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

Let us make him a helper like himself. GENESIS CH. 2, VERSE 18

LatineEnglish

Let us make him a helper like himself. GENESIS CH. 2, VERSE 18.1

Faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi. GEN. C. 2. VERS. 18.

LATINVS Interpres, haud dubiè secutus Septuaginta, vertit pluraliter Faciamus. Hebraicè tamen & Chaldaicè singulari numero est, Faciam. Inducitur autem Deus quasi cum ratione quadam & consilio ac deliberatione tanquam ad efficiendam mulierem accedere: ut hinc notescat dignitas operis futuri: singularis enim modus eius perficiendi, singularem quoque & eximiam eius dignitatem ostendit. Quod ergo suprà diximus, cùm disputaremus cur Deus creaturus hominem, velut deliberabundus dixisset: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem & similitudinem nostram: illud ipsum ad hunc quoque locum accommodari & applicari potest. Pro eo autem quod nos legimus, Adiutorium simile sibi: Chaldaicè ad verbum est: Sustentaculum quod sit penes eum: quae oratio valde [est emphatica...]
The Latin Interpreter, doubtless following the Septuagint, rendered it in the plural, “Let us make.” In Hebrew, however, and in Chaldee, it is in the singular number, “I will make.” But God is introduced as if approaching to make the woman with a certain reason and counsel and deliberation, so that hence the dignity of the future work may be known: for the singular manner of His perfecting it shows also the singular and exceptional dignity of it. What therefore we said above, when we disputed why God, about to create man, had said as if deliberating, “Let us make man to our image and likeness,” that very thing can be accommodated and applied to this place too. But for what we read, “A helper like himself,” in Chaldee it is, word for word: “A support which may be beside him” — which expression is very [emphatic...] [continues]2
[...quae oratio valde] est emphatica, alluditur enim ad eos qui in sublevandis oneribus mutuas sibi in auxilium manus porrigunt. Tale sustentaculum & vicarium auxilium Deus voluit uxorem esse marito, & hoc pulchrè verba exprimunt Chaldaica: nam סמך Semach, vox Chaldaica quae est hoc loco, significat sustentaculum, fulcrum, adminiculum, denique id omne quo quis niti & sustentari potest. Dictio autem Chaldaica כקבליה Chechible, significat proximè, penes aliquem, & iuxta aliquem esse, quasi dicat: Ad manum sit uxor marito, ut eum adiuvet, consoletur, & laboribus sublevet. Pro illo Simile sibi, LXX. ver-[terunt Secundum ipsum...]
[...which expression] is very emphatic, for it alludes to those who, in lifting burdens, hold out mutual helping hands to one another. Such a support and substitute help did God will the wife to be to the husband; and this the Chaldee words express beautifully: for סמך (Semach), the Chaldee word which is in this place, signifies a support, a prop, an aid — finally, everything by which one can lean and be supported. And the Chaldee expression כקבליה (Chechible) signifies to be near, beside someone, and next to someone — as if it said: Let the wife be at hand for the husband, that she may help, console, and relieve him in his labors. For that “Like himself,” the Seventy rendered [“Secundum ipsum”...] [continues]3
[...LXX. ver]terunt Secundum ipsum, id est, respondens & congruens ipsi: videlicet secundùm eandem naturae speciem, & tanquam naturaliter idoneum ex quo vir prolem suscipere queat. Rectè igitur Latinus Interpres non verba sed sensum perpendens vertit Simile sibi. Necesse autem fuit mulierem viro partim similem, partim dissimilem esse. Similem quidem, hoc est, eiusdem speciei, eiusdémque naturae humanae participem: alioqui non posset ex viro & muliere generari homo, & haec similitudo, alia multa complectitur, quibus mulier par est viro: velut est illud, habere animam immortalem, Dei similem, ab eo proximè creatam ex nihilo, & divinae felicitatis capacem. Dissimilem verò esse oportuit secundùm sexum, & secundùm ea quae sexum naturaliter ac necessariò consequuntur. Duabus enim rebus opus erat ad perficiendam hominis generationem, principio activo & passivo, efficiente & materia: & harum rerum alteram quidem solus vir habet, altera verò penes foeminam tantùm est.
[...the Seventy ren]dered “Secundum ipsum” (according to himself), that is, answering and congruent to him — namely, according to the same species of nature, and as it were naturally suitable, from which the man might receive offspring. Rightly, therefore, the Latin Interpreter, weighing not the words but the sense, rendered it “Like himself.” But it was necessary that the woman be partly like the man, partly unlike. Like, indeed — that is, of the same species, and partaker of the same human nature; otherwise a man could not be generated from man and woman; and this likeness embraces many other things in which the woman is equal to the man — such as this: to have an immortal soul, like to God, immediately created by Him from nothing, and capable of the divine happiness. But she had to be unlike according to sex, and according to the things which naturally and necessarily follow upon sex. For two things were needed for the accomplishing of man's generation: an active and a passive principle, the efficient and the matter; and of these the one the man alone has, but the other is only in the woman.4
HEBRAICE porrò, pro illo quod Latina lectio habet, Simile sibi, sic est, Cótra ipsum: quod triplicem habet interpretationem. Quidam enim Hebraei sic putant dictum, quòd mulier facta sit contraria viro, ferè enim adversatur viro, eúmque insectatur, infestat, & quoquomodo vexare non praetermittit. Sed perversa est haec interpretatio: non enim eò facta est mulier à Deo ut adversaria viro esset, nec talis ulla fuisset mulier in statu innocentiae, nec post peccatum tales sunt, nisi quae vitio & pravitate sua officia uxori debita improbè abiiciút. Tostatus hunc locum explanans, propterea existimat dictum esse, mulierem esse contra virum, quod inter foeminam & marem nonnullam esse contrarietatem necesse sit, eam nimirum quae est inter agens & patiens. Si enim mulier omnino similis esset viro, nullá planè ad efficiendam generationem hominis vim habere & operá con-[ferre posset...]
In Hebrew, moreover, for that which the Latin reading has, “Like himself,” it stands thus: “Against himself” (כנגדו) — which has a threefold interpretation. For some of the Hebrews think it was said thus because the woman was made contrary to the man — for she almost opposes the man, and harasses, vexes, and does not omit to torment him in every way. But this interpretation is perverse: for the woman was not made by God to be an adversary to the man; nor was any woman such in the state of innocence; nor after sin are they such, except those who, by their own vice and depravity, wickedly cast off the duties owed to a wife. Tostatus, explaining this passage, thinks it was said that the woman is “against the man” because between female and male there must be some contrariety — namely, that which is between agent and patient. For if the woman were entirely like the man, she could have and contribute no force at all toward the accomplishing of man's generation... [continues]5
[...vim habere & operá conferre posset]. Sed enim illud similius vero est, Contra ipsum, pro eo dictum esse quod est Coram ipso, quae locutio frequens est in Sacris litteris, ut in Psalmo 50. Et peccatum meum contra me est semper, & in Evangelio: Ite in castellum quod contra vos est: & alibi millies. QVOD autem mulier dicatur facta coram viro, nó rectè interpretantur Hebraei, quorum qui doctissimus habetur David Kimhi, in lib. Radicú, sic explanat hunc locú: Coram viro, inquit, facta est mulier, ut sit ei praesto & parata ad ministrandú atque serviédum, more scilicet servorum [astantium...]
[...have and contribute force]. But indeed this is nearer the truth: that “Against himself” was said for that which is “Before himself” (coram ipso) — an expression frequent in Holy Scripture, as in Psalm 50: “And my sin is always against me”; and in the Gospel: “Go into the village which is over against you”; and elsewhere a thousand times. But that the woman is said to have been made “before the man,” the Hebrews do not rightly interpret — of whom the one held most learned, David Kimhi, in the Book of Roots, thus explains this passage: “Before the man,” he says, “the woman was made, that she might be at hand and ready for him, to minister and to serve — namely, after the manner of servants [standing by...] [continues]6
[...more scilicet servorum] astantium coram dominis suis, eorúmque non verba modo sed nutus etiam observantium. Ministrorum enim alij remoti sunt à conspectu dominorum, alij verò semper eis assistunt: & talem viro voluit Deus esse mulierem. Verùm haec interpretatio & sententia falsa est, non enim foemina facta est ut serva, sed ut socia esset viri: atque ob eam causam non ex pedibus nec ex tergo viri, sed ex latere, quò societas eius & communitas cum viro denotaretur, fabricata est. Sane in primo libro Politicorum capite primo docet Aristoteles, longè diversam esse conditionem viri & uxoris, atque domini & servi: Et mulierem quidem datam esse sociámque viro praecipuè generationis perficiendae causa.
[...namely, after the manner of servants] standing before their masters, and observing not only their words but even their nods. For of ministers, some are removed from the sight of their masters, others always attend upon them; and such did God will the woman to be for the man.” But this interpretation and opinion is false: for the woman was not made as a servant, but to be the companion of the man; and for that cause she was fashioned not from the feet, nor from the back of the man, but from the side, so that her society and community with the man might be denoted. Indeed, in the first book of the Politics, chapter one, Aristotle teaches that the condition of husband and wife is far different from that of master and servant; and that the woman was given as a companion to the man, chiefly for the sake of accomplishing generation.7

Aristotle indeed writes thus: “Male and female, of whom the one needs the society of the other, must be coupled, for the sake of procreating — and this not by counsel, but by nature; just as it happens by use in the other living things and in plants, in which is implanted by nature an appetite of leaving behind something like themselves. And so the female and the servant are distinct by nature, although among the Barbarians the woman and the servant are held in the same rank.” Thus Aristotle. Cajetan thinks that “Before himself,” or “Against himself,” signifies that the woman is unlike the other animals: for, erect upon her feet, with lofty countenance and upright bearing of the whole body, she stands before the man — so that, as in body, so also in mind, she is like and most like to him.8

Aristoteles quidem ita scribit: Marem & foeminam, quorum alter alterius indiget societate, copulari necesse est, procreandi causa: idque non consilio, sed natura. Quemadmodum in caeteris animantibus & stirpibus usu venit, quibus natura insita est appetitus sui simile relinquendi. Itaque foemina & servus distincti sunt natura, licèt apud Barbaros mulier & servus eodem habeantur loco. Haec Aristoteles. Caietanus illud Coram ipso, vel Contra ipsum, significare putat, mulierem dissimilem esse caeterorum animalium: erectam enim in pedes, excelso vultu, rectóque totius corporis habitu coram viro stare, ut corpore ita quoque animo ei similem ac simillimam.

CAETERVM quas ob res mulier sit adiutorium viro, declarandum est. B. Augustinus libro 9. de Genesi ad litteram capite tertio & 4. non ob aliud videri sibi scribit opus fuisse muliere, quàm propter generationem prolis: siquidem ad alia omnia magis vir à viro alio, quàm à muliere adiuvari potuisset. Augustini verba haec sunt:
But it must be declared for what reasons the woman is a help to the man. Blessed Augustine, in the ninth book On Genesis according to the Letter, chapters three and four, writes that there seemed to him to have been need of the woman for no other reason than for the generation of offspring — since in all other things a man could have been helped more by another man than by a woman. The words of Augustine are these:9

“If it is asked for what thing this help had to be made, nothing else probably occurs than for the procreation of children — just as the earth is a help to the seed, that a shoot may be born from both; for this too was said in the first constitution of things, ‘Male and female God made them,’ saying, ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth.’ And this reason of the constitution and conjunction of male and female, and the blessing of God, did not fail even after the sin and punishment of man. Or, if the woman was not made for the man for this help of begetting children, for what help, then, was she made? If to work the earth together with him — there was not yet labor, that he should need the help; and if there were need, the male would have been a better help. It could also be said [a remedy for] desolation, if perhaps he was wearied of solitude. For how much more fittingly would two friends, as equals, dwell together for living and conversing, than a man and a woman?” Thus Augustine.10

Si quaeritur ad quam rem fieri oportuerit hoc adiutorium, nihil aliud probabiliter occurrit quàm propter filios procreandos: sicut adiutorium semini terra est, ut virgultum ex utróque nascatur: hoc enim & in prima rerum conditione dictum erat, Masculum & foeminam fecit eos Deus, dicens, Crescite & multiplicamini & implete terram. Quae ratio conditionis, & coniunctionis masculi & foeminae atque benedictio Dei, nec post peccatum hominis, poenámque defecit. Aut si ad hoc adiutorium gignendi filios non est facta mulier viro, ad quod ergo adiutorium facta est? Si ut simul operaretur terram, nondum erat labor ut adiumento viri indigeret: & si opus esset, melius adiutorium masculus fuisset. Hoc & desolatio dici potest, si solitudinis fortasse taedebat. Quanto enim congruentius ad convivendum & colloquendum duo amici pariter, quàm vir & mulier habitarent? Haec Augustinus.

NOS igitur dicamus, foeminam partim fuisse necessariam viro, partim verò minimè quidem necessariam, sed valde tamen utilem. Necessaria quidem erat foemina viro duas ob causas: tum generandae prolis, tum iam genitae nutriendae alendaéque causa: quae duo munera sine muliere à viris praestari nullo modo possunt. Ad officia verò domestica commodè peragenda non quidem necessaria erat mulier, sed erat tamen perquàm utilis. Nam ut ea munera possint etiam à viris obiri, opportunius tamen ac melius perficiuntur à foemi-[na...]
We, therefore, would say that the woman was partly necessary to the man, partly not at all necessary, yet very useful. The woman was necessary to the man for two causes: both for the generating of offspring, and for the nourishing and rearing of those already begotten — which two functions can in no way be supplied by men without a woman. But for the convenient carrying out of domestic duties, the woman was not, indeed, necessary, yet she was exceedingly useful. For although those functions can also be undertaken by men, they are nevertheless more fittingly and better accomplished by a wo-[man...] [continues]11
[...opportunius tamen ac melius perficiuntur à foemi]na, quae & domi assidua est, & ad eiusmodi curas tractandas natura magis idonea & accommodata. Quamobrem rectè dixit Apostolus, prioris ad Corinthios capite vndecimo, Non est vir creatus propter mulierem, sed mulier propter virum: non enim suae sed viri causa condita est mulier, vt esset illi adiutrix ad prolem procreandam & educandam. Quo etiam pertinet quod Peripatetici mulierem appellant veluti virum occasionatum, hoc est, animal occasionatum, quasi praeter primam naturae intentionem, ex defectu & imbecillitate virtutis generatricis in semine viri, ortum & procreatum.
[...yet those functions are more fittingly and better accomplished by a wo]man, who is both constantly at home and, by nature, more fit and adapted for handling cares of this kind. Wherefore the Apostle rightly said, in the eleventh chapter of the former epistle to the Corinthians, “Man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man”: for the woman was founded not for her own sake but for the man's, that she might be his helper for procreating and rearing offspring. To this also pertains the fact that the Peripatetics call the woman as it were a “mischanced man,” that is, an “occasioned animal” (animal occasionatum) — as though, beyond the first intention of nature, she arose and was procreated from a defect and weakness of the generative power in the man's seed.12
Verùm quamvis hoc modo mulier minùs perfecta sit quàm vir, longè tamen praestantior est & excellentior caeteris omnibus animantibus: quod inde maximè perspicuum est, quòd non ex limo terrae, sicut bruta animalia, sed ex ipso viri latere, & ex osse viri condita & efformata est, vt esset viri socia indiuidua, & vitae consors perpetua. QVAERITVR autem quo tempore, & quo in loco facta sit mulier. De tempore quidem certum est & exploratum, mulierem non simul cum viro, sed aliquanto pòst quàm vir conditus erat, fuisse à Deo procreatam: id quod aperté significatur in sacra historia, & ab Apostolo confirmatur, prima ad Timotheum secundo, Adam, inquit, primus formatus est, deinde Eua: & in libro Sapientiae capite decimo dicitur Adam protoplastus, hoc est, primus formatus omnium hominum. Restat igitur vt mulier post virum aliquandiu sit con-[dita...]
But although in this manner the woman is less perfect than the man, she is nevertheless far more excellent and more outstanding than all the other living things — which is most clearly evident from this: that she was founded and fashioned not from the slime of the earth, as the brute animals, but from the very side of the man, and from a bone of the man, that she might be the man's undivided companion and the perpetual partner of his life. But it is asked at what time, and in what place, the woman was made. Concerning the time it is certain and ascertained that the woman was procreated by God not at the same time as the man, but somewhat after the man had been founded — which is openly signified in the sacred history, and confirmed by the Apostle, in the first to Timothy, chapter two: “Adam,” he says, “was first formed, then Eve”; and in the book of Wisdom, chapter ten, Adam is called the “protoplast,” that is, the first formed of all men. It remains, therefore, that the woman was foun[ded] some while after the man... [continues]13
[...Restat igitur vt mulier post virum aliquandiu sit con]dita: intercessit enim aliqua mora temporis inter creationem viri & procreationem mulieris, eo nimirum interuallo quo Adam animalibus nomina imposuit, & sibi inter ea simile adiutorium non inuenit. Verùm haec omnia eodem die sexto facta esse oportet, intra quem absoluta est vniuersa rerum creatio: nam in fine capitis primi dicitur, Viditque Deus cuncta quae fecerat, & erant valdè bona, & facta sunt vespere & mane dies sextus: & initio capitis secundi, Igitur perfecti sunt coeli & terra, & omnis ornatus eorum, compleuitque Deus die septimo opus suum quod fecerat. Et in Exodo capite vigesimo, Sex diebus fecit Dominus coelum & terram, mare, & omnia quae in eis sunt. Quamobrem non probanda est sententia Catharini, qui mulierem die septimo conditam esse contendit, quasi septimo demùm die hominis generatio fuerit perfecta & consummata.
[...It remains, therefore, that the woman was foun]ded some while after the man: for some delay of time intervened between the creation of the man and the procreation of the woman — namely, in that interval in which Adam imposed names on the animals, and found among them no helper like to himself. But all these things must have been done on the same sixth day, within which the whole creation of things was completed: for at the end of the first chapter it is said, “And God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good; and there was made evening and morning, the sixth day”; and at the beginning of the second chapter, “So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their adornment; and God completed on the seventh day His work which He had made.” And in Exodus, chapter twenty: “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.” Wherefore the opinion of Catharinus is not to be approved, who contends that the woman was founded on the seventh day, as though only on the seventh day was the generation of man perfected and consummated.14
Neque obstat quod legitur, Compleuit Deus die septimo opus suum: nam id ita intelligendum est, quòd septimo die requieuit Deus ab omni opere quod patrarat, vt eodem capite secundo statim subiungitur: complere enim opus, hoc loco non est aliquid operis efficere, sed potius opus omne penitùs absoluisse & consummasse. Atque ita hunc locum exponit D. Thomas, prima parte quaestione septuagesima tertia, articulo primo. De loco autem in quo facta sit Eua, probabilius est eam in ipso Paradiso, non extra Paradisum, fuisse formatam: nam Adam in Paradiso erat collocatus, vt eum operaretur & custodiret; & verisimile non est eum, soporis causa, extra Paradisum fuisse eiectum. Quod & Iosephus libro primo Antiquitatum, & Tertullianus, & Rupertus, & Basilius, & D. Thomas prima parte quaestione centesima secunda sentiunt: explodendóque est commentum eorum qui Adam extra Paradisum eductum, ibíque Euam ex eius latere formatam esse fabulantur.
Nor does it stand in the way that it is read, “God completed on the seventh day His work”: for that is to be understood thus, that on the seventh day God rested from all the work which He had wrought, as is at once subjoined in the same second chapter; for “to complete the work,” in this place, is not to effect some part of the work, but rather to have utterly finished and consummated the whole work. And so St. Thomas expounds this passage, in the first part, question seventy-three, article one. But concerning the place in which Eve was made, it is more probable that she was formed in Paradise itself, not outside Paradise: for Adam had been placed in Paradise, that he might work it and keep it; and it is not likely that he, for the sake of the sleep, was cast outside Paradise. Which also Josephus, in the first book of the Antiquities, and Tertullian, and Rupert, and Basil, and St. Thomas in the first part, question one hundred two, hold; and the fiction of those is to be hissed away who fable that Adam was led outside Paradise, and that there Eve was formed from his side.15

Translator’s notes

  1. Sub-lemma (the second clause of Gen 2:18) heading the next stretch of commentary. ↩
  2. Large decorated initial 'L'. The LXX/Vulgate plural 'Faciamus' renders a Hebrew/Chaldee singular 'I will make' (Heb. אעשה, Ehesche; the Targum/Chaldee form transliterated 'Eheued,' partly cut in the margin). The deliberation marks the dignity of the work. The Targum renders 'helper like himself' as 'a support beside him.' Marginal glosses: 'Hebraismus אעשה Ehesche, & Chaldaicé [Eheued]'; 'Chaldaica versio.' ↩
  3. Chaldee/Targum רglosses: סמך (Semach) = 'support/prop'; כקבליה (Chechible) = 'corresponding to / beside him' — the wife as the husband's 'support at hand.' (Pererius' transliterations retained.) ↩
  4. The woman partly like the man (same species, an immortal God-like soul — her equality), partly unlike (sex: the active vs. passive/efficient vs. material principle of generation). Marginal gloss: 'Mulier similis & dissimilis viro creari debuit.' ↩
  5. Hebrew כנגדו (chenegdo) = 'against him,' with three readings: (1) 'contrary/adversary' (a perverse reading, rejected); Tostatus' agent/patient contrariety. Marginal gloss: 'Lectio Hebraica est כנגדו chenegdo.' ↩
  6. Second/third readings of 'against him' = 'before/facing him' (Ps 51:5; Matt 21:2). David Kimhi (Sefer ha-Shorashim) takes it as servile (the woman made to wait on the man) — a reading Pererius will reject (PDF 506). Marginal gloss: 'Matth. 21.' ↩
  7. Pererius rejects Kimhi's servile reading: woman is the man's companion, not servant — made from his side, not feet/back (Aristotle, Politics 1.2: wife ≠ servant). Marginal gloss: 'Mulierem nó esse servá viri.' ↩
  8. Aristotle, Politics 1.2 (block-quote): male and female couple by nature, not counsel; the female is not the servant (only 'among barbarians' confused). Cajetan: 'before him' = the woman's upright, man-like form (unlike the beasts). Marginal gloss: 'Caietanus in Genesim.' ↩
  9. Augustine's striking thesis (de Gen. ad lit. 9.3-4): the woman was needed only for procreation (for anything else, a man would be a better helper). Introduces the block-quote. ↩
  10. Augustine, de Gen. ad lit. 9.3-4 (block-quote): woman was made for procreation alone (the earth-and-seed analogy; Gen 1:27-28); for fieldwork or companionship a man would serve better — so the unique help she gives is generation. ↩
  11. Pererius' own division: woman is necessary for generation and nursing (which men cannot do), but only highly useful (not necessary) for domestic work. Page ends at the catchword 'à foemi' (signature NN). RESUME POINT for next batch: PDF 507, '...perficiuntur à foemi[na]...'. ↩
  12. Woman is the better helper for the home (more apt by nature); 'man not made for woman but woman for man' (1 Cor 11:9). The Peripatetic tag 'vir/animal occasionatum' — woman as a 'mischanced/occasioned' product, beyond nature's first intention, from a defect of the male seed's generative virtue (Aristotle, de Gen. Anim. 2.3). Marginal gloss: '1. Cor. 11.' ↩
  13. Though less perfect than man, woman far excels the beasts: made not from earth's slime but from man's own rib, his undivided companion. Question of the time and place of Eve's creation begins: she was made after Adam (1 Tim 2:13 'Adam first, then Eve'; Wisdom 10:1, Adam the 'protoplast'). Marginal glosses: '1. Timoth. 2'; 'Sapient. 10.' Page breaks at catchword 'con[dita].' ↩
  14. A delay (the naming of the animals) fell between Adam's and Eve's making, but all within the sixth day — the whole creation finished in six days (Gen 1:31; 2:1-2; Exod 20:11). Against Catharinus, who put Eve's creation on the seventh day. Marginal glosses: 'Gen. 1. & 2.'; 'Exod. 20.'; 'Catharinus.' ↩
  15. 'God finished on the seventh day' = He rested, having wholly consummated the work (Aquinas, ST I q.73 a.1). Eve was formed within Paradise (Josephus, Ant. 1; Tertullian; Rupert; Basil; Aquinas ST I q.102), against the fable that Adam was led outside it. Marginal glosses: 'D. Thom. 1. p. q. 73.'; 'D. Thom. q. 102.' Page breaks at catchword 'Immisit' (signature NN 2). ↩