Читать книгу Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1: Luther on the Creation - Martin Luther - Страница 8

This first chapter of our Holy Bible is written in the simplest and plainest language, and yet it contains the greatest and at the same time the most difficult themes. Therefore the Jews, as Jerome testifies, were forbidden to read it or hear it read before they were thirty years of age. The Jews required that all the other Scriptures be well known by every one before they were permitted to approach this chapter. Their Rabbins however accomplished little good by this, for even many of the Rabbins themselves, whose years were more than twice thirty, give in their commentaries and Talmuds the most childish and foolish explanations of these, the greatest of all subjects.

Nor has any one yet in the church to the present day explained all these momentous things correctly and satisfactorily in every respect. For interpreters have confused and entangled every thing with such a variety, diversity and infinity of questions that it is very clear that God reserved to himself the majesty of this wisdom, and the correct understanding of this chapter, leaving to us only the general ideas that the world had a beginning and was created by God out of nothing. This general knowledge may clearly be taken from the text. But with respect to the particulars, there is so much that one cannot be clear about and hence innumerable questions have continually been raised in commentaries.

From Moses however we know that 6000 years ago the world did not exist. But of this no philosopher can in any way be persuaded; because, according to Aristotle the first and the last man cannot in any way be determined, although however Aristotle leaves the problem in doubt whether or not the world is eternal, yet he is inclined to the opinion that it is eternal. For human reason cannot ascend higher than to declare that the world is eternal, and an infinite generation preceded us and will follow us. Here human reason is forced to stand still. However from this belief follows as a consequence the perilous opinion that the soul is mortal, because philosophy knows no plurality of infinities. For it cannot be, but that human reason must be overwhelmed and shipwrecked in the sea of the majesty of these themes.

Plato collected, perhaps in Egypt, some traditional sparks as it were from the sermons of the fathers and prophets, and therefore he came nearer the truth than others. He holds that matter and mind are eternal; but he says that the world had a beginning and that it was made out of matter. But I cease to mention the opinions of philosophers, for Lyra cites these although he does not explain them.

Thus neither among the Hebrews, Greeks nor Latins is there a leading teacher whom we can follow here with safety. Therefore I shall be pardoned if I shall see what I can say on the subject. For except the one general opinion that the world was created out of nothing there is scarcely another thing connected with the subject on which there is entire agreement among all theologians.

Hilary and Augustine, two great lights in the church, believed that the world was made on a sudden and all at once, not successively during the space of six days. Augustine plays upon these six days in a marvelous manner in explaining them. He considers them to be mystical days of knowledge in the angels, and not natural days. Hence have arisen those continual discussions in the schools and in churches concerning the evening and morning knowledge, which Augustine was the cause of being introduced. These are all diligently collected and particularly mentioned by Lyra. Let those therefore who wish to know more about them consult Lyra.

But all these disputations, though subtle and clever, are not to the point in question. For what need is there to make a two-fold knowledge. Equally useless is it to consider Moses in the beginning of his history as speaking mystically or allegorically. For as he is not instructing us concerning allegorical creatures and an allegorical world, but concerning essential creatures and a world visible and apprehensive by the senses, he calls, as we say in our trite proverb, "a post, a post;" that is, when he says morning or day or evening, his meaning is the same as ours when we use those terms, without any allegory whatever. Thus the Evangelist Matthew, in his last chapter, uses the same manner of expression when he says that Christ arose on the evening of the Sabbath; that is, at that time of one of the Sabbath days which was formed by the evening light. But if we cannot fully comprehend the days here mentioned nor understand why God chose to use these intervals of time, let us rather confess our ignorance in the matter than wrest the words of Moses from the circumstances which he is recording to a meaning, which has nothing to do with those circumstances.

With respect therefore to this opinion of Augustine, we conclude that Moses spoke literally and plainly and neither allegorically nor figuratively; that is, he means that the world with all creatures was created in six days as he himself expresses it. If we cannot attain unto a comprehension of the reason why it was so, let us still remain scholars and leave all the preceptorship to the Holy Spirit!

These days were distinguished thus. On the first day the unformed mass of heaven and earth was created to which light was then added. On the second day the firmament. On the third day the earth was produced out of the waters and its fruits created. On the fourth day the heavens were adorned by the creation of the sun, moon and stars. On the fifth day the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air. On the sixth day the beasts of the earth were created, and Man was made. I say nothing of the other views which divide these sacred matters into the work of creation, of distinction, and of ornation, because I do not think such divisions of the subject can be made to harmonize in all respects with each other. If any one admire such views let him consult Lyra.

As to Lyra thinking that a knowledge of the opinion of philosophers concerning matter is necessary, and that on such knowledge must depend a man's understanding the six days' work of creation, I question whether Lyra himself really understood what Aristotle calls matter. For Aristotle does not, like Ovid, call the original unformed chaotic mass matter. Wherefore omitting these unnecessary subjects altogether, let us come at once to Moses as a far better teacher, whom we may more safely follow than we may philosophers, who dispute without the Word about things they do not understand.