Philo of Alexandria · 1497 of 1726

Questions and Answers on Genesis 1 · Part 2

(26) Why Moses calls the form of the woman a building? (Gen 2:22). The union and plentitude of concord formed by the man and woman is symbolically called a house; but every thing is altogether imperfect and destitute of a home, which is deserted by a woman; for to the man the public affairs of the state are committed, but the particular affairs of the house belong to the woman; and a want of the woman will be the destruction of the house; but the actual presence of the woman shows the regulation of the house.

(27) Why, as other animals and as man also was made, the woman was not also made out of the earth, but out of the rib of the man? (Gen 2:21). This was so ordained in the first place, in order that the woman might not be of equal dignity with the man. In the second place, that she might not be of equal age with him, but younger; since those who marry wives more advanced in years than themselves deserve blame, as having overturned the law of nature. Thirdly, the design of God was, that the husband should take care of his wife, as of a necessary part of himself; but that the woman should requite him in turn with service, as a portion of the universe. In the fourth place, he admonishes man by this enigmatical intimation, that he should take care of his wife as of his daughter; and he admonishes the woman that she should honour her husband as her father. And very rightly, since the woman changes her habitation, passing from her own offspring to her husband. On which account, it is altogether right and proper that he who has received should take upon himself the liability in respect of what has been given; and that she who has been removed should worthily give the same honour to her husband which she has previously given to her parents; for the husband receives his wife from her parents, as a deposit which is entrusted to him; and the woman receives her husband from the law.

(28) Why, when the man saw the woman who had been formed in this manner, he proceeded to say: "She" (for "this," touto) "is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she has been taken out of man?" (Gen 2:23). He might have been amazed at what he had seen, and have said in a negative manner: How can this exquisite and desirable beauty have been derived from bones and from flesh which are endowed with neither beauty nor elegance, being of a form so far more beautiful, and endowed with such excessive life and grace? The matter is incredible because she is like; and yet it is credible, because God himself has been her creator and painter. Again, he might have said affirmatively: Truly she is a living being, my bone and my flesh, for she exists by having been taken from that bone and flesh of mine. But he makes mention of his bone and flesh in a very natural manner; for the human or corporeal tabernacle is the combination of bones, and flesh, and entrails, and veins, and nerves, and ligaments, and blood-vessels, and breathing tubes, and blood. And she is called woman (in Greek gynē) with great correctness, as the power of producing with fertility, either because she becomes pregnant through the reception of the seed, and so brings forth; or, as the prophet says, because she was made out of man, not out of the earth, as he was; nor from seed, as all mankind after them; but of a certain intermediate nature; and like a branch, brought out of one vine to produce another vine.

(29) Why he says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh?" (Gen 2:24). He here orders man to behave himself towards his wife with such excess of affection in their intercourse, that he is willing to leave his parents, not in order that by that means it may be more suitable, but as they would scarcely be a motive for his fidelity to his wife. And we must remark, that it is very excellent and prudently done, that he has avoided saying that the woman is to leave her parents and cleave to her husband, since the character of the man is bolder than the nature of the woman; but he says that the man ought to do this for the sake of the woman; for he is borne on by a cheerful and willing impulse to the concord of knowledge, to which, becoming wholly devoted, he restrains and regulates his desires, and clings to his wife alone like bird-lime. Especially because he himself, delighting in his master-like authority, is to be respected for his pride: but the woman, being in the rank of a servant, is praised, for assenting to a life of communion. And when it is said that the two are one flesh, that indicates that the flesh is very tangible and fully endowed with outward senses, on which it depends to be afflicted with pain and delighted with pleasure, so that both the man and woman may derive pleasure and pain from the same sources, and may feel the same; aye, and may still more think the same.

(30) Why both of them, the man and the woman, are said to have been naked, and not to have been ashamed? (Gen 2:25). They were not ashamed, in the first place, because they were in the neighbourhood of the world, and the different parts of the world are all naked, each of them indicating some peculiar qualities, and having peculiar coverings of their own. In the second place, on account of the sincerity and simplicity of their manners and of their natural disposition, which had not taint of pride about it. For ambition had as yet no existence. Thirdly, because the climate and the mildness of the atmosphere was a sufficient covering for them, so as to prevent either cold or heat from hurting them. In the fourth place, because they, by reason of the relationship existing between themselves and the world, could not receive injury from any part of it whatever, as being related to them.

(31) Why does Moses say that the serpent was more cunning than all the beasts of the field? (Gen 3:1). One may probably affirm with truth that the serpent in reality is more cunning than any beast whatever. But the reason why he appears to me to be spoken of in these terms here is on account of the natural proneness of mankind to vice, of which he is the symbol. And by vice I mean concupiscence, inasmuch as those who are devoted to pleasure are more cunning, and are the inventors of stratagems and means by which to indulge their passions. Being, forsooth, very crafty in devising plans, both such as favour pleasure and also such as procure means of enjoying it. But it appears to me that since that animal, so superior in wisdom, was about to seduce man, it is not the whole race that is here meant to be spoken of as so exceedingly wise, but only that single serpent, for the reason above mentioned.

(32) Did the serpent speak with a human voice? (Gen 3:2). In the first place, it may be the fact that at the beginning of the world even the other animals besides man were not entirely destitute of the power of articulate speech, but only that man excelled them in a greater fluency and perspicuity of speech and language. In the second place, when anything very marvellous requires to be done, God changes the subject natures by which he means to operate. Thirdly, because our soul is entirely filled with many errors, and rendered deaf to all words except in one or two languages to which it is accustomed; but the souls of those who were first created were rendered acute to thoroughly understand every voice of every kind, in order that they might be pure from evil and wholly unpolluted. Since we indeed are not endowed with senses in such perfection, for those which we have received are in some degree depraved, just as the construction of our bodies too is small; but the first created men, as they received bodies of vast size reaching to a gigantic height, must also of necessity have received more accurate senses, and, what is more excellent still, a power of examining into and hearing things in a philosophical manner. For some people think, and perhaps with some reason, that they were endowed with such eyes as enabled them to behold even those natures, and essences, and operations, which exist in heaven, as also ears by which they could comprehend every kind of voice and language.

(33) Why did the serpent accost the woman, and not the man? (Gen 3:2). The serpent, having formed his estimate of virtue, devised a treacherous stratagem against them, for the sake of bringing mortality on them. But the woman was more accustomed to be deceived than the man. For his counsels as well as his body are of a masculine sort, and competent to disentangle the notions of seduction; but the mind of the woman is more effeminate, so that through her softness she easily yields and is easily caught by the persuasions of falsehood, which imitate the resemblance of truth. Since therefore, in his old age, the Serpent strips himself of his scales from the top of his head to his tail, he, by his nakedness, reproaches man because he has exchanged death for immortality. His nature is renewed by the beast, and made to resemble every time. The woman, when she sees this, is deceived; when she ought rather to have looked upon him as an example, who, while showing his ingenuity towards her, was full of devices, but she was led to desire to acquire a life which should be free from old age, and from all decay.

(34) Why the serpent tells the woman lies, saying, "God has said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the Paradise," when, on the contrary, what God really had said was, "Ye shall eat of every tree in the Paradise, except one?" (Gen 3:4). It is the custom for contending arguers to speak falsely in an artful manner, in order to produce ignorance of the real facts, as was done in this case, since the man and woman had been commanded to eat of all the trees but one. But this insidious prompter of wickedness coming in, says that the order which they had received was that they should not eat of them all. He brought forward an ambiguous statement as a slippery stumbling-block to cause the soul to trip. For this expression, "Ye shall not eat of every tree," means in the first place either, not even of one, which is false; or, secondly, not of every one, as if he intended to say, there are some of which you may not eat, which is true. Therefore he asserts such a falsehood more explicitly.

(35) Why, when it was commanded them to avoid eating of one plant alone, the woman made also a further addition to this injunction, saying, "He said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it?" (Gen 3:3). In the first place she says this, because taste and every other sense after its kind consists in the touch appropriate to it. In the second place she says it that it may seem to condemn them themselves, who did what they had been forbidden. For if even the mere act of touching it was prohibited, how could they who, besides touching the tree, presumed to eat of the fruit, and so added a greater transgression to the lesser one, be anything but condemners and punishers of themselves?

(36) What is the meaning of the expression, "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil?" (Gen 3:5). Whence was it that the serpent found the plural word "gods," when there is only one true God, and when this is the first time that he names him? But perhaps this arises from there having been in him a certain prescient wisdom, by which he now declared the notion of the multitude of gods which was at a future time to prevail amongst men; and, perhaps, history now relates this correctly at its first being advanced not by any rational being, nor by any creature of the higher class, but as having derived its origin from the most virulent and vile of beasts and serpents, since other similar creatures lie hid under the earth, and their lurking places are in the holes and fissures of the earth. Moreover, it is the inseparable sign of a being endowed with reason to look upon God as essentially one being, but it is the mark of a beast to imagine that there are many gods, and these too devoid of reason, and who can scarcely be said with propriety to have any existence at all. Moreover, the devil proceeds with great art, speaking by the mouth of the serpent. For not only is there in the Divinity the knowledge of good and evil, but there is also an approval of what is good and a repudiation of what is evil; but he does not speak of either of these feelings because they were useful, but only suggested the mere knowledge of the two contrary things, namely, of good and evil. In the second place, the expression, "as gods," in the plural number, is in this place not used inconsiderately, but in order to give the idea of there being both a bad and a good God. And these are of a twofold quality. Therefore it is suitable to the notion of particular gods to have a knowledge of contrary things; but the Supreme Cause is above all others.

(37) Why the woman first touched the tree and ate of its fruit, and the man afterwards, receiving it from her? (Gen 3:6). The words used first of all, by their own intrinsic force, assert that it was suitable that immortality and every good thing should be represented as under the power of the man, and death and every evil under that of the woman. But with reference to the mind, the woman, when understood symbolically, is sense, and the man is intellect. Moreover, the outward senses do of necessity touch those things which are perceptible by them; but it is through the medium of the outward senses that things are transmitted to the mind. For the outward senses are influenced by the objects which are presented to them; and the intellect by the outward senses.

(38) What is the meaning of the expression, "And she gave it to her husband to eat with her?" (Gen 3:6). What has been just said bears on this point also, since the time is nearly one and the same in which the outward senses are influenced by the object which is presented to them, and the intellect has an impression made on it by the outward senses.

(39) What is the meaning of the expression, "And the eyes of both of them were opened?" (Gen 3:7). That they were not created blind is manifest even from this fact that as all other things, both animals and plants, were created in perfection, so also man must have been adorned with the things which are his most excellent parts, namely, eyes. And we may especially prove this, because a little while before the earth-born Adam was giving names to all the animals on the earth. Therefore it is perfectly plain that he saw them before doing so. Unless, indeed, Moses used the expression "eyes" in a figurative sense for the vision of the soul, by which alone the perception of good and evil, of what is elegant or unsightly, and, in fact, of all contrary natures, arise. But, if the eye is to be taken separately as counsel, which is called the warning of the understanding, then again there is a separate eye, which is a certain something devoid of sound reason, which is called opinion.

(40) What is the meaning of the expression, "Because they knew that they were naked?" (Genesis 3:7). They first arrived at the knowledge of this fact, that is to say, of their nakedness, after they had eaten of the forbidden fruit. Therefore, opinion was like the beginning of wickedness, when they perceived that they had not as yet used any covering, inasmuch as all parts of the universe are immortal and incorruptible; but they themselves immediately found themselves in need of some corruptible coverings made with hands. But this knowledge was in the nakedness itself, not as having been in itself the cause of any change, but because their mind now conceived a novelty unlike the rest of the universal world.

(41) Why they sewed fig-leaves into girdles? (Gen 3:8). They did this in the first place, because the fruit of the fig is very pleasant and agreeable to the taste. Therefore the sacred historian here, by a symbolical expression, indicates those who sew together and join pleasures to pleasures by every means and contrivance imaginable. Therefore they bind them around the place where the parts of generation are seated, as that is the instrument of important transactions. And they do this, secondly, because although the fruit of the fig-tree is, as I have already said, sweeter than any other, yet its leaves are harder. And, therefore, Moses here wishes by this symbol to intimate that the motions of pleasure are slippery and smooth in appearance, but that they, nevertheless, are in reality hard, so that it is impossible that he who feels them should be delighted, unless he was previously sorrowful, and he will again become sorrowful. For to be always sorrowing is a melancholy thing between a double grief, the one being at its beginning, and the other coming before the first is ended.

(42) What is meant by the statement that the sound was heard of God walking in the Paradise? was it the sound of his voice, or of his feet? and can God be said to talk? (Gen 3:8). Those gods who are in heaven, perceptible to our outward senses, walk in a ring, proceeding onwards by a circuitous track; but the Supreme Cause is steadfast and immoveable, as the ancients have decided. But the true God gives some indication also, as if he wished to give a sense of motion. For in truth even without his uttering any words, the prophets hear him, by a certain virtue of some diviner voice sounding in their ears, or perhaps being even articulately uttered. As therefore God is heard without uttering any sound, so also he gives an idea of walking when he is not walking, nay, though he is altogether immoveable. But do you not see that before they had tasted of wickedness, as they were stable and constant, and immoveable and tranquil, and uniform, so also in an equal manner must they have looked upon the Deity as immoveable, as in fact he is. But they once had become endued with cunning, they, by judging from themselves, began to strip him of his attributes of immobility and unchangeableness, and conjectured that he too was subject to variation and change.

(43) Why while they are hiding themselves from the face of God, the woman is not mentioned first, since she was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit: but why the man is spoken of in the first place; for the sacred historian's words are, "And Adam and his wife hid themselves?" (Gen 3:9). The woman, being imperfect and depraved by nature, made the beginning of sinning and prevaricating; but the man, as being the more excellent and perfect creature, was the first to set the example of blushing and of being ashamed, and indeed, of every good feeling and action.

(44) Why they did not hide themselves in some other place, but in the middle of the trees of the Paradise? (Gen 3:9). Every thing is not done by sinners with wisdom and sagacity, but it often happens that while thieves are watching for an opportunity of plunder, having no thoughts of the Deity who presides over the world, the booty which is close to them and lying at their feet is by some admirable management wrested from them without delay: and something of this kind took place on the present occasion. For when they ought rather to have fled to a distance from the garden in which their offence had taken place, they still were arrested in the middle of the Paradise itself, in order that they might be convicted of their sin too clearly to find any refuge even in flight itself. And this statement indicates in a figurative manner that every wicked man takes refuge in wickedness, and that every man who is wholly devoted to his passions flies to those passions as to an asylum.

(45) Why God asks Adam, "Where art thou?" when he knows everything: and why he does not also put the same question to the woman? (Gen 3:10). The expression, "Where art thou?" does not here seem to be a mere interrogatory, but rather a threat and a conviction: "Where art thou now, O man? from how many good things art thou changed? having forsaken immortality and a life of the most perfect happiness, you have become changed to death and misery in which you are buried." But God did not condescend to put any question to the woman at all, looking upon her as the cause of the evil which had occurred, and as the guide to her husband to a life of shame. But there is an allegorical meaning in this passage, because the principal part is the man, his guide, the mind, having in itself the masculine principle, when it gives ear to any one introduces also the defect of the female part, namely that of the outward sense.

(46) Why the man says, "The woman gave me of the tree, and I did eat;" but the woman does not say, "The serpent gave to me," but, "The serpent beguiled me and I did eat?" (Gen 3:12- 13). The literal expression here affords grounds for that probable opinion that woman is accustomed rather to be deceived than to devise anything of importance out of her own head; but with the man the case is just the contrary. But as regards the intellect, everything which is the object of the outward senses beguiles and seduces each particular sense of every imperfect being to which it is adapted. And the sense then, being vitiated by the object, infects the dominant and principal part, the mind, with its own taint. Therefore the mind receives the impression from the outward sense, giving it that which it has received itself. For the outward sense is deceived and beguiled by the sensible object submitted to it, but the senses of the wise man are infallible, as are also the cogitations of his mind.

(47) Why God curses the serpent first, then the woman, and the man last of all? (Gen 3:14). The reason is that the order of the verses followed the order in which the offences were committed. The first offence was the deceit practised by the serpent; the second was the sin of the woman which was owing to him when she abandoned herself to his seduction; the third thing was the guilt of the man in yielding rather to the inclination of the woman than to the commandment of God. But this order is very admirable, containing within itself a perfect allegory; inasmuch as the serpent is the emblem of desire, as is proved, and the woman of the outward sense; but the man is the symbol of intellect. Therefore the infamous author of the sin is desire; and that first deceives the outward sense, and then the outward sense captivates the mind.

(48) Why the curse is pronounced on the serpent in this manner, that he shall go on his breast and on his belly, and eat dust, and be at enmity with the woman? (Gen 3:16). The words in themselves are plain enough, and we have evidence of them in what we have seen. But the real meaning contains an allegory concealed beneath it; since the serpent is the emblem of desire, representing under a figure a man devoted to pleasure. For he creeps upon his breast and upon his belly, being filled with meat and drink like cormorants, being inflamed by an insatiable cupidity, and being incontinent in their voracity and devouring of flesh, so that whatever relates to food is in every article something earthly, on which account he is said to eat the dust. But desire has naturally a quarrel with the outward sense, which Moses here symbolically calls the woman; but where the passions appear to be as it were guardians and champions in behalf of the senses, nevertheless they are beyond all question still more clearly flatterers forming devices against them like so many enemies; and it is the custom of those who are contending with one another to perpetrate greater evils by means of those things which they concede. Forsooth they turn the eyes to the ruin of the sight, the ears to hearing what is unwelcome; and the rest of the outward senses to insensibility. Moreover they cause dissolution and paralysis to the entire body, taking away from it all soundness, and foolishly building up instead a great number of most mischievous diseases.

(49) Why the curse pronounced against the woman is the multiplication of her sadness and groans, that she shall bring forth children in sorrow, and that her desire shall be to her husband, and that she shall be ruled over by him? (Gen 3:16). Every woman who is the companion for life of a husband suffers all those things, not indeed as a curse but as necessary evils. But speaking figuratively, the human sense is wholly subjected to severe labour and pain, being stricken and wounded by domestic agitations. Now the following are the children in the service of the outward senses: the sight is the servant of the eyes, hearing of the ears, smelling of the nostrils, taste of the mouth, feeling of the touch. Since the life of the worthless and wicked man is full of pain and want, it arises of necessity from these facts that every thing which is done in accordance with the outward sense must be mingled with pain and fear. In respect of the mind a conversion of the outward sense takes place towards the man not as to a companion, for it, like the woman, is subject to authority as being depraved, but as to a master, because it has chosen violence rather than justice.

(50) Why God, as he had pronounced a curse on the serpent and on the woman which bore a relation to themselves and to one another, he did not pronounce a similar one upon the man, but connected the earth with him, saying, "Cursed is the earth for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it, thorns and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee, and thou shalt eat the grass of the field: in the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat they bread?" (Gen 3:17). Since all intellect is a divine inspiration, God did not judge it right to curse him in the manner deserved by his offence; but converted his curse so as to fall upon the earth and his cultivation of it. But man, as a body of co-equal nature and similar character to that of the earth and understanding, is its cultivator. When the cultivator is endowed with virtue and diligence, then the body produces its proper fruit, namely sanity, an excellent state of the outward senses, strength, and beauty. But if the cultivator be a savage, then every thing is different. For the body becomes liable to a curse, since it has for its husbandman an intellect unchastised and unsound. And its fruit is nothing useful, but only thorns and thistles, sorrow and fear, and other vices which every thought strikes down, and as it were pierces the intellect with its darts. But grass here is symbolically used for food; since man has changed himself from a rational animal into a brute beast, having neglected all divine food, which is given by philosophy, by means of distinct words and laws to regulate the will.

(51) What is the meaning of the expression, "Until thou returnest to the earth from which thou wast taken;" for man was not created out of the earth alone, but also of the divine Spirit? (Genesis 3:18). In the first place it is clear, that the first man who was formed out of the earth was made up both of earth and heaven; but because he did not continue uncorrupt, but despised the commandment of God, fleeing from the most excellent part, namely, from heaven, he gave himself up wholly as a slave to the earth, the denser and heavier element. In the second place, if any one burns with a desire of virtue, which makes the soul immortal, he, beyond all question, attains to a heavenly inheritance; but because he was covetous of pleasure, by which spiritual death is engendered, he again gives himself over a second time to the earth, on which account it is said to him, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return;" therefore the earth, as it is the beginning of a wicked and depraved man, so also it is his end; but heaven is the beginning and end of him who is endowed with virtue.