Questions on the Old and New Testament 7.1–22.1

He called the ten statements “ten words,” because the Savior too signified a meaning by “word,” saying among other things to the Jews: “I too will ask you one word; answer me: the baptism of John, where was it from, from heaven or from men?” He called this meaning a “word.” In a similar way, ten words are said to have been written on two tablets, which are ten meanings. Indeed he says: “You shall have no other gods besides me” (this is the first word), and he added: “You shall not make for yourself any likeness of the things in heaven above and on earth below, nor in the water which is under the earth.” Then he added thirdly: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not cleanse one who takes his name in vain,” that is, “you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in a lie, so as to perjure yourself by it.” Then in fourth place he says: “You shall keep the sabbaths of the Lord your God and shall do no servile work on it.” These are four words of the ten; these belong properly to the Lord; these are written on the first tablet.

Then on the second tablet these are contained: the first word is, “Honor your father and mother”; the second, “You shall not kill”; the third, “You shall not commit sexual immorality”; the fourth, “You shall not steal”; the fifth, “You shall not bear false witness”; the sixth, “You shall not covet anything of your neighbor’s,” and the like. The apostle Paul proves that these were written on the second tablet, saying: “Honor father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise.” How would it be first unless the second tablet began with it? And he said “with a promise” because he at once added: “that you may live long on the earth and that it may be well with you.” This is the promise made to those who keep the commandments. So you have the commandments distinguished, their number completed, and what and how many were written on each tablet.

Having received power against sinners, he came down from the mountain with honor, his face glorious. For the law was given against sinners. Moses, then, because he had not sinned, appeared glorious, so much so that he could not be looked upon by sinners. For it was shown in him that sinners do not deserve to behold the glory of God. For after the image of the molten calf and the breaking of the tablets on which the law had been given, Moses, going up the mountain again with the tablets, on which he received the law, when he came down, his face was made glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look upon his face, nor Aaron, because he too had sinned; but with a veil interposed he spoke to them, so that they would be unworthy of the glory of God as long as they continued in sins.

Hence the apostle says: “When he turns to the Lord, the veil will be taken away,” so that, washed by God’s gift, they might become worthy to look upon the glory of God. For by the breaking of the tablets he had received before, he signified that the people of the Jews were reprobate, because, devoted to sins, they were going to be unworthy of God’s promise. And the repetition of the law signified that there would be another people, for whom the law given on the mountain would profit.

Because words have many kinds of meaning, they produce questions. For if they are referred to the matter under discussion, there will be no question, because the things themselves will show themselves in order. For sometimes we call “common” what is undivided, sometimes what is unclean; for “common” is used in two ways. Indeed the apostle Peter says: “Nothing common and unclean has ever entered my mouth”; and the apostle Paul says: “Everything that is not from faith is sin,” and elsewhere he says: “The law is not from faith,” and yet it is not sin. You see, then, that one and the same word does not always mean the same thing.

So too when something is called “unclean,” one must consider for what reason it is said; because sometimes it is called unclean by comparison with better things, sometimes it refers to filthy works, so that evil is understood. No substance, then, is evil, because things thought unclean in their substance are unclean by comparison with the most beautiful things. For bread too is called unclean, and oil and lead are unclean in comparison with gold, and the raven compared with the peacock; and though they are members of one body, some are called honorable, others dishonorable, though they are known not to be evil. So all things are good in their own nature, because they are useful.

As far as the words go, it seems contradictory; but if the sense is sought, it will be found not to differ. For the law speaks in such a way that it can be understood by the diligent and careful, so that the reason of the truth reveals itself not to the incurious but to the attentive. For God certainly said, “in the fourth generation,” and Moses wrote, “in the fifth generation,” although Moses reported both, and it is impossible that he, in whom such great power was at work, should be deceived. And therefore the sense must be investigated, because divine Scripture says nothing idly or carelessly. So there are two parts, which each mentioned. For God signified four generations which were born in Egypt; but Moses, adding to these one, from which these took their origin when they entered Egypt, said: “In the fifth generation the children of Israel went out.” For he included together the generation which entered Egypt and the four that were born there. For from Abraham to the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt there are eight generations. For they lived two hundred and fifteen years in Canaan from the promise made to Abraham, and two hundred and fifteen in Egypt.

These are the years which the apostle includes in Galatians, saying: “The law was made after four hundred and thirty years.” So these four generations were born in Canaan: one in Isaac, another in Jacob, the third in Levi, the fourth in Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. And when the children of Israel had entered Egypt, Kohath begot Amram (this is the first generation made in Egypt); and Amram begot Aaron, Moses, and Miriam, which is the second generation made in Egypt; and Aaron begot Eleazar and his brothers, which is the third generation; and Eleazar begot Phinehas in the fourth generation. These are the four generations born in Egypt. Hence God says to Abraham: “Your seed will be a sojourner, and they will oppress them with slavery; but I will set them free; in the fourth generation they will go out from there.” See whether it is not plain that God signified nothing other than what was done in Egypt. But Moses, in order to include also that generation which entered Egypt with Jacob their father, from which these four take their origin, said: “In the fifth generation the children of Israel went out of the land of Egypt.”

The will of a righteous man, as far as his conscience goes, is good; but as far as foreknowledge goes, he is not immune from adversity. For God alone judges of the future. And therefore Isaac, a righteous man, as far as was fitting to present humanity, thought his elder son more deserving of the blessing. But God, who knows hidden things, showed that the younger deserved the blessing, so as to show that in a blessing the benefit is not man’s but God’s, and that it belongs to the dignity of the office, not to the merit of the man, which God’s blessing follows. Indeed, it was said by God in Numbers to Moses and Aaron the priests: “But you shall put my name upon the children of Israel; I the Lord will bless them”; so that the tradition, through the ministry of the one ordained, may pour grace into people, and the priest’s will can neither harm nor help, but the merit of the one asking for the blessing.

And let us note from this how great is the dignity of the priestly order. For it was said of the most wicked Caiaphas, the Savior’s killer, among other things: “This he did not say of himself, but being high priest that year he prophesied.” By this it is shown that the Spirit of graces follows not the person, whether worthy or unworthy, but the ordination of the tradition; so that, although someone may be of good merit, he cannot bless unless he has been ordained, so as to exercise the office of ministry. And it belongs to God to give the effect of the blessing.

If you are willing to pay attention, you will see that what you think contrary to reason is not unfitting. For believing that he would have a son in whom all nations would be blessed and from whom holiness was to arise, he received the sign in that part by which the begetting of children takes place and ceases, so that it might be holier. But if to some it seems a disfigurement, let them notice that Abraham rejoiced in it and his children were glorious by this testimony. For Achior, certainly one of the princes of the gentiles, seeing that there was such great power in the God of Abraham that he beheaded Holofernes, the general of the Assyrian army, whose might the whole earth trembled at, with his own sword by a woman’s hand, circumcised himself of his own accord, thinking that by this very thing he had gained dignity. Does not someone who has lost an eye or some member for the name of Christ display it? Does he not thrust that very part before people’s faces, so as to appear glorious? For to lose something for a time for the faith is to make a gain.

So Abraham too, receiving the sign of his faith, was not disfigured but improved. And spiritually it signified that the cloud of the flesh was to be circumcised from human hearts through faith in Christ, because fleshly error stood in the way, spreading darkness over human hearts so that they would not know the Creator. And Abraham, because the Christ who would wipe away this darkness was promised to come from his seed, was circumcised because he believed he would have a son who would cut off this error. Now see whether it was not fitting that he received such a sign in that part.

So that the exceedingly impious crime of the Sodomites may be noticed, their sin reached even to the death of their own children, so that no trace of their origin might remain. Was it not provided in their case that, living long, they should not follow the examples of their fathers? For they are free from Gehenna, having been killed in another’s cause. For the parents are guilty both for themselves and for these, because, so that their works might be blotted out, their whole progeny was erased. For if children rejoice in the goods of their parents and are commended by their prerogative, so too they cannot complain of the death inflicted because of their parents’ evils; so that, just as they are sharers in the gain, they are also in the loss. Likewise in Egypt too the children were punished for the offenses of the fathers, but so that it might serve for their correction; so that, because for other reasons they would not believe in and venerate the Lord who was in Moses, they might, terrified by this plague, confess with satisfaction, lest they experience his anger more heavily.

This death of the children, then, is the crime of the fathers. For however the children gave back the spirit they owed, they will be accusers of their parents, because these could not overcome their faithlessness even by the blood of their children. So the evils of the parents befell the children not for the future but for the present time. Nor is it a small benefit not to be glorious, yet not guilty. For if some, placed at the very end, strive with prayers to come to the faith of the true one, so as to deserve, if not a crown, at least pardon, how can any complain about this, who have been so dealt with that there was neither anything for which to pray to be pardoned, nor were they held exalted who had not labored at all? Compare now the torment of one moment with the punishment of a long time; consider also that many labor and, because they cannot persevere, not only lose the effect of their labor but are also fined with punishment; add too that those born of evil parents and brought up or living among the most wicked hardly temper their mind to follow God’s discipline: see, then, whether it was not rather well done with the children of the lost.

Whoever doubts that the Lord does or says nothing unjustly is mad. So if the Lord’s words are not suppressed, but everything that belongs to the same question is set out, what seems obscure will become clear, and what is thought not at all just will be judged godly. For one who suppresses the words of a question is either unskilled or evasive, more eager for false charges than for teaching. Now God did promise that he would repay the sins of the fathers on the children, but on those who hate him, that is, those who, engaged in their fathers’ evils, serve idols as their fathers did. For he is God’s enemy who claims the honor of his name for a creature. For just as the children of the righteous, being righteous themselves, ennoble the race of righteousness in themselves, while they are exalted both by their fathers’ righteousness and their own, so also the children of the most wicked, being most wicked themselves, increase wickedness, because they are both the children of the wicked and have copied their wickedness to the ruin of many.

God seems to have spoken with terror, then, but it is true, and reason supports it. For who would not curse doubly a bad man who is the son of a bad man, just as he judges a good man and son of a good man worthy of double honor? And he promised to repay to the third and fourth generation so that, if after a bad father the son does not follow his father’s faithlessness, but the grandson becomes an imitator of his grandfather in evils, he may know that he will not be immune from the severity of the sentence; or if the grandson perhaps follows the footsteps not of his grandfather but of his father and loves the covenant of God, the great-grandson may not be unaware that the sentence reaches to him, if he emulates his great-grandfather’s faithlessness.

By this revelation of the law God wanted to deter impious fathers, so that, recognizing how much evil the pursuit of idolatry brings forth, they might be called back to reverence for the Creator at least by affection for their children; or that the children, fearing to incur their fathers’ sins, might obey God’s law. But they, attending to wickedness, began to interpret this otherwise, saying: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” so that, secure of impunity because their sins would be repaid to their children, they had no devotion either of spirit or of flesh. Hence it is said to them, not “the son shall die for the father” or “the father for the son,” but: “The soul that sins, it shall die”; so that they might learn that it would not be without punishment for them, but that the fathers’ sins are repaid to the children in such a way that, because, following their parents’ impiety, they copied the evils that ought to have been blotted out, they are punished more severely.

After God showed what evil idolatry brings forth, he at once added what goods follow those who love him, saying: “and showing mercy to thousands of thousands, to those who love me and keep my commandments,” so as to repay the good of a father not to the great-grandson but to thousands of thousands. For example, if anyone from the seed of David loves the Lord, who certainly lived a thousand years before, God’s mercy is added to him, so that in need he deserves to receive mercy with two causes supporting him: that he himself is a worshiper of God and that he is of the seed of one who loved God. And in this God’s clemency is praiseworthy, that to those who hate him he repays to the third and fourth generation and not to thousands of thousands; so that if the evil is drawn out to the fifth generation, it begins again to have a head from there, so as to be counted from it to the third and fourth generation.

But someone will say: “It seems just that more should be repaid to the author than to the imitator.” Fitting vengeance is given to the author; but what he says is repaid more to the children is the punishment of the fathers. And if you ask, by the coming of the law sinners become more guilty, as with Lamech and after Lamech. Yet to some it seems that the sins of the fathers were repaid on the children in this way, when they were led into captivity because of their fathers and were there until the fourth generation. If this is true, God repaid the sins of the fathers not only to those who hate him but also to those who love his name, for Daniel too was carried off, and the three youths, and Baruch, and Ezekiel, and Ezra was born there. It plainly appears, then, that what we said above fits the question proposed.

Excessive righteousness incurs sin, but tempered righteousness makes people perfect. For one who is very righteous is not without malice, because if you respond to sinners in every particular, there will be no lack of occasions for you to sin. Indeed God’s righteousness is tempered; for he sometimes forgives sinners, sometimes is angry, sometimes repays them not as much as they deserve; for he bears with them, so that there may be those who make progress. For the law, because it cannot soften itself, must be mitigated by us, so that it can profit those who live under it. So the one who imitates God is not “very righteous.”

What Moses had done without counsel he corrected at the appearance of the threatening angel. Indeed, seeing what had been passed over through negligence, he [the angel] ceased from anger. Moses saw the angel so hostile to him and ready for vengeance for this reason, that the fault of an exalted man is a grave sin. For the more his person is looked up to, the more his light offense becomes a most bitter sin. So he was going to the children of Israel, sent by the God of Abraham, and he did not bear the sign of Abraham’s righteousness, in which he knew the Jews gloried, so that he would either be called a troublemaker or said not to be sent by the same God who had chosen Abraham. For living in Midian he had not circumcised his sons, whom he either ought not to have taken with him to Egypt, he who was going to lead the others out of there, or else ought to have taken circumcised, for the reasons we gave above.

So Zipporah, Moses’ wife (Scripture speaks briefly), not unaware why the angel appeared hostile to her husband, took and circumcised her son, and the angel withdrew. For the anger was calmed by the same reason by which it had been kindled. For Scripture says some things briefly, wanting them to be understood from the reasoning set out, as also in what the Savior says among other things to the Jews: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor father and mother,’ and, ‘Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Every gift that comes from me will profit you,” and does not honor his father or mother.’” Without doubt the Savior said this in brief, so that it might be understood that the priests of the Jews, devoted to avarice, had spurned God’s law; for in an impious conspiracy they advised sons that, having cursed father or mother, they should offer something as a gift to God, by which the sentence pronounced against those who curse would be dissolved; hence the sons, made secure, despised their parents against God’s command. So too Moses, when he saw the angel hostile to him, understanding the cause, showed his wife what should be done, so that the angel who sought to kill him might withdraw from him. This is understood in this case, as is what we said above about the priests.

Because it had begun to be understood otherwise than it had been given, the prophet Isaiah afterward showed in what sense it was said. For when this had been laid down as a sentence because of God’s being offended (because, deserting God, they were struck in this, that though taking wives they would not leave offspring), human error seized on it so that they thought those guilty before God who either did not want wives or, having taken them, could not beget, as often happens; as if God sought nothing else than offspring, as they are rebuked through the prophet Malachi. So Isaiah, to console those whom a wrong understanding had saddened, taught that it does no harm if someone either cannot or does not want to have children, provided he keeps God’s law. For the curse applied to those who, though they could and would, were barren because a divine judgment stood in the way, so that they might not have the fruit of God’s creation, which they despised; so that, seeing that they either could not beget or could not keep those begotten, they might recognize that it was the anger of an indignant God and, turning, make satisfaction.

For holy men too, when they longed for children and did not obtain them, thought that sins stood in the way, and grieved, not knowing that it was the providence of God, for whom they were being kept. Indeed by God’s arrangement Hannah conceived and bore Samuel, and Elizabeth John, and Manoah’s wife Samson. Yet the spiritual understanding in this case is this: that those are to be held cursed who have not left offspring that will see the Lord, that is, “who has not trained a son or a slave or a neighbor to teach the fear of God on earth.”

It is not fitting to revise God’s judgment; for human weakness and inexperience ought to instruct itself by God’s judgment in that in which it is not wise, so as to understand the truth from God’s sentence and that nothing else ought to have been done than what it sees the Lord has done, whom it knows to be no respecter of persons. For if he accepted David’s prayer and rejected Saul’s, nothing contrary is to be thought about what the Lord did. For knowing with what mind each spoke, he accepted the petition of the one he saw asking pardon with a troubled heart, but disregarded the other, because the pain of repentance had not touched his mind; for God hears the heart more than the voice. Hence it is said: “Man sees the face, but God the heart.” And so we are deceived, because pretense in words and face gets round us; for what is in the heart we cannot see.

So we ought to follow God’s judgment, who examines each according to the heart, in which each one’s real judgment lies. We find that the Savior did this too. For he did not accept the scribe who offered himself, but called Levi sitting at the tax booth, because the scribe’s heart did not follow his words, whereas Levi, silent, had in his heart what the scribe had in words. And Jesus, who, as it is written, knew what was in man, chose Levi. Moreover, David did not want another to be humbled for him, as Saul did, but himself, a suppliant with troubled heart, prayed for pardon.

God made man so that, as long as he did not sin, he would flourish in immortality, so that he himself would be the author of either life or death for himself; so that, guarding himself from sin, he might rejoice that he was immortal by his own labor, but, having become negligent, he might blame himself for having begun to be mortal. For as long as he remained in the Creator’s law, he was worthy to eat of the tree of life, so as to be unable to die. For the body was not such that it seemed impossible to be dissolved, but the taste of the tree of life held back the body’s corruption. Indeed even after sin he could have remained indissoluble, if only he had been permitted to eat of the tree of life. For how did he have an immortal body that was sustained by food? For an immortal does not need food or drink. For food supplied strength, but the tree of life, like a medicine, prevented all corruption. So it was for man like an impregnable wall.

The bread he calls of angels is manna. And manna is interpreted, “What is this?” For the children of Israel, seeing something white like coriander seed fall on the ground, said to one another: “What is this?”, which in the Hebrew language is said “manni?” This bread or food, then, was not created by the law of the world through the mixing of elements, but came from above, provided by a spiritual reason. Nor was it kept in the heavens, because it was created by God’s power for the moment to nourish bodies. And it was called the bread of angels because it was created by that power by which the angelic nature subsists and lives; for without God no one has life. So because it is said to have come from heaven, it is called the bread of angels. For to recall what and how great are God’s benefits toward man, he spoke thus, so that, recognizing them, they might give thanks to God, who governs his servants with such care that, if need be, he provides them, while still in the flesh, with the things by which the angels live.

The apostle said, among other things: “And the rock was Christ,” so that, because water flowed from the rock by Christ’s power, Christ was called the rock. In a similar way, because manna came from heaven by his power, Christ may be called manna, that is, bread; so that what was done then may be thought to have been a figure of that thing which is now offered in the church; so that men, that is, the Jews, ate the bread of the Christian peoples, whom Scripture signified as angels. And since grace is greater now than it was among the prophets, and freedom has been given through Christ, because “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom,” Christians are called angels by comparison of times and graces, with whose bread, which is Christ, the Jews were filled, whom he called men. Christ belongs rather to those to whom he has been revealed and who are judged worthy to be called by this name. So the question above can be understood in two ways: so that it may be called the bread both of the heavenly angels and of the Christians, according to what has been said.

This is man’s being made in the image of God: that one made one, so that, as all things are from one God, so the whole human race is from one man. And the likeness is this: that as the Son is from the Father, so the woman is from the man, so that the authority of one principle may be preserved. But the Son was born of God the Father ineffably and incomprehensibly, while the woman was made bodily from the man, as we read, so that birth might arise through her. And the Son of God was born so that creation might be made through him. In this, then, it is unlike; for God was born of God, but woman of man, because there there is simplicity, and simple could only be born of simple, spirit of spirit, God of God. So the man is the image of God. For thus it is written: “And God made man; in the image of God he made him.” Hence the apostle too says: “A man indeed ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God”; “but let a woman,” he says, “veil her head.” Why? Because she is not the image of God. Hence the apostle says again: “But a woman is not permitted to teach, nor to have authority over a man.”

He justifies his soul before death who, in the hope of the future life, attains faith, so as not to die impious. But Solomon speaks of the one who lives under the law and is not converted rightly. Such a one, then, if he corrects his mind so as to walk in the ways of righteousness, justifies his soul before death. For Solomon gave counsel because of the future judgment, lest anyone, careless about himself, die in sins; but David spoke of the perfection of righteousness, that no one will be justified before the Lord, so as to be worthy of the promise, unless he has died with righteousness. For as long as one lives, he does not yet have the full merit of the things to come. Hence the Savior says: “Whoever perseveres to the end will be saved.”