Questions on the Old and New Testament 56.1–69.5

There is no doubt that Joseph’s father was Jacob. For the line from David through Solomon, keeping its course, comes straight to Jacob, whose son is Joseph; while Heli, the son of Matthat, keeps the line from David through Nathan, a son of the same David, down to the time when the Savior came. Hence the evangelists, each following from David the line of generations of one of the brothers, made as it were a fork: so that Matthew descended from David through Solomon to Joseph, while Luke ascended from Heli, who lived in the Savior’s time, through the line of Nathan son of David, and joined the tribe of both Heli and Joseph, showing that both were of one race; so that, by associating Heli with Joseph, he shows that they do not differ in descent but are brothers, and therefore that the Savior is the son not only of Joseph but also of Heli. For by the very reason for which the Savior is called the son of Joseph, he is also the son of Heli and of all the others who are of the same tribe. Hence the apostle says: “whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh.” For Luke was moved by divine prompting to ascend from Heli through the line of Nathan to David, and through Terah his father to Shem son of Noah, and further, beyond the flood, to reach Seth son of Adam, who was given in place of Abel; and by the same reason to make the Savior the son of Adam by which he was called the son of Joseph and of Heli; and, going beyond Adam, to mark that Christ is the Son of God before all flesh.

But the view some hold, that Heli took Jacob’s wife as the law commanded, that if anyone died without sons his brother or kinsman should take his wife and raise up seed for his brother, and that thus it came about that Heli begot Joseph for Jacob, whose wife he had taken, and that by this the genealogy is joined, so that Joseph is not undeservedly said to have Heli as father, is neither probable nor of any use.

But what was said above both joins the generation through two brothers, sons of one father, and shows that Christ is the Son of God before every generation. For the evangelist reports it, saying: “And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, who was of Heli”; that is, Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, and he was not only the son of Joseph but also of Heli. Not that he calls Joseph the son of Heli, but in the same way in which Jesus was called the son of Joseph, so he was also the son of Heli, because Joseph and Heli were sons of brothers, that is, of Solomon and Nathan, sons of David; so that, ascending through David to Abraham and Noah and Seth and to Adam himself, and beyond Adam, he may teach that Christ is the Son of God. For when he says, “who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God,” he certainly calls Christ the son of Adam just as he was called the son of Joseph. For Mary said to Jesus: “Son, what have you done to us? For I and your father have been seeking you, sorrowful and sad.” And beyond Adam he joins Christ to God the Father, so that he who was called the son of these, that is, from Adam to Joseph and Heli, might be understood to be the true Son of God before all of them; to the confusion of Photinus, who contends that Christ existed only from Mary and not before. For he was called the son of those whose son he was not, and was denied to be the son of God, whose Son he truly was.

For if (what is improbable and of no use) Joseph is said to be Heli’s son in the way we mentioned above, he will seem to have said “who was of God” not of Christ but of Adam. For by setting out in order the fathers of each son, he comes to Enosh, whose father he says is Seth, and the father of Seth he says is Adam, and the father of Adam he says is God. I do not know what use there is in asserting it thus. But if, as we said, each in order is called father of Christ, as he was also called the son of Joseph (since it is said, “whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh”), by that very order he is read to be the son of Seth and the son of Adam, and beyond all these he is marked as the Son of God, so that he is said to be before those of whom he is called the son.

Mark could not have been unaware of what he was writing; for he was not without learning, who, steeped in divine letters from infancy, was trained in the law, especially since he followed the apostles. Knowing that all sayings are to be referred to their author, he referred these to Isaiah, who had first intimated this sense, saying: “The voice of one crying in the desert: prepare the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.” Indeed, right after the words of Malachi the evangelist added, saying, “the voice of one crying in the desert,” so as to join the words of both prophets, which pertain to one sense, under the person of the earlier prophet.

John was endowed with such holiness even from the cradle that he is believed neither to be deceived nor to deceive, nor not to know his Lord, who had enlightened him in the womb through the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is true both that he recognized him when the Spirit descended on him, and that he was not ignorant of him before he came to baptism. For he knew him, but did not know whether he himself was the one who would minister the gift of God promised to the fathers; this is what he declares he learned when he saw the Spirit descend on him. For John says he was instructed by God thus: “On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, he is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.” The apostle also testifies to this: “For I say,” he says, “that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers.” This is the respect in which John did not know the Lord; for although he was not ignorant of his magnificence, yet this was hidden from him: that through him the faith of Abraham was to be fulfilled.

One who thinks baptism consists in a fleshly reason is not spiritual; nor can he obtain the heavenly gift who does not believe that he is changed not by water but by faith. For water is seen, but the Spirit, who is not seen, works, so that faith may be in it. Because just as water washes bodily filth, so the Spirit washes the soul from sins, so that as visible things profit visible things, so the Spirit profits spiritual things. And therefore a spiritual reason is at work in baptism. For there is more there that is heard than is seen.

So when Nicodemus, bound by fleshly reasoning, doubted on this point, the Savior, to draw him to faith, used a fitting example: so as to give a visible example to confirm an invisible thing, one that consists in hearing alone, not sight; and it is not denied, and yet it is earthly, because it does a work of the world. So the Lord said to Nicodemus, to persuade him: “The spirit blows where it will, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so is everyone who is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit”; so that as the voice of the coming spirit, that is, the wind, is heard but not seen, as was said, so too the account of baptism is heard, what is said, but how it is done through the Spirit is not seen; yet it is heard when what will come of it is proclaimed by the one who conveys the words, so that what is heard may be believed to happen, though the account of how it is done is not given.

But when Nicodemus was not led to faith even by the example, he then hears from the Savior: “If I have spoken to you earthly things,” he says, “and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak heavenly things?” He called those words earthly which he put forward as an example; that is: “If by the earthly reasoning of the example given, the spirit of the wind, you do not believe it can be done, because how it happens is not seen, how could it be that you would believe if I gave heavenly examples, which certainly you do not know?” For a person can be persuaded of what he does not know through what he knows; for example, God says of Christ that he is his true Son, which cannot be comprehended as to how it is; but through what we know according to the flesh of how sons are, we believe that God said, “Christ is my true Son,” to signify that he is from himself. In this way the Savior too wanted to commend a thing which can be explained neither in words nor in mind through what is perceptible and heard by the ears, that is, through the example of spirit, which is wind, which the senses grasp and the ear hears but does not know where it comes from; he wanted to make credible the work of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be grasped.

And in the Acts of the Apostles we read in the same way: “And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house,” and so on. See, by the example of wind it plainly indicates that the Holy Spirit came from heaven and sounded just as a mighty wind does over the earth. For Jeremiah too calls the wind spirit, saying: “The wind blows in every region.” Because it is in this world and is carried about through different places, we do not know where it comes from or where it goes. But the Holy Spirit comes from heaven, as we read, to enlighten believers.

How then does it seem to some that the Savior spoke of the Holy Spirit, “The spirit blows where it will, and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes,” when it is plain that the Savior said these things by way of example? Indeed he added: “So is everyone,” he says, “who is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit.” What is so plain as that he signified the wind by “spirit”? But they think the wind is not signified because he said, “it blows where it will,” as if every creature were not left to its own choice under the law laid down for it. For we too go and do what we will, acting under law. Why should we then give an account, or is it thought possible and not seem foolish, that, wanting to indicate the effect of the Holy Spirit, he would give that very Spirit as the example? So I think the question is resolved in every way.

This was not indeed of the time, but was done to condemn the Jews, so that, since they did not understand that the height of truth of the improved time was done for the gain of their salvation, the truth might bend itself to their accusation. For since they regarded the Savior as an enemy of the law, because out of mercy he wanted to free them from the burden of the law, as had been foretold by the prophet Jeremiah (for he says among other things, “And I will give them a new covenant, not such as I gave their fathers”), then the Savior, lest he appear an enemy, as they thought, by preaching new things, sent the man who had been cleansed of leprosy to the priests to offer gifts for his cleansing, as Moses had commanded. And to testify that this served for their accusation he says, “as a testimony to them,” so that in the judgment this thing might be a witness against those who called the Savior an enemy of the law. The apostle Paul followed this too. For though he preached that one must no longer be circumcised, he circumcised Timothy because of the offense of the Jews (for he preferred to do a superfluous thing rather than have a tumult stirred up by false brothers); which indeed served the error of the Jews. For they were satisfied for the moment, by which they would err for ever.

The Savior wants to expose the hypocrisy of the Jews by many examples, showing that greater things were done under the law and that no one dared to accuse, so as to show not only that the sabbath was violated once and again under the law, but also that the priestly bread was taken unlawfully with the priest himself allowing it, and, what is more, by men of high authority. For first Joshua son of Nun, by divine command, did not keep the sabbath, and when this was done the walls of Jericho fell of their own accord. How much it profited not to have kept the sabbath, but faith! And the Maccabees, after being slaughtered earlier, fought on the sabbath and triumphed over their enemies; and the priests, to serve the Lord’s ceremonies, disregarded the sabbath in the temple. And David, already anointed king, after he had, by God’s power, stripped of his arms the Philistine he had killed, being on a journey and suffering the necessity of hunger, received bread from the priest, which he was not allowed to eat (but not allowed apart from necessity; it was lawful if necessity required it); in short, the priest, seeing the necessity, did not refuse, and David, chosen by God, accepted without hesitation.

Such is the case of the sabbath too, which is why circumcision on the sabbath is not forbidden. For these things, which are not dangerous, were commanded to be kept in such a way that it does no harm if they are set aside out of necessity, because they were commanded not for salvation but for reverence; but what is altogether unlawful is always unlawful and is not softened by any necessity so that its commission does no harm. For what is forbidden by laws, because it is criminal, is always unlawful. But the things we said above are sometimes lawful are like the lawful fasts, which, broken out of necessity, do not make people guilty, if it is for the stomach’s sake or the weakness of fevers. The crafty Jews, knowing these things, accused the disciples as if they were violating the sabbath, as was said above. But the Savior did not want to prejudge them about the time of the fulfilled law, lest they leap further into madness; but from the past, from which they thought the sabbath should rather be defended, he showed them to be slanderers; and not only in the case of the sabbath, but they were confounded in the case of the priestly bread too, as was shown above.

As far as the narrative goes, the sons of Rachel of the tribe of Benjamin had long ago been destroyed and wiped out by the other tribes for their own crimes, namely the deeds of the Sodomites and the outrage they committed on the Levite’s concubine. For this reason she is said to refuse to be comforted, knowing there is no hope for those who are known to have perished. But the sons of Leah were killed in their earliest years on account of the Savior, and so he does not want lamentation ascribed to them, because they were both killed innocent and for God’s sake, by whom without doubt they have been given eternal life as a reward. Therefore lamentation belongs to Rachel’s sons, who were wiped out both in the present and in the future; but those, lamented in the flesh, were consoled spiritually; while Rachel’s sons, having lived in a fleshly way, will be consumed by spiritual flames. And the evangelist testifies that Rachel’s lament was fulfilled when Leah’s sons were killed, because she began to lament her sons when she saw her sister’s sons killed in such a cause that they became heirs of eternal life. For one to whom some misfortune befalls from another’s happiness laments his own misfortune more miserably.

These Chaldean magi observed the course of the stars not out of ill will but out of curiosity about things. For, as is given to be understood, they followed the tradition of Balaam, who, when summoned by Balak to curse God’s people, by divine will began to bless. From his report, then, they had learned that by God’s providence one would come from Jacob who would reign. For he prophesied, as is no secret, saying: “A star will rise from Jacob,” and so on. Following this tradition, then, the magi, seeing a star outside the order of the world, understood that this was the one which Balaam had prophesied would be the sign of the king of the Jews. This indeed was done against the enemies of religion. For it received testimony from the quarter from which it is usually disproved; for astrologers are enemies of the truth.

In this case, if you look for the number in the order of days and nights, you will not attain understanding, because Moses too fasted forty days and forty nights, and yet the full number is not found. For when he went up by day and came down by day, he certainly did not complete the whole number; but because where there is day, night is also counted, and where there is night, day is also counted, from the part to the whole forty days and forty nights are spoken of. So it is with what the Savior said: because there are three nights, three days too are taken. For night exists (lest it perhaps seem new or against reason) as depending on day. For it is not doubted that light, from which the day was named, was established before evening, which night follows.

That the Lord’s passion is asserted to take its beginning from night is not absurd; for as light, that is, day, is the image of life, so night, that is, darkness, is the likeness of death, as is evidently shown in the Scriptures: “sons of light,” and on the contrary, “of darkness.” Nor is it a wonder if, whereas everywhere day is put before night and light before darkness, here alone what follows is put before what precedes; or that in such a case the order of things is confused and changed, so that night rather than day seems to be the forerunner of death (for this is why the beginning is taken from night), since he could not enter the prince of darkness except through night; and so that the Lord of light, that is, of eternal life, might be subject for a time in some measure to the prince of darkness or of death, so as to free from death both those who had gone before and those who would come after. For death would not have been wholly emptied, nor the gloom of darkness ever dispelled, if it had not seen the Lord. For when so great a light entered, the secret place of death, in which it ruled, vanished; nor can anyone be wholly conquered unless he is caught either by his own means or in his own domain. Rightly, then, in such a business night alone holds the first place, so that it might lose its power. And so that the Jews, not believing, might remain in perpetual night, and that not day but night might be the author of so great a crime, or rather sacrilege, day is placed under the preceding night against the order of things, just as God and Lord of all things was placed under the prince of wicked death, to free all from the snares of death.

And if to anyone this still perhaps seems contrary, let him attend carefully, lest he begin to think that harder, that God, putting on the person of a servant, not to say of a man, gave himself to death. Why then do you look for order here, where you see all things contrary? For what is the light that was in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it, by which it was overcome? For one who knows that he is seized in order to be struck reckons that time to his death. There is also the following day, on which he was heard and crucified; there is also the night that falls into the sabbath; there is the sabbath itself; there is also the evening after the sabbath (this is what was commanded the Jews by Moses in figure, that they should enter the sabbath at evening), on which the Lord rose, which includes the Lord’s day, because night is not reckoned without day nor day without night. By this reckoning the Lord rose after three days and three nights.

It is not good to wrap true things in obscurities. For three evangelists had one sense, but Mark wanted to make known a thing which they had passed over, knowing it was necessary. For one could not be deceived who, following the examples of the authors, learned with great devotion and diligence what he wrote, and was not without the Holy Spirit. What he wanted to show by this, then, ought to be explained. So it must be observed that the Savior was crucified not by Pilate but by the Jews. As far as Roman law was concerned, they pronounced the Savior innocent. For Pilate said to the Jews: “I find no cause in him,” and when they said, “Crucify him,” he answered: “Why, what evil has he done?” Indeed, persisting and wanting to bring him out of their hands, he suffered false accusation, when they said: “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend; for everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.” So it came about that he handed him over to their judgment. So Pilate did not give the sentence, but the Jews.

Indeed, “they were prompted,” it says, “by the chief priests to say, ‘Let him be crucified.’” He wants it understood that this sentence was given at the third hour, in which, persisting with continual shouts, yet with an interval of about three hours, in which they went to Herod and returned, they crucified the Savior. For everyone who is condemned is reckoned dead from the moment he receives sentence. So Mark made plain that the Savior was not crucified by the judge’s sentence. For it is difficult to prove innocent one who is punished by the judge’s sentence. So he allowed himself to disagree in a word, to teach that what was completed at the sixth hour was begun at the third hour, not by the laws, but by the persistent malice of the Jews.

To some it seems that by “the rulers of this age” he meant the elders of the Jews, as if according to what the apostle Peter said: “For you know, brothers, that you did this evil in ignorance, as did your rulers.” So they were rulers of the Jews, but not of this age. For he says “your rulers,” not “of the age,” since they said that they had Caesar as king, under whose power they had been brought. But these rulers are those whom the apostle signified in another place, saying: “Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.” So it is rightly asked: if these did not know Jesus, how could it be that the demons recognized him?

But it is one thing that he says the demons recognized in Christ, and another that he denies the rulers of this age recognized. For the demons knew that he was the one who had been promised through the law. For they saw in him all the signs that the prophets had said would come, and that the redeemer of Israel would come of the seed of David from a virgin; but they did not know the mystery of his divinity, as their rulers did not. Indeed the devil asks the Savior, though captiously: “If you are the Son of God,” and so on. For seeing sometimes divine power, sometimes human weakness, he was tormented, uncertain what was true. So the Scriptures agree according to what has been revealed. For it is impossible for men of one Spirit to disagree.

Not everyone who is ignorant is free from punishment. For that ignorant person can be excused from punishment who found no one from whom to learn; but he asks forgiveness for these, because, having someone from whom to learn, they did not take pains. Such may not be ignorant: they will receive pardon, then, if they turn.

The souls of the slain cry out asking to be avenged, just as the blood of Abel cried from the earth. So it is the causes that are said to cry out, though they cannot speak. For what else does blood that has been shed do but ask to be avenged, crying not with voice but with reason? For a work too is said to praise its maker by the very fact that it delights the one who sees it. For the saints are not so impatient as to press for what they know will come at the predetermined time, which can be neither anticipated nor deferred. But by this saying he wanted to show that God will avenge the blood of his saints, lest, because he now seems so patient, the impious war waged against the saints be thought to go unpunished; so as both to strike terror into those who persecute God’s servants and to encourage those who suffer for him. For the soul of the sufferer is relieved when it hears that it will be avenged by one who is mighty. For it is proud if it hears that its death displeases the judge; for then it holds for certain that it is innocent. And God is indeed merciful and patient, but with measure. For he waits for the impious to believe and sinners to amend; otherwise they will be punished, because they despised God’s long patience.

He showed an example of this even in the time when mercy is preached, lest he seem not patient but insensible, one whom neither anyone’s pain nor pity moves. Hence he says through the prophet: “I have kept silent; shall I keep silent for ever?” And the Lord says: “Will not God avenge his servants who cry to him day and night?” They cry, certainly, in the way we said above. So if a Christian avenges himself for a time, not harshly nor with blood, he does not sin; yet he will do better if he leaves it to God the judge.

Everything said about Christ has been fulfilled. And the Lord himself fulfilled the law and the prophets in this way, when he did all that was written about him, and did not abolish anything but confirmed it. For the law and the prophets lasted until him. For the prophets spoke of him; therefore what was said by them about him cannot extend beyond him, nor could any prophets of this kind be found after him, because they have nothing to speak of, and the one of whom they spoke has already come. For they embraced everything in their books, and revealed his incarnation, his way of life, his passion, his resurrection, the manifestation of his divinity, and his future judgment; and therefore the prophets ceased when the work of the dispensation was fulfilled.

And the law ceased in two ways, though not wholly; for even what ceased can remain if a condition is kept. For one thing ceased in its sentence, another in the law itself. When John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, the sentence of the law which held sinners guilty ceased; there ceased also the burdens of the law which had been given because of the hardness of the Jewish heart, in foods, new moons, weasels. For when mercy came, vengeance ceased. But the burdens of the law ceased for ever, while the sentence ceases and is abolished for those who remain in the benefit they have received. But for those who return to the old man the authority of the law is renewed, because, forgetful of the benefits, they return under the sentence of the law.

Circumcision and the sabbath were valid until the time when the commandment of the new law was preached. For they were given in such a way as to cease when the law of faith came. Hence the apostle says: “Christ is the end of the law.” For Daniel too signifies this, when he prophesies about the Lord’s coming and the times of the weeks, that chrism and judgment and sacrifice and the city itself would cease. For when the spiritual law came, fleshly things had to cease. For then God was served with a part of the body, now with a part of the soul; formerly visibly, now invisibly; then in the flesh, now in the mind; because God, who is spirit, must certainly be served in spirit. So the law was not abolished because it ceased, but it was succeeded when its time was fulfilled. For its administration or judgment is not accused if pardon is given to sinners, since it is the more proved to have been rightly and justly given because those over whom it ruled are not denied to have been sinners: “for the law,” he says, “is not laid down for the righteous.”

So let righteousness not be thought condemned because mercy is to be preferred; for if there were no reverence for it, mercy itself would have no fruit. For unless they keep it after receiving mercy, pardon will profit them nothing. For the law said: “You shall not make yourself an idol, nor worship the things that are in heaven above and on earth below,” and, “You shall not perjure yourself,” and, “Honor father and mother,” and, “You shall not kill, nor commit sexual immorality, nor steal; you shall not bear false witness, nor covet anything of your neighbor’s.” Are these to be said to have ceased? Far from it. For without them who can be judged fit even in this life? And therefore the other things we mentioned above have ceased: new moons, sabbaths, the law of foods, sacrifices, circumcision, and the rest. Hence the apostle says among other things: “Rulers are not a terror to good work, but to evil. Do you want not to fear the authority? Do good, and you will have praise from it.” These things kept make people good, yet not perfect. Hence the Savior says: “Unless your righteousness abounds more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” For by adding better things to these the Savior certainly did not abolish the law but fulfilled it. For the sense of the law pertains to man’s safety, for example, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” so that, fearing to suffer what he was forbidden to do to another, one might restrain himself from wickedness. But the Savior, adding to this sense a higher righteousness, says: “But I say to you, do not resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, offer him the left also,” so that, by not repaying evil, one may be perfect. For to repay is just, but not full; but if one overlooks the injury, it is full and abounding righteousness. For to retaliate is to rejoice for a time; but to forgive brings gladness in the future.

So the Savior fulfilled the law in this way: those whom it taught righteousness he made more righteous, which it could not do; and therefore it is the law’s joy that its disciples have been made more skilled. He would plainly have destroyed the law if he had taught that one may sin with impunity. But in fact he suspended the sentence, so that the one who does evil may have room for repentance; otherwise the sentence returns on him heaped up, because he did not recognize that he was released for this purpose, to amend himself.