could be construed both ways: Vocavit Dens lucem diem et lenebras vocavit noctem.
1 28 Unfinished Literal Commentary on Genesis their author, but he is still in control as their regulator, when he sets sinners in that place, and compels them to suffer what they deserve; that's the point of the sheep being placed on the right hand, the goats on the left.30
So then, there are some things that God both makes and controls or regulates, while there are some that he only regulates. He both makes and regulates thejust; but sinners, precisely as sinners, he does not make but only regulates, in that he sets those on his right, these on his left; and that he bids these go into eternal fire means they rightly get what they deserve. So it is that he both makes and regu lates the forms and natures of different species, while as for the shortcomings of forms and the defects of natures, he does not make them but only regulates them. And so he said, Let light be made, and light was made; he did not say, "Let dark ness be made, and darkness was made." Of these two, then, he made one, not the other, while all the same he regulated and arranged for each of them, when "God divided between the light and the darkness." Thus there is beauty in every single thing, with him making it, and with him arranging them in regular order there is beauty in all things together.
Genesis 1:5: whether "light" and "day, " "darkness" and "night, " are in each case just two namesfor the same thing
6, 26. And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night (Gn 1:5). Now "light" is the name of a particular thing, and so again is "day"; and "dark ness" and "night" are also each a name. So the question arises whether names were being given to things in such a way that the thing which had a name given it could simply be indicated by another name," so that it would have made no difference if the statement God called the light day had been reversed, and it could have run, "God called the day light and called the night darkness." What answer shall we give when we are asked, Was the name "day" given to the light, or the name "light" given to the day32? Both these words, of course, insofar as they are uttered to signify things, are names. The same question can be asked about the other pair: was the name of "night" given to the darkness, or the name of "darkness" given to the night? And yet in fact, as the text of scripture stands, it is quite clear that "day" is the name light was called by and "night" the name darkness was called by, because when it said "God made the light and divided between the light and the darkness," it was not yet dealing with words; the words "day" and "night" were brought in later—though the first pair, to be sure, "light"
30. See Mt 25:33, and the following verses. "That place" is presumably hell. 3 1 . Here he adds a parenthesis, non enim aliterpoterat, "for it could not have been otherwise." the meaning of which is totally obscure to me. 1 leave it to readers to make of it what they can. 1t is just conceivable that it was a stenographer's marginal comment. 32. The Latin as it stands, where the order of words does not carry the same weight as in English, could be construed both ways: Vocavit Dens lucem diem et lenebras vocavit noctem.