Commentary on Genesis (Complete Edition). Martin Luther
Читать онлайн книгу.
when they inquired "who He was?" this answer, "The beginning, who also speak unto you," John 8:25. This same exposition is given also from Ps. 110:3, "With thee is the Beginning, in the day of thy power;" which passage nearly all commentators expound as meaning, "With thee is thy Son in divine power." But it is well known to those acquainted with the Greek language that the expression tan Archan should be rendered by an adverbial phraseology "at first" or "in the beginning," etc. It is a figure of speech which we frequently meet in Greek. Wherefore let those who will, amuse themselves by thus interpreting the expression "In the beginning." I prefer the simplest explanation which can be at once understood by the less learned.
My belief is therefore that the design of Moses was to signify the beginning of time; so that "In the beginning" has the same meaning as if he had said, "At that time before which there was no time." Or he means that when the world began it so began that the heavens and the earth were created by God out of nothing; but created in a rude shapeless mass, not formed and beautified as they now are. Though they lay not long thus, but began immediately on the first day to be garnished with the light.
The Arians imagined that angels and the Son of God were made before "the beginning." But let us pass by this blasphemy. We will omit also another question, "What was God doing before the beginning of the world;" was he in a state of entire inaction or not? To this question Augustine introduced in his Confession the reply, "He was making a hell for all searchers into his secrets." This reply says Augustine was made to ridicule the violent and audacious blasphemy of the question.
The modesty therefore of Augustine pleases one, who elsewhere candidly says that in all such cases he draws in the sails of his thoughts. For if we speculate and dispute to infinity, these things still remain incomprehensible. Even those things which we see we can understand but little. How much less then shall we grasp in our knowledge such things as these. For what will you determine concerning things that were before and beyond time? Or what can be your thoughts of things God did before time was? Wherefore let us away with all such thoughts and believe that God before the creation of the world was incomprehensible in his essential rest, but that now since the creation he is within and without and above all creatures; that is, he is still incomprehensible. This is all that can be said, because that which was outside of time our intellect can not comprehend.
Wherefore God does not manifest himself in anything but in his works and in his Word; because these can in some measure be comprehended, all other things which properly belong to his divinity, cannot be comprehended or understood, as they really are; such as those things which were beyond time and before the world's creation, etc. Perhaps God appeared to Adam unveiled; but after his sin he may have shown himself to him in "a noise," Gen. 3:8, under which he was covered as with a veil. So also later in the tabernacle God was veiled by the sanctuary; and in the desert by the pillar of a cloud and by the pillar of fire. Wherefore Moses also calls these things "appearances" or "shadowings" of God, by which he then manifested himself. And Cain calls that the "face" and the "presence" of God where he had before offered his sacrifices, Gen. 4:14. For our nature is so deformed by sin, yea corrupted and lost, that it cannot understand God naked and unveiled nor comprehend what he really is. Therefore it is that these covering veils are absolutely necessary.
It is moreover insanity to dispute much concerning God as to what he was beyond and before time, for that is to desire to comprehend naked divinity or the naked divine essence. And it is for this very reason that God has wrapt himself in the veils of his works and under certain visible appearances, just as at this day he veils himself under baptism, absolution, etc. If you depart from these veiling signs, you at once run away beyond measure, beyond place and beyond time into the most absolute nothing; concerning which, as philosophers say, there can be no knowledge. Therefore it is that we with solemn propriety enter not into this question; but rest content with this simple meaning of the expression, "In the beginning."
II. But it is more worthy of observation that Moses does not say "In the beginning, ADONI, the Lord created the heavens and the earth;" but he uses a noun of the plural number ELOHIM; by which name, in the Books of Moses, and in other parts of the Scriptures both angels and magistrates are sometimes called. As in Ps. 82:6, "I have said ye are gods." It is certain however that here it signifies the one true God, by whom all things were made. Why therefore does Moses here use a plural noun or name?
The Jews cavil at Moses in various ways. To us however it is clear that the intent of Moses is to set forth directly the Trinity; or the plurality of persons in the one divine nature. For as he is speaking of the work of the creation it manifestly follows that he excludes angels, who are creatures, from the creative work. There remains therefore this sacred conclusion of the whole matter; that God is One, and that this most perfect Unity is also a most perfect Trinity. For how otherwise does Moses use the plural number, "In the beginning ELOHIM created."
The cold and wicked cavilling of the Jews therefore is to be altogether exploded, when they say that Moses used the plural number for the sake of reverence. For what place is there here for the exercise of reverence? Especially since that which is an idiom among us Germans is not common to all languages; namely, that it should be considered a point of reverence to use the plural number when speaking of one person.
Although the Jews make so much noise about this term ELOHIM being applied to angels and to men, be it remembered that it is in the plural number in this place where it cannot possibly be applied to any but the one true God, because Moses is treating of the Creation. There were moreover many other singular nouns which Moses might have used had he not purposely intended to show to the spiritually minded, that in the divine nature there is before and independently of all creation and all creatures, a plurality of persons. He does not indeed say in plain terms, there is the Father, there is the Son, and there is the Holy Ghost; and they are the one true God; because that was reserved for the doctrine of the Gospel. It was enough for him by the use of a plural noun though afterwards applied to men also, to set forth this plurality of the divine persons.
Nor ought it to offend us that this same term is afterwards applied to creatures. For why should not God communicate his name unto us, seeing that he communicates to us his power, and his office? For us to remit sins, to retain sins, to quicken to spiritual life, etc., are the works of the divine Majesty alone; and yet these same works are a sign to men and they are wrought by the Word which men teach. Thus Paul said, "That I may save some of them that are my flesh," Rom. 11:14. And again, "I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some," 1 Cor. 9:22. As therefore these works are truly the works of God, although they are assigned also unto men and are wrought by means of men; so the name of God truly represents God though it is applied also to men.
Arius could not deny that Christ existed before the world was created, because Christ himself says, "Before Abraham was, I am," John 8:58. It is written in the Proverbs, 8:22, also, "Before the heavens were, I am." Arius is obliged therefore to confess that Christ or the Word was created before all things, and that he afterwards created all things, and that he was the most perfect of all creatures though he did not exist from everlasting. But to this fanatical and impious opinion we ought to oppose that which Moses so briefly expresses by the term "In the beginning." Nor does Moses place anything before "the beginning" but God himself; and him he here represents by a plural noun.
Into these absurd opinions do minds fall when they speculate on such mighty things without the Word. We know not ourselves; as Lucretius says, "Man knows not the nature of his own soul." We feel that we can judge, enumerate, distinguish quantities, and, if I may so call them, spiritual creatures, such as truth and falsehood, and yet we cannot to this day define what the soul is. How much less then shall we be able to understand the divine nature! We know not for instance what is the motion of our will; for it is not a motion of quality or of quantity; and yet it is some motion. What then can we know of things divine?
It is fanatical therefore to dispute concerning God and the divine nature without the Word and without some veiling representation. Yet thus do all heretics; and they think and dispute respecting God with the same security as they would respecting a hog or a cow. Therefore they receive a reward worthy their temerity; for by these means they are dashed on the rocks of every peril. Hence he who would contemplate such mighty things in safety and without danger must confine himself with all simplicity within those representations,