Genesis 1:22Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Why, one may wonder, did God not extend a blessing to the stars upon their creation? What of the plants and trees that were also left without His blessing? There exists a distinction between these creations, and understanding it is essential. The stars, as originally set forth, have remained unchanged; they do not grow in number or size, existing eternally in their fixed positions, therefore requiring no blessing for multiplication. In contrast, those beings that are designed to grow through succession necessitate a blessing to ensure their continuation.

Let me reiterate this concept for clarity, dear brethren. Even a seed planted thoughtlessly in soft soil will not achieve stability; only when it is sown deep and with care does it thrive. The stars were not in need of a blessing, as this would not permit them to multiply. Conversely, birds, fish, and humanity required such a blessing for their ongoing creation. In contexts where small things progress and develop, and where no being may flourish except through generational succession, there lies the necessity of blessing.

Having understood the rationale behind the blessings bestowed upon these creatures, we can now reflect on further Scriptural insights. “Grow,” as they were initially few; “multiply,” because their numbers were not great; “fill the waters,” as they occupied but a portion of the vastness. There will be an occasion to revisit why only fish, birds, and humans were honored with blessings, unlike other animals. For now, we shall adhere to the intended order of discussion.

Or perhaps, because they do not possess a desire or instinct to beget offspring and reproduce without any awareness, God deemed them unworthy of the blessing's words: “grow and multiply.” It is concerning creatures that harbor such desires that the blessing is first mentioned, allowing for their understanding in relation to terrestrial animals without explicit mention. However, regarding humanity, it was essential to reiterate this blessing to prevent any misunderstanding that procreation might involve sin, in contrast to the passions of illicit desire or the misuse of the sacred covenant of marriage.

God chose to attribute this blessing to the generative process inherent in the continuation of life, ensuring that, despite their frailty and mortality, animals can preserve their lineage through this very divine gift. Yet, since plants also replicate their kind through birth, why, then, were they not equally blessed? Could it be that they lack the sensibility that borders on reason? Perhaps it is significant that God employs the second person in His blessing, as if addressing living beings who are capable of some comprehension, saying, “Grow, and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea.” However, this blessing does not conclude in the second person; it continues with, “and the birds shall multiply on the earth,” without the phrase "multiply on the earth" being repeated. This implies that their sense is not sufficiently aligned with reason to fully comprehend the addressed words, unlike beings endowed with thought and understanding.

Moreover, anyone, even those lacking intelligence, might deduce how these days are systematically numbered. Indeed, if God has allotted specific numbers of seeds to animals, demonstrating remarkable constancy within their species so that they can give birth after a set number of days, according to their nature, how then could they conceive, gestate, and nurture new life, filling the seas and multiplying across the earth within a single day? The text states, “And it was so,” even before the evening descends. When the writer refers to “And it was evening,” it undoubtedly pertains to formless matter; however, in stating “And it was morning,” he indicates the external forms impressed upon matter by the creative act, as the morning concludes the day that has elapsed since creation began. Yet, God does not declare, “Let there be evening,” or “Let there be morning”; rather, through the terms evening and morning, the writer signifies matter and form—both of which were solely created by God. Thus, one gains a brief illustration of the created entities, as the mention of their absence highlights the transition from form to matter. If we interpret the term night to imply what remains uncreated, then the writer does not label it as created but established by God, as indicated earlier: “And God divided the light from the darkness.”

The notion of formless matter, despite being created from nothing, possesses the potential to take on various forms and appearances. The term darkness may signify that there is nothing which God did not create, yet from which He brought forth all things. In His incomprehensible goodness, He has chosen to create much from nothing, for He who is omnipotent has brought forth creation from the void.

as a tree that spreads its branches and produces either flowers or needles, or gives rise to edible or toxic fruits, is to suggest that all these forms are fundamentally the same, implying that every creature possesses a singular nature that is intermingled in an inseparable unity with itself, and thus, no individual property differs from another.

You cross species and mix various seeds, often forcing them into prohibited relations against their will, and label it agricultural practice.

*****

The ancient philosophers held that fierce warriors sprang from the teeth of a hydra, planted near Thebes; however, one type of seed cannot transform into another and produce offspring that do not belong to it—thus, from serpent teeth, men were born, and these teeth yielded flesh. If they accepted this myth, how much more should we trust that all that is sown is resurrected in its original form? The sprouts bear no resemblance to foreign sowing; the hard does not produce the soft, nor does the soft yield the hard, and poison cannot transform into blood. Rather, flesh comes from flesh, bone from bone, blood from blood, and moisture from moisture.