Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Four — the creation of the first human beings

QUESTION I. How it is to be understood that Adam would die in whatever day he ate from that forbidden tree

LatineEnglish

QUESTION I. How it is to be understood that Adam would die in whatever day he ate from that forbidden tree.1

QVAESTIO I. Quomodo intelligendum sit, Adam moriturum quacunque die comederet ex illa vetita arbore.

QVOMODO verum fuerit quod Deus minatus est Adae, fore ut in quocunque die comederet ex illa arbore moreretur, non facilem habet intellectum, quippe cùm post esum illius arboris, triginta & nongentos annos vixerit Adam. Quidam putaverunt Deum non esse locutum de morte corporali, sed spirituali tantùm, id est, de amissione iustitiae & gratiae Dei, per quam homo vivit Deo: quod enim praestat anima corpori ad vitam naturalem & corporalem, hoc ipsum ratione quadam gratia praestat animae ad degendam vitam supernaturalem & divinam. Verùm istam sententiam paulò infrà confutaturi sumus.
HOW what God threatened to Adam — that in whatever day he ate from that tree he would die — was true, does not have an easy understanding, seeing that, after the eating of that tree, Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years. Some have supposed that God spoke not of corporeal death, but only of spiritual death — that is, of the loss of the justice and grace of God, by which man lives unto God: for that which the soul furnishes to the body for natural and corporeal life, this very thing, in a certain manner, grace furnishes to the soul for passing the supernatural and divine life. But we shall refute that opinion a little below.2
Alij opinantur, verba illa Dei continere sententiam non definitivam, sed comminatoriam, quam non est necesse impleri, aut certè secundum rigorem impleri: qualis fuit sententia Dei adversus Ninivitas de futuro civitatis eorum post quadraginta dies excidio. Sed hoc frivolum est: sententia enim Dei comminatoria & conditionalis tunc non impletur cùm deest conditio sub qua pronunciata est, id est, [...]
Others are of the opinion that those words of God contain a sentence not definitive, but comminatory — which it is not necessary to fulfill, or certainly not to fulfill according to its rigor: such as was the sentence of God against the Ninevites concerning the future destruction of their city after forty days. But this is frivolous: for a comminatory and conditional sentence of God is then not fulfilled when there is wanting the condition under which it was pronounced — that is, [...] [continues]3
[...cùm deest conditio sub qua pronunciata est,] id est, cùm mutatus est is adversus quem lata fuerat: sicut disertis verbis declaravit Deus per Hieremiam, capite 18. At hoc non contigit Adamo, quippe qui admisso peccato non statim resipuit & poenitentiam egit: quinimo cùm admissi sceleris argueretur à Deo, excusavit se & elevare voluit crimen suum, causam eius in uxorem suam conferens. Iustinus martyr in eo dialogo quem habuit cum Tryphone, & Irenaeus libro quinto, adversus haereses censent, Adamum qua die comedit ex illa arbore, eadem ipsa die mortuum esse: aliam enim esse mensuram diei Dei, aliam diei naturalis & humani: hic enim viginti quatuor duntaxat horis definitus est, ille verò ad mille annos producitur, ut cecinit David Psalm. octuagesimonono, Mille anni ante oculos tuos táquam dies hesterna quae praterijt. & S. Petrus, Mille, inquit, anni sicut dies unus, quoniam igitur Adam nó attigit millesimum annum, rectè dici potest eum non vixisse diem unum, sed eadem die mortuum esse qua die peccavit.
[...when there is wanting the condition under which it was pronounced,] that is, when he against whom it was borne is changed — as God declared in express words through Jeremiah, chapter 18. But this did not happen to Adam, since, having committed the sin, he did not at once come to his senses and do penance; nay rather, when he was accused of the committed crime by God, he excused himself, and wished to lighten his crime, transferring its cause onto his wife. Justin Martyr, in the dialogue which he had with Trypho, and Irenaeus, in the fifth book against heresies, hold that Adam, on the day he ate from that tree, died on that very same day: for one is the measure of God's day, another of the natural and human day; for the latter is defined by only twenty-four hours, but the former is prolonged to a thousand years, as David sang in Psalm 89, “A thousand years before your eyes are as yesterday's day, which has passed”; and Saint Peter, “A thousand years,” he says, “are as one day.” Since, therefore, Adam did not reach the thousandth year, it can rightly be said that he did not live one day, but died on the same day on which he sinned.4
At enim, vel me tacente per se lector advertet, hanc interpretationem duram esse & contortam, atque narrationi Mosis quae historica est minimè congruentem: quippe qui vocabulo diei in omnibus libris suis non aliter usus est, quàm est vulgo usitatum & tritum. Placet aliis, illud, In quacunque die, referri tantùm debere ad illud Comederis, nó autem ad illud Morieris, ut non significetur, eadem die moriturum eum qua die comederet, sed illud tantùm significetur, esum illius arboris non esse interdictum Adamo in unum aliquem certum diem vel tempus, sed in omnem diem atque in omne tempus, ita ut quocumque die vel tempore comederet, omnino moriturus esset. Quae quidem interpretatio facilis est ad intelligendum, nec ullis premitur incommodis.
But indeed, even with me silent, the reader will of himself observe that this interpretation is hard and forced, and by no means congruent with the narration of Moses, which is historical — since he uses the word “day” in all his books no otherwise than is commonly used and familiar. It pleases others that that phrase, “In whatever day,” ought to be referred only to that word “you eat,” and not to that word “you shall die” — so that it is not signified that he would die on the same day on which he ate, but only this is signified: that the eating of that tree was not forbidden to Adam for some one certain day or time, but for every day and for every time — so that on whatever day or time he ate, he would altogether die. Which interpretation is indeed easy to understand, and is pressed by no difficulties.5
PLERISQVE visum est, illud In quocunque die comederis, iungi debere cum illo Morieris, ut significetur simul atque comederet, esse ipsum moriturum: verú per illud, Morieris, non significari actum moriendi, sed necessitatem & debitum mortis: ut sensus sit, statim ut comederis, obnoxius eris poenae mortis, & astrictus eris necessitate moriendi: qua non teneberis, si ex ista arbore non comederis. Hieronymus in libro Traditionum Hebraicarum in Genesim laudat Symmachum interpretem, qui pro illo Morieris, verterit Mortalis eris: significando voce illa Mortalis, non potentiam naturalem moriendi quae oritur ex naturali constitutione hominis, & qua etiam in statu innocentiae Adam minimè carebat, sed denotando inevitabilem moriendi necessitatem in quam propter peccatum incurrit Adam. Haec inter-[pretatio probatur in primis Theodoreto...]
To most it has seemed that that phrase, “In whatever day you eat,” ought to be joined with that word “you shall die,” so that it be signified that as soon as he ate, he himself would be going to die; yet that by that word “you shall die” there is signified not the act of dying, but the necessity and the debt of death — so that the sense is: as soon as you eat, you will be liable to the penalty of death, and bound by the necessity of dying — by which you will not be held, if you do not eat from that tree. Jerome, in the book of the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis, praises Symmachus the translator, who, for that “you shall die,” rendered “you shall be mortal” — signifying by that word “mortal” not the natural power of dying, which arises from the natural constitution of man, and which Adam by no means lacked even in the state of innocence, but denoting the inevitable necessity of dying into which Adam ran on account of sin. This inter-[pretation is approved especially by Theodoret...] [continues]6

[...This interpretation is approved especially by Theodoret, since he, in question 38 on] Genesis, says: “Adam did not die immediately after the transgression; nevertheless, divine Scripture calls the decree and sentence of death ‘death.’ And so, when he first ate, he became liable, by the sentence of God, to the penalty of death — awaiting death itself, day by day and hour by hour, as one guilty of death. For unless he had eaten, he could have not died — nay, would never have died; but after he ate the forbidden food, he could not escape but that at some time he would die.”7

[...Haec interpretatio probatur in primis Theodoreto, quippe qui in quaest. 38. in] Genesim, Non statim, inquit, mortuus est Adam post transgressioné, verumtamen decretum & sententiá mortis divina Scriptura mortem appellat. Itaque cùm primùm comedit, Dei senténtia obnoxius fuit supplicio mortis, in singulos dies atque horas velut reus mortis ipsam mortem expectans. Etenim nisi comedisset, potuisset non mori, immo nunquam mortuus fuisset: at postquam comedit cibum vetitum, non potuit effugere quin aliquando moreretur.

Of this view was also Augustine, whom the scholastic Theologians generally follow. For he, in book 13 of the City of God, chapter 23, writes in nearly these words: “The body of Adam, which had need of food and drink lest it be killed by hunger and thirst, and which was kept from the necessity of death not by that absolute and indissoluble immortality, but by the tree of life, and was retained in the flower of youth, was not spiritual, but animal; yet by no means about to die, unless by transgressing it had fallen into the sentence of God foretelling and threatening. But although, when God said, ‘In the day you eat of it you shall die the death,’ we understand that manifest death — which is the separation of soul from body — to be signified, it ought not on that account to seem absurd that they were not loosed from the body on that very day on which they took the forbidden and death-bearing food. For on that day, the nature being changed for the worse and vitiated, and by a most just separation from the tree of life, the necessity even of bodily death was made in them — that necessity with which we are born. On account of which the Apostle does not say, ‘the body indeed is going to die because of sin,’ but says, ‘The body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of justice.’ The Apostle called our body ‘dead,’ because it is already constrained by the necessity of dying.”8

HVIVS sententiae fuit etiam Augustinus, quem ferè sequuntur Theologi scholastici. Is enim lib. 13. de Civitate Dei cap. 23. his ferè verbis scribit: Corpus Adae quod cibo & potu egebat ne fame interficeretur & siti, & non immortalitate illa absoluta atque indissolubili, sed ligno vitae à mortis necessitate prohibebatur, atque in iuventutis flore retinebatur, non spiritale, sed animale fuit: nequaquam tamen moriturum, nisi in Dei praedicentis minantísque sententiam delinquendo corruisset. Quamvis autem cùm Deus dixit, Qua die ederitis ex illo morte moriemini, intelligamus mortem istam manifestam quae fit anima à corpore separatio esse significatam, non propterea tamen id videri debet absurdum, quia non eo prorsus die à corpore sunt soluti, quo cibum interdictum mortiferumque sumpserunt. Eo quippe die mutata in deterius vitiatáque natura, atque à ligno vitae separatione iustissima, mortis in eis etiá corporalis necessitas facta est, cum qua nos necessitate nati sumus. Propter quod Apostolus non ait, corpus quidem moriturum est propter peccatum, sed ait, Corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, spiritus autem vita est propter iustitiam. Mortuum appellavit corpus nostrum Apostolus, quia iam moriendi necessitate constrictum est.

Legenda sunt quae scribit in eandem sententiam Augustinus, libr. 11. de Genesi ad litteram, 32. cap. POSTREMO loco ponenda est interpretatio nulli quidem priorum probabilitate cedens, eorum qui illud, Morte morieris, interpretantur de actuali morte, & non tantùm de necessitate moriendi. Verùm, mortem illi quidem intelligunt non completam, sed inchoatam: statim enim ut Adam peccavit, corpus eius spoliatum iustitia origina-[li & munere immortalitatis destitutum...]
To be read are the things which Augustine writes to the same view, in book 11 On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter 32. In the last place is to be put an interpretation that yields to none of the prior ones in probability — of those who interpret that “you shall die the death” of actual death, and not only of the necessity of dying. But they understand a death not completed, but begun: for as soon as Adam sinned, his body, despoiled of original justice [and deprived of the gift of immortality...] [continues]9
[...corpus eius spoliatum iustitia origina]li & munere immortalitatis destitutum, coepit sentire frigus, calorem, lassitudinem, aliáque incommoda & mala, quae sunt certissimi venturae mortis nuncij, coepítque paulatim corrumpi & ad interitum labi, sicut enim Philosophi alterationem quae praecedit procreationem formae substantialis, quod sit ad eam praeparatio quaedá necessaria & velut certissima quaedá via, non dubitarunt appellare generationem, ita alteratio quae paulatim praeparat & ducit ad interitum nomen corruptionis & mortis sibi vendicat. Scitè igitur mulier illa, ut est in 2. lib. Regum cap. 14. dixit Davidi: Omnes morimur & quasi aqua dilabimur. Verissimum etiam est illud B. Gregorij hom. 37. in Euang. dictum: Temporalis vita, inquit, aeternae vitae cóparata, mors est potius dicenda quàm vita. Ipse enim quotidianus defectus corruptionis, quid est aliud quàm quaedam prolixitas mortis? Corpus igitur Adae in eodem statu permansisset, nisi ipse peccasset: non enim paulatim fuisset dissolutum aut [vitiatum & ad mortem delapsum...]
[...his body, despoiled of original justice] and deprived of the gift of immortality, began to feel cold, heat, weariness, and the other discomforts and evils, which are the most certain heralds of coming death; and it began gradually to be corrupted and to slip toward destruction. For just as the Philosophers did not hesitate to call “generation” the alteration that precedes the procreation of a substantial form (because it is a necessary preparation for it, and as it were a most certain way to it), so the alteration that gradually prepares and leads to destruction claims for itself the name of corruption and death. Wisely, therefore, did that woman, as it stands in the second book of Kings [2 Samuel], chapter 14, say to David: “We all die, and like water we slip away.” Most true also is that saying of blessed Gregory, homily 37 on the Gospel: “Temporal life,” he says, “compared to eternal life, is rather to be called death than life. For the daily failing of corruption itself, what else is it than a certain prolongation of death?” The body of Adam, therefore, would have remained in the same state, had he not sinned; for it would not gradually have been dissolved or [vitiated and fallen toward death...] [continues]10
[...non enim paulatim fuisset dissolutum aut vitiatum & ad mortem delapsum: at post pecca]tum, coepit paulatim dissolui & corrumpi & ad interitum fluere, & ex eo tempore, mors ei coepit dominari.
[...for it would not gradually have been dissolved or vitiated and fallen toward death; but after his sin] it began gradually to be dissolved and corrupted and to flow toward destruction, and from that time death began to have dominion over him.11

Translator’s notes

  1. First question of the disputation (rule above). ↩
  2. Large decorated initial 'Q'. The difficulty: Adam lived 930 more years (Gen 5:5). First interpretation: the death meant was spiritual (loss of grace) — to be refuted below. Marginal gloss: 'Prima interpretatio.' ↩
  3. Second interpretation: the threat was comminatory (conditional), not absolute — like Jonah's 'forty days' against Nineveh (Jonah 3:4). Pererius calls this frivolous: a conditional threat goes unfulfilled only when its condition fails. Marginal gloss: 'Secunda interpretatio.' Page ends at the catchword 'id est' (signature LL 3). RESUME POINT for next batch: PDF 495, 'id est, [the condition being repentance]...'. ↩
  4. Completes the refutation of the 2nd interpretation (a conditional threat fails only if its subject repents — Jer 18; but Adam did not). The 3rd interpretation (Justin, Dial. with Trypho; Irenaeus, adv. Haer. 5): a divine 'day' = 1000 years (Ps 89[90]:4; 2 Pet 3:8), so Adam died within his 'day.' Marginal glosses: 'Tertia interpretatio Iustini & Irenaei'; '2. Petr. 3.' ↩
  5. The 3rd interpretation rejected as forced (Moses uses 'day' in the ordinary sense). The 4th interpretation: 'in whatever day' qualifies only 'you eat' (the prohibition holds always), not 'you shall die.' Marginal gloss: 'Quarta interpretatio.' ↩
  6. The 5th interpretation (favored by most): 'you shall die' = liability to / the debt of death (Symmachus' 'you shall be mortal,' praised by Jerome, Quaest. Hebr. in Gen.) — not natural mortality (which Adam had even in innocence) but the unavoidable necessity incurred by sin. Marginal gloss: 'Quinta interpretatio.' ↩
  7. Theodoret, Quaest. in Gen. 38 (block-quote, continues onto PDF 496): the 'death' threatened is the sentence/debt of death — incurred at once by eating, though carried out later. Sentence/quote runs on past the page (catchword 'HUIUS'). ↩
  8. Augustine, Civ. Dei 13.23 (block-quote): Adam's body was 'animal,' kept deathless by the tree of life; at sin the necessity of bodily death was incurred (the soul-body separation only later). Rom 8:10 ('the body is dead because of sin') glossed. Marginal gloss: 'Rom. 8.' ↩
  9. The 6th and last interpretation (Pererius' favored one): 'you shall die' of *actual* death, but death begun — decay setting in at once. Marginal gloss: 'Sexta & ultima interpretatio.' ↩
  10. Decay as 'death begun': the philosophers' analogy (alteration named for its term); 2 Sam 14:14 ('we all die... like water'); Gregory, Hom. in Evang. 37 ('temporal life is rather death than life'). Sentence breaks at 'dissolutum aut.' ↩
  11. Conclusion of the 6th interpretation: at sin the body's gradual dissolution—'death begun'—set in. (Closes QUAESTIO I; page ends with decorative asterisks and the catchword 'QVAE'.) ↩