Technische verwerking bevestigt geen inhoudelijke beoordeling of toestemming voor openbare publicatie.
Versie a51165517b24a327f40b6003ec066511493e5c05a3e661373672eb8e52d2218f
{"author":null,"canonical_references":[],"database_sha256":"8cfbe7284c6936871d57c02dc6aa63ebbdfd4722422d539dd9f716e46e91112e","date_end":null,"date_start":null,"edition_year":null,"id":"sermonindex-ecf-5772","native_reference":{"book_number":10,"chapter_from":2,"chapter_to":2,"system":"MyBible module coordinates (mapping unverified)","verse_from":7,"verse_to":7},"public_import_allowed":false,"record_kind":"verse-keyed-module-record","review_required":["English edition and exact text","author/work attribution","dating","verse mapping and citation kind","reuse and attribution","split author quotations and deduplicate"],"review_status":"unreviewed","source_html":"<p><b>Ambrose of Milan</b>: Therefore the soul is not blood, because blood is of the flesh; nor is the soul a harmony, because harmony of this sort is also of the flesh; neither is the soul air, because blown breath is one thing and the soul something else. The soul is not fire, nor is the soul actuality, but the soul is living, for Adam \"became a living soul,\" since the soul rules and gives life to the body, which is without life or feeling.<br/><i>— On Isaac and the Soul</i></p><p><b>Augustine of Hippo</b>: First of all, the fact that God formed man from the mud of the earth usually raises a question about the sort of mud it was or the kind of material the term mud signifies. Those enemies of the Old Book [the Manichaeans], looking at everything in a carnal manner and therefore always being in error, bitingly find fault with this point as well, namely, that God formed man from the mud of the earth. For they say, \"Why did God make man from mud? Did he lack a better and heavenly material from which he could make man, that he formed him fragile and mortal from this earthly corruption?\" To begin with, they do not understand how many meanings either earth or water has in the Scriptures, for mud is a mixture of earth and water. Also we say that the human body began to waste away and to be fragile and mortal after sin. But the Manicheans abhor in our body only the mortality that we merited as punishment. But even if God made man from the mud of this earth, still what is there that is strange or difficult for God in making the human body such that it would not be subject to corruption if, in obedience to God's commandment, he had not willed to sin? For we say that the beauty of heaven was made from nothing or from formless matter, because we believe that the Maker is almighty. Why is it strange that the almighty Maker could make the body from some sort of mud of the earth so that before sin it afflicted man with no trouble or need and wasted away from no corruption?<br/><i>— TWO BOOKS ON GENESIS AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS 2.7.8</i></p><p><b>Augustine of Hippo</b>: Scripture says, \"And he breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul.\" If up to this point there was only the body, we should understand that the soul was at this point joined to the body. Perhaps the soul had been already made but was still as if in the mouth of God, that is, in his truth and wisdom. But it did not depart from there as if separated by places, when it was breathed forth. For God is not contained by place but is present everywhere.<br/><i>— TWO BOOKS ON GENESIS AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS 2.8.10</i></p><p><b>Augustine of Hippo</b>: We ought to understand this passage so that we do not take the words \"he breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul\" to mean that a part, as it were, of the nature of God was turned into the soul of man.… The nature of God is not mutable, does not err and is not corrupted by the stains of vices and sins.… Scripture clearly says that the soul was made by the almighty God and that it is therefore not a part of God or the nature of God.<br/><i>— TWO BOOKS ON GENESIS AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS 2.8.11</i></p><p><b>Augustine of Hippo</b>: After his resurrection, when he first appeared to his disciples, he said to them, \"Receive the Holy Spirit.\" About this giving, then, it was said, \"The Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified.\" \"And he breathed upon their face.\" The One who first gave life to man by breathing and raised him up from the mire and by breathing gave a soul to his members is the same One who breathed upon their face that they might rise up from the slime and renounce filthy works.<br/><i>— TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF John 32.6.3</i></p><p><b>Basil of Caesarea</b>: \"And he breathed into his nostrils,\" that is to say, he placed in man some share of his own grace, in order that he might recognize likeness through likeness. Nevertheless, being in such great honor because he was created in the image of the Creator, he is honored above the heavens, above the sun, above the choirs of stars. For which of the heavenly bodies was said to be an image of the most high God?<br/><i>— HOMILY ON Psalms 48</i></p><p><b>Bede</b>: In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them. For what is said to be in the image of God is understood correctly only in the soul; what is added as male and female is understood correctly only in the body. Therefore, those who think that the soul is a part of God should not be listened to, as if the soul of man were a part of God, and could neither be taken away by itself nor by anyone, nor be compelled by any necessity to do or suffer anything evil, nor be changed at all for better or worse. But that breath of God, which animated man, was made by Him, not from Him, just as neither is man's breath a part of man, nor does man make it from himself, but it is taken and emitted from the aerial vapor. But God was able to make from nothing, and He could make it living and rational, which man cannot do; although some think that the first man was not animated when God breathed into his face, and he became a living soul, but that he received the Holy Spirit at that time. However credible any of these hypotheses may be shown to be, we should not doubt that the soul is not a part of God, nor that it was created or issued from His substance, but that it was made from nothing.<br/><i>— Commentary on Genesis (Hexaemeron)</i></p><p><b>Gregory of Nazianzus</b>: The soul is the breath of God, a substance of heaven mixed with the lowest earth, a light entombed in a cave, yet wholly divine and unquenchable.… He spoke, and taking some of the newly minted earth his immortal hands made an image into which he imparted some of his own life. He sent his spirit, a beam from the invisible divinity.<br/><i>— DOGMATIC HYMNS 7</i></p><p><b>Gregory of Nyssa</b>: God made the inner person; he molded the outer. \"Molding\" is suitable for clay, but \"making\" is [fitting] for an image. So on the one hand, he \"molded\" flesh, but on the other, he \"made\" the soul.<br/><i>— ON THE ORIGIN OF MAN</i></p><p><b>Gregory of Nyssa</b>: \"God took of the dust of the earth and fashioned man.\" In this world I have discovered the two affirmations that man is nothing and that man is great. If you consider nature alone, he is nothing and has no value; but if you regard the honor with which he has been treated, man is something great.<br/><i>— ON THE ORIGIN OF MAN</i></p><p><b>Gregory of Nyssa</b>: Others, on the contrary, marking the order of the making of man as stated by Moses, say, that the soul second to the body in order of time, since God first took dust from the earth and formed man, and then animated the being thus formed by His breath: and by this argument they prove that the flesh is more noble than the soul; that which was previously formed than that which was afterwards infused into it: for they say that the soul was made for the body, that the thing formed might not be without breath and motion; and that everything that is made for something else is surely less precious than that for which it is made.… Nor again are we in our doctrine to begin by making up man like a clay figure, and to say that the soul came into being for the sake of this; for surely in that case the intellectual nature would be shown to be less precious than the clay figure. But as man is one, the being consisting of soul and body, we are to suppose that the beginning of his existence is one, common to both parts, so that he should not be found to be antecedent and posterior to himself, if the bodily element were first in point of time, and the other were a later addition; but we are to say that in the power of God's foreknowledge all the fulness of human nature had pre-existence, and in the creation of individuals not to place the one element before the other, neither the soul before the body, nor the contrary, that man may not be at strife against himself, by being divided by the difference in point of time.<br/><i>— ON THE MAKING OF MAN 28.1-29.1</i></p><p><b>Gregory of Nyssa</b>: Above, the text says that God created; here it says how God created. If the verse had simply said that God created, you could have believed that he created [humanity] as he did for the beasts, for the wild animals, for the plants for the grass. This is why, to avoid your placing him in the class of wild animals, the divine word has made known the particular art which God has used for you: \"God took of the dust of the earth.\"<br/><i>— ON THE ORIGIN OF MAN</i></p><p><b>Hippolytus of Rome</b>: \"And God formed man of the dust of the ground.\" And what does this import? Are we to say, according to the opinion of some, that there were three men made, one spiritual, one animal, and one earthy? Not such is the case, but the whole narrative is of one man. For the word, \"Let us make,\" is about the man that was to be; and then comes the word, \"God made man of the dust of the ground,\" so that I he narrative is of one and the same man. For then He says, \"Let him be made,\" and now He \"makes him,\" and the narrative tells \"how\" He makes him.<br/><i>— Hippolytus Exegetical Fragments - Commentary on Genesis</i></p><p><b>John Chrysostom</b>: But I don't know how I strayed from the thread of the sermon on to these matters. Come now, let us return at this late stage to the preceding point, and let us see what else this blessed author wants to teach us today. You see, after saying, \"This is the book about the origins of heaven and earth,\" he presses on and describes further for us with great detail the creation of the human being. Since he had briefly said above, \"God made the human being; in God's image he made them,\" [ Genesis 1:26 ] he now says, \"God shaped the human being from the dust of the earth, (102c) and breathed into him a breath of life; the human being became alive.\" [ Genesis 2:7 ] A mighty saying, giving rise to great wonderment, and beyond the limits of human under standing: \"God shaped the human being,\" it says, \"taking dust from the earth.\" Just as in the case of all the visible creatures I kept saying that the Creator of all performs everything in a manner contrary to human nature so as to demonstrate his ineffable power through this as well, so too in the case of the formation of the human being we will find this taking place. I mean, notice how he rested the earth on the waters, some thing human reasoning does not without faith succeed in accepting, and that whenever he wishes he succeeds in converting the properties of all things to their opposite, as we have shown. Well, this very same thing Sacred Scripture now reveals to us happening in the case of the formation of the human being as well: \"God shaped (102d) the human being,\" it says, \"taking dust from the earth.\"<br/>What is that you say? Taking dust from the earth he shaped the human being? Yes, it says; it did not simply say 'earth' but 'dust,' something more lowly and substantial even than earth, so to say. You think the saying amazing and incredible; but if you recall who is the creator in this case, you will no longer withhold faith in the event but marvel at the Creator's power and bow your knee to it. If, on the other hand, you chanced to put your mind to these matters in light of the limitations of your powers of reason, you would likely get this strange idea into your head, namely, that a body could never be made from earth a brick or a pot, yes, but never could such a body be made. Do you see that unless we take into account the Creator's power and suppress our own reasoning which betrays such limitations, we will be unable to accept the sublimity of the message? After all, the words require the eyes of faith, spoken as they are (103a) with such great considerateness and with our limitations in mind. You see, that very remark, \"God shaped the human being, and breathed,\" is properly inapplicable to God; yet because of us and our limitations Sacred Scripture expresses it in that way, showing considerateness to us, so that, having been thought worthy of the considerateness, we might be enabled to arrive at that sublime level of thought.'<br/>\"God shaped the human being,\" it says, \"taking dust from the earth.\" Finally, from these words spring no little instruction in humility, as long as we are prepared to be alert to it. I mean, whenever we consider where our nature derived the beginning of its subsistence, even if we put our brains to it thousands of times, we are humbled and chastened, and in our efforts to plumb our being we learn to respect proper limits. For this reason, God, caring for our salvation, thus directed the tongue of the sacred writer for our instruction. (103b) You see, when Sacred Scripture said in its previous statement, \"God made the human being; in God's image he made them,\" [ Genesis 1:26 ] he gave him complete control of visible things lest out of ignorance of the composition of his own being he might conjure up inflated notions of his own importance and transgress the limits proper to him.<br/>Hence, when Scripture comes back to the point it teaches us also the manner of our composition and the beginning of our creation, and whence the first human being was produced and how it was produced. After all, into what depths of madness would we not have tumbled if, despite this teaching and despite the knowledge that the human being takes the beginning of its composition from the earth as do the plants and the irrational beings (though its formation and the bodiless being of the soul has given it a marked superiority, thanks to God's loving kindness, (103c) this constituting after all the basis of its rationality and its endowment with control over all creation), if then with this knowledge this creature shaped from the earth had conjured up the notion of its equality with God owing to the serpent's deceit, and if the blessed author had been content with his first account and had not repeated himself in teaching us everything with precision,16 into what depths of madness would we not have tumbled?<br/>The result is that we gain the greatest possible degree of instruction in philosophy from learning whence we derive the composition of our being from the very outset. \"God shaped the human being,\" the text says, \"taking dust from the earth, and breathed into him a breath of life.\" Since it was explaining to human beings who were unable to understand in any way other than we ourselves can understand, it employs this kind of concreteness of expression,'' and intends also to teach us that the Lord's loving kindness intended that this creature shaped from the earth (103d) should have also a rational being by reason of a soul, by means of which this living thing emerged complete and perfect. \"He breathed into him a breath of life,\" the text says; the creature shaped from the earth, it means, was endowed with this breath as a vital force, and this became the origin of the soul's being. At any rate, the text added: \"The human being became alive.\" That shaped thing, that creature from the dust, received the breathing of the breath of life, and \"it became alive.\" the text says. What is the meaning of \"became alive\"? Enjoying vital force, having limbs to its body that respond to this vital force and obey its will.<br/>But I have no idea how we upset that arrangement, and how such an onset of evil occurred as to oblige it to follow the bidding of the flesh, (104a) so that what should in the manner of a queen have presided and exercised rule we have unseated from her throne and forced to obey the pleasures of the flesh, ignorant as we are of its nobility and the degree of pre eminence it has the good fortune to be accorded. I mean, think of the order of its formation, I ask you, and consider what this shaped thing was before the Lord's breathing which meant a breath of life for it and resulted in its becoming alive. Simply a lifeless shell, without vital force, and useful for nothing, so that its total makeup and its succession to such great esteem all stems from that action of breathing made upon it by God. Lest you think this happened from things al ready created at that time instead of from something that happens each day at the present time, consider, I ask you, how after the departure of the soul this body appears odious and unpleasant? (104b) How repulsive, how much reeking with stench, how marked by complete deformity this creature that previously when it had the soul to conduct it was bright, graceful, marked by beauty of form, abounding with intelligence, enjoying great aptitude for the performance of good deeds.<br/>So, with this in mind, and realizing the nobility of our soul, let us be guilty of no behavior unworthy of it nor defile it with unfitting actions, subjecting it to the thrall of the flesh and showing so little appreciation and regard for what is so noble and endowed with such preeminence. After all, because of the soul's being, we who are intertwined with a body can, if we wish (104c) and under the influence of God's grace, strive against disembodied powers, can walk on earth as though coursing across heaven, and pass our lives in this manner, suffering no inferiority. How that can be, I will tell you. You see, when people prove, despite entanglement with a mortal body, to live the same life as those supernal powers, how will they not be deemed worthy of grace from God for keeping untarnished the soul's nobility, though subject to the body's necessities.<br/>Who could possibly prove, someone says, to be of such character? Quite likely this thing is thought unlikely by us be cause of the extreme paucity of our virtue. But if you are pre pared to learn that this is not out of the question, consider, I ask you, those who have been pleasing to the Lord from the beginning up to the present time (104d) the mighty John, son of infertility, citizen of the desert; Paul, the world's teacher; and the whole series of saints, who happened to have the same nature as ourselves, subject to the same necessities of the body and no longer consider the thing to be impossible, nor be apathetic where virtue is concerned, but accept such opportunities as the Lord leaves for laying hold of virtue with ease. Our loving Lord, you see, knowing the weakness of our purpose and our tendency to fall, has left us great remedies in the reading of the Scriptures so that we might constantly apply them to ourselves and recall the lives of those great and wonderful men. Thus we may be led to imitation and not neglect virtue, but (105a) rather avoid evil and do everything so as not to prove ourselves unworthy of those unspeakably good people. May this be the good fortune of all of us, thanks to the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power and honor, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.</p><p><b>John Chrysostom</b>: It was pleasing to God's love of humanity to make this thing created out of earth a participant of the rational nature of the soul, through which this living creature was manifest as excellent and perfect. \"And he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,\" that is, the inbreathing communicated to the one created out of earth the power of life, and thus the nature of the soul was formed. Therefore Moses added \"And man became a living soul\"; that which was created out of dust, having received the inbreathing, the breath of life, \"became a living soul.\" What does \"a living soul\" mean? An active soul, which has the members of the body as the implements of its activities, submissive to its will.<br/><i>— HOMILIES ON Genesis 12.15</i></p><p><b>John Chrysostom</b>: Thus when you hear that God \"breathed into his face the breath of life,\" understand that just as he brought forth the bodiless powers, so also he was pleased that the body of man, created out of dust, should have a rational soul which could make use of the bodily members.<br/><i>— HOMILIES ON Genesis 13.9</i></p><p><b>John Damascene</b>: From the earth he formed his body and by his own inbreathing gave him a rational and understanding soul, which we say is the divine image.… The body and the soul were formed at the same time—not one before and the other afterward, as the ravings of Origen would have it.<br/><i>— ORTHODOX FAITH 2.12</i></p><p><b>Origen of Alexandria</b>: Some see only a repetition of the narrative when, in the history of the creation of the world, after the creation of man, they read: \"God took dust from the earth and created man.\" According to such an interpretation one must conclude that the following, \"after the image,\" refers to the flesh, and that a human likeness is attributed to God, or that the image of God is like the human outward appearance. But we will not be so mad as to speak of God either as composed in His fullness of a subordinate and a governing element … or that the creation after the image was effected preferentially in the subordinate element, but not in the governing one. … When man was created, this was originally man created after the image. In him there was nothing material. He who is after the image is not from matter. … And when God created man, He took not the dust of the earth, as the second time, but created him after the image of God. That which is created after the image of God is understood as immaterial and surpassing every corporeal substance.<br/><i>— DIALOGUE WITH HERACLIDES</i></p><p><b>Tertullian</b>: The soul has its origin in the breath of God and did not come from matter. We base that statement on the clear assertion of divine revelation, which declares that \"God breathed the breath of life into the face of man, and man became a living soul.\"<br/><i>— ON THE SOUL 3.4</i></p><p><b>Tertullian</b>: Thus you read the word of God, spoken to Jeremiah: \"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.\" If God forms us in the womb, he also breathes on us as he did in the beginning: \"And God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life.\" Nor could God have known man in the womb unless he were a whole man.<br/><i>— ON THE SOUL 26.5</i></p><p><b>Theodoret of Cyrus</b>: When we hear Moses' writings describe how God took dust from the earth with his hands in order to make man, we try to understand what such language might mean. It means this: the whole of God had a special interest in the creation of the human nature. The great prophet proclaims this very thing, since everything else in creation was made by spoken command. Man, however, was made by God's \"hands.\" … Just like an embryo is planted in the mother's womb and develops from the material which has surrounded it from the beginning, so also God wanted to take the material for the human body from the earth. Thus, clay became flesh and blood, and skin, and nerves, and veins, and arteries, and the brain, and bone marrow and supporting bones, and so on.<br/><i>— COMPENDIUM OF HERETICAL MYTHS</i></p><p><b>Ambrosiaster</b>: CAN WE SAY THAT ADAM RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT AFTER GOD GAVE HIM LIFE AND BEING, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, \"GOD POURED A BREATH OF LIFE ON HIS FACE!\" — It was not in the order that Adam received the Holy Spirit; it was a grace reserved for the end of time, and which God was to give to believers in the days when the mystery of one God in three persons was to be announced to men. The Trinity had been preached from the beginning, but the intelligence remained as veiled. The person of the Father was first proclaimed and manifested with complete clarity and without figure, because he is the principle of all things. As for the people of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they were neither the object of absolute silence nor of a complete manifestation. Unbelievers raise rash questions about our Lord and the Holy Spirit. There are even those who push the absurdity to the point of maintaining that the Holy Spirit is the same as the Father, just as Sabellius confuses in one person the Father and the Son. But there is no doubt against the person of the Father. When, therefore, the Trinity is manifested, the Holy Spirit is given to the faithful, so that the existence of this divine person remains well established, and that those who receive it bear in themselves the sign that they are the children of God, because they have in them the Spirit of God. It is a mark of perfection to know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is this perfection that gives us this gift. And the Son of God coming on earth to reveal and discover these truths must have poured more abundant graces upon mankind, and it was just that he should give this perfection to the souls who believed in him; is not in the Son or in the Father considered in isolation as salvation, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is what makes St. John the evangelist say: \"And we have all received of His fulness, and grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came from Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:16).” It is certain that on the coming of the Savior the truth reached its fullness, and this fullness of truth was produced by the revelation of all the hidden mysteries which God had promised to do. It is also then that the faithful have become the children of God by the reception of the Holy Spirit, and the inspiration of God over Adam must be understood by the soul which he for in the Scriptures the spirit is frequently used for the soul, especially in this passage of the Gospel: \"And his spirit returned into it,\" (Lk. 8:55) and in that of the psalm: \"God does not despise a spirit broken by pain and a contrite and humiliated heart (Ps. 50:19).” Instead of God inspired, this other variant: \"God poured out a life-gasp on his face, and man had a living soul.\" The spirit of life in the thought of the sacred author, is therefore not synonymous with the Holy Spirit, for he also speaks of animals: \"Who had the spirit of life. (Gen. 7:22) Now it is called the spirit of life, because it is a principle of life for bodies. [Questions On The Old And New Testaments, PL 35,<br/><i>— QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, Q. 24 (tr. J. Litteral, draft)</i></p>","source_html_sha256":"4f885abfbb00c278cf5e4504146e2dc703ca8be94e28ea46d4dde3b08217b56f","source_module":"ECF","source_row_id":5772,"source_url":"https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/ecf/","text_sha256":"607375eb238cebc5f721ebde5a5ab30687b63a502da3fc72f325e8dc50dbdc00","translator":null,"work":null}references: [] | work_id: | origin: existing-private-derived-record | source: https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/ecf/