Questions on the Old and New Testament 46.1–55.1

There are some among us who, partly occupied with worldly business, partly less studious about the sacred Scriptures, suffer the error of thinking that Samuel was a priest, that is, that he had his origin from Aaron, from whose progeny the Lord God established that priests should be born, not made. Nor was it granted to anyone besides his sons to put incense on the altar. Of these, some who err more deny that Samuel was of Aaron’s race, that is, they say he was not born a priest, and yet assert that he performed the priesthood. They must be answered first. For it is worse to deny that Samuel was born a priest and yet assert that he performed the priesthood, than to say that he was a priest from the sons of Aaron. For here there is ignorance, there folly. For when those who think he was born a priest have learned that he was not of the sons of Aaron, it will be plain to them, though they did not know it, that he was not a priest, because no one was allowed to perform the priesthood except one who was of the seed of Aaron. For they have it established; for it is plain that Korah, since he was not of the sons of Aaron and wanted to put incense on the altar, was swallowed up with his companions by the opening of the earth. And King Uzziah, since he was certainly not of the seed of Aaron but of the tribe of Judah, and had presumed to perform the priesthood, standing before the altar was struck with leprosy on his forehead and so died.

But those who say that Samuel was not born a priest and yet assert that he performed the priesthood say something quite foolish. And to persuade a fool of what is good is the greatest labor. For with what dullness they are led, that while the sun shines on the earth they say it is night! For though they read, and not in one place, that it was decreed by God that no one should dare to perform the priesthood except Aaron and his sons, with obstinate mind they contend that Samuel was a priest. For they do not understand that if Samuel was not born a priest and performed the priesthood, he is called presumptuous, because God established that priests should be born, not made. And I think it is not safe to think this of Samuel. For how could it be that a praiseworthy man, commended by God’s testimony, would do what he knew was not permitted? Especially since he held for certain that vengeance for this presumption had been taken once and again. For by God’s judgment he could not aspire to this, knowing him to be unchangeable; and if he had perhaps heard this from him, he would rather have believed that he was being tempted, knowing that God can in no way rescind his sentence. For he could more easily believe that this was being done with him under God’s appearance and name, so that he might be deceived by the opposing side, than that God could change his judgment.

Indeed when Balaam had been forbidden by God to go to Balak, and afterward asked again whether he should go, God was indignant with him and rebuked him by the example of the ass, because the ass, seeing the angel forbidding, would not complete the journey begun. But Balaam, asking again, when God had forbidden him to go, whether he wanted him to go, judged of God as of a man, who, because he lacks foreknowledge, is varying and changeable. But Balaam is commended by no divine testimony (for he was a soothsayer), whereas Samuel was a man dear to God and knowing that his judgments are a fixed sentence; how would he believe that something else ought to be done than what he knew had been established by God?

“But,” they say, “when Eli and his sons, the priests, had died, Samuel began to perform the priesthood”: which neither the reading teaches nor reason admits. For saying this, they think that there was no one at that time to perform the priesthood, so that, these three having died, unless Samuel had offered the people’s gifts, the priesthood would have ceased to be performed; which assertion is hostile to God. For by it God is judged improvident; for as if not knowing, he established what could not last. For why did he establish that no others than the sons of Aaron should perform the priesthood for ever, that is, until the times of the coming of Christ, if he knew this would fail? But if he did not know (God forbid!), he was improvident; and so it may be that Samuel was priest when they failed. But if God is provident and foreknowing, what he established remained; and if what he established remained, Samuel did not perform the priesthood, because priests were not lacking. In the old law God decreed that priests be born; but in the new the Lord ordered that priests be made.

Let them now choose one of two: either let them prove that Samuel was born a priest, or that he was made one. But they agree that he was not born a priest, because they know that he was not of the sons of Aaron. If, then, Samuel was not born a priest, and is neither read nor proved to have been made one, since God had not established that priests should be made, it is clear that Samuel was not a priest at all.

But the objectors, with their eyes closed, say: “If he was not a priest, yet he acted as a priest, since we read that he offered sacrifice to God! Who would dare deny what is proved written?” Samuel did offer sacrifice to God, but it is not known from this that he acted as a priest. For the one is always said to offer whose oblations they are, which the priest places on the altar. Saul too offered in this way, that is, through a priest, as offering is done now; and David offered, and Solomon offered, and the rest likewise offered. Did they all act as priests? For although the priest performs his own office, yet he is said to offer in whose name the priest acts; for it is credited to him whose gifts are offered. And one who was not a priest, how could he act as a priest? Can a deacon act as a priest? For a prefect can act in place of a prefect, and a praetor of a praetor; yet a private person cannot act in place of any authority: how much less can one who is not a priest act as a priest!

For by what counsel does one dare aspire to what he knows is not permitted to him? For if a priest is lacking somewhere, a priest of another place can be asked to come and act in his stead; yet a prophet, though he be of holy life, cannot do what he knows is not at all granted to him. For it is one thing to live well and another to receive the power of some office. For just as one who is a priest ought not to think his life commended by that, so too one who is of holy conduct and life ought not therefore to claim the priesthood for himself. For although the priesthood is good, yet it will be evil for one to whom it has not been granted and who presumes. For if we look at what is written about holy Samuel, we shall see what testimony Scripture gives him, saying: “And it became known,” it says, “to all the people that Samuel was faithful as a prophet of the Lord”; and in the psalm: “Moses and Aaron,” it says, “among his priests, and Samuel among those who call on his name.” Who would not notice from this distinction that the persons are divided by reason of their dignities, so that Moses and Aaron are known to have obtained the priestly dignity, but Samuel is held to have been worthy of God among the prophets, who called on God with prayers to protect his people, as we read? And priests are proved to have been so far from lacking that, when the ark was brought back, carried by Levites, the men of Beth-shemesh offered sacrifices to God in Samuel’s absence. And when Saul had been made king, Ahijah, the great-grandson of Eli the priest, was there, who wore the ephod.

“But from this,” they say, “Samuel seems to have been a priest, because he was clothed in an ephod.” As if today deacons were not clothed in dalmatics, like the bishop. And we read that David too was clothed in an ephod, and a double ephod. And Samuel, still a little boy, was girded with an ephod: could a little boy offer the people’s gifts to God? You see, then, that “ephod” is indeed one name but does not always signify one thing. For the priests carried the ephod, they were not clothed in it; but kings and the Levite Samuel were clothed in the ephod. So the ephod sometimes signifies a garment, sometimes a kind of small chest, which the priests carried to inquire of the Lord.

As far as appears, it has been proved that Samuel was not a priest but a prophet. Now we answer those who, not knowing that Samuel is not of the sons of Aaron the priest, think he was a priest; for it was not right that one descending from the line of Aaron should not be a priest. I want them first to recognize that, if Samuel was a priest, without doubt Elkanah his father was a priest too. It would also have been fitting that his sons were priests, whom, because they were not priests, he appointed judges over the children of Israel, as Samuel himself was. For so we read: “that he judged the children of Israel.” And Elkanah, Samuel’s father, because he was not a priest, “went up,” it says, “from day to day from his city Ramathaim to worship and to sacrifice to God almighty of hosts. And there was Eli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord.”

What is so plain as that Elkanah came at the appropriate time to offer his gifts before the Lord through the priests, according to what Moses had established, that three times a year they should offer their gifts and tithes where the ark of the Lord and the priests were; especially since he also had two wives at one time, which is unlawful for priests? For Elkanah was of the Levites, as the order of generations is contained in the book of Chronicles. For the Levites did not yet have an established order of ministry around the priests and the ark of the Lord. For David in his reign arranged courses for the priests and Levites, so that from twenty years and upward (in the law, from twenty-five years and upward) they should begin to render service to the Lord’s ceremonies; so that there should be from the sons of Aaron, that is, from the line of Phinehas and Ithamar, twenty-four courses of priests, which would take their turns at fixed times. And Levites were appointed to be gatekeepers of the tabernacle, and carriers of the ark of the Lord, and to keep the watches, and to be keepers of the vessels, and to receive the various offerings. And twenty-four courses were instituted of singers and harpists and other musicians, so that these too, that is, all the Levites, had turns of time, because they also needed leisure to look after their houses.

And not only do these things serve the case stated above, that Samuel was not of the sons of Aaron, but also what his mother says to the Lord: “If you give me a son, I will lend him to the Lord all the days of his life.” She would not say this if he had been born a priest (for he would have had to serve the altar), but because he was a Levite and the law had not yet been laid down for the Levites, but each one acted according to his own will, so that, going astray, they presumed unlawful things. For Jonathan, the son of Moses’ son, though he was counted among the Levites, presumed to perform the priesthood for the tribe of Dan. And therefore we read in the book of Judges that “each one,” it says, “did what pleased him, because there was no king in Israel.” For this reason Hannah vowed, saying, “I lend him to the Lord,” lest he go astray with the rest.

And so that the question may be discussed more fully, let us also treat what was said of Elkanah, that he came from day to day to offer his gifts and tithes. How did he offer tithes, who possessed nothing? For the Levites did not receive fields, because they got their living from the tithes given by the people. But it can be, and it is given to be understood thus, that he could have had a possession of his wife’s, or a purchased one; because not only these but others too took wives from other tribes, so that even priests took wives for themselves from other tribes. For Jehoiada the high priest married, from the tribe of Judah, the daughter of King Joram.

It is clear that the seven women signify seven churches; for although the church is one, it is called sevenfold, as one body consists of a sevenfold number of members. For not only we but also the heavenly beings above are members of the church, whose head is Christ. So whether one or seven churches are spoken of, it makes no difference. For it is called one because it has one head, which is Christ; and seven because, as the members are different, so too the spiritual powers, among whom we too are counted, are different in their virtues, for which reason they are also said to be in need. For they are different for this reason: that the single ones cannot do everything, but all together are the body of Christ, because he is the head of the body, the church, from which the whole body subsists, that is, from whom all things in heaven and on earth have their origin.

In this church which is on earth, then, mention is made of all the churches, because when the mystery of the Creator is preached to it, this teaching is made known also to the heavenly beings. For when it is conveyed to the lower ones, those above must hear too. Hence the apostle says: “To me, the least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach among the nations the incomprehensible riches of Christ and to enlighten all as to what is the plan of the mystery hidden from the ages in God, who created all things, and to make known to the principalities and powers in the heavens, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God.” Through this church, then, those above are taught, because, it says, “truth has sprung from the earth.” For so that mention may be made of those above, here seven churches are named in one people, which the prophet brings in as suppliants to the Savior made man. For they understood that Christ was born for this, to take away reproach, first of those living under his law, then of the rest. And they had in memory that it is written: “There will come from Zion one who will deliver and turn away impiety from Jacob.”

These seven churches, then, took hold of one man, that is, Christ when born, saying: “We will eat our own bread and be clothed with our own garments; only let your name be called upon us; take away our reproach.” What is this that they pray for? For if they use their own bread and are clothed in their own garments, that is, both live and are not naked, what do they lack? If bread signifies life and clothing devotion to God (because one who is without God is called naked; hence the apostle says: “You who have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ,” and again: “if, being stripped, we are not found naked”), what is it that they ask, that their reproach be taken away from them, except that this people is marked by the number of the seven churches, which, living under the law, awaited the promised Christ to abolish sins? Therefore they say: “We will eat our own bread” (that is, we will be fed by the words of the law, which hand on one God, because man does not live by bread alone but by every word of God) “and be clothed with our own garments,” that is, we are reckoned by the name of our Creator; because each one is said to be clothed with what he both is and professes.

Indeed senators or officials are understood from their clothing as to what they are. But because these things are not enough to win God’s favor, he also established this: that through the mystery of the knowledge of the one God man should be heir of the kingdom of heaven. For washed of sins through faith, and a stranger to the second death, which, by the sentence given in Adam, held people in the underworld, with no one holding him he goes on into the paradise of God the Father, in which the Lord told the thief that he would be with him. For although the people mentioned above, which is signified in the seven churches, was under God’s law and devotion from the very origin of the world, yet it needed purification both of its own and its fathers’ offense, because “all,” it says, “have sinned and lack the glory of God.” Therefore the churches mentioned above pray that their reproach may be taken away by the invocation of Christ’s name, because those who have his sign, by which he conquered death, cannot be held by the enemy. And not only do these churches pray that the name of Christ may be invoked upon them, but also the spiritual beings above living in the heavens. For although they are spiritual and heavenly powers, they are nevertheless subject to reproach if they are strangers to their Creator, and they will not be members of the body, wandering without knowing their head.

And that it is nothing other than what we have explained the prophet testifies in what follows, saying: “But on that day God will shine in counsel upon the earth,” and he added: “because the Lord will wash away the filth of the sons and daughters and will purge the blood from their midst.” What is so evident as that on that day, that is, the day on which God’s promise was fulfilled and the mystery of faith was declared to people, they were enlightened, so that, purified through knowledge of the Creator, those who had been guilty of death might become heirs of eternal life? So the prophet spoke without distinction, to signify that all need God’s gift, so that both sinners and the righteous might be known to have awaited God’s mercy: sinners because of their own offenses, so as to be snatched from the jaws of death; and the righteous, absolved from their fathers’ sin, the sentence given in Adam being blotted out, by which all were held by death, might enter the kingdom of God having received freedom, no longer slaves but sons of God. [Questions on the New Testament.]

When God willed that the things which were not should exist, and knew that this work was not worthy of his majesty, he first begot from himself, since he is simple in nature and incorporeal, a Son who would differ from him in nothing, so that an effect worthy of his greatness might correspond to it. For what more could he do than beget another himself, who is perfect? This, then, is the perfect work, than which nothing can seem more excellent. For all other things are lesser; for the more excellent Christ is than all these, the more inferior is their creation to his generation. There is also something else. For God, from whom are all things, wishing to found creation, first begot the Word which he had in mystery with himself, that is, made it come forth. And he called this Word Son for this reason, to show that he came forth from him and is consubstantial with him; so that the law by which children are from parents might make this credible, by which he manifested to creation the mystery which lay hidden in him from eternity.

It is true and plain that the Savior did not need baptism, because Christ was not made but born, as the angel said to the shepherds: “Behold, today a Savior is born to you, who is Christ the Lord.” Indeed John, knowing his holiness, tried to prevent him from baptism; but the Savior insisted that it must be done, certainly not because of sin, but to fulfill righteousness. For it was fitting that he should be an example to the future children of God, he who taught that people become children of God through baptism; and he who promised that the Holy Spirit would be given to believers ought to demonstrate this visibly in himself, so that, having learned this, believers might hope to receive the Holy Spirit invisibly. For the Savior certainly, being born of the Holy Spirit, had a purified body. For the anointing was given spiritually to his flesh in the womb; for the Holy Spirit purified what passed from the virgin Mary into the Savior’s body. And this is the anointing of the flesh of the Savior’s body, for which reason at his birth he was called “Christ.” For what God granted through anointing with oil by the ministry of the prophets to those who were anointed as kings, the Holy Spirit granted to the man Christ, with expiation added; because the earlier anointed ones received only the power of rule through anointing, but the Savior, born a man, both received power and was born purified. For it would have been unfitting that the Son of God should be born in a body subject to sins.

So, taking up the cause of man and teaching that people become children of God through regeneration, he had to be baptized, so as to show this ratified in himself. For what is said is easily accepted as proved and is persuasive if it is seen done by the teacher. So too it was fitting that the marks of mighty works should be done, so that, appearing now as Son of God, he might give healing for bodily sufferings through the mystery of regeneration, so as to be an example to his future brothers, because through regeneration each one receives power of strength.

Circumcision is a command of past time, which was to have authority until Christ, so that it would run as long as until Christ, promised to Abraham, was born, so that afterward circumcision would cease, the promise being fulfilled. For Isaac was promised as a figure of Christ. For God said to him: “In your seed all nations will be blessed,” which is Christ. For the faith which Abraham had received was restored by Christ, so that in the seed of Abraham, which is Christ, all nations would be blessed, as had been promised to Abraham. So circumcision was the sign of the promised son, that is, of Christ; once he was born the sign of the promise had to cease, yet in such a way that the promised one himself, on coming, received the sign of the father, so that he might be known to be the one who had been promised to justify all nations through faith in circumcision of the heart. For as the bodily seal of circumcision belonged to father Abraham’s son born in the flesh, so too for those born spiritually the spiritual sign is circumcision of the heart; and therefore it is more right that after Christ there should no longer be fleshly circumcision.

To Mary, doubting about conception, the angel declares the possibility, saying: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,” that is: “Do not doubt because you do not know a man; for what I said, that you will conceive, the Holy Spirit coming upon you will bring about, so that you conceive without a man.” “And the power of the Most High,” he says, “will overshadow you.” “The power of the Most High” is without doubt Christ; for this pertains to his person. So the Holy Spirit, coming upon the virgin, sanctified her, by his work making from her a holy body in which the power which is called the Son of God would be born. And his overshadowing of the virgin is this: that of the immensity of the divinity there should be something in the virgin’s womb, as much as human nature could hold, which would be called as it were an overshadowing from the splendor of God’s power, and would be the power of God and also God; for nothing is from God that is not called God. For this is a bodily matter, that something should be in the flesh and yet cannot be called flesh, like hair and bones and the rest.

This question should be understood in two ways. First, the house of Christ is the church, which he built for himself with his blood. Then too his body can be called his house, as it is also called his temple. For if it is called the temple of God because of indwelling, it will not absurdly be called a house too, as we read in the law. But if the body was made by the working of the Holy Spirit, which we think can also be called a house, it is asked why it is referred to the person of Christ. The deed of the Son is the deed of the Father, because the power of both is one. In a similar way the deed of the Holy Spirit is also the deed of the Son of God, because of the unity of nature and will. For whether the Father acts, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, it is the Trinity that works; and whatever the three do is the operation of the one God.

No one could be so dull as to deny that God does all things with reason. So Christ, coming down from the sacred seats to bestow salvation on the world, so as to teach that he had also established the world itself and the times, willed to be born a man, to increase toward God the diminished human race, at the time when, after great diminishing, the light, which is day, begins to receive increase; so that the time of his birth might accord with the reason of the divine teaching, which began to multiply people from the shadow of death to life.

Christ the Son of God is from eternity according to the spirit of holiness, but according to the flesh he was born from the seed of David a Son to God, so that in both he is held to be not made a Son to God but born. And what he hears at baptism is for the sake of the mystery, not for his own sake. For he hears it for all who are baptized. He himself is only pointed out, so that from this God may appear in a man by mighty works; but the others are confirmed, because from this they begin to be sons of God, when they receive the Holy Spirit. For although the Lord’s body was born holy, yet the man Christ had not been confirmed by the sacrament of regeneration to be the Son of God unless he had received the Holy Spirit, according to the decree of the gift of rebirth. For the Jews too were called sons of God in devotion, not in the sacrament which now works, so that, having received the remission of sins, the Holy Spirit coming upon them, they are called sons of God. So the Savior was both born Son of God according to the flesh and afterward confirmed in the mystery. For what was born holy from the Holy could not but be born to God; but so that the purpose of the mystery might be fulfilled, by the coming of the Spirit it was not diminished but increased.

The Savior did all things in their proper places and times. For to teach that he had rightly founded all things by the Father’s will, he willed to redeem and re-form the world by his passion at the time when he had also created it, that is, at the equinox, from which the world took its beginning and the day began to increase over the night. So, living in the Roman realm, he had to suffer on no other day than the eighth before the Kalends of April, when the Romans have the equinox. For then indeed this part of the world was first lit up and from that point the day began to receive increase; and therefore by the Savior’s passion too it was then led from darkness to light. So no blame can be seen to fall on the Author, since he re-formed the fallen creation at the time when he had also made it. For the beginning of creation cannot be blamed for a thing that fell, since its restoration returns to it. For he willed that the joy of renewal should be on the same day as that of the dedication.