothing it has superfluous, that it desires no addition. Well finally the Vulgate translates not "optima" [best] but "valde bona" [very good]; perfect indeed is this universe in its grade and order. The Cosmogony which is silent concerning other universes which perhaps were created, much less can be considered to affirm this our universe to be the most perfect of all which could be made.
"The Sixth Day":
Malvenda already noted this numeral finally has the article (cf. what we said on verse 5), so that it is signified the series is concluded on the sixth day. By which is confirmed what is evident from elsewhere: the Hexaemeron has its structure from which the seventh day is excluded; for if the author wished to describe the acts of seven days continuously as it were with flowing pen, he would have prefixed the article not to the sixth but to the seventh day only, by which day alone the seven-day period was concluded; but it was in his mind to describe not a seven-day period but a hexaemeron in the first place.
Comments
Post a Comment