From Whose Womb Did the Ice Come Forth? Augustine of Hippo,Gregory the Great,and Thomas Aquinas on Job 38:29

The Contemporary Discussion

In recent decades, scholars who have attempted to limit or exclude female terminology for God by associating such language with pantheism have often characterized women and mothers in terms of dependency, immanence, materiality, or an identity with one’s child—attributes that are said to befit a pantheistic deity who is identical with the material world, rather than a transcendent Christian God whose existence is not dependent upon creation. Donald Bloesch and Manfred Hauke each assert that women are dependent on men for leadership or direction ⁴ and argue that maternal symbolism is incapable of representing divine ‘independence from all creaturely power’ ⁵ or ‘a powerful superiority of God vis-à-vis the world.’ ⁶ Hauke also more broadly characterizes women in terms of ‘immanence,’ arguing from this that the ‘projection of masculine and feminine qualities on God in equal degrees leads, almost of necessity, to . . . pantheism’; ⁷ and Bloesch aligns the language of ‘God as Mother’ with an immanence that ‘denies the transcendence of God.’ ⁸ Bloesch also asserts that a divine mother would be a deity who was ‘material rather than spiritual’ and argues that ‘since the child is formed from material in the mother,’ belief in creation ex nihilo could be undermined by maternal language for God. ⁹ Elizabeth Achtemeier objects to maternal metaphors for God on the basis that ‘the figures of carrying in the womb, of giving birth, and of suckling’ imply an ‘identification of God with the world.’ ¹⁰ Benedict Ashley, OP, cites gestation and lactation as proof that a mother is ‘more same than other’ with regard to her offspring, making motherhood unfit ‘to express the absolute transcendence of the Creator, utterly other than the cosmos’; he also argues that mothers are passive, material causes of their children, and that it is therefore pantheistic to hold that ‘the world was made out of God the Mother.’ ¹¹ Joseph Ratzinger ‘tentatively’ speculates that ‘the mother-deities . . . always and probably inevitably, imply some form of pantheism in which the difference between Creator and creature disappears.’ ¹² While leaving the door open for further discussion on feminine language for God, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine raises concerns over the materiality of the imagery of God pregnant with creation, describing this as a metaphor ‘based on material relationships’ and ‘insufficient to express the transcendence of God.’ ¹³ In short, these authors describe women and mothers in terms of characteristics which they believe are not attributable to God.

In contrast, Christian feminist theologians often reject one or more of these characterizations of women and mothers ¹⁴ and expand upon other attributes of maternity that they do see as applicable to the divinity. For example, a mother is a powerful generative origin in relation to a child who is dependent upon her for its existence. ¹⁵ Maternal lactation, or feeding of the young, is a powerful, caring, and life-giving activity—and ‘freely given.’ ¹⁶ Furthermore, whereas the argument that women and mothers are particularly ‘immanent’ characterizes them as remaining embedded in something else (such as the ‘near world,’ which they are said not to transcend as men do), ¹⁷ feminist perspectives often characterize mothers—like God—as containing something else, which is in them (cf. Acts 17:28). ¹⁸ Sallie McFague emphasizes the intimacy and closeness of mother and child, as well as a mother’s insight, readiness to fight to defend her young, and inclination to angrily judge whatever hurts her children. ¹⁹ Elizabeth Johnson describes motherhood in a wide variety of terms, including but not limited to ‘wonder, greatness, and hard work . . . play and delight in the other, unmerited love, fierce protectiveness, compassion, forgiveness, courage, service, and care for the weak and vulnerable’—as well as ‘the exercise of intellect.’ ²⁰ Furthermore, a mother can represent transcendence and not just immanence: she has freedom; she is ‘unknown’ to the child in both her prior life and her time away from the child; and she is ‘mysterious’ to her young child, who sees her skills as ‘great’ and ‘powerful.’ ²¹ Notably, these descriptions of motherhood range far beyond stereotypes of the ideal mother as compassionate and nurturing. ²²

Regarding the question of whether the divinity is identical with the world, feminists hold a diversity of positions. It is noteworthy that theologians who argue against feminine language for God by aligning it with pantheism often support their position by citing neo-pagan feminists such as Zsuzsanna E. Budapest or Starhawk. ²³ Still, the Christian feminist Rosemary Radford Ruether does appear to identify the divine womb or ‘primal Matrix’ with ‘the cosmic matrix of matter/energy’; and she holds that the organisms that arise from this ‘great womb’ and dissolve back into it with death are ultimately identified with it as well. ²⁴ In contrast, McFague highlights the fact that ‘even though children are products of their parents’ bodies, they are often radically different from them’; and she considers it self-evident that the metaphor of God as a mother does not imply an identity between the divinity and the created world. ²⁵ Similarly, Johnson holds that God and the finite world are not identical, and she does not present maternal imagery as pointing toward an identity between mother and child. ²⁶

Feminists also diverge from one another on the question of the ‘materiality’ of maternity and of the divinity. Ruether describes all humans—indeed, all beings—as both material and spiritual, and in speaking of the divine, ‘primal Matrix’ she portrays materiality as one aspect of the divinity, namely its ‘outside.’ ²⁷ McFague describes materiality as particularly characteristic of maternity—and also of divinity, insofar as she interprets the physical world as the divinity’s necessary and similar ‘other.’ ²⁸ In contrast, Elizabeth Johnson emphasizes the difference between God and corporeal finitude, and when she outlines the analogues between mothers and God, she does not describe materiality as characteristic of either maternity or divinity. Indeed, she critiques the portrayal of ‘the feminine’ in terms of ‘bodiliness’ and ‘prime matter.’ ²⁹ Thus, there is significant diversity among feminists in their descriptions of maternity as well as in their understandings of the divinity.

As a whole, therefore, it appears that the positions of contemporary authors—feminist or not—generally correlate with (a) what characteristics they emphasize in their descriptions of women or mothers, and (b) whether they believe those characteristics are attributable to God. For example, if theologians highlight the materiality of motherhood, their views on motherhood as a symbol for God correspond to whether or not they believe that materiality is an aspect of the divinity. Conversely, if an author does not attribute corporeality to God, but does argue that motherhood is a fitting metaphor for the divinity, she is unlikely to emphasize materiality within her description of motherhood.

Augustine of Hippo

While contemporary arguments against female terminology for God characterize maternal imagery in terms of dependency, immanence, materiality, or an identity with one’s child, Augustine of Hippo’s interpretation of the womb-imagery of Job 38:29 exemplifies a different approach. Although he ultimately does not interpret the ‘womb’ of Job 38:29 to be the womb of God, Augustine’s brief notes on this passage illustrate how metaphors—including metaphors about the ‘womb’—can be multivalent, replete with many possible significations. Augustine’s notations also exemplify one way in which language about fatherhood can be used somewhat interchangeably with language about birth from a womb.

St Augustine of Hippo imparts a figurative, spiritual interpretation to the ‘womb’ of Job 38:29 and to the ‘ice’ that comes forth from it. In his Adnotationes in Iob, Augustine’s comments on this verse are framed by how he understands the other weather-related phenomena that appear in Job 38 just prior to this verse. In verses 26–27, God speaks of rain watering desolate land, and to Augustine, this symbolizes the rain of the gospel watering the wilderness of the Gentiles. ³⁰ When Augustine reads the next verse, which asks, ‘who is the father of the rain?’ he suggests that the rain’s ‘father’ is ‘the bridegroom’—Jesus Christ ³¹ —‘who sent his own children to water the earth by the preaching of the kingdom of heaven.’ ³² When Augustine comes to the following verse, Job 38:29—‘from whose womb does the ice come forth? . . .’—he points to this understanding of the rain’s ‘father,’ and seeks to determine whether the ice’s procession from the ‘womb’ should be interpreted in a similar way:

Should ‘ice’ be interpreted as something good on account of its stability and restraint from flux—so that ‘from whose womb does the ice come forth?’ has been said the same way this has been said: ‘who is the father of the rain?’ ³³

Under such an interpretation of the unfluctuating ice, the ice’s procession from the ‘womb’ would be analogous to the procession of the rain of the gospel from its ‘father,’ Jesus Christ.

While the stable form of ice thus leads Augustine to contemplate it as a symbol for something good, he alternatively considers whether this verse might refer instead to something negative: should the ice’s procession from the womb be viewed, instead, in relation to God’s handing-over of the ungodly to their base thinking (Romans 1:28)? ³⁴ Augustine ultimately settles on an interpretation in which the cold, hard qualities of ice take a prominent place, marking the ice as a symbol for those whose lack of love makes them hard and cold:

Or rather, does the ice come forth from the womb of that one who, by persuading [others] to ungodliness—an ungodliness with which he is inwardly full—makes [them] cold and hard since the warmth of [their] love has been lost? For who knows this one as does He who says to those who are hard and resist the Gospel: ‘you are from your father, the devil’ [cf. Jn 8:44]? ³⁵

With this interpretation, the womb from which the ice proceeds is the womb of the devil, who in John 8 is portrayed as a father to those who do not accept the word of Jesus and who seek to kill him. ³⁶ Just as a mother’s womb brings forth her child when it has become inwardly full, the devil is inwardly full of ungodliness and the devil’s womb brings forth the ungodly. On this reading, while Christ the bridegroom is the father of the rain of the gospel since he has children who water the earth with their preaching, those whose lack of love makes them hard and cold, like ice, are said to proceed from the womb of the devil.

Augustine’s preference for this interpretation is confirmed by the way in which he refers to this final understanding of the ice while expounding on the meaning of the snow which appears in the next phrases of verse 29 and 30 (LXX): ‘Or who has engendered the frost in the sky, which falls like a flow of water?’ ³⁷ Here Augustine says, ‘I think that what we have understood of the “ice” in the end, should also be understood of the snow.’ ³⁸ Augustine proceeds to note that the snow is said to ‘fall like a flow of water’ with regard to those leaders who look like ‘the good messengers of the truth’ (represented, as we have seen, by the rain) but who merely ‘pretend to be ministers of justice’ (2 Cor 11:15). ³⁹ In citing 2 Cor 11:15 here, Augustine touches on the Pauline notion that Satan’s ministers can pretend to be apostles of Christ, just as Satan pretends to be an angel of light (2 Cor 11:13–15). Thus, for Augustine, both ice and snow refer to those under the sway of the devil, their progenitor: ice stands for those who have been persuaded by the devil to ungodliness, and snow, falling from the sky like rain, refers to those ministers of Satan who pretend to water the earth with their preaching. Thus Augustine’s original reflection on the goodness of the ice’s stability gives way to an emphasis on the coldness of ice and snow, representing the chill of sinfulness that opposes the warmth of love and the rain of the gospel.

Throughout these reflections on Job 38:29, Augustine’s notations display something of what he articulates elsewhere regarding the nature of figurative language. In De doctrina Christiana Augustine indicates that the same thing can signify very different and even contrary realities: one thing signifies another thing because of some similarity between the two of them, but things can be similar to each other in a multitude of different ways; and so the same thing can figuratively signify something good as well as something bad. ⁴⁰ Thus Augustine ponders the ice’s stability as similar to something good—while he also sees the ice’s chill as similar to something bad. It is not surprising, then, that for Augustine the ice’s procession from a womb can call to mind contraries: Christ the bridegroom, whose children preach the rain of the gospel—and also the devil, whose children are cold and hard through a lack of love.

This understanding of the nature of figurative language—wherein one thing signifies another thing because of some similarity—also allows Augustine to interpret differently gendered symbols somewhat interchangeably in this context. When he seeks to elucidate the ice’s procession from the ‘womb’ either in light of Christ the ‘bridegroom’—whose children preach the rain of the gospel—or in light of the devil—the ‘father’ of those who are ‘hard and resist the gospel’—Augustine utilizes the concept of procession from the womb as a parallel to the concept of fatherhood: fatherhood and procession from the womb are similar to each other in that both can signify origination or influence, whether divine or demonic. Hence language about birth from a womb and language about fatherhood can be used somewhat interchangeably to express the origination of one thing from another: for Augustine, the ice can be a reference to the loveless who come forth from the ‘womb’ of their ‘father,’ the devil. In figurative speech about spiritual realities, the same thing can have a ‘womb’ and be a ‘father.’

There is no indication here that Augustine attributes the womb of Job 38:29 to the devil because a divine womb might imply pantheism. Though Augustine’s notes are naturally brief and do not form a comprehensive or conclusive treatise, his reading of the ‘womb’ of Job 38:29 as the womb of the devil seems to rest upon (a) the idea that the ice’s cold, hard state makes it similar to those who are cold and hard as a result of the devil’s persuasions; (b) the fact that Scripture uses generative language to describe the devil as a parent to those whom he influences; and (c) the observation that the devil is ‘inwardly full’ of ungodliness, along with the fact that a mother brings forth her child when her womb has grown full.

As a whole, Augustine’s considerations illustrate the multivalent power of the symbols of ‘ice’ and ‘womb’—both of which can stand for either something good or something bad. Augustine’s notations also exemplify one way in which the imagery of motherhood and fatherhood can be interchangeable.

Gregory the Great

Like Saint Augustine, Pope Saint Gregory the Great also ponders the ice’s procession from the ‘womb’ in Job 38:29. Gregory reflects upon this passage at length in his Moralia in Iob—a wide-ranging commentary on the Book of Job that was highly reverenced during the Middle Ages. ⁴¹ Unlike Augustine, however, Gregory repeatedly portrays the ‘womb’ in verse 29 as God’s womb.

Within this understanding, Gregory offers a variety of interpretations of the ‘ice’ that comes forth from this divine womb. Whereas Augustine explores multiple interpretations of Job 38:29 but seems to prefer an interpretation of the ice as a symbol for something bad, Gregory offers multiple interpretations of the ice—both good and bad—and lets them stand together. This is in keeping with Gregory’s practice of interpreting the Book of Job in a number of different senses. ⁴²

Gregory’s initial interpretation of the ice shares some similarities with Augustine’s final interpretation of the ice. Gregory first interprets the ice as frozen, faithless hearts—although, for Gregory, the womb from which this ice comes forth is the Creator’s womb. Here, the womb of the Creator warms human beings through grace, but when they lose the warmth of faith and love, they are expelled from God’s womb. ⁴³ Those ‘frozen and bound with the torpor of unbelief,’ who had been ‘kept within the bosom of grace, as if within the womb of the Creator,’ were ‘cast forth from the secret bosom of grace’ when ‘they lost the warmth of faith and charity’ and thus ‘came forth like ice from the womb of the Creator.’ ⁴⁴ Thus Gregory portrays hearts filled with faith and love as residing within God’s womb, surrounded by grace and filled with warmth—whereas those who become icy-cold through a lack of faith and love are expelled like ice from the womb of the divine.

Secondly, Gregory suggests that the ‘ice’ of Job 38:29 can also be understood as Satan, who was also ‘frozen with the torpor of sin’ and thus ‘came forth as if ice from the womb of God’—‘from the warmth of God’s mysteries [secretorum].’ ⁴⁵ Here secreta can refer to divine ‘mysteries’ in the sense of the secret or hidden things of God; but the word secreta, which denotes things that are ‘hidden,’ also serves at times as a euphemism for sexual or excretory parts. ⁴⁶ In the context of his speech about ‘the womb of God’ and the frozen ice that comes forth from it, Gregory’s reference to the warmth of God’s secreta seems to suggest an incorporation of these euphemistic overtones. On such a reading, Satan exits like ice from God’s warm womb—from the warmth of the hidden things of God—because sin has frozen him with its chill.

A third interpretation offered by Gregory focuses on morality—specifically, the relation between the warmth of virtue, on the one hand, and the coldness of pride, on the other hand. Gregory dwells at length on the danger of losing the warmth of virtue by becoming cold through pride in (ironically) one’s own virtue. Here Gregory continues to portray the coldness of the ice as something negative, while he also continues to understand the womb from which the ice comes forth as the womb of the Divinity—‘diuinitatis utero.’ ⁴⁷

In expounding on this relation between virtue and pride, Gregory expands on the divine-womb imagery in diverse ways. On the one hand, Gregory portrays God as conceiving and giving birth to human beings in the life of virtue: ‘while Almighty God fashions the minds of humans in His fear, He conceives [concipit] them, as it were, and brings them forth [gignit] to open virtues, when He advances them onwards.’ ⁴⁸ Here Gregory applies the imagery of divine conception and birth to the beginning of the spiritual life and the fruition of virtue.

On the other hand, Gregory also employs the imagery of coming forth from the divine womb to illustrate his belief that God ‘abandons’ those who become prideful about their virtue: those who ‘seek after outward glory’ are ‘separated from the womb of heavenly compassion.’ ⁴⁹ On this understanding, Gregory reads the ice proceeding from the womb in Job 38:29 as a reference to humans who have succumbed to the chill of pride and who are thus expelled from God’s uterus: this passage is a warning to Job lest he ‘grow cold through pride, and be repelled and go forth from the womb of the Godhead [a diuinitatis utero].’ ⁵⁰ Thus Gregory portrays the divine womb either as conceiving and giving birth to people in the warm life of virtue—or as ejecting those who have grown icy-cold through pride.

A fourth interpretation of the ice’s procession from God’s womb breaks from these previous readings by offering an alternative understanding in which Job 38:29 is taken more positively, while Gregory continues to emphasize the importance of humility. Drawing on the analogy of seeds which yield a better harvest if they endure a period of icy weather before sprouting above ground, Gregory suggests that the ice proceeding from the womb in Job 38:29 can also be understood ‘in a good sense’ as a ‘discipline’ permitted by God for the ultimate benefit of human beings. ⁵¹ On this reading, the ice coming forth from the womb in Job 38:29 is similar to the ‘rain’ which God ‘fathers’ in the previous verse: the rain of Job 38:28 is the grace which waters the heart’s soil, and the ice ‘produced from the womb of God ‘ [‘de Dei utero glacies producitur’] is the ‘ice of the heavenly dispensation’ which fosters humility by keeping people from progressing too much in their good desires—just as icy weather produces a better yield while keeping seeds from sprouting too quickly. ⁵² In this context, Gregory notes that temptations serve to remind us of our weakness, and he cites Saint Paul as an example of earth watered with the rain of grace and covered with the ice of divine discipline: when Paul laments that he does not do the good that he desires (cf. Rom. 7:18), he becomes an example of how the divine dispensation works against pride by ensuring that people do not progress too far or too quickly.

Employing the same analogy of seeds that produce more if they endure a period of icy weather, Gregory further suggests that the ‘ice’ that God brings forth could alternatively symbolize the ‘adversity,’ ‘annoyances,’ or ‘sorrow’ that we are allowed to suffer in this life, which help to strengthen our virtue. ⁵³ Here Gregory understands this present life as a ‘winter,’ and compares ‘the joys of eternity’ to ‘the serenity of summer.’ ⁵⁴ Once again, according to Gregory, it is God who, in his wisdom, engenders the beneficial ice that gives rise to summer’s fruits.

In summary: Gregory the Great repeatedly interprets the ‘womb’ of Job 38:29 as divine, employing phrases such as the ‘womb of the Creator,’ the ‘womb of God,’ or the ‘womb of the Divinity.’ Within this general understanding, however, Gregory offers a variety of interpretations of the ice that comes forth from this divine womb. On the whole, Gregory’s ponderings on the ice coming forth from the divine womb revolve around a concern to nurture the endurance of faith and love—and especially humility. For Gregory, we are called to allow God to conceive us and bring us forth to virtue without growing prideful in the process—and God’s womb produces what we need in order to be more fruitful in the long term, however difficult or humbling that might be. It is a tragedy when people exit from the warmth of God’s womb through a lack of faith and love or through being puffed up with pride: Job 38:29 is an injunction toward humility and the warmth of divine love, inspiring us to remain immersed in the divine secreta, within the heavenly womb of the Creator.

Thomas Aquinas

By the time of Thomas Aquinas, a summary of Pope St Gregory’s comments on Job 38:29 had been enshrined in the Glossa ordinaria—the high-medieval theology student’s line-by-line introduction to patristic biblical interpretation. The Glossa reproduces Gregory’s references to the ‘womb of the Creator [utero creatoris]’ and the warmth of God’s secreta as well as Gregory’s description of God as conceiving and giving birth to human beings in the life of virtue (‘deus . . . concipit . . . gignit’). ⁵⁵

In keeping with the widespread medieval reverence for Gregory’s Moralia in Iob, St Thomas Aquinas praises Gregory’s interpretation of the Book of Job highly when he introduces his own commentary on this biblical book. He notes that St Gregory’s work is both clear and eloquent, leaving nothing to be desired in its exposition of the ‘mystical’ meaning (or spiritual sense) of the text. ⁵⁶ Thus Gregory’s spiritual understanding of the ice’s coming forth from the ‘womb of the Divinity’ occupied a revered place within medieval Catholic theology and within the thought of Thomas Aquinas.

While Thomas acclaims Gregory’s interpretation, he also sets about to supplement Gregory’s wide-ranging discourse on the Book of Job with his own explication of the basic, ‘literal sense’ of the text. ⁵⁷ As his comments on Job 38:29 will exemplify, Thomas understands the ‘literal sense’ of a text to be the first meaning that the text’s words are intended to express, whether this primary meaning is conveyed through words used in their strict sense (‘proprie dicta’) or through words used figuratively (‘figurate’). ⁵⁸

Thomas’s understanding of Job 38:29 is framed by his interpretation of the Book of Job as a whole. In the prologue to his Commentary, Thomas presents the Book of Job as a debate about whether divine providence governs human matters, including such matters as what happens to people who are suffering like Job. ⁵⁹ Thomas holds that the purpose of the Book of Job is to argue that God’s providence does rule human affairs, through appealing to the providential governance of nature. ⁶⁰ With this understanding, God’s speech out of the whirlwind is the resolution of a debate; ⁶¹ and in order to show how humans are ignorant not only of natural realities but also of higher things, God ‘questions Job about his effects which are available to the human senses.’ ⁶² Noteworthy here, for understanding Thomas’s view of the generation of ‘ice’ in verse 29, is his belief that this chapter is speaking of (a) divine effects which (b) can be sensed.

In introducing his reflections on Job 38:13–35, Thomas further specifies his understanding that this passage is describing God’s activity in the different parts of the physical world: ‘After the Lord has counted off [in verses 4–12] the principal parts of corporeal creation, namely, the earth, the sea, and the heavens, here He begins to pursue the marvels of divine works which appear in the disposition of the three parts of the world just mentioned.’ ⁶³ After completing his commentary on verses 13–35, Thomas again summarizes this section by reiterating the same point. By bookending his exposition of verses 13–35 with this explanation, Thomas thus makes it abundantly clear that he believes that this text, which includes verse 29 with its ‘ice,’ refers to corporeal realities brought about by God within the physical cosmos. Thus, when Thomas comes to comment on verse 29 and its question ‘from whose womb did the ice come forth?’ he approaches this line with the understanding that it is speaking of physical ice as a divine effect.

In his explication of the divine production of this material ice, Thomas links his interpretation of this verse to his understanding of the previous verse: ‘Who is the father of the rain, or who has begotten the dewdrops?’ (Job 38:28). ⁶⁴ Here Thomas explains that the ‘father’ of the rain is an efficient cause that brings about the rain—and more specifically, an agent whose activity occurs not out of necessity, but in accordance with the order of providence: as Thomas points out here, providence is appropriate for a father. Thomas understands God as the first mover, and the ultimate efficient cause, of the sun and other heavenly bodies whose motions more directly bring about rain. Thus, while the moving sun is a proximate cause of the rain, God is the rain’s ultimate ‘father’: God is the first cause of the rain, and he acts not through necessity but in accordance with the order of his own providence. ⁶⁵

Having expounded upon what it means to speak of the rain’s ‘father,’ Thomas proceeds to explain why the generation of ice is described in terms of coming forth from a maternal ‘womb,’ while the divine production of rain is portrayed in terms of paternity. This interest in exploring the suitability of specific terminology is in keeping with Thomas’s approach throughout his Commentary: he frequently indicates not only what he believes to be the primary meaning of the scriptural text, but also how the words of scripture fittingly convey that meaning.

To illustrate why scripture portrays the divine engendering of rain and ice using differently gendered terms, Thomas draws upon ancient and medieval medical understandings of male and female bodies to identify heat as masculine and cold as feminine. ⁶⁶ Women’s bodies were thought to be colder than men’s bodies, and Thomas presents this as an explanation for why the language of fatherhood is employed to describe God’s production of the rain, while the terminology of motherhood is used to describe the divine effect of ice as coming forth from the ‘womb’:

Now one should consider that just as congealed rains are snows, so congealed dew is frost. Hence He adds From whose womb has come forth the ice? And here one should note that the cause of ice is cold, which is a feminine quality, whereas the cause of rains and of dew is heat, loosening and not permitting the vapor to be congealed. Now heat is a masculine quality; therefore, He expressly used the term ‘father’ (v. 28) in speaking of the generation of rain and of dew, whereas in speaking of the generation of ice He used the term womb, which pertains to the mother. ⁶⁷

Thomas thus utilizes his era’s understanding of male and female bodies in order to show how it is fitting for scripture to speak of the divine effect of ice as engendered from a maternal ‘womb,’ just as it is fitting to describe God’s generation of the rain in terms of fatherhood.

It is possible that Thomas’s comments on the ‘womb’ of Job 38:29 presume the understanding of a point he makes a few verses earlier: to speak of a creature as proceeding from a ‘womb’ is not to imply that the creature originates from a material source. This observation appears during the explication of Job 38:8, another line employing the imagery of childbirth: ‘Who shut up the sea with doors when it burst out as if proceeding from the womb . . . ?’ ⁶⁸ Thomas emphasizes that this verse portrays the creation of the sea in terms of motherhood. Here Thomas notes that God ‘describes the production of the sea under the simile of the birth of a living thing, namely of a child’ and that ‘a child goes out from the womb of its mother, and He signifies this fact when He says When it burst out as if proceeding from the womb.’ ⁶⁹ Thomas proceeds to expound upon the meaning and fittingness of speaking of the sea as coming forth from a maternal womb, and his words here seem almost to anticipate present-day discussions of the metaphor of the pregnant female body.

Thomas is aware that a child who comes forth from the womb of its mother does indeed owe its body to the corporeal matter it has received from her; yet he insists that it is not this material aspect of motherhood that is referenced when the sea is portrayed as being brought into existence by God through birth. Rather, it is another aspect of motherhood that this imagery emphasizes: just as the womb is a hidden source from which the child comes forth, God’s providence is likewise a hidden source from which the sea comes forth. Thomas explains: ‘the sea is said to proceed as if from the womb not because it has had its origin from other corporeal material but because it proceeded from the hidden source of divine providence as if from a kind of womb.’ ⁷⁰ When Thomas reads scripture as comparing the sea’s divine source to a womb in this way, he therefore understands the womb as symbolizing God’s concealed providence from which creatures come forth, instead of a shared materiality between a creature and its origin.

This distinction that Thomas makes in his comments on the ‘womb’ of verse 8—the distinction between origination from matter and origination from divine providence—also finds a parallel in the distinction he makes between necessary causality and providential causality when he comments on the rain’s generation from its ‘father’ in verse 28. Here he points out that the rain’s father (ultimately, God) is an efficient cause that works in accordance with the order of providence, and not out of necessity. For verse 8 as well as for verse 28, Thomas therefore highlights that the divine causality of the creature—whether this is expressed in terms drawn from fatherhood or motherhood—belongs to the order of providence, rather than being a type of material causality or necessary causality. When he comes to comment on the ice’s generation from the ‘womb’ in verse 29, Thomas may therefore assume the understanding that God’s causality is neither material nor necessary, even when the divine effect of ice is portrayed as coming forth from a ‘womb.’

Altogether, these considerations on Thomas’s Commentary on Job lead toward the conclusion that Thomas understands the generation from the ‘womb’ in Job 38:29 as a reference to God’s providential causality in bringing about ice; but the notion that this passage expresses God’s activity of creation appears even more explicitly in Thomas’s treatment of Job 38:29 in his Summa contra Gentiles.

During the course of the Summa contra Gentiles, Thomas makes a distinction between two different ways in which Scripture applies to God words that express generative activity. Here Thomas distinguishes between (a) references to the eternal generation of the divine Word within the Trinity, and (b) references to God’s creative activity. ⁷¹

In illustrating this distinction, Thomas first cites a number of scripture passages which he sees as pointing toward the eternal birth of God the Son from God the Father within the Trinity. These passages reference paternal as well as maternal processes, including conceiving (concipere), being in labor (parturire), and giving birth (parere). ⁷² After describing such passages as pointing toward generation within God, Thomas goes on to illustrate how Scripture also uses the language of engendering to describe the creation of an effect by its Creator. As an example of this latter type of usage, Thomas cites Job 38:28–29, with its speech about the rain’s ‘father’ and the ice’s coming-forth from the ‘womb.’ ⁷³ Here Thomas explicitly identifies this passage as an instance of how words denoting generation ‘are used by the divine Scripture in its exposition of the creation of things,’ and he understands this passage as pointing toward God’s creative power—‘creationis efficacia.’ ⁷⁴ With this, Thomas highlights that the generative language of Job 38:28–29 points toward the relation between creature and Creator: the fathering of the rain signifies the divine creation of rain, and the womb bringing forth ice signifies the divine creation of ice.

Analysis

A number of insights arise from this examination of how key Fathers and Doctors of the Church interpret the ‘womb’ bringing forth ice in Job 38:29. This is particularly the case when these traditional sources are considered against the backdrop of the current theological arguments which suggest that Christian belief in divine transcendence would be erased if a maternal divine womb were imagined as enclosing or giving birth to creation.

On a fundamental level, the commentaries of Augustine, Gregory, and Thomas together illustrate the multivalent power of metaphor, thus providing reason to be cautious about the assumption that any given metaphor necessarily conveys a certain, specific meaning. The multiplicity of interpretations of the ‘ice’ provides a rather uncontroversial example of how one word can represent a wide variety of realities. Language about coming-forth from a womb similarly garners a variety of interpretations in these patristic and medieval texts, illustrating that symbolism related to the pregnant female body is likewise multivalent.

Augustine’s comments on the nature of figurative language in De doctrina christiana would suggest that the ‘womb’ of Job 38:29 can be interpreted in a diversity of ways because maternity can be characterized in terms of a variety of different attributes. Indeed, the various descriptions of motherhood found in these patristic and medieval texts go far beyond the descriptions of maternity found in contemporary arguments against various forms of womb-imagery for God—arguments that characterize motherhood in terms of dependency, immanence, materiality, or an identity with one’s child. In the thought of Augustine, Gregory, and Thomas, motherhood has a number of different attributes that make it capable of supporting a broad range of significations.

Each of these authors views references to maternity as capable of expressing an effect’s origination from its source—just like references to paternity. In Augustine’s notations on Job 38:29 this is evident in how Augustine employs the concepts of ‘father’ and ‘womb.’ Thus Augustine initially considers reading the ice’s procession from the womb as a parallel to the rain’s procession from its father (‘Christ the bridegroom’), in a manner that would portray maternal activity as analogous to paternal activity, in its ability to express the origination of a good thing from a good source. Even when Augustine settles upon reading the ice’s procession from the womb as a reference to how cold, hard, loveless people come forth from the womb of the devil, he still reads generation from the womb as analogous to fatherhood, insofar as those who come forth from the devil’s ‘womb’ are also said to have the devil as their ‘father’: here the procreative terms of ‘father’ and ‘womb’ both express the origination of human evil in a demonic source of influence.

Similarly, Gregory sees both paternal and maternal terminology as expressions of the divine origination of something helpful to human beings, when he reads the bringing-forth of ice from God’s ‘womb’ in Job 38:29 as similar in meaning to the fathering of the rain in the previous verse: here, the ice coming forth from God’s womb in verse 29 is something beneficial produced by God for the sake of ultimate human flourishing, just like the rain of grace fathered by God in verse 28.

Likewise, in Thomas Aquinas’s comments on Job 38:29, ‘fatherhood’ and generation ‘from the womb’ also appear as parallel concepts, both pointing toward causality—cold causes ice and is feminine; heat causes rain and is masculine—and so it is fitting for scripture to speak of the divine effect of ice as engendered from a mother’s ‘womb,’ just as it is fitting for it to describe God’s generation of the rain in terms of fatherhood. In these various instances, therefore, these Fathers and Doctors of the Church employ the language of motherhood as a parallel to the language of fatherhood: maternity, like paternity, can exemplify the origination of an effect from its source.

While motherhood can—like fatherhood—point to causation, for these authors the language of generation from a womb can garner a variety of more specific meanings as well—each drawing upon some particular aspect of motherhood. When Augustine notes that the devil is ‘inwardly full’ of ungodliness and indicates that the devil’s womb brings forth the ungodly, he draws upon the fact that a mother brings forth her child when her womb is inwardly full. When Thomas Aquinas presents motherhood as a fitting source of terminology for the creation of ice, he does so by emphasizing the ancient and medieval understanding that a mother’s female body is colder than a male body. When he reads the sea of Job 38:8 as coming forth from the womb of God’s hidden providence, he highlights the fact that the womb is a hidden source from which something proceeds.

Similarly, Gregory points toward a number of different aspects of motherhood within his wide range of explanations of the ice’s coming-forth from the womb. When Gregory portrays God as conceiving and giving birth to souls in the life of virtue, he likens God’s shaping of human souls (in the beginning of virtue) to a divine conception, and he likens God’s carrying these souls forward (to manifest virtue) to a divine birth. This characterizes conception as a type of initial formation, and highlights the fact that birth moves the child forward and brings the child out into the open, making it visible. Yet Gregory emphasizes different aspects of pregnancy and birth when he describes ‘icy’ persons as coming forth from a divine womb. In commenting upon the ‘ice’ of Job 38:29 as representing Satan or hearts that have grown cold through pride or through a lack of faith and love, Gregory highlights the pregnant womb’s warm and nourishing qualities. ‘The womb of the Creator’ represents a place of nourishing grace supporting the warmth of faith and love, a place where people are meant to abide. To come forth from this grace-filled womb of God is to be ‘abandoned,’ ‘repelled,’ or ‘cast forth’: here Gregory highlights the aspect of separation that is inherent in the process of coming forth from a womb. In childbirth, this separation is made possible by the difference between mother and child; and in Gregory’s description of icy persons coming forth from the womb of God, there is no notion that mother and child are identical. Rather, the imagery of coming forth from God’s womb serves to illustrate a tragic alienation and separation of creature from Creator.

The various descriptions of motherhood in these patristic and medieval texts thus range far beyond the descriptions of motherhood utilized by contemporary theological arguments that characterize maternity in terms of dependency, immanence, materiality, or an identity with one’s child. ⁷⁵ In the writings of Augustine, Gregory, and Thomas, motherhood provides an example of an effect’s origination from its source; the pregnant female body has an inward fullness; the maternal body has a certain temperature; the womb is a hidden source from which something originates; the womb is a place of nourishment and a cause of warmth; the mother’s conception of her child is a type of initial formation; birth is a carrying forward, a making visible; and to come forth from the womb is also to be repelled—to suffer a separation that underscores the difference between mother and child.

On another level, the thought of these Fathers and Doctors of the Church offers a precedent to place into dialogue with contemporary claims about the pantheistic nature of womb-language for God. In their reflections upon Job 38:29, Pope St Gregory the Great and St Thomas Aquinas portray the Creator’s activity in terms of motherhood, pregnancy, and birth from the womb, while drawing upon attributes of maternity they view as applicable to the divinity. As we have seen, Gregory expounds at length upon the depiction of creatures as held within the divine womb and as coming forth from it, employing phrases such as the ‘womb of the Creator,’ the ‘womb of God,’ or the ‘womb of the Divinity’; and his language about the ‘womb of the Creator’ who ‘conceives’ and ‘gives birth’ is enshrined in the basic scriptural textbook of the high Middle Ages, the Glossa ordinaria. Thomas Aquinas praises Gregory’s language, and also offers further explanations for why it is suitable for scripture to use terminology drawn from the pregnant female body in order to portray physical ice as a divine effect. These Saints and Doctors of the Church happily embraced the metaphor of the pregnant female body as an illustration of the relation between creatures and the Christian God.

Conclusion

In short: patristic and medieval notations on Job 38:29 exemplify the multivalence of metaphor, illustrating that maternal language can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The commentaries of Pope St Gregory the Great and St Thomas Aquinas, in particular, offer numerous precedents for understanding the pregnant and birthing female body as a fitting representation for the relation between creatures and Creator—without any implication that God is not transcendent in regard to creation, or that materiality is constitutive of the divine.