Chapter VII: The Dwelling Place of the First Man, Paradise, § 108
CHAPTER VII: ON THE DWELLING PLACE OF THE FIRST MAN, PARADISE
The threefold grace of the first man.
§ 108. God also provided a very beautiful dwelling place for the man He created after His own image, lest man lack anything for his happiness. For this reason it is not absurd that some say there was a threefold grace given to the first man: grace of the soul, that is, original righteousness; grace of the body, that is, immortality; and grace of locality, that is, a dwelling in Paradise (Bellarmine, De grat. primi hominis, ch. 1). Moses (“a garden in Eden” [Gen. 2:8]). The ַן ֵֶדן calls this dwelling place of the first man, which means “to shield, to enclose, to fortify.” Some explain ַis taken from word it, saying that the garden was entrusted to the protection of man before the fall and to means “garden” in general, it is more the angels after the fall. But because the word proper to provide a general explanation for the name, namely, that gardens generally are (“Eden”) gets its name from “pleasure” (Gen. ֵֶדן surrounded by enclosures. The word 18:12), which is probably where the Greek ἡδονή comes from, as well as the poets’ fable [“in”] is added, and because about the garden of Adonis. Yet because the preposition (“toward the ִֶֶthe location of the garden is clearly expressed—it was positioned east”)—the word “Eden” should not be understood as an appellative noun but as a proper noun of the place. In other words, before the flood it was a most pleasant area in the eastern quarter of the world, and this area, or place, was named “Eden” from “pleasure.” This is also the opinion of Rabbi Aben Ezra. The Septuagint rendered it as παράδεισον [“Paradise”], which means a garden planted with trees and grasses (according to Strabo and Xenophon). Suidas traces the word from δεύειν or δείσης or δοίσοης, that is, from, which means “orchard” (Neh. 2:8; ְַרֵ“irrigating.” Others derive it from the Hebrew Song 4:13; Eccl. 2:5).
Paradise was a physical place.
§ 109. Moses’ description plainly shows that the garden was a physical place. (1) He says it was “planted by God” (Gen. 2:8). (2) It is located in a certain part of the world, namely, in the east. (3) Man is brought into it, who, because he was animate and physical, surely had need for a physical place. (4) Trees are attributed to this garden (Gen. 2:9). (5) It had rivers with which it was watered (Gen. 2:10). (6) The cultivation and care of this garden are entrusted to man (Gen. 2:15). (7) After the fall, the first humans hid under the trees and sewed together fig leaves for themselves (Gen. 3:7–8). (8) After the fall, the first humans were driven out of the garden and the cherubim was placed in front of the garden to prevent entry (Gen. 3:23–24). All these points show clearly that this was a physical garden.
Chrysostom (on Genesis, homily 13): “Moses describes the name of the place in which man was as ‘Paradise,’ that is, Eden, and that it was situated to the east, and he gave the names of the rivers so carefully and accurately to prevent people from tricking and deceiving the simple by claiming that there was no Paradise on earth but only in heaven.” Lombard (Sent. 2, dist. 17, letter E) lists three opinions of the ancients about Paradise: “First, some have maintained that Paradise is only physical; second, others that it was only spiritual; third, still others that it was both physical and spiritual.” The second opinion1 is that of Origen, who was given too much to allegories. He drew his falsehood about spiritual Paradise from the fancies of rabbinic scholars. The third opinion is that of Basil (De paradiso), of Augustine (De Gen. ad lit., bk. 8, ch. 1), of Damascenus (De orth. fid., bk. 2, ch. 11), and of others who explain the Mosaic text according to its literal meaning, and then later add allegories about a spiritual paradise. Surely that terrestrial Paradise was a school for the heavenly paradise, and certainly also like a mirror of the inner paradise, namely, of the greatest tranquility and happiness in man. However, it must remain firmly fixed that Moses is describing not a heavenly or inner paradise but an earthly one.
§ 110. Yet in what part of the earth was this garden situated? Bellarmine (De grat. primi hominis) adds four opinions. (1) Some thought that the whole world was this Paradise. This idea he attributes to Josephus (Antiq., bk. 1, ch. 2), but not very correctly, for Josephus acknowledges that this garden was positioned toward the east and that our first parents were moved from this garden to another area. He would have been more accurate in attributing that opinion to Hugh of St. Victor. (2) Some think that Paradise is outside the whole world which we inhabit, that is, that our earth is encircled everywhere by a far larger world, and that is called “Paradise.” This idea is clearly a Jewish dream. (3) Some say that Paradise is a lofty place reaching all the way to the globe of the moon. This opinion is reported by Lombard (Sent., bk. 2, dist. 17, letter E); it is the opinion of Basil himself (in his book De paradiso), who writes that this is “the most lofty place of all the world,” and that because of the loftiness of its site it admits no shadows (which Damascenus repeats, De fid., bk. 2, ch. 11). We find similar ideas in Rupert (In Gen., bk. 1, ch. 37) and Marius Victor[ius] (Carm. in Gen., bk. 1). Bellarmine excuses this in the following way: “They wanted to point out the excellence of Paradise by that exaggerated height.” However, this gloss is opposed to both the words and intent of those authors. From their opinions we conclude that the way is prone to errors if one accepts traditions while abandoning the light of Scripture. (4) Some think that Paradise was in Mesopotamia and that it was destroyed by the water of the flood (Augustine, Eugubinus, Jerome of Oleaster, and Franciscus Vatablus on Genesis 2; Cornelius Jansen, Conc. evang., ch. 143), but Bellarmine also disapproves of this opinion. We follow the Mosaic text and claim simply that Paradise was the most pleasant area in the east, but that today we cannot define its limits and boundaries because the whole earth was wretchedly destroyed in the flood. We leave undecided the conjecture that Paradise was in the vicinity of Damascus, and that Mesopotamia at one time was called “Eden” (which some people think they can conclude from Scripture). The arguments of Bellarmine with which he attacks this opinion are not important enough to overthrow that opinion, for they all proceed from these two false hypotheses: that today we have the same sources and courses of those rivers encompassing Paradise which used to exist before the flood and that the garden of Paradise was not destroyed by the waters of the flood.
Whether Paradise still exists.
§ 111. With what rational arguments does Bellarmine try to prove that that earthly Paradise still exists and was not destroyed by the waters of the flood? (I) “The fathers and the Scholastics affirm that Paradise still exists.”
We respond. We should not be too concerned about the opinion of the Scholastics. In their description of Paradise, the fathers are not in agreement, as Irenaeus has noted (Adv. haeres., bk. 5, p. 547): “I heard from the presbyters of Asia, who were disciples of the apostles, that those who are said in Scripture to have been translated were translated into Paradise.” However, Bellarmine should listen to a man from his own society, Pererius, who writes (In Gen., bk. 3, ch. 2, q. 5): “Irenaeus affirms that he received what he teaches about Paradise from the presbyters of Asia who were the disciples of the apostles, but then what? Should we therefore hold whatever came from those presbyters as certain and undoubted dogma of Christian doctrine? Is it not well-known that those same presbyters taught some false things which were contrary to the sacred books, as Irenaeus himself says?” Those are Pererius’s words. It is better here to follow the Scriptures, which testify that the waters of the flood covered all the lofty mountains under every heaven (Gen. 7:19). If the garden was free from the assault of those waters, one would have to claim that it was hanging in space under the moon, a fancy which Bellarmine himself rejects.
Bellarmine counters: “It is within belief that the waters of the flood did not penetrate into Paradise but that the flood did cover the mountains of that earth which had been given to man to dwell in after the fall.” A lofty proof! The universal Mosaic text should be understood as particular, because it is within belief that the waters of the flood did not penetrate into Paradise! Yet the entire earth was devastated by the flood. How, then, did the east, where Paradise was positioned, escape? Bellarmine continues: “Scripture itself forces us to claim that Paradise was miraculously protected from the waters of the flood, because Enoch did not die at the time of the flood, and yet he was not taken into the ark.”
We respond. Indeed, it does say in the Vulgate translation of Ecclus. 44:16 that Enoch was translated into Paradise, but, besides the fact that this book is outside the canon, you will also find nothing in the Greek text about Paradise here. Enoch certainly was translated into paradise, but not into that earthly one but into the heavenly one about which Christ speaks in the promise He gave to the thief, Luke 23:43: “Today you will be with Me in paradise.” That is why Tertullian (De resurrect. carn.) describes Enoch very beautifully as “clothed in the white of eternity.”
Bellarmine finally concludes: “Even if the waters of the flood penetrated into Paradise and Enoch was preserved in the midst of the waters by the singular providence of God, this still does not necessarily cause Paradise to have been completely destroyed but merely damaged by the flood, for neither the location of the place nor the temperament of the atmosphere was changed.”
We respond. But poor Enoch, if he had to swim in the waters for the duration of the flood! Wretched is the dwelling place that is flooded and torn apart by water! And certainly the condition of that Paradise is wretched if damage was inflicted upon it by the waters! These flights of fancy are best left to monks with too much time on their hands.
Whether Enoch and Elijah are in a physical paradise.
§ 112. (II) “Paradise should have been preserved in order that Enoch and Elijah might have a residence consistent with their bodies until the time came to contend with the Antichrist and exchange life for death” [cf. Revelation 11].
We respond. It is easier to say than to prove that Enoch and Elijah are still leading an animate life but not yet a spiritual one. One cannot conclude from the Scriptures that they will return physically in their own persons before the Last Day. Rev. 11:3 about the two witnesses is a very weak proof here because the names of those two witnesses are not expressed. The prophecy about the return of Elijah in Mal. 4:5 is applied by Christ clearly to John the Baptist, who “preceded the Messiah in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Matt. 17:11; Luke 1:17). The right understanding of those two witnesses in the Revelation is that they are the Old and New Testaments, which lie despised and spurned under the rule of the Antichrist. Others understand them as any pious and sincere teachers who oppose the reign of the Antichrist. Lyra explains them as referring to Sylverius and Menna, the attackers of the Eutychian heresy. (See Philipp Nicolai, De regno Christi, bk. 2, ch. 6, p. 311.) We shall say more about this in our chapter on the Antichrist [cf. On Death(Commonplace XXIX), § 58; On the Last Judgment (Commonplace XXXI), § 87].
The source of the olive branch which the dove brought back to the ark.
§ 113. (III) Toward the end of the chapter, Bellarmine touches on another argument: “If the waters of the flood uprooted all trees, where did the dove find that olive branch which it brought to Noah (Gen. 8:11)?”
We respond. It is an invention of the rabbis (according to Münster) that the olive branch was brought from Paradise, and it is right for us to reject their dreams. Moses adds clearly that the waters at that time were already greatly diminished or lowered and that the ark had sat on the mountains of Ararat for several days. Ambrose asks (De Noa et Arca, ch. 19): “Did that branch grow before the flood or at the time of the flood?” He says: “If before the flood, then the righteous man rejoiced that some fruit of the ancient seed had been saved; therefore he concluded that it was a sign of divine mercy (that the flood was already receding) to point out that the fruit could not be harmed by the floodwaters. If the branch sprouted at the time of the flood, then surely the righteous man noticed that new seeds of heavenly mercy had begun to produce so that roots of trees were living and produce was growing with renewed vigor,” etc. Gerundensis rightly presses this argument against the rest of the rabbinic scholars: “If the olive2 branch had been brought from Paradise, how could Noah have concluded that the waters of the flood were receding?” Bellarmine should consider this as spoken to him. For our part, we acknowledge the extraordinary action of divine providence in all this, that not only does the dove return to the ark but also brings with it a branch, not of cedar or of another tree, but of the olive or balsam, which for Noah and the others on the ark was a sign of the mercy and grace of God.
§ 114. The garden of Paradise was planted with very fruitful and very prolific trees of every kind, among which two stood out ahead of the rest: the tree of life planted in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9). The tree of life was given its name from the fact that it was equipped with a natural and hidden ability to preserve and extend the life of people and to provide them with strength for living. God Himself assigns the explanation of this name in Gen. 3:22. Augustine (De
civ. Dei, bk. 13, ch. 20): “The first parents were fed with the fruits of the other trees, lest their animate bodies feel any trouble of hungering and thirsting. They would taste of the tree of life so that death would not creep upon them at all, or so that they would not die, wearied by old age and having run the course of their life. As all the others would be their food, this tree would be their sacrament.” Bede (on Genesis 2): “There was in the tree of life a sacrament; food was in the rest of the trees.” Lombard (Sent. 2, dist. 17, letter F): “It was called the tree of life, just as Bede and Strabus teach, because from God it received power that whoever would eat of its fruit, his body would be strengthened with steadfast soundness and permanent firmness and would not slip into a worse condition or death because of any infirmity or weakness of age.” Others add that this tree was a pledge of eternal blessedness and that a type of Christ was revealed in it. Bellarmine (De grat. primi hominis, ch. 18) sets forth two opinions of the fathers about the power and efficacy of this tree. He says the first is that of Augustine and the Scholastics: that the tree of life was set up to ward off death which generally results from old age. The second he attributes to Chrysostom, Theodoret, Rupert, and others: that the tree of life had such power that, once tasted, it would provide prefect immortality, and that no sooner would it be taken than people would be translated from the state of grace into the state of glory. Bellarmine believes that both opinions are probable but that the latter is more probable because of Gen. 3:22, and yet this obviously cannot prove their opinion.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
§ 115. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil certainly was not given its name because it would make man wiser than God had created him (which Josephus claims, Antiq., bk. 1, ch. 3). In fact, man had been created after the image of God, that is, in perfect wisdom, righteousness, and holiness. Rather, that tree was so called (1) from the divine boundary [aθείῳ ὅρῳ], because God had set it up for man as a sort of altar and temple at which man would acknowledge the generosity of God his Creator toward him and the blessing of his own concreated integrity. (2) From the outcome, because through the eating of the fruit of this tree man learned from perishing what a great good he had lost and into what a great evil he had fallen. Theodoret (q. 26 on Genesis): “Before the fall, man had the knowledge and experience of present good and only the knowledge but not the experience of an absent evil. However, after the fall, a sort of knowledge but not experience of a lost good was in man, as well as both knowledge and experience of an inherent evil.”
1 Read Secunda sententia instead of Prima sententia.
2 Read olivae with Cotta instead of oliva.