Augustine (Thagaste, now Souk Ahras in Algeria, 354 – 430 in Hippo, now Annaba in Algeria) studied in Carthage, where he developed a passion for philosophy and rhetoric. In 382, he was in Rome, and in 384, he became a professor of rhetoric in Milan, the imperial residence. In this city, he was baptized in 387 by Bishop Ambrose. With him, he discovered Christian reflection and interpretation of the Bible in the tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers, and to Ambrose’s commentaries he added extensive philosophical developments, such as those found in his work “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.”
For an introduction to the commentaries on Genesis 1:1, see the page Genesis 1:1 Bereshit
For the Greek lexicon (arkhế, lógos, génesis), see: Lexicon of the commentaries on Genesis 1:1
De Genesi Ad Litteram Imperfectus Liber on the four ways of explaining Scripture:
Latin text in Patrologie Latine, J.-P. Migne, Volume 34
2.5. Secundum hanc fidem quae possint in hoc libro quaeri et disputari, considerandum est. In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Quatuor modi a quibusdam Scripturarum tractatoribus traduntur Legis exponendae, quorum vocabula enuntiari graece possunt, latine autem definiri et explicari: secundum historiam, secundum allegoriam, secundum analogiam, secundum aetiologiam. Historia est, cum sive divinitus, sive humanitus res gesta commemoratur. Allegoria, cum figurate dicta intelleguntur. Analogia, cum Veteris et Novi Testamentorum congruentia demonstratur. Aetiologia, cum dictorum factorumque causae redduntur.
According to this belief, we must consider what in this book can be questioned and discussed. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Some commentators on Scripture give us four ways of explaining the Law, whose terms can be stated in Greek but must be defined and explained in Latin: according to history, according to allegory, according to analogy, according to etiology. History is when we commemorate events that have been accomplished by human beings or by God; allegory is when what is said is understood in a figurative sense; analogy is when we show the correspondence between the Old and New Testaments; etiology is when we restore the causes of what is said and what is done.
3. 6. Hoc ergo quod scriptum est: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram, quaeri potest utrum tantummodo secundum historiam accipiendum sit, an etiam figurate aliquid significet, et quomodo congruat Evangelio, et qua causa liber iste sic inchoatus sit.
Therefore, as for what is written, “in the principium God made heaven and earth,” one may ask whether it should be understood according to history or whether it also means something figuratively, and if something corresponds to it in the Gospel, and for what reason this book begins in this way.
De Genesi Ad Litteram:
Understanding Scripture literally and figuratively
Latin text in Patrologia Latina, J.-P. Migne, Volume 34
1, 1. 1. Omnis divina Scriptura bipartita est, secundum id quod Dominus significat, dicens, scribam eruditum in regno Dei similem esse patrifamilias proferenti de thesauro suo nova et vetera, quae duo etiam Testamenta dicuntur.
All divine scripture is divided into two, according to what the Lord alludes to when he says that the scholar of scripture who teaches about the kingdom of God is like a father of a family who brings out of his treasure things new and old, which are also called the two testaments.
The division between the Old and New Testaments is the necessary premise for all of Augustine’s explanation. Indeed, the old is a figure of the new; the events and real facts recounted in the Old Testament are for Christians a figure, a foreshadowing of what will be accomplished in the new by Christ and his Church.
In Libris autem omnibus sanctis intueri oportet quae ibi aeterna intimentur, quae facta narrentur, quae futura praenuntientur, quae agenda praecipiantur vel admoneantur. In narratione ergo rerum factarum quaeritur utrum omnia secundum figurarum tantummodo intellectum accipiantur, an etiam secundum fidem rerum gestarum asserenda et defendenda sint. Nam non esse accipienda figuraliter, nullus christianus dicere audebit, attendens Apostolum dicentem: Omnia autem haec in figura contingebant illis: et illud quod in Genesi scriptum est: Et erunt duo in carne una, magnum sacramentum commendantem in Christo et in Ecclesia.
In all sacred books, we must look at what is related as eternal, the facts that are recounted, what is announced as future, what is prescribed or advised to do. In the narration of facts, we look to see if everything is to be understood as a figure in an intellectual sense, or if we must also affirm and defend acts (rerum gestarum) according to faith. For no Christian will dare to say that they should not be received figuratively, if he pays attention to the apostle who says: “All these things happened to them as figures” [1 Corinthians 10:11] and [what he says about] what is written in Genesis [2:24]: “they shall be two in one flesh,” this is a great sacrament that refers to Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:32).
Note: The concept of figure in the tradition of the Gospel and the apostles is quite different from that of symbol or metaphor. According to Jesus’ own explanation, it is a matter of fulfilling what has been foretold. The events that occurred previously are an image, a figure of what was to come later. This is the prophetic way of announcing a future event, by recounting an event or even miming it. When the prophet Jeremiah was commissioned by God to announce the future exile of the people, God told him to leave the city himself as one going into exile, taking only a small bag with him. This gesture was to announce the future fate of the people. In the same way, events recounted in the Bible are a figure of what Christ was to accomplish. For example, the lamb sacrificed in the temple is a figure, an image of the innocent Christ who will be put to death; the same is true of the murder of Abel, the righteous man, who by sacrificing a lamb also foreshadowed the murder of Christ. In this sense, Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Amen, I say to you: Before heaven and earth disappear, not a single iota, not a single stroke will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)
For Augustine, the danger of allegorical meaning would be to create a figure formed by the mind starting from a text and not from the event that is related in the text. He therefore insists on the importance of defending the rerum gestarum, the events that actually took place and which are the basis of the figure, that is, of the announcement that they will constitute: it is a real act that becomes a figure of another that will be accomplished in the future.
Meaning of “principium” and “caelum et terra”.
1, 1. 2. Si ergo utroque modo illa Scriptura scrutanda est, quomodo dictum est praeter allegoricam significationem: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram? utrum in principio temporis, an quia primo omnium, an in principio, quod est Verbum Dei unigenitus Filius?
If, therefore, this writing must be scrutinized in both ways, in what way was it said: “In principio God made heaven and earth?” Perhaps at the beginning of time, or first of all things, or in the beginning which is the Verbum of God, the Son who alone is begotten?
Here St. Augustine summarizes the interpretations that preceded him, and in particular the one that links the Greek word en arkhế, used in the Septuagint translation of the first verse of Genesis, with the same word at the beginning of St. John’s Gospel 1:1: “In the arkhế was the lógos” (En arkhế ễn ho lógos). The Latin translation of these words was “In principio erat Verbum.” For the Latin word principium, many of the meanings that tradition has attributed to the Greek word arkhế are also valid, such as the meaning of an origin, a principle, a beginning. We will see that Augustine also uses this word according to its different meanings. As for the Greek word lógos, it also refers to a complex reality that expresses both speech and reason. In Latin, in this passage from the Gospel, this word is translated as Verbum. It refers to the word of God, which combines the meaning of the word that expresses God’s thought and command, and also the fact that what is found in the Verbum of God is the expression of the order and perfect arrangement in which everything finds its meaning and it’s first destiny. In the Word of God resides the model in whose image creation is made. This Verbum, the divine word that creates all things, is therefore not something created, something added to God, but is coeternal with God, eternally begotten by him. According to the definition of the Councils, he is unigenitus, the only one begotten, not created. He is himself before all things; he is the principle by which all things were made; he is the origin and end of all things, the alpha and the omega.
Et quomodo possit ostendi Deum sine ulla sui commutatione operati mutabilia et temporalia? Et quid significetur nomine coeli et terrae? utrum spiritalis corporalisque creatura coeli et terrae vocabulum acceperit, an tantummodo corporalis, ut in hoc libro de spiritali tacuisse intellegatur, atque ita dixisse coelum et terram, ut omnem creaturam corpoream superiorem atque inferiorem significare voluerit? an utriusque informis materia dicta est coelum et terra: spiritalis videlicet vita, sicuti esse potest in se, non conversa ad Creatorem; tali enim conversione formatur atque perficitur; si autem non convertatur, informis est: corporalis autem si possit intellegi per privationem omnis corporeae qualitatis, quae apparet in materia formata, cum iam sunt species corporum, sive visu, sive alio quolibet sensu corporis perceptibiles?
And how can we show that God is at work in things that are changeable and temporal without himself undergoing change? And what is meant by the words heaven and earth? Either spiritual and corporeal creatures are thus designated, or only corporeal creatures. In this way, we would understand that this book is silent on the subject of spiritual creatures and that heaven and earth are used to refer to all corporeal creatures, both higher and lower; or else, is it the formless matter of both that is called heaven and earth? This would mean, on the one hand, that spiritual life [formless] is that which it can be by itself, not converted [in the sense of not directed] towards the Creator – for by such a conversion [orientation towards the creator], [spiritual life] is formed and perfected, however, if [the spiritual life] does not direct itself [non convertatur] [towards the creator], it is formless [informis] – on the other hand, can corporeal life [formless], for its part, be understood through the deprivation of all corporeal qualities that appear in formed matter, when the species of bodies are already perceptible to sight or any other bodily sense ?
Meaning of “caelum et terra.”
1, 1. 3. An coelum intellegendum est creatura spiritalis, ab exordio quo facta est, perfecta illa et beata semper: terra vero, corporalis materies adhuc imperfecta? quia terra, inquit, erat invisibilis et incomposita, et tenebrae erant super abyssum; quibus verbis videtur informitatem significare substantiae corporalis? An utriusque informitas his etiam posterioribus verbis significatur? corporalis quidem eo quod dictum est: Terra erat invisibilis et incomposita: spiritalis autem eo quod dictum est: Tenebrae erant super abyssum; ut translato verbo tenebrosam abyssum intellegamus naturam vitae informem, nisi convertatur ad Creatorem: quo solo modo formari potest, ut non sit abyssus; et illuminari, ut non sit tenebrosa? Et quomodo dictum est: Tenebrae erant super abyssum? an quia non erat lux? quae si esset, utique superesset, et tamquam superfunderet: quod tunc fit in creatura spiritali, cum convertitur ad incommutabile atque incorporale lumen, quod Deus est.
Or should we understand that heaven is that spiritual creature which has always been perfect and blessed since its beginning, and earth, in truth, the still imperfect corporeal matter? For, he says, the earth was invisible and unorganized, and darkness was upon the face of the deep: by these words he seems to mean unformed corporeal substance. Or do these last words indicate that both were formless? The corporeal because it is said, “the earth was invisible and unorganized,” and the spiritual because it is said, “darkness was over the face of the deep,” so that we may understand the formless nature of life by transferring the dark nature of the deep to that of life, which is not yet oriented (convertatur, converted) towards the Creator, the only means of being formed by him, so as to no longer be an abyss, and illuminated by him so as to no longer be dark. And how is it said that “darkness was over the abyss”? Is it because light did not yet exist? Because if it were, it would be above it and as if diffused: this is what happens in the spiritual creature when it is oriented (convertitur) towards the immutable and incorporeal light that is God.
Creation of light
Hypothesis rejected: it is not by means of a creature that God says, “Let there be light.”
1, 2. 4. Et quomodo dixit Deus: Fiat lux? utrum temporaliter, an in Verbi aeternitate? Et si temporaliter, utique mutabiliter; quomodo ergo possit intellegi hoc dicere Deus, nisi per creaturam; ipse quippe est incommutabilis? Et si per creaturam dixit Deus: Fiat lux; quomodo est prima creatura lux, si erat iam creatura, per quam Deus diceret: Fiat lux? An non est lux prima creatura; quia iam dictum erat: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram; et poterat per coelestem creaturam vox fieri temporaliter atque mutabiliter, qua diceretur: Fiat lux? Quod si ita est, corporalis lux facta est ista, quam corporeis oculis cernimus, dicente Deo per creaturam spiritalem, quam Deus iam fecerat, cum in principio fecit Deus coelum et terram: Fiat lux; eo modo quo per talis creaturae interiorem et occultum motum divinitus dici potuit: Fiat lux.
How did God say, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3)? If it was in time, it was also in change. How, then, can we understand God saying this if not through a creature? For God himself is unchangeable. And if it were through a creature that God said, “Let there be light,” how could light be the first creature, if there was already one through which God said, “Let there be light”? Or would light not be the first creature, since it had already been said, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth”? Could there have been a voice through a heavenly creature by which it would be said in time and in change, “Let there be light”? If this were so, bodily light, as we see it with our bodily eyes, would have been made at the moment when God [said], “Let there be light,” through a spiritual creature, which he had already made when in principio he made heaven and earth. It is in this way that through the divine movement within and hidden in such a creature it could be said, “Let there be light.”
The voice of God when he created light
1, 2. 5. An etiam corporaliter sonuit vox dicentis Dei: Fiat lux; sicut corporaliter sonuit vox dicentis Dei: Tu es Filius meus dilectus: et hoc per creaturam corporalem, quam fecerat Deus, cum in principio fecit coelum et terram, antequam fieret lux, quae in hac sonante voce facta est? Et si ita est, qua lingua sonuit ista vox, dicente Deo: Fiat lux; quia nondum erat linguarum diversitas, quae postea facta est in aedificatione turris post diluvium? Quaenam lingua erat una et sola, qua Deus locutus est: Fiat lux? et quis erat quem oportebat audire, atque intellegere, ad quem vox huiusmodi proferretur? An haec absurda carnalisque cogitatio est atque suspicio?
Or did the voice of God resound bodily when he said: “Let there be light” in the same way that the voice of God resounded bodily when he said, “You are my beloved son” (Matthew 3:17)? And this through a corporeal creature that God made when in the beginning he made heaven and earth, before making the light that was made by this voice that resounded? And if this is so, in what language did this voice resound through which God said, “Let there be light,” since there was not yet the diversity of languages, which was created later in the construction of the tower after the flood? What was this one and only language in which God said, “Let there be light”? And who was it to whom this word should have been addressed in this way, and who should have heard and understood it? Is this not an absurd and carnal thought and hypothesis?
The voice of God when he creates and the Verbum.
1, 2. 6. Quid ergo dicemus? An id quod intellegitur in sono vocis, cum dicitur: Fiat lux, non autem ipse corporeus sonus, hoc bene intellegitur esse vox Dei? et utrum hoc ipsum ad naturam pertineat Verbi eius, de quo dicitur: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum? Cum enim de illo dicitur: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt; satis ostenditur et lux per ipsum facta, cum dixit Deus: Fiat lux. Quod si ita est, aeternum est quod dixit Deus: Fiat lux; quia Verbum Dei Deus apud Deum, Filius unicus Dei, Patri coaeternus est: quamvis Deo hoc in aeterno Verbo dicente creatura temporalis facta sit.
What then shall we say? Is it not what is understood in the sound of the voice when it is said, “Let there be light,” and not the bodily sound itself? Is this not to understand well what the voice of God is? This is not what is proper to the nature of his word, of which it is said: “In the beginning was the Verbum, and the Verbum was with God, and God was Verbum? For when it is said of him, ‘All things were made by him,’ it is sufficiently demonstrated that light also was made by him [by the Verbum of God], when God said, ‘Let there be light.’ If this is so, what God says, “Let there be light,” is eternal, since the Word of God is God with God, the only Son of God, coeternal with the Father, even though, God saying this in an eternal Word, a temporal creature is made.
Famous is also St. Augustine’s commentary on John the Baptist, who was the voice that resounded in the desert and announced the Messiah. The voice, the sound disappears after the announcement, but the word we have heard remains in us when we have understood and accepted it. John the Baptist was the voice that resounded, and Christ was the word of God conveyed and announced by that voice.
Here the word of God indicates the meaning conveyed by the words and their sound, not the sound itself. The voice of God is what is understood (quod intellegitur).
Cum enim verba sint temporis, cum dicimus: Quando, et aliquando; aeternum tamen est in Verbo Dei, quando fieri aliquid debeat: et tunc fit quando fieri debuisse in illo Verbo est, in quo non est quando et aliquando, quoniam totum illud Verbum aeternum est.
Although words belong to time, when we say “when” and “one day,” nevertheless in the Verbum of God, when something must be done and is done at a specific moment, the moment when it should have been done is found in that Verbum, in which there is no ‘when’ or “one day,” since the whole Verbum is eternal.
What is this light made by God?
1, 3. 7. Et quid est lux ipsa quae facta est? utrum spiritale quid, an corporale? Si enim spiritale, potest ipsa esse prima creatura, iam hoc dicto perfecta, quae primo coelum appellata est, cum dictum est: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram: ut quod dixit Deus: Fiat lux; et facta est lux, eam revocante ad se Creatore, conversio eius facta atque illuminata intellegatur.
And what is this light that was made? Is it spiritual or corporeal? For if it is spiritual, it could be that same first creature already made perfect by this word, which was first called heaven, when it was said, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” so that “God said, Let there be light and the light was made” is understood as the conversion and illumination that takes place when the Creator calls it back to himself.
Did God create in his Verbum by speaking?
1, 3. 8. Et cur ita dictum est: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram; et non dictum est: In principio dixit Deus: Fiat coelum et terra; et facta sunt coelum et terra: sicut de luce narratur: Dixit Deus: Fiat lux; et facta est lux? Utrum prius universaliter nomine coeli et terrae comprehendendum erat et commendandum quod fecit Deus; et deinde per partes exsequendum, quomodo fecit, cum per singula dicitur: Dixit Deus; id est, quia per Verbum suum fecit, quidquid fecit?
And why is it said thus: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” and it is not said: “In the beginning God said: Let there be heaven and earth. And heaven and earth were made,” as it is recounted of light: “God said: Let there be light. And light was made“? Was it necessary first to understand the words heaven and earth in a general sense and to emphasize what God did, and then how he continued to bring about each part, saying for each one, ”God said,” because whatever he did, he did by his word?
How formless matter is created.
1, 4. 9. An cum primum fiebat informitas materiae sive spiritalis sive corporalis, non erat dicendum: Dixit Deus: Fiat; quia formam Verbi semper Patri cohaerentis, quo sempiterne dicit Deus omnia, neque sono vocis neque cogitatione tempora sonorum volvente, sed coaeterna sibi luce a se genitae Sapientiae, non imitatur imperfectio, cum dissimilis ab eo quod summe ac primitus est, informitate quadam tendit ad nihilum;
Or because when the formlessness of spiritual and corporeal matter was first made, it was not necessary to say: “God said, Let there be,” since imperfection, in that it tends toward nothingness by its formlessness, is not in the image (imitatur) of the form of speech, which is always with (cohaerentis) the Father, by which God speaks eternally, not by the sound of the voice or by a reflection that evolves in time, but by the light of a wisdom coeternal with him and begotten by him, which is first and above all things.
Here Augustine clearly explains that the word of God is eternal, that what God wants is eternal, that it does not evolve over time. The sound that carries words needs time to be emitted, just as the sequence of thoughts in a reflection is inscribed in time, but not the word of God, which has a special status: it is the second person of the Trinity, coeternal with the Father, begotten by him. Augustine here takes up the affirmations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the arguments of the Cappadocian Fathers who prepared it: St. Basil in his treatise “Against Eunomius,” Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus.
sed tunc imitatur Verbi formam, semper atque incommutabiliter Patri cohaerentem, cum et ipsa pro sui generis conversione ad id quod vere ac semper est, id est ad creatorem suae substantiae, formam capit, et fit perfecta creatura:
but now [after God said, “let there be,” the light took form and] imitates the form of the Verbum, which is always with the Father without change, since the light herself, turning according to her nature towards him who is truly and always, that is, towards the creator of its substance, receives a form and becomes a perfect creature:
ut in eo quod Scriptura narrat: Dixit Deus: Fiat, intellegamus Dei dictum incorporeum in natura Verbi eius coaeterni revocantis ad se imperfectionem creaturae, ut non sit informis, sed formetur secundum singula quae per ordinem exsequitur? In qua conversione et formatione, quia pro suo modo imitatur Deum Verbum, hoc est Dei Filium semper Patri cohaerentem, plena similitudine et essentia pari, qua ipse et Pater unum sunt; non autem imitatur hanc Verbi formam, si aversa a Creatore, informis et imperfecta remaneat: propterea Filii commemoratio non ita fit quia Verbum, sed tantum quia principium est, cum dicitur: In principio fecit Deus coelum et terram; exordium quippe creaturae insinuatur adhuc in informitate imperfectionis:
So that in what Scripture says, “God said, ‘Let there be,’” we may understand what God says in a non-corporeal way in the nature of his coeternal Word, who calls to himself the imperfection of the creature, so that it may not be formless, but be formed according to each [of the creatures] that are brought into being by this command. In this conversion and formation, in which it imitates in its own way God who is the Word, who is the Son of God always with the Father, fully similar and of the same essence, through which he himself [the Son, the Word] and the Father are one, [the creature] does not imitate this form of the Word if it remains turned away from the Creator and imperfect. That is why there is no mention of the Son as Verbum, but only as principle, when it is said: “In principio God made heaven and earth”; it is the beginning in the formlessness of imperfection that is thus signified here.
fit autem Filii commemoratio, quod etiam Verbum est, eo quod scriptum est: Dixit Deus: Fiat; ut per id quod principium est, insinuet exordium creaturae existentis ab illo adhuc imperfectae; per id autem quod Verbum est, insinuet perfectionem creaturae revocatae ad eum, ut formaretur inhaerendo Creatori, et pro suo genere imitando formam sempiterne atque incommutabiliter inhaerentem Patri, a quo statim hoc est quod ille.
On the other hand, mention is made of the Son, since he is also Verbum, when it is written: “God said: let there be,” in such a way that when he is principium, reference is made to the beginning (exordium, the emergence from nothingness) of the creature that exists through him, still imperfect, and when mention is made of the Son, as Verbum, reference is made to the perfection of the creature called back to him, in order to form, through its union with the creator and through imitation, according to its nature, of the eternal and immutable form united to the Father, from whom it [this eternal word] receives immediately to be what He [the Father] is.
According to the Trinitarian doctrine, the Son of God is the eternal Verbum of God, who coexists eternally with him and is his expression and perfect image, and in this Verbum, in God, is the perfect form of all that exists, of all that this Verbum calls into being.
See: De Gen Ad Litt Op. Imprf. 16, 57-61. De Vera Rel. 36,66. De Trinitate 6, 10, 11 ff. Confessiones 12, 28,38. De Civitate Dei 10,14: “intelligible and immutable form which contains within itself all perfections.”
The formless creature receives form when it turns toward the light of wisdom.
1, 5. 10. Non enim habet informem vitam Verbum Filius, cui non solum hoc est esse quod vivere, sed etiam hoc est vivere, quod est sapienter ac beate vivere. Creatura vero, quamquam spiritalis et intellectualis vel rationalis, quae videtur esse illi Verbo propinquior, potest habere informem vitam; quia non sicut hoc est ei esse quod vivere, ita hoc vivere quod sapienter ac beate vivere. Aversa enim a Sapientia incommutabili, stulte ac misere vivit, quae informitas eius est. Formatur autem conversa ad incommutabile lumen Sapientiae, Verbum Dei. A quo enim exstitit ut sit utcumque ac vivat, ad illum convertitur ut sapienter ac beate vivat. Principium quippe creaturae intellectualis est aeterna Sapientia; quod principium manens in se incommutabiliter, nullo modo cessaret occulta inspiratione vocationis loqui ei creaturae cui principium est, ut converteretur ad id ex quo est, quod aliter formata ac perfecta esse non possit. Ideoque interrogatus quis esset, respondit: Principium, quia et loquor vobis.
Indeed, the Verbum, the Son [of God], does not have a formless life; for him, not only is being the same as living, but living for him is the same as living in wisdom and bliss. The creature, on the other hand, although spiritual and intellectual or rational, which seems to be closer to this [eternal] word, can have a formless life, since, even if being is the same thing as living, living is not the same thing as living in wisdom and bliss. Indeed, turned away from immutable wisdom, it lives in an inconsiderate and miserable way; this is what it means to have no form. On the other hand, it is formed when it turns (conversa) towards the light of eternal wisdom, the Verbum of God. Through it [this Verbum and Wisdom], it comes into being, so that it may be in any way and live, and when it turns (convertitur) towards it [towards this Verbum], it is to live in wisdom and bliss. Therefore, the principle of the intellectual creature is the eternal wisdom: this principle, while remaining immutable in itself, never ceases, through the secret inspiration of its call, to speak to this creature of which it is the principle, so that it may turn towards that from which it is, since it cannot be formed and perfected by others. That is why, when asked who he was, he replied: “I am the principle, that is why I speak to you” (John 8:25).
[…]
Book 5
After the account of the seven days of creation, in chapter 2, 4, a summary of this work is given before beginning the account of the earthly Paradise. Here is another commentary by Augustine on these verses, which summarize his reading of this day of creation.
Genesis 2:4:
Hic est liber creaturae coeli et terrae, cum factus est dies, fecit Deus coelum et terram, et omne viride agri, …
This is the book of the creation of heaven and earth, when the day was made, God made heaven and earth and all the green things of the field …
It should be noted here that the text of Genesis 2:4 commented on here by Augustine is a variant of the Latin translation, which presupposes an original Greek text with the word ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ in the nominative instead of the dative and the comma after this word and not before it:
Gn 2:4: Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὅτε ἐγένετο, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν …
This is the book of the genesis of heaven and earth, when it was created, on the day when God made heaven and earth …
Why is “the greenery of the fields” added?
5, 2. 4. Cum autem nomine coeli et terrae, usitato more Scripturarum, nunc universam creaturam voluerit accipi, quaeri potest cur addiderit, et omne viride agri; quod mihi videtur ideo posuisse, ut significantius intimaret quem diem commendaverit, quod ait, cum factus est dies. Cito enim quisquam putaret hunc diem lucis corporeae commendatum, quo circumeunte nobis vicissitudo diurni nocturnique temporis exhibetur. Sed cum creaturarum conditarum ordinem recolimus, et invenimus omne viride agri tertio die creatum, antequam sol fieret, qui quarto die factus est, cuius praesentia dies iste quotidianus usitatusque peragitur; quando audimus: Cum factus est dies, fecit Deus coelum et terram, et omne viride agri; admonemur de ipso die cogitare, quem sive corporalem nescio qua luce nobis incognita, sive spiritalem in societate unitatis angelicae, non tamen talem qualem hic novimus, intellectu vestigare conemur.
Since, however, by the words “heaven and earth” it was intended, according to the usual custom of the Scriptures, to include all creatures, one may wonder why it was added: “and all the green herbs of the field.” It seems to me, therefore, that this was added to make it clearer to which day he is referring when he says, “when the day was made.” For someone might quickly believe that he is referring here to the day of physical light, which revolves around us and shows us the alternation of day and night. But when we remember the order in which creatures were made, we find that all the greenery of the fields was created on the third day, before the sun was made; the sun was made on the fourth day, and its presence makes up our usual daily day; when we hear, “When the day was made, God made the heavens and the earth and all the greenery of the fields,” we are advised to reflect on this same day: if it is corporeal, I do not know by what light unknown to us [it is illuminated]; if it is spiritual, it is in the society of angelic unity, but not as we have known it, we will endeavor to investigate by the intellect [this kind of day and light].
The creation of plants before the sun proves that it is a single day that is repeated seven times.
5, 3. 6. Porro autem superior narratio factum diem primitus indicat, eumque unum diem deputat; post quem secundum annumerat, quo factum est firmamentum; et tertium, quo species terrae marisque digestae sunt, et lignum atque herbam terra produxit. An forte hoc illud est, quod in libro superiore moliebamur ostendere, simul Deum fecisse omnia, quandoquidem narrationis illa contextio, cum sex dierum ordine creata cuncta et consummata memorasset, nunc ad unum diem omnia rediguntur nomine coeli et terrae, adiuncto etiam fruticum genere? Nimirum propter quod supra dixi, ut si fortassis ex hac nostra consuetudine intellegeretur dies, corrigeretur lector, cum recoleret viride agri ante istum solarem diem Deum dixisse ut terra produceret.
Furthermore, the previous narrative indicates a day that was made in the beginning (primitus) and considers it to be “one” (unum, unique) day. After this, it lists a second day, in which the firmament was made, and a third, in which the species of the earth and the sea were distinguished and in which the earth produced wood and grass. Is this not what we have endeavored to show in the previous book, that God did everything simultaneously, since the text of that account had recalled that they had all been created and completed in the order of six days and now they all converge into a single (unum) day under the name of “heaven and earth” and the addition of vegetation? Certainly, according to what I have said above, if the day were to be understood according to our custom, the reader would correct himself when he remembered that God had said that the earth should bring forth the greenery of the fields before that solar day.
Ita iam non ex alio Scripturae sanctae libro profertur testimonium quod omnia simul Deus creaverit; sed vicina testificatio paginae consequentis ex hac re nos admonet, dicens: Cum factus est dies, fecit Deus coelum et terram, et omne viride agri: ut istum diem et septies intellegas repetitum, ut fierent septem dies; et cum audis tunc facta omnia, cum factus est dies, illam senariam vel septenariam repetitionem sine intervallis morarum spatiorumque temporalium factam, si possis, apprehendas; si nondum possis, haec relinquas conspicienda valentibus: tu autem cum Scriptura non deserente infirmitatem tuam, et materno incessu tecum tardius ambulante proficias; quae sic loquitur, ut altitudine superbos irrideat, profunditate attentos terreat, veritate magnos pascat, affabilitate parvulos nutriat.
Thus, the testimony that God created all things simultaneously is no longer provided by another book of Scripture (Eccl. 18:1), but the close attestation of the page which follows it informs us, saying: “When the day was finished, God made the heavens and the earth and all the greenery of the field,” so that you may understand that this day is repeated seven times, to make seven days; and, if you can, learn that when the day was finished, it was then that everything was made, and that this repetition of six or seven times took place without any intervals of time or space; if, on the other hand, you cannot, leave these things to those who can, and you progress with Scripture, which does not abandon you to your infirmity, but advances with you maternally at a slower pace, it speaks in such a way that by its height it mocks the proud, by its depth it brings down those who probe it, by its truth it satisfies the great and nourishes the little ones by its affability.
[…]
Time began with the creature.
5, 5. 12. Factae itaque creaturae motibus coeperunt currere tempora: unde ante creaturam frustra tempora requiruntur, quasi possint inveniri ante tempora tempora. Motus enim si nullus esset vel spiritalis vel corporalis creaturae, quo per praesens praeteritis futura succederent, nullum esset tempus omnino. Moveri autem creatura non utique posset, si non esset. Potius ergo tempus a creatura, quam creatura coepit a tempore; utrumque autem ex Deo. Ex ipso enim, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia.
Thus time began to flow with the movements of the creature that had been made: therefore, before the creature, it is futile to search for time, as if time before time could be found. For if there were no movement of creatures, whether spiritual or corporeal, by which future things follow past things through the present, there would be no time at all. And certainly creatures could not move if they did not exist. Therefore, it is rather time that begins from creatures than creatures from time, both of which, however, come from God; for from him, through him, and in him are all things (Romans 11:36).
Nec sic accipiatur quod dictum est: Tempus a creatura coepit, quasi tempus creatura non sit; cum sit creaturae motus ex alio in aliud, consequentibus rebus secundum ordinationem administrantis Dei cuncta quae creavit. Quapropter cum primam conditionem creaturarum cogitamus, a quibus operibus suis Deus in die septimo requievit; nec illos dies sicut istos solares, nec ipsam operationem ita cogitare debemus, quemadmodum nunc aliquid Deus operatur in tempore: sed quemadmodum operatus est unde inciperent tempora, quemadmodum operatus est omnia simul, praestans eis etiam ordinem, non intervallis temporum, sed connexione causarum, ut ea quae simul facta sunt, senario quoque illius diei numero praesentato perficerentur.
Nor should it be understood, since it has been said that time begins with the creature, that time is not a creature, since it is the movement from one to another in things that follow one another according to the order of God who administers all that he has created. Therefore, when we reflect on this first creation (conditio) of creatures, works from which God rested on the seventh day, we must not think of these days as solar days, nor of God’s work itself in the same way that he now produces something in time, but in the same way in which he was at work there from whence time began, when he made all things simultaneously, giving things an order, not by intervals of time, but by the connection of causes, so that those things which were made simultaneously might be brought to perfection, having made present that same day six times.
The temporal order is different from the causal order.
5, 5. 13. Non itaque temporali, sed causali ordine prius facta est informis formabilisque materies, et spiritalis et corporalis, de qua fieret quod faciendum esset, cum et ipsa priusquam instituta est, non fuisset: nec instituta est nisi ab illo utique summo Deo et vero, ex quo sunt omnia.
Therefore, it was not in a temporal order, but in a causal order that the formless and formable matter, spiritual and corporeal, from which what was to be done was to be made, was first made, since it did not exist before it was prepared (instituta); nor was it prepared (instituta) except by the most high and true God, from whom all things come.
Quae sive coeli et terrae nomine significata sit, quae in principio fecit Deus ante unum illum diem quem condidit, propterea iam sic appellata, quia inde facta sunt coelum et terra; sive nomine terrae invisibilis et incompositae atque abyssi tenebrosae, iam in primo libro tractatum est.
This [this formless matter] is signified by the term “heaven and earth,” which God made in principio before that single day which he established (condidit), and that is why it is called [heaven and earth], because from it were made heaven and earth; or [the matter is also signified by the term] invisible and unorganized earth (incomposita) and dark abyss; I have already dealt with this in the first book.
Conclusions of the previous interpretations.
5, 5. 16. Hic est ergo liber creaturae coeli et terrae, quia in principio fecit Deus coelum et terram, secundum materiae quamdam, ut ita dicam, formabilitatem, quae consequenter verbo eius formanda fuerat, praecedens formationem suam, non tempore, sed origine.
This is therefore the book [which speaks] of the creation of heaven and earth, since in the beginning (in principio) God made heaven and earth according to a certain matter, in such a way that I might say “formability,” which was then called to take shape by his Verbum and which preceded this formation not in time, but in origin.
Saint Augustine, with all the necessary precautions, takes up here a theme that has been the subject of much discussion in previous centuries. It is always a question of speaking of this principium, of this first word of the Bible that situates the whole work of creation in God’s plan. It is a question of reading in it the order in which God made his plan known. Obviously, there is no succession of thoughts in God, for he is not in time; time is a creature of God. But God nevertheless wanted to communicate this plan to others, according to the mode of his creatures inscribed in time. He thus presented it first to spiritual creatures, the angels. This is the first day, explained at length in the fourth book, which we will discuss later. The creation of light on the first day, when there are no elements yet, indicates that God communicates himself and makes everything known to the angels, who are illuminated by his light. They thus know creation through the Creator; they contemplate the origin of light and, in it, they know creatures. It is not by looking at the created world that they know the creature. That is why this principle is placed in God; it is his wisdom communicated to creatures through his word: “and God said.” “
Thus Augustine distinguishes this ”formability” which corresponds to God’s will to create a spiritual and corporeal matter that would be actually created by his Word. The danger here was to speak of a pre-existing matter, co-eternal with God, which would have been only modeled, not created, by a demiurge God, or of an eternal idea subsisting by itself and giving form by itself to matter. Augustine avoids these statements and reminds us that God created what cannot exist outside of him, while nevertheless preserving the literal reading of this text, which is outside of time, in God’s plan as communicated to his creatures according to the order of the origin. That is to say, how each cause is ordered in God, willed by him, and inscribed by him in a temporal succession that is proper to the creature.
It is important to note the word “formability” that Augustine coins here to speak to us about God’s plan, about God’s vision of what is to come and which, as a creature, will therefore take on a form. So, Augustine summarizes, this book presents the creation of heaven and earth as conceived by God, in his desire to make himself known, in his wisdom, “in principio,” which will then be shaped and formed in conformity with the image of his word, which gives form to all things.
Nam utique cum formaretur, primum factus est dies cum factus est dies, fecit Deus coelum et terram, et omne viride agri antequam esset super terram, et omne fenum agri antequam exoreretur, sicut tractavimus; vel si quid liquidius et congruentius videri et dici potuit aut potuerit.
Indeed, before anything else, when [this matter, this formability] received a form, it was the day that was made first; when the day was made, God made the heavens and the earth and all the greenery of the fields, before [this greenery] was above the earth, and all the hay of the fields, before it came forth [from the earth]; so we have expressed ourselves; or else, it may be that we can see and say something that brings a better solution or is more congruent.
The first creation was made without duration of time, but not the government of that creation.
5, 11. 27. Sed illud etiam atque etiam consideremus, utrum possit nobis per omnia constare sententia qua dicebamus, aliter operatum Deum omnes creaturas prima conditione, a quibus operibus in die septimo requievit; aliter ista eorum administrationem, qua usque nunc operatur: id est, tunc omnia simul sine ullis temporalium morarum intervallis; nunc autem per temporum moras, quibus videmus sidera moveri ab ortu ad occasum, coelum mutari ab aestate ad hiemem, germina certis dierum momentis pullulare, grandescere, virescere, arescere. Animalia quoque statutis temporum metis et cursibus et concipi, et perfici, et nasci, et per aetates usque in senium mortemque decurrere, et caetera huiusmodi temporalia. Quis enim operatur ista nisi Deus, etiam sine ullo tali suo motu? non enim et ipsi accidit tempus.
But let us consider again and again whether we can hold as certain in everything that affirmation by which we said that a thing is the work of God when he established all creatures once and rested from these works on the seventh day, and that something else is their governance (administratione), by which he is at work until now: that is, that then everything was simultaneously without any interval of time, but now, on the contrary, through the durations of time, in which we see the stars move from east to west, the sky changes from summer to winter, seeds germinate, grow, turn green, and dry up in certain periods of days, animals too, within pre-established limits and periods of time, are conceived, formed, born, and pass through the ages until death in old age, and in the same way for others [who have temporal existences]. Who, then, is it but God who does this without any movement of this kind in himself? For time does not affect him.
Inter illa ergo opera Dei, a quibus requievit in die septimo, et ista quae usque nunc operatur, quemdam Scriptura interponens suae narrationis articulum, commendavit se illa explicasse, et coepit iam ista contexere. Illorum explicatorum commendatio sic facta est: Hic est liber creaturae coeli et terrae, cum factus est dies, fecit Deus coelum et terram, et omne viride agri antequam esset super terram, et omne fenum agri antequam exoreretur. Non enim pluerat Deus super terram, nec erat homo qui operaretur terram. Istorum autem contextio sic coepit: Fons autem ascendebat de terra, et irrigabat omnem faciem terrae. Ab hac commemoratione fontis huius et deinceps ea quae narrantur, per moras temporum facta sunt, non omnia simul.
So, between these works of God, from which he rested on the seventh day, and this one, which he is still working on, the Scripture, inserting a paragraph into its narrative, announces that it has explained those things and begins to describe these other ones. Here is the announcement that the explanation of the former ones has been made: “This is the book of the creation of heaven and earth, when the day was made, God made heaven and earth and all the greenery of the fields, before [this greenery] was above the earth, and all the grass of the fields, before it came forth [from the earth]. For God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the ground.“ On the other hand, this is how the story of the latter [the second works] begins: ”But a source sprang up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the earth.” From the mention of this spring, what is recounted afterwards was done according to the times and not simultaneously.
Three ways of considering God’s work.
5, 12. 28. Cum ergo aliter se habeant omnium creaturarum rationes incommutabiles in Verbo Dei, aliter illa eius opera a quibus in die septimo requievit, aliter ista quae ex illis usque nunc operatur; horum trium hoc quod extremum posui, nobis utcumque notum est per corporis sensus, et huius consuetudinem vitae. Duo vero illa remota a sensibus nostris, et ab usu cogitationis humanae, prius ex divina auctoritate credenda sunt; deinde per haec quae nota sunt, utcumque noscenda, quanto quisque magis minusve potuerit pro suae capacitatis modo, divinitus adiutus ut possit.
One thing, then, are the immutable reasons of all creatures in the Verbum of God; another are the works [of God], in which He rested on the seventh day; and yet another are those which He has been doing from the beginning until now. Of these three [works], what I have placed last is known to us in a certain way through the bodily senses and through what is customary in this life. In truth, those two [first works] are far from our senses and from the functioning of human thought; first they must be believed by virtue of divine authority, and then they must be known, as far as possible, through what is known, according to the capacity of each, divinely aided so that they may be capable of it.
Article on “Genesis ad litteram, incomplete book”
Michael M. Gormann, The Text of Saint Augustine’s “De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber,” in Recherches Augustiniennes et Patristiques, Brepols online