LatineEnglish
Verse 3. And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh.1
Vers. 3. Dixitque Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in aeternum, quia caro est.
Haec verba gravem comminationem Dei adversus hominum illius temporis flagitia continent. Solet autem Deus poenas denuntiare prius quam irroget; id quod magnae clementiae signum est. Idcirco enim comminatur ut a peccatis absterreat, ne punire cogatur. Talis est Dominus noster, inquit Chrysostomus: minatur saepe, non ut opere compleat minas, sed ut, correctis nobis, minas ad opus minime perducat. Alioquin, si punire vellet, cur praediceret? Sed quia non vult, semper cessat, et moras nectit, et differt, et praedicit, occasionem reis praebens ut, fugiendo malitiam et apprehendendo virtutem, poenas non experiantur. Itaque postquam interminatus est se illos generali exitio traditurum (hoc enim est, Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis...
These words contain a grave threat of God against the crimes of the men of that time. Now God is wont to announce punishments before he inflicts them — a thing which is a sign of great clemency. For he threatens for this reason: to deter from sins, lest he be compelled to punish. “Such is our Lord,” says Chrysostom: “he often threatens, not in order to carry out his threats in deed, but in order, once we are corrected, by no means to bring the threats to the deed. Otherwise, if he wished to punish, why would he foretell it? But because he does not wish it, he always holds back, and contrives delays, and defers, and foretells, giving the guilty an occasion that, by fleeing wickedness and laying hold of virtue, they may not experience punishment.” And so, after he had threatened that he would deliver them to a general destruction (for this is what is meant by “My spirit shall not remain in those men”…2
...id est, Non sinam illos posthac vivere) differens indignationem, tempus centum et viginti annorum ad poenitentiam agendam clementer indulget. Sic Chrysostomus. Dupliciter autem universum genus hominum propter peccata mortis poena Deus punivit. Primum, propter peccatum Adam, cuius omnes eius posteri, ut culpae participes, ita mortis rei fuere. Nam illud, In quacumque die comederis morte morieris, et illud, Pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris, non ad unum modo Adam, sed etiam ad omnes eius posteros pertinent. Deinde, propter nefanda hominum scelera, diluvii supplicio omnes propemodum homines ad internecionem redegit. Sed cur Deus poenam mortis tanquam omnium gravissimam adversus peccatores constituit? Nimirum morte nihil homini, huius vitae commodis et bonis affixo, terribilius esse potest; et mors, ut vivendi, sic male vivendi et aliis nocendi finem affert. Sed expendamus verba Mosis.
…that is, ‘I will not allow them to live henceforth’) — deferring his indignation, he mercifully grants a span of a hundred and twenty years for doing penance. So Chrysostom. Now God punished the whole human race for its sins with the penalty of death in two ways. First, on account of the sin of Adam, of which all his descendants, as sharers in the guilt, so also became liable to death. For the words, “In whatever day thou shalt eat, thou shalt die the death,” and the words, “Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return,” pertain not to Adam alone, but also to all his descendants. Secondly, on account of the abominable crimes of men, he reduced almost all men to destruction by the punishment of the Flood. But why did God appoint the penalty of death, as the gravest of all, against sinners? Doubtless because nothing can be more terrible to man, fixed upon the comforts and goods of this life, than death; and death, as it brings an end of living, so also of living badly and of harming others. But let us weigh the words of Moses.3
Quam nostra translatio Latina sententiam habet, eandem plane reddit Graeca lectio, nec discrepat Chaldaica Latine ad verbum reddita, hoc sonans: Tum dixit Dominus, Non durabit generatio mala haec coram me in aeternum, eo quod sunt caro, et opera eorum mala sunt. Verum quia vocabulum Spiritus varie sumitur in sacris literis, propterea varias hic locus interpretationes habet. Primo, illud spiritus meus potest significare ipsum Dei Spiritum, id est ipsum Deum qui Spiritus est, ut hic sit sensus: Non ero amplius cum istis hominibus; vel, non ulterius apponam cor meum erga illos, neque, ut antehac feci, pergam deinceps bene velle illis, conservando eos in terris; discedam ab illis, faciem meam ab illis avertam, ut a me derelicti pereant, sicut David dixit: Avertente te faciem, turbabuntur; et qualis illa esset futura turbatio declarans, subiungit: Auferes spiritum eorum et deficient, et in pulverem suum revertentur.
The sense which our Latin translation has, the Greek reading plainly renders the same; nor does the Chaldee disagree, rendered into Latin word for word, sounding thus: “Then the Lord said, This evil generation shall not endure before me for ever, because they are flesh, and their works are evil.” But because the word “Spirit” is taken in various ways in the sacred writings, this passage therefore has various interpretations. First, that phrase “my spirit” can signify the Spirit of God himself, that is, God himself who is Spirit, so that the sense is this: “I will be no longer with those men”; or, “I will no more set my heart toward them, nor, as I have done hitherto, will I henceforth continue to wish them well by preserving them on the earth; I will depart from them, I will turn my face away from them, that, forsaken by me, they may perish” — as David said: “When thou turnest away thy face, they shall be troubled”; and, declaring what that future trouble would be, he adds: “Thou shalt take away their spirit, and they shall fail, and shall return to their dust.”4
Sumitur etiam vocabulum spiritus pro ira et indignatione, veluti apud Isaiam capite 2: Quiescite, inquit, ab homine cuius spiritus in naribus eius est, quia excelsus reputatus est ipse. Quid est illud, Cuius spiritus in naribus eius est? Id est, cuius ira in promptu et vehemens est. Secundum hanc vero significationem erit hic sensus: Non permanebit, seu non perdurabit in aeternum indignatio mea adversus istos homines; quasi dicat, puniam eos in hoc seculo temporali supplicio, ne post hanc vitam aeternis poenis puniantur. Vel, non differam exercere indignationem meam adversus istos in aeternum, aut in tempus admodum longum; nisi enim ante centum viginti annos dignam egerint poenitentiam, effundam super eos spiritum indignationis meae.
The word “spirit” is also taken for anger and indignation, as in Isaiah, chapter 2: “Cease ye,” he says, “from the man whose spirit is in his nostrils, for he is reputed high.” What is that, “whose spirit is in his nostrils”? That is, whose anger is ready and vehement. According to this signification the sense will be: “My indignation against those men shall not remain, or not endure, for ever”; as if he were to say, “I will punish them in this world with a temporal punishment, lest after this life they be punished with eternal pains.” Or: “I will not defer to exercise my indignation against them for ever, or for a very long time; for unless within a hundred and twenty years they do worthy penance, I will pour out upon them the spirit of my indignation.”5
Accipitur etiam spiritus Dei pro cura et providentia quam Deus gerit hominum, tuendo eorum vitam et quae ad eam commode agendam vel necessaria vel etiam utilia et iucunda sunt opportune et large tribuendo. Sic videtur accipi nomen Spiritus Psalmo 103 illis verbis: Emittes spiritum tuum et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem terrae. Atque ita hunc locum interpretatur Chrysostomus. Et sensus est: Non pergam amplius habere curam et providentiam istorum homi-...
The Spirit of God is also taken for the care and providence which God exercises over men, by guarding their life and by opportunely and bountifully bestowing the things which are necessary, or even useful and pleasant, for living it conveniently. So the name “Spirit” seems to be taken in Psalm 103, in those words: “Thou shalt send forth thy spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth.” And so Chrysostom interprets this passage. And the sense is: “I will no longer continue to have care and providence over those men…”6
...num, sustentando et prorogando eorum vitam; auferam illis hunc spiritum meae curae et providentiae, quo subtracto penitus ad interitum recident.
…by sustaining and prolonging their life; I will take from them this spirit of my care and providence, and when it is withdrawn they will fall utterly to ruin.7
Adhaec, frequenter in sacris litteris vocabulum Spiritus usurpatur pro anima rationali, cui hoc nomen propterea inditum est quod Moses, exponens creationem animae, dicit Deum inspirasse in faciem hominis spiraculum vitae. Sicut autem praesentia animae est causa vitae, sic digressus eius a corpore causa est mortis. Dicitur porro anima rationalis spiritus Dei, quod a solo Deo creetur et infundatur corpori atque inibi conservetur, et inde, cum libuerit Deo, sevocetur; quemadmodum Ecclesiastae capite 12 scriptum est: Donec pulvis revertatur in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum. Ergo illud, Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in aeternum, non aliud significat quam genus humanum non perpetuo esse victurum in terris. Permansio enim spiritus Dei, id est animae, in corpore, causa est vitae hominum; remotio autem animae a corpore causa est mortis. Auferes, inquit David Psalmo 103, spiritum eorum et deficient, et in pulverem suum revertentur.
Furthermore, in the sacred writings the word “Spirit” is frequently used for the rational soul, on which this name has been bestowed for this reason: that Moses, expounding the creation of the soul, says that God “breathed into the face of man the breath of life.” And as the presence of the soul is the cause of life, so its departure from the body is the cause of death. Moreover, the rational soul is called “the spirit of God,” because it is created by God alone and infused into the body and there preserved, and thence, when it pleases God, called away; as it is written in Ecclesiastes, chapter 12: “Until the dust return into its earth whence it was, and the spirit return to God who gave it.” Therefore that phrase, “My spirit shall not remain in man for ever,” signifies nothing else than that the human race will not live perpetually on the earth. For the remaining of the spirit of God — that is, of the soul — in the body is the cause of men’s life; but the removal of the soul from the body is the cause of death. “Thou shalt take away,” says David in Psalm 103, “their spirit, and they shall fail, and return to their dust.”8
Huic significationi spiritus affinis est significatio eiusdem vocabuli cum id ponitur pro vita, quoniam haec per spirationem et flatum conservatur. Sic eo vocabulo usus est Iob capite 27: Donec superest halitus in me et spiritus Dei in naribus meis, non loquentur verba mea iniquitatem, nec lingua mea meditabitur mendacium. Daniel autem (ut scriptum est in libro eius cap. 5) dixit regi Balsasari: Deum qui habet flatum tuum in manu sua et omnes vias tuas non glorificasti; id est, in cuius manu et potestate est vita tua. In ipso enim, ut dixit Paulus, vivimus et movemur et sumus. Postremo, saepe vocabulum spiritus Dei positum est in scriptura ad significandum Spiritum sanctum, de quo locum hunc interpretatus est Ambrosius libro de Noë et Arca cap. 3, scilicet verba haec Mosis a proprio eorum intellectu ad mysterium et ad Christum accommodans, in quo Spiritum sanctum permansisse traditur in sacris litteris. Datur, inquit Ambrosius, Spiritus sanctus hominibus, sed in eis non permanet, quia caro sunt. Carnis enim natura disciplinae repugnat, quia voluptati obtemperat. Denique de solo domino Iesu scriptum est: Super quem videris spiritum descendentem de caelo et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in spiritu Sancto. In eo manebat, quem nulla corruptela carnalis impedimenta revocabant quo minus incorrupta et intermixta ordinem disciplinae teneret, cuius caro non vidit corruptionem. Sic Ambrosius.
Kindred to this signification of “spirit” is the signification of the same word when it is put for life, since this is preserved by breathing and breath. So Job uses the word, chapter 27: “As long as breath remains in me, and the spirit of God in my nostrils, my words shall not speak iniquity, nor shall my tongue meditate a lie.” And Daniel (as is written in his book, ch. 5) said to King Belshazzar: “God, who holds thy breath in his hand and all thy ways, thou hast not glorified”; that is, in whose hand and power is thy life. For “in him,” as Paul said, “we live and move and are.” Lastly, the phrase “the Spirit of God” is often put in Scripture to signify the Holy Spirit, in which sense Ambrose interpreted this passage, in the book On Noah and the Ark, ch. 3 — accommodating, namely, these words of Moses from their proper sense to the mystery and to Christ, in whom the Holy Spirit is recorded in the sacred writings to have remained. “The Holy Spirit,” says Ambrose, “is given to men, but does not remain in them, because they are flesh. For the nature of the flesh is repugnant to discipline, because it obeys pleasure. Finally, of the Lord Jesus alone it is written: ‘He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending from heaven and remaining upon him, he it is who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ It remained in him whom no carnal corruption recalled by its impediments from keeping, uncorrupted and unmixed, the order of discipline — he whose flesh saw no corruption.” So Ambrose.9
Verum quanquam spiritus sanctus eximio quodam et singulari modo in solo Christo manserit, mansisse tamen etiam Spiritum sanctum in aliis legimus in sacris litteris. Salvator enim noster dixit Apostolis suis: Ego rogabo Patrem, et alium Paracletum dabit vobis, ut maneat vobiscum in aeternum. Nec dubitari potest Spiritum sanctum mansisse in Ioanne Baptista, quippe qui ex utero matris suae repletus est Spiritu sancto, ut nihil hoc loco dicam de beatissima Virgine. Harum quinque significatio-...
But although the Holy Spirit remained in a certain extraordinary and singular manner in Christ alone, yet we read in the sacred writings that the Holy Spirit remained also in others. For our Savior said to his Apostles: “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may remain with you for ever.” Nor can it be doubted that the Holy Spirit remained in John the Baptist, since he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb — to say nothing here of the most blessed Virgin. Of these five significa-…10
...num et interpretationum vocabuli Spiritus, eam qua vel anima vel vita significatur, ut huic loco aptissime congruentem, maxime probamus.
…tions and interpretations of the word “Spirit,” we most approve that by which either the soul or life is signified, as most aptly fitting this passage.11
Illud porro in aeternum dupliciter exponitur: vel ut vox illa aeternum non significet proprie aeternitatem, sed longissimum aliquod tempus cuius certus finis non exprimitur — qua significatione non raro in divinis libris ea vox reperitur; et sic erit sensus: Antehac longissimam dedi homini vitam, ut nonnulli prope millesimum annum vitam extenderint; sed posthac praecidam hanc longitudinem, eamque ad centum viginti annos contraham. Vel ea vox significat proprie aeternitatem, ut sensus sit: Non patiar genus humanum deinceps aeternum esse, id est perpetuo vivere in terris; perdam enim ipsum diluvio et de terris delebo. Et haec quidem significatio atque interpretatio commodior est, et aptius haeret cum iis quae sequuntur.
The phrase “for ever” (in aeternum) is, moreover, expounded in two ways: either so that the word “for ever” does not properly signify eternity, but some very long time whose fixed end is not expressed — in which signification that word is found not rarely in the divine books; and thus the sense will be: “Hitherto I have given man a very long life, so that some have extended their life nearly to the thousandth year; but henceforth I will cut short this length, and contract it to a hundred and twenty years.” Or the word signifies eternity properly, so that the sense is: “I will not suffer the human race to be henceforth everlasting, that is, to live perpetually on the earth; for I will destroy it by the Flood and blot it out from the earth.” And this signification and interpretation is the more convenient, and adheres more aptly to what follows.12
Pro illo autem quia caro est, Graeca lectio habet plurali numero, quia carnes sunt, sicut etiam habet plurali numero, Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis. Quid sit autem quia caro est, vel quia carnes sunt, interpretatur Chrysostomus homilia 22 in Genesim ad hunc modum: Eo quod, inquit, carnalibus operibus seipsos totos dedunt, et animae substantia abutuntur, et, quasi sola carne circumdati carerent anima, sic vitam suam absumunt. Perpetuus enim scripturae mos est carnem vocare homines carnales, sicut virtute praestantes carnis expertes nominat. Sic Paulus loquitur: Vos autem non estis in carne — non quod carne non essent circumdati, sed quia carnem gestantes, superiores erant carnalibus affectionibus et sensibus. Quemadmodum autem de his Paulus dixit, Vos non estis in carne, eo quod carnalia despiciebant, sic de illis dictum est, eo quod ipsi sunt carnes; nam licet animam rationalem haberent potiorem sui partem, perinde tamen vivebant sine ratione ac si sola carne constarent. Haec Chrysostomus.
For that phrase “because he is flesh,” the Greek reading has, in the plural, “because they are flesh,” just as it also has, in the plural, “My spirit shall not remain in those men.” What “because he is flesh,” or “because they are flesh,” means, Chrysostom interprets in homily 22 on Genesis in this manner: “Because,” he says, “they give themselves wholly to carnal works, and abuse the substance of the soul, and, as though, surrounded by flesh alone, they lacked a soul, so they consume their life. For it is Scripture’s constant custom to call carnal men ‘flesh,’ just as it names those outstanding in virtue ‘free of flesh.’ So Paul speaks: ‘But you are not in the flesh’ — not that they were not surrounded by flesh, but because, though bearing flesh, they were superior to carnal affections and senses. And as Paul said of these, ‘You are not in the flesh,’ because they despised carnal things, so it is said of those men, ‘because they are flesh’; for although they had the rational soul as their better part, yet they lived just as if they consisted of flesh alone, without reason.” Thus Chrysostom.13
At enim vero observationem hanc Chrysostomi non esse perpetuo veram manifestis divinae scripturae testimoniis ostendit B. Gregorius libro 14 Moralium cap. 29, tractans illa verba Iob: Et rursum circumdabor pelle mea. Nam cum prius commemorasset disputationem quam ipse Constantinopoli habuit cum Eutychio eius urbis Episcopo, qui negabat hominem resurrecturum in vera substantia carnis, propterea quod Paulus id confirmare videbatur illis verbis quae sunt in capite 15 prioris epistolae ad Corinthios, Caro et sanguis regnum Dei possidere non possunt, huic ipse Gregorius respondens obiectioni: In sacro, inquit, eloquio aliter caro dicitur iuxta naturam, atque aliter iuxta culpam vel corruptionem. Caro quippe iuxta naturam dicitur ubi scriptum est: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea; et, Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis. Caro vero iuxta culpam dicitur ubi scriptum est: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, eo quod sunt caro; et David ait: Memoratus est quia caro sunt, spiritus vadens et non rediens. Unde discipulis Paulus dicebat: Vos non estis in carne sed in spiritu. Neque enim in carne non erat quibus epistolas transmittebat, sed quia passiones carnalium desideriorum vice-...
But in fact, that this observation of Chrysostom is not always true, the blessed Gregory shows by manifest testimonies of divine Scripture, in book 14 of the Morals, ch. 29, treating those words of Job: “And again I shall be encompassed with my skin.” For when he had first recalled the disputation which he himself held at Constantinople with Eutychius, bishop of that city — who denied that man would rise again in the true substance of flesh, on the ground that Paul seemed to confirm this in those words which are in chapter 15 of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, “Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God” — Gregory, replying to this objection, says: “In sacred discourse, ‘flesh’ is said in one way according to nature, and in another according to fault or corruption. For ‘flesh’ is said according to nature where it is written: ‘This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh’; and, ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.’ But ‘flesh’ is said according to fault where it is written: ‘My spirit shall not remain in those men, because they are flesh’; and David says: ‘He remembered that they are flesh, a spirit that goes and returns not.’ Whence Paul said to his disciples: ‘You are not in the flesh, but in the spirit.’ For it was not that those to whom he sent his epistles were not in the flesh, but because the passions of carnal desires had been over-…”14
...vicerant, iam liberi per virtutem spiritus in carne non erant. Cum ergo Apostolus dicit, Quia caro et sanguis regnum Dei possidere non possunt, carnem vult secundum culpam intelligi, non secundum naturam. Unde, quia carnem secundum culpam diceret, mox ostendit subdens: Neque corruptio incorruptelam possidebit. In illa ergo caelestis regni gloria caro secundum naturam erit, sed secundum passionem desiderii non erit; quia, devicto mortis aculeo, in aeterna incorruptione regnabit. Haec Gregorius.
…come, [and] being now free through the virtue of the spirit, they were not in the flesh. When, therefore, the Apostle says, ‘Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God,’ he wishes ‘flesh’ to be understood according to fault, not according to nature. Whence, because he was speaking of flesh according to fault, he immediately shows this, adding: ‘Neither shall corruption possess incorruption.’ In that glory of the heavenly kingdom, therefore, there will be flesh according to nature, but according to the passion of desire it will not be; because, the sting of death being overcome, it will reign in eternal incorruption.” Thus Gregory.15
Verum, ne hoc lector nesciat, monendus est solere in sacris litteris appellari homines carnales non eos tantum qui obscenas carnis voluptates sectantur, sed aliis quoque vitiis infectos, etiam iis quae ex animo potius ac mente quam ex carne proficisci videntur. Nam Paulus Corinthios, inter quos erant aemulationes, dissensiones ac schismata, appellat carnales: Cum enim, inquit, sint inter vos zelus et contentio, nonne carnales estis et secundum hominem ambulatis? Idemque in capite quinto epistolae quam scripsit ad Galatas, enumerans opera carnis, recenset idolorum servitutem, veneficia, inimicitias, contentiones, aemulationes, iras, rixas, dissensiones, sectas et invidias. Non est tamen negandum, cum nominantur peccata carnis vel hominum carnalium, praecipue ac plurimum significari peccata quae in sordidis libidinibus et voluptatibus carnis versantur. Unde quanquam hoc loco vocabulum carnis ad omnia carnis opera quae Paulus, ut supra diximus, commemorat, extendi potest, praecipue tamen ad vitia carnalium voluptatum pertinet.
But, lest the reader be ignorant of this, he must be warned that in the sacred writings ‘carnal men’ are usually called not only those who pursue the obscene pleasures of the flesh, but also those infected with other vices — even those which seem to proceed rather from the soul and mind than from the flesh. For Paul calls the Corinthians, among whom there were rivalries, dissensions, and schisms, ‘carnal’: “For whereas,” he says, “there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?” And likewise in the fifth chapter of the epistle he wrote to the Galatians, enumerating the works of the flesh, he reckons the service of idols, sorceries, enmities, contentions, rivalries, angers, quarrels, dissensions, sects, and envyings. Yet it must not be denied that, when the sins of the flesh or of carnal men are named, what is chiefly and most signified are the sins which are concerned with sordid lusts and pleasures of the flesh. Whence, although in this passage the word ‘flesh’ can be extended to all the works of the flesh which Paul, as we said above, recounts, yet it pertains chiefly to the vices of carnal pleasures.16
Non faciam ut praeclaram quandam B. Gregorii sententiam, huic Gregorii loco non modo non alienam sed perbelle congruentem, referre praetermittam. Tractans B. Gregorius libro 6 Expositionis in primum librum Regum verba illa quae sunt in capite 15 eius libri, Pepercit Saul populus regi Agag et optimis gregibus etc., ita scribit: Quis est Agag rex Amalec nisi sensus carnalis? Nam cum ex anima rationalitatem et sensualitatem habeamus, rationalitas menti, sensualitas carni adscribitur; et per illam cum Angelis, per hanc cum brutis animalibus convenimus. In illa, quo altius extollimur, supernis civibus appropinquamus; per hanc vero, cum ad carnis blandimenta dilabimur, carnaliores, ut ita dixerim, invenimur. Unde et, visis et concupitis iam filiabus hominum, iamque impletis in luxuria voluptatibus, his qui puritatis merito filii Dei vocabantur, in Genesi Dominus minatur dicens: Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in aeternum, eo quod caro sit. Caro quippe homo efficitur quando sensui carnis ratio subiugatur. Rex ergo Amalec vigor est sensus carnalis, qui motibus turpibus imperat ut captivam rationem ad illecebras obscenitatis trahat. Bene autem carnali sensui nomen congruit Agag, quippe Agag meditans sive loquens interpretatur. Meditari quippe ei est phantasmata lasciva interna meditatione colligere, et loqui ei est carnem motibus turpibus ad libidinem excitare. Quasi enim magnum clamorem locutionis habet, qui carnem pulsando ardentius commovet. Nam et meditando colligit quod loquendo exponit; quia unusquisque carnali sensui subditus, quo liberius lasciva simulacra intus conspicit, eo validiores motus turpitudinis fo-...
I will not fail to relate a certain splendid saying of the blessed Gregory, not only not foreign to this passage of Gregory, but very prettily congruent with it. The blessed Gregory, treating, in book 6 of the Exposition on the First Book of Kings, those words which are in chapter 15 of that book, “Saul and the people spared king Agag and the best of the flocks,” etc., writes thus: “Who is Agag, king of Amalek, but carnal sense? For since from the soul we have rationality and sensuality, rationality is ascribed to the mind, sensuality to the flesh; and by the one we have fellowship with the angels, by the other with the brute animals. In the former, the higher we are exalted, the nearer we approach to the citizens above; but by the latter, when we slip down to the allurements of the flesh, we are found, so to speak, more carnal. Whence also, when the daughters of men had now been seen and desired, and pleasures in lust now fulfilled, the Lord in Genesis threatens those who by merit of purity were called sons of God, saying: ‘My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh.’ For a man becomes flesh when reason is subjugated to the sense of the flesh. King Amalek, then, is the vigor of carnal sense, which commands by base motions, so that it may drag captive reason to the enticements of obscenity. And the name Agag fits carnal sense well, for Agag is interpreted ‘meditating’ or ‘speaking.’ For to meditate, for it, is to gather lascivious phantasms by inward meditation; and to speak, for it, is to rouse the flesh by base motions to lust. For he who, by striking the flesh, more ardently stirs it, has, as it were, a great clamor of speech. For by meditating it gathers what by speaking it sets forth; because everyone subject to carnal sense, the more freely he beholds lascivious images within, the stronger motions of baseness…”17
...turpitudinis foris sentit. Meditatur ergo per internam visionem turpitudinis, loquitur autem per exteriorem motum delectationis. Sic Gregorius.
…of baseness he feels outwardly. He meditates, therefore, through the inward vision of baseness, but speaks through the outward motion of delight.” Thus Gregory.18
Hactenus explicata quidem a nobis est sententia verborum Mosis secundum Latinam translationem, a qua nec lectio Graeca discordat nec Chaldaica. Deinceps vero lectionem Hebraicam, quae videtur longe diversa, expendere oportet; et hanc ipsam qui ex Hebraeo fidelissime studuerunt interpretari sacros libros varie admodum expresserunt. Pro eo quod nos legimus, Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine — pro illo, inquam, verbo permanebit, Hebraice est iadon, quae vox potest derivari a neden, quae significat vaginam. Unde Pagninus sic vertit: Non erit ut in vagina spiritus meus in homine in seculum; id est, non includetur anima in corpore in perpetuum, sicut gladius vagina conditur. Videtur enim corpus esse tanquam vagina animae. Caietanus vero hanc lectionem sic interpretatur: Non vaginabit spiritus meus etc. Hoc dictum est, inquit, ad similitudinem gladii reconditi in vagina, quo, quamdiu in vagina est, non utitur quis ad incidendum vel percutiendum. Et sensus est: Non erit iustitia mea ad puniendum hominem, ut gladius in vagina, in aeternum; sed evaginabo eum post centum viginti annos, et puniam homines. Alii putant eius verbi radicem esse dun, quod est contendere, disceptare, iudicare, litigare. Rabbi Salomon sic exponit: Non disceptabit spiritus meus cum homine, vel pro homine; quasi dicat, quidnam facturus sim de homine non diu disceptabo, debeamne hunc punire necne; tandem decernam quidnam facturus sim. Nam quia totus voluptatibus est deditus, iam iam puniam eum, neque longius tempus dabo ei ad resipiscendum quam centum viginti annos. Oleaster, sumens verbum Hebraeum pro litigare, sic exponit: Non litigabo cum homine; id est, non contendam amplius cum homine, monendo et arguendo ipsum ut non sequatur concupiscentias suas; cum enim totus sit carnalis, nihil movet eum admonitio vel reprehensio, opus igitur est extremo remedio, id est ultimo supplicio. Potest etiam verbum iadon deduci a nadah, quod est elongare; et si ab hac radice esset (ponitur enim saepius nun pro he), nulla esset huius loci difficultas, sensus enim esset: Non prolongabit spiritus meus spatium vivendi in homine, sed erunt dies eius centum viginti anni; quasi dicat, non prolongabo homini spatium vivendi ultra centum viginti annos, ultra quod spatium, nisi paenitentiam egerit, delebo ipsum. Et haec lectio atque interpretatio concordat cum nostra lectione Latina, quae habet, Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in aeternum.
Thus far we have explained the sense of the words of Moses according to the Latin translation, from which neither the Greek reading nor the Chaldee disagrees. But next we must weigh the Hebrew reading, which seems far different; and this very reading, those who most faithfully strove to interpret the sacred books from the Hebrew have rendered in quite various ways. For that which we read, “My spirit shall not remain in man” — for that word “remain,” I say — in Hebrew it is iadon, a word which can be derived from neden, which means “a sheath.” Whence Pagninus renders thus: “My spirit shall not be as in a sheath in man for an age”; that is, the soul shall not be enclosed in the body perpetually, as a sword is sheathed in a scabbard. For the body seems to be, as it were, the sheath of the soul. Cajetan, however, interprets this reading thus: “My spirit shall not be sheathed,” etc. “This is said,” he says, “after the likeness of a sword hidden in a sheath, which, as long as it is in the sheath, one does not use for cutting or striking.” And the sense is: “My justice shall not be, for punishing man, like a sword in the sheath, for ever; but I will unsheathe it after a hundred and twenty years, and punish men.” Others think the root of that word is dun, which is to contend, dispute, judge, litigate. Rabbi Solomon expounds thus: “My spirit shall not dispute with man,” or “for man”; as if to say, “I will not long dispute what I am to do with man — whether I ought to punish him or not; at length I will decide what I am to do. For because he is wholly given over to pleasures, I will now at once punish him, nor will I give him a longer time for repenting than a hundred and twenty years.” Oleaster, taking the Hebrew word for “to litigate,” expounds thus: “I will not litigate with man”; that is, “I will no longer contend with man by admonishing and reproving him not to follow his concupiscences; for since he is wholly carnal, no admonition or reproof moves him; there is need, therefore, of the extreme remedy, that is, of the ultimate punishment.” The word iadon can also be derived from nadah, which is “to prolong”; and if it were from this root (for nun is often put for he), there would be no difficulty in this passage, for the sense would be: “My spirit shall not prolong the span of living in man, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years”; as if to say, “I will not prolong for man the span of living beyond a hundred and twenty years; beyond which span, unless he do penance, I will destroy him.” And this reading and interpretation agrees with our Latin reading, which has, “My spirit shall not remain in man for ever.”19
B. Hieronymus in Traditionibus Hebraicis super Genesim: In Hebraeo, inquit, scriptum est, Non iudicabit spiritus meus homines istos in sempiternum, quia caro sunt. Hoc est: Quia fragilis est in homine conditio, non eos ad aeternos servabo cruciatus, sed hic illis restituam quod merentur. Ergo non severitatem, ut in nostris codicibus legitur, sed clementiam Dei sonat, dum peccator hic pro suo scelere visitatur. Unde et iratus Deus loquitur ad quos-...
The blessed Jerome, in the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis: “In the Hebrew,” he says, “it is written, ‘My spirit shall not judge those men for ever, because they are flesh.’ That is: Because the condition of man is frail, I will not keep them for eternal torments, but will here render to them what they deserve. Therefore it sounds not of severity, as it is read in our codices, but of the clemency of God, while the sinner is here visited for his crime. Whence also the angry God speaks to cer-…”20
...quosdam: Non visitabo filias eorum cum fuerint fornicatae, et sponsas eorum cum adulteraverint. Et in alio loco: Visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum, et in flagellis peccata eorum; veruntamen misericordiam meam non auferam ab eo. Haec Hieronymus.
…tain men: ‘I will not visit your daughters when they shall have committed fornication, nor your spouses when they shall have committed adultery.’ And in another place: ‘I will visit their iniquities with a rod, and their sins with stripes; nevertheless my mercy I will not take away from him.’” Thus Jerome.21
Nescio quid venerit in mentem Ruperto prodere scripto, olim in Hebraeo fuisse hanc lectionem, Non iudicabit spiritus meus in homine, nunc autem secundum Hebraicam veritatem esse hanc lectionem, Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine; quasi variata fuerit scriptura Hebraica et aliter se habuerit olim tempore B. Hieronymi quam nunc se habeat; cum tamen et tunc et nunc eadem fuerit lectio Hebraica huius loci, idemque verbum Hebraeum, quod, prout varia origo eius reperitur, varie quoque ab interpretibus Latine fuit expressum, ut supra ostendimus.
I know not what came into Rupert’s mind, to set forth in writing that formerly in the Hebrew this reading existed, “My spirit shall not judge in man,” but that now, according to the Hebrew truth, this is the reading, “My spirit shall not remain in man” — as though the Hebrew Scripture had been altered, and had been otherwise of old in the time of the blessed Jerome than it now is; whereas both then and now the Hebrew reading of this passage was the same, and the same Hebrew word, which, according as its various derivation is found, was likewise rendered variously into Latin by the interpreters, as we showed above.22
Caietanus porro lectionem illam Hebraicam, Non iudicabit spiritus meus homines istos, multo secus interpretatur quam B. Hieronymus. Putat enim significasse Deum his verbis se ante id tempus iudicasse homines spiritualiter; tale enim iudicium et decens erat Deo qui Spiritus est, et congruens homini cuius nobilior pars etiam spiritus est. Ordinarium enim Dei iudicium, tam erga probos quam improbos, illos iuvando, hos deferendo et puniendo, est in hac vita internum, spirituale, occultum, adeo ut multi illud denegent Deo dicentes: Supra caeli cardines ambulat, nec nostra considerat. Iudicium enim spirituale, quo Deus iudicat in hoc mundo improbos, est privare eos gratia sua, et quibusdam singularibus beneficiis et auxiliis quibus iuvat et protegit viros iustos sibique caros. Raro autem Deus in hoc mundo, etiam corporalibus suppliciis, sceleratos homines plectit, ita ut propter eorum flagitia sic eos fuisse punitos conspicuum sit omnibus. Verum quia homines illius temporis, adversus quos sententia haec Dei pronuntiata est, usque eo carnales evaserant ut nihil spirituale ac rationale habere viderentur, idcirco Deus dixit: Non pergam ulterius istos homines iudicare ac punire tantum spiritualiter, sed, cum omnino carnales facti sint, puniam eos (nisi ante centum viginti annos resipiscant) carnalibus poenis et corporali exitio diluvii.
Cajetan, moreover, interprets that Hebrew reading, “My spirit shall not judge those men,” much otherwise than the blessed Jerome. For he thinks that God signified by these words that before that time he had judged men spiritually; for such a judgment was both becoming to God, who is Spirit, and congruous to man, whose nobler part is also spirit. For the ordinary judgment of God, both toward the good and toward the wicked — helping the former, abandoning and punishing the latter — is in this life internal, spiritual, hidden, so much so that many deny it to God, saying: “He walks about the poles of heaven, and does not consider our affairs.” For the spiritual judgment by which God judges the wicked in this world is to deprive them of his grace, and of certain singular benefits and aids by which he helps and protects just men dear to him. But rarely does God in this world afflict wicked men even with bodily punishments, in such a way that it is plain to all that they have been so punished for their crimes. But because the men of that time, against whom this sentence of God was pronounced, had become so carnal that they seemed to have nothing spiritual or rational, therefore God said: “I will no longer continue to judge and punish those men only spiritually, but, since they have become wholly carnal, I will punish them (unless within a hundred and twenty years they repent) with carnal penalties and the bodily destruction of the Flood.”23
Translator’s notes
- Genesis 6:3a (Vulgate lemma). ↩
- Commentary on v. 3 (continues on p. 107): God threatens before he punishes — Chrysostom. Margin: Chrysostom, homily 22 on Genesis. ↩
- Commentary on v. 3 (continued from p. 106): the 120 years as a clemency, and the two ways God punished mankind with death. Margins: Gen. 2; Gen. 3. ↩
- §85: the Greek and Chaldee agree with the Latin; the fivefold meaning of ‘spiritus,’ and the first sense (God himself). Margins: ‘A fivefold meaning of Spirit; this passage has five expositions’; Ps. 103. ↩
- §86: the second sense — ‘spirit’ as wrath/indignation. Isaiah 2. ↩
- §87 (continues on p. 108): the third sense — ‘spirit’ as God’s care and providence. Margin: Chrysostom, homily 22 on Genesis; Ps. 103. ↩
- §87 (continued from p. 107). ↩
- §88: the fourth sense — ‘spirit’ as the rational soul. Margins: ‘Spirit in Scripture for the rational soul’; Gen. 2; (Eccles. 12). ↩
- §89: a fifth, kindred sense — ‘spirit’ as life (preserved by breath); and a sixth use, for the Holy Spirit (Ambrose). Margins: Acts 17; Ambrose (On Noah and the Ark, ch. 3). ↩
- §90 (continues on p. 109): yet the Holy Spirit did remain in others too. Margins: John 14; Luke 1. ↩
- §90 (continued from p. 108): the preferred sense — soul or life. ↩
- §91: ‘for ever’ (in aeternum) expounded two ways. ↩
- §92: ‘because he is flesh’ — the Greek plural, expounded by Chrysostom. Margins: Chrysostom; Rom. 8 (‘ye are not in the flesh’). ↩
- §93 (continues on p. 110): Gregory shows Chrysostom’s observation is not always true — ‘flesh’ by nature vs. by fault. Margins: ‘A remark against Chrysostom on the use of the word “flesh” in Scripture’; Gregory, Morals, bk. 14, ch. 29; Job 19; Gen. 2; John 1; Ps. 77; Rom. 8. ↩
- §93 (continued from p. 109): the conclusion of Gregory’s quotation. ↩
- §94: ‘carnal men’ in Scripture means not only the lustful, but those infected with other vices too. Margins: ‘Whom Scripture calls carnal men’; 1 Cor. 3; (Gal. 5). ↩
- §95 (continues on p. 111): a fine passage of Gregory on how a rational man is said in Scripture to ‘become flesh’ (on Agag, 1 Kings 15). Margin: ‘A notable saying of the blessed Gregory.’ ↩
- §95 (continued from p. 110): the close of Gregory’s passage. ↩
- §96: the Hebrew reading, variously rendered (iadon from neden ‘sheath,’ or from dun ‘to contend/judge,’ or from nadah ‘to prolong’). Margins: ‘A variant reading and exposition of this passage according to the Hebrew’; Jerome; Cajetan on Genesis; Rabbi Solomon; Oleaster. ↩
- §97 (continues on p. 112): Jerome’s Hebrew Traditions — the verse sounds of God’s clemency, not severity. Margin: Jerome. ↩
- §97 (continued from p. 111): the rest of Jerome’s citation. Margins: Hosea 2; Ps. 88. ↩
- §(against Rupert): Rupert wrongly supposed the Hebrew text had changed since Jerome’s day. Margins: Rupert; Cajetan. ↩
- §98: Cajetan reads the Hebrew differently from Jerome — God had judged men ‘spiritually’ before, but now will punish them with bodily death. Margins: Cajetan; Job 22. ↩