Questions on the Old and New Testament 23.1–41.2

I think it unseemly to say that souls are generated with bodies, so that soul is born from soul, which does not befit the soul itself. Or if, indeed, single heavenly powers were made and the others were born from them, can it seem credible that the other souls are born from the one soul of Adam? But it is not fitting, because to God alone was it possible that the simple should beget, and it was not granted to others. This is so mystical in the case of the Savior that it is thought incredible not only by the gentiles or Jews alone but even by those who call themselves Christians; for both the Photinians and the Arians spurn this faith.

For if at the time when the body is sown the soul too is generated from the soul: we read that a rib was taken from Adam, yet not that a soul was born from a soul; and if the rib had a soul with it, it was not born, but detached as a part. But this is not written either. For the prophet Zechariah says among other things: “who forms the spirit of man within him.” Nor does Isaiah disagree with them, saying: “Thus says the Lord God, who made you and formed you in the womb.” If, then, it is formed in the womb, it is given to a body already formed. For when it fills all the members of the body, it is said to be shaped in the body; and as water, though without shape, yet seems shaped when poured into a vessel, so too the soul, though by nature incorporeal and simple, is as it were formed into the body, giving life to each member. Moses handed this down more plainly, saying: “If anyone strikes a woman with child and she miscarries, if it was formed, let him give life for life; but if it was unformed, let him be fined with money,” to prove that there is no soul before the form. So if it is given to a body already formed, it is not born at the conception of the body, derived with the seed. For if the soul too comes from the soul with the seed, many souls perish every day, when seed by some flow does not advance to birth.

But if we look more closely, we shall see what we ought to follow. Let us consider the making of Adam; for in Adam an example was given, so that it might be understood from it that the body, already formed, received the soul. For he could have mixed the soul with the slime of the earth and so formed the body. But it was formed by reason, because the house first had to be built and so the inhabitant brought in. The soul certainly, because it is spirit, cannot dwell in what is dry; and so it is carried in the blood. When, then, the body’s lineaments have not been put together, where will the soul be? Or does it wander outside until it is sent in, when reason teaches that it is given so as to animate the body, not to wander idle? But let those who think otherwise say from whom it is given: from the male or from the female? If from the female, it does not fit, because the example is otherwise. For they propose that the soul too was given from the man with the rib, which we have taught is weakened by many reasons. Hence perhaps it may seem to be given from the female, chiefly because of the Savior, whom we know to have been born of a woman by the Holy Spirit without fleshly union. If they think so, they give more to women; for they transfer the man’s authority to the woman. For while they say that the origin both of body and soul is from the man, they turn round so as to say that what is better, that is, the soul, comes from the woman, and what is less, that is, the body, from the male; whereas it is plain that the order of the example handed down by God cannot be changed.

Man and woman are indeed of one substance, both in soul and in flesh, but the man is greater in rank, because the woman is from him, as the apostle says: “The head of the woman is the man.” For cause made the man greater, not substance. For in one body too there are greater members and lesser, not by nature but by order.

It is plain that Joseph did not give this command to the children of Israel idly. For one who could prophesy is not to be believed to have spoken without foresight. For being more devoted to God the Creator, and knowing that he was worshiped by the Egyptians because of the administration by which he governed Egypt in great famine, he sought to remove the error after his death, being sure that the vain crowd venerates the dead as gods more than the living, lest the honor owed to the Creator be paid to him. So he showed that he was free from the vain superstition of the Egyptians, when, so that it might not lead to an insult to God, he commanded that his ashes be carried away. We find that the apostles too followed this. For Paul and Barnabas, when they saw that people wanted to sacrifice to them, knowing that this is hateful to God, tore their garments, saying: “What are you doing? We too are men like you,” and so they restrained the crowds.

Holy Elisha, eager to do mighty works, drawn by his master’s example, having received the opportunity to ask whatever he wished, greedy for the good, asked that the spirit be in him doubly as it was in his master; to whom the man of God Elijah said: “You have asked a hard thing.” For in his eagerness he did not consider that the disciple is not above the master. Yet Elijah, knowing that he had not asked this out of ambition for present glory, answered: “Yet if you see me taken from you, it will be so for you.” The sense here must be weighed. Somewhat indignant, when he had said, “You have asked a hard thing,” he added: “Yet if you see me taken up, it will be so for you.” Lest, because he seemed to have refused him, he showed that it would be for him as was fitting, not as he himself had asked? For Scripture wants many things understood, so that the sense gathered from the words is not contrary to the reason of religion. For certainly a hard request ought even to have lost its merit; but because he asked thus out of eagerness for good, God, who knows what gift is to be given to each, did not allow him to be deprived of his merits.

Let us see, then, whether Elijah’s merit would allow Elisha to deserve to receive his gift doubled. For it was said by the Holy Spirit through Zechariah what merit John would have: “He will come,” he says, “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (so he shows John equal to Elijah); and the Lord says: “Among those born of women there is no prophet greater than John the Baptist.” He did not say, “he is greater than all,” but “no one is greater than he,” that is, “he has an equal, he has no greater.” Elijah, then, is equal to him, and certainly less than no one. How then is Elisha greater than he, when John, than whom no one is greater, is equal to Elijah? For coming to the crossing of the waters, he did not receive honor from them so as to be able to cross, until he named the God of Elijah; so that by this the hard request might be seen to be rebuked, since he was heard only in Elijah’s name, lest he be thought to have received what he had boldly asked, as if the dispensation of the Spirit granted to Elijah were not enough for the merit of the time.

I judge it an unworthy deed if assent is given according to the words of the narrative. For how could it happen that a man holy by birth and righteous in the works of his life should be drawn up by magic art? Or, if he was not drawn up, did he consent? Both are contrary to belief about a righteous man. For if he was brought against his will, righteousness has no support; but if willingly, he lost the merit of the spiritual life which he had sought while in the flesh; which is very absurd, because one who departs from here righteous remains righteous. But in fact this is an illusion of Satan, by which, to deceive very many, he pretends that he has even the good in his power. The apostle says this among other things: “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.” For to produce the error in which he glories, he disguised himself in the appearance and name of a righteous man, so as to lie to the worshipers of God that the hope they preached profited nothing, when he pretended that the righteous who depart from here are in his power.

But some are misled by this, that he did not lie about the death of Saul and his son, as though it were a great thing for the devil to foresee the end of the body before the day, since certain signs are wont to appear in those about to die, from whom God’s protection seems to have been withdrawn. How much more the devil, whom the prophetic oracles testify was exalted in angelic majesty, of whose greatness the apostle says: “Or do you not know the depth of Satan?” What wonder, then, if he could foresee a death close at hand, since this is how he deceives and wants to be worshiped as having God’s power? For Saul was made mad with such dullness that he fled to the pythoness. For, depraved because of sin, he betook himself to the things he had condemned.

But if anyone thinks that, for the sake of the narrative and what is expressed in its words, these things should not be passed over, lest the account of the narrative be empty, he will do rightly, provided he does not carry it over to the account of the truth, but to Saul’s sight and understanding. For having become reprobate he could not have a good understanding. For the historian described Saul’s mind and Samuel’s appearance, expressing what was said and seen, passing over whether they were true or false. For what does he say? Hearing in what appearance the one raised was: “He understood,” it says, “that this was Samuel.” It reported what he understood; and because he did not understand well, against Scripture he worshiped another than the Lord, and, thinking it Samuel, worshiped the devil, so that Satan might have the fruit of his deceit. For this is what he strives for, to be worshiped as God. For if Samuel had truly appeared to him, certainly a righteous man would not have allowed himself to be worshiped, who had preached that the Lord alone is to be worshiped. And how could the man of God, who was in refreshment with Abraham, say to a man of pestilence worthy of the burning of Gehenna: “Tomorrow you will be with me”?

By these two marks improvident Satan betrayed the subtlety of his deceit: that he allowed himself to be worshiped, against the law, under the appearance and name of Samuel; and that he lied that a man weighed down with sins would be with most righteous Samuel, though there is a great distance between sinners and the righteous. It can seem true if the name of Samuel is left out, because Saul was going to be with the devil; for he passed over to the one he worshiped. So the devil, always hiding under a veil, betrays himself when he invents things that are abhorrent to the persons through whom he tries to deceive.

That the world has existed from eternity and owes subjection to no one is improbable and impossible, since we see it standing in corporeal form with such diversity, whereas nothing can be divine and eternal unless it is simple, in which no diversity is seen but there is unity. For it does not even keep the very succession of seasons, so that it is varied not only in its seasons and consists of contrary substances, but also in the very successions of seasons; whereas an eternal thing abhors diversity and cannot be grasped by touch or sight, being incorporeal. But this world is subject to passion, for water fights fire, and fire, if there is more of it, overcomes water; and earth, being by nature dry and cold, suffers burning like a corporeal thing. So it is unfitting to call the world eternal, which, since we see it subject to passion and failing with age in its parts, we believe will also come to an end.

What does one who thinks the world eternal judge about man? Certainly man began in the world: for whom, then, without man, did the yearly fertility of the world serve? Or did it generate without any providence? And how did an eternal thing generate corruptible and mortal things, when what comes from the eternal ought to be eternal? And what is visible and is felt and touched, with what audacity is it called eternal? And what is served by the successions of seasons, so that the seasons themselves sometimes do not keep their duties, how is it called eternal? For eternity is not corrupted, is not changed.

Circumcision was commanded on the eighth day from birth for this reason: that, according to the number and course of the seven days, the same day is found to be the first again, as it were after the sabbath, so that it is no longer held to be the eighth but the first. For because the salvation to come through Christ was predestined on the first day, which is called the Lord’s day because on it the Lord rose, which is after the sabbath, therefore the figure of this salvation was given in circumcision, so that the future renewal might be recognized in the law of circumcision. And because people were to be saved through faith, which was confirmed on the first day by the Lord’s resurrection, the figure of this thing was given in circumcision on the first day, which was also the sign of Abraham’s faith. The cause, then, is complete: because the sign of the past faith, signified on the first day, was a figure of the future faith established on the first day.

All truth is righteousness. For one who confesses what is, is righteous (for he speaks the truth), but sinners who defend their offenses cannot be justified. Hence such a one is worthily called righteous, because by declaring his sin he certainly asks that it be forgiven him, imploring God’s mercy. For he knows that it is said in the law: “Confess your sins, that you may be justified.” And what is it to confess at the beginning of one’s speech, except to admit, not under compulsion, but voluntarily? For who, even among those who fear God, is without sin, since offenses mingle even with our thoughts and we sometimes sin unwillingly? Yet it can also be said or understood of one who is called a catechumen, that by coming to faith he is justified. For when he asks to be changed, without doubt he confesses himself a sinner, so as to be justified.

As far as the narrative goes, it is a serpent by nature that is spoken of, which was wiser than the other beasts that the Lord God had made on the earth. Indeed God also gave sentence against the serpent. For what wonder if the devil will be wiser than the beasts, of whom the apostle says among other things: “Or do you not know the depth of Satan?” But the serpent was a serpent by nature to such a degree that it was said to it: “On your breast and belly you shall crawl, and you shall eat earth all the days of your life.” These things are far from the condition of Satan, because he is neither corporeal nor mortal. And if one looks more closely, it will be seen that the sentence given did the serpent no harm, but it was ordered to remain in that in which it was made. For because it had become Satan’s minister for subjugating man, to whom God had subjected all things, God therefore repressed the serpent’s elation by the same subjection by which he subjected all things to man, because it had begun to be the minister of pride. For man seemed to have been put under the serpent, from whom he took counsel and despised the law given. And that serpents are prudent the Lord confirms in the gospel, saying: “Be shrewd as serpents.”

So since it has become clear that a serpent truly spoke with Eve, it remains to be discerned whether it could have been so prudent and cunning as to deceive her by guile. For if it was more prudent than the other beasts, yet not than human beings, since no animal is rational except man. So it is impossible that the serpent devised this subtlety. For although it is called prudent, it is not beyond its nature; for it does not deliberate or devise or take counsel. Therefore there is no doubt that it was the devil who got round the woman through the serpent. For mingling himself with the serpent, he acted through it as through an instrument, so that the woman did not perceive the guile of the hidden devil, knowing that the serpent is prudent. And therefore the sentence given bodily fell spiritually on Satan, because the sentence holds the guilty one. For the sentence was not given by a man, who might perhaps destroy an innocent one through error or ill will, but by God, who certainly cannot be deceived, so that his sentence should not hold the one who is guilty. For because Satan, though invisible, carried out his guile bodily, the sentence seems to have been given bodily, so as to hold him spiritually whose deed elicited the sentence. For, cast down from the most sacred seats of heaven, most shameless Satan rolls on the earth, always groaning.

But perhaps it may be said: “And in what language, do you think, did the serpent speak to the woman?” With the serpent’s mouth, of course. For if today there are those who understand the barking of dogs, the howling of wolves, the trumpeting of elephants, and the song of chickens, why could not the woman, still new, rather know and understand the hissing of serpents, since we know that many can distinguish the voices of birds? For it is agreed too that the devil uses the tongue of the one whose body he has entered; nor could he have deceived the woman otherwise. And therefore he spoke through the serpent with the serpent’s mouth.

Far be this impious assertion from the minds of the faithful. For Scripture, in order to teach that the poor man is not to be despised and the rich man honored, showed that God is the maker of both, certainly not in poverty and riches, but in what they are. For if they differ from one another in means, they do not differ in the substance of nature. For because certain occasions and outcomes make some in the world prosperous in riches or unfortunate in poverty, those whom God has not humbled are not therefore to be despised, nor those to be looked up to to whom the truth has given no testimony. Those are plainly to be despised who are corrupters of morals and sacrilegious against God’s law, and those to be honored who love God and cultivate discipline.

For those are held rich with God who are of good conduct, and the more contemptible they are in the world, the more honored they are in heaven. For those who have the benefit of the times in increasing their means, if they know themselves and understand God’s will (that he gave the earth to all, and bids his sun rise on all, and pours out rains without distinction, while the injustice of the times, or chance occasions, or want, deny to some what God gave to all), let them minister to these, so that, perceiving God’s will, they may be rich not only in the world but also in heaven, lest the riches of a short time shut out the eternal ones; and those whom they think are to be despised because of poverty, if they contemplate God’s future judgment, will always be rich there, where the rich of the age will be in want, repenting that they were not poor.

It would indeed be fitting that all the impious not only lose this light sooner but not even enjoy life for one moment of time, who, forgetful of their Creator, ascribe the authority of all life to the creature. But Scripture speaks of those impious who, while living under God’s law, were more inclined to idols. For they are worse than the other impious; for knowing the Lord and despising him, they obey servants. And the apostle proves that this was said of them, saying: “But we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law.” But the gentiles are not counted among the living.

No one doubts that all good things are from God; but the evils he spoke of are evils to us while vengeance is taken on us. For punishment, though inflicted justly, nevertheless seems evil to the one who suffers it. For God also speaks through the prophet to sinners, saying: “I will do evils to you,” that is, “I will drive you with punishments.” And life and death are from God in this way: that he gave the law, which promises life to those who keep it, but death to its despisers, that death which is called the second. For while he adjudges to each what he deserves, from him comes either acquittal to life or guilt to death. So he is not the inventor of death but its judge, because the author of death is sin. How then could God make death, who knows not how to sin? But when he repays sins, death is said to be from him, although it is not from him but from the one who sinned.

By the same reasoning poverty and riches are from God. For some, having the fear of God, spurn luxury, flee a prodigal life, and do not turn their eye from the needy or the poor; such people increase their goods. For it is written in Proverbs: “Discipline takes away poverty and dishonor.” But those who do not have the fear of God, living more loosely and despising the needy, as it is written, will be in want, being not only negligent and improvident about themselves but also despisers of the law given. In this way God makes poor and rich: because, when offense against the law brings forth want, it is said to be done by God as the author of the law; and when some keep the discipline of the law out of fear, they become rich from God as the author of the law.

David, well aware that the tradition in the office of the royal order is divine, therefore honors Saul, still set in that same tradition, lest he seem to wrong God, who decreed honor for these orders. For the king has the image of God, as the bishop has that of Christ. As long as he is in that tradition, then, he is to be honored, if not for his own sake, at least for the order’s. Hence the apostle says: “Be subject to all higher powers. For there is no power except from God; for those that exist are ordained by God.” Hence it is that we honor a gentile, if he is placed in power, although he himself is unworthy, who, holding God’s order, gives thanks to the devil. For power demands it, because it deserves honor. For this is why the dream of the future famine was revealed to Pharaoh, and why Nebuchadnezzar alone, with others standing beside him, saw the Son of God in the furnace of fire, certainly not by his own merit, since he wanted to be worshiped in an idol, but by the merit of the royal order.

Scripture spoke in another sense than is proposed. For it did not speak of this death which is certainly common to all, but of that which is called the second. This receives sinners; but to those who died in the battle the sin of Achan was not repaid; rather it harmed them in that, not helped by divine protection, they did not prevail over the enemy. For they were not weakened because of Achan, but were not fortified by God’s help, so that, being unable to act bravely, they were killed. For they were few against many, and hence they are known to have been defeated. So there is no injustice in God’s will. For he has it in his power whether he wills to help, so that if he is present he is merciful, if he does not will it, just; for he is not a debtor to such, so as to be held liable. This is why Joshua son of Nun, saddened, tore his garments, understanding that the Lord had not withdrawn his help without cause.

He set two names of one people, so that their deserts might be understood from the names. For certainly he who was named Israel was previously called Jacob. For wrestling with the Savior he understood that he was God, whom he saw in bodily form, and therefore he was called “a man seeing God.” So the people he calls Jacob signifies, in this place and in this case, the fleshly people, like the names given by parents to children. But these, that is, the Jews, because of their evil works were not called Israelites, because they sacrificed to calves and groves in Samaria at the zeal and command of King Jeroboam. But that people which in Jerusalem offered victims in the temple of the Lord through the priests of God was called Israel. Samaria, then, because of its impiety, was handed over to captivity and death, but Jerusalem was preserved because it had kings who loved God. But when Jerusalem too followed the impiety of Samaria, the sentence given against Samaria overtook it.

This is why it was said: “God sent death into Jacob” (that is, into the people of Samaria, who lived in a fleshly way, as we said above) “and it came into Israel,” that is, into the people of Jerusalem, because it followed idolatry in imitation of Samaria, so that it was likewise carried off into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, as Samaria was by Shalmaneser king of the Assyrians. This is plainly: the sentence given to the wicked found the good too, when they ceased to be righteous. For death sent into Jacob, as was shown above, reached Israel, not passing over Samaria; but when the cause for which it was sent into Samaria was found in Jerusalem too, having been sent there, it came also to that place in which the same cause remained. For vengeance follows the cause, not distinguishing the person.

It is not to be understood as the words sound. For it is the work, though it is mute, that is said to cry out the praise of the Creator; for it urges those who look at it to bless the maker, as every well-made vessel praises the craftsman; since we read in the Psalms: “Will the dust confess to you, or declare your truth?” So in every senseless substance it is not will, which certainly is none, but the works that bless the author. But if you want to take this spiritually, understand that the earth signifies man, according to the prophet’s saying (“Remember, Lord,” he says, “that we are earth”), whom the works of creation urge to break forth in praise of his maker.

Darkness signifies paganism and ignorance. He wants it understood, then, that there is hope in a pagan rather than in an apostate, by what he added, saying: “A living dog is better than a dead lion”; because just as the lion is stronger than all wild beasts, so Christianity is stronger than all sects. So if anyone abandons it, he loses salvation, so that he is worse than a pagan. For it can happen that a pagan believes and gains the salvation which the apostate lost. And if he does not believe, the apostate is worse, because it is worse to have lost salvation than not to have had it. And the Savior shows that “dog” signifies a pagan, saying: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

Since the children of the earthly Jerusalem apostatized from God, joy cannot be ascribed to her, but grief. So to the reproach of this Jerusalem the prophet says that the upper Jerusalem ought to rejoice, which the apostle calls our mother, because without groaning and pains she has many more children than this one who bears with tears in the flesh, namely the Jews; while that one bears Christians spiritually through faith. He calls her deserted because she herself is life, which the first man Adam deserted and followed death. So when people are reborn, they return to the life they had deserted. This life is Christ, because he himself said: “I am the life.” God the Father too is life, because the Lord says: “As the Father has life, so he has given the Son to have life.” Without doubt the Holy Spirit too is life, as the Lord says: “He will take of what is mine.” So he who received from life is life. Three, then, are one life. This is the life through faith in which we are reborn. She is our mother, as we read in Genesis too: “because she,” it says (that is, life), “is the mother of all the living.” Who are those who live, except those who believe?

If the Holy Spirit is thought by some to be meant because we read “the spirit of God,” it is a weak and empty assertion. For not only does the order not allow it and reason refuse it, but the words themselves are shown to be too weak to establish this case. For we often find something else signified by these words in the law. For among other things the Lord God says: “My spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh.” And in what follows: “But I will destroy,” he says, “everything from man to beast,” because he was going to bring a flood on the earth. Can the Holy Spirit be understood here? Did he not speak of souls? For not only our souls are called spirits, but those of beasts too. For thus it is written: “And all flesh died in the water, in which was the spirit of life.” And in the prophet Ezekiel it is said thus, when God promises the restoration of men, saying: “Thus says the Lord to these bones: I will stretch skin over you and put my spirit in you, and you will live.” Did he speak of the Holy Spirit and not of the soul?

All heavenly things are indeed spirits, but they differ from one another; and God is spirit, but far otherwise. So every spirit is God’s; yet it is not God, except the Spirit who is from him, whose designation is that he is called “holy.” For human beings too are called sons of God, and Christ is called the Son of God; but there is a gap, because he is true, they adopted. So also there is a difference within “spirit of God.” For the Holy Spirit is from God, consubstantial with him; but the other spirits are said to be God’s, yet they are creatures. Nor is it fitting in order that the Holy Spirit should be understood to be borne over the waters, since reason teaches that a spiritual creature was over the waters, and one that has another, superior creature above it, because creature differs from creature in brightness. For the nearer one comes to the seat of God, the brighter are the ministries. Hence the angel Raphael says among other things: “I am one of the seven holy angels who stand and go about before the majesty of God.”