BOOK SIXTEENTH.
Argument
IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS BOOK, FROM THE FIRST TO THE TWELFTH CHAPTER,
THE PROGRESS OF THE TWO CITIES, THE EARTHLY AND THE HEAVENLY,
FROM NOAH TO ABRAHAM, IS EXHIBITED FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE: IN THE
LATTER PART, THE PROGRESS OF THE HEAVENLY ALONE, FROM ABRAHAM
TO THE KINGS OF ISRAEL, IS THE SUBJECT.
1. Whether, after the deluge, from Noah to Abraham, any families can be
found who lived according to God.
It is difficult to discover from Scripture, whether, after the
deluge, traces of the holy city are continuous, or are so
interrupted by intervening seasons of godlessness, that not a
single worshipper of the one true God was found among
men; because from Noah, who, with his wife, three sons, and
as many daughters-in-law, achieved deliverance in the ark
from the destruction of the deluge, down to Abraham, we do
not find in the canonical books that the piety of any one is
celebrated by express divine testimony, unless it be in the
case of Noah, who commends with a prophetic benediction
his two sons Shem and Japheth, while he beheld and foresaw
what was long afterwards to happen. It was also by this
prophetic spirit that, when his middle son—that is, the son
who was younger than the first and older than the last born—had
sinned against him, he cursed him not in his own person,
but in his son’s (his own grandson’s), in the words, “Cursed
be the lad Canaan; a servant shall he be unto his brethren.”[221]
Now Canaan was born of Ham, who, so far from covering his
sleeping father’s nakedness, had divulged it. For the same
reason also he subjoins the blessing on his two other sons, the
oldest and youngest, saying, “Blessed be the Lord God of
Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall gladden
Japheth, and he shall dwell in the houses of Shem.”[222] And[Pg 105]
so, too, the planting of the vine by Noah, and his intoxication
by its fruit, and his nakedness while he slept, and the other
things done at that time, and recorded, are all of them pregnant
with prophetic meanings, and veiled in mysteries.[223]
2. What was prophetically prefigured in the sons of Noah.
The things which then were hidden are now sufficiently
revealed by the actual events which have followed. For who
can carefully and intelligently consider these things without
recognising them accomplished in Christ? Shem, of whom
Christ was born in the flesh, means “named.” And what is
of greater name than Christ, the fragrance of whose name is
now everywhere perceived, so that even prophecy sings of it
beforehand, comparing it in the Song of Songs[224] to ointment
poured forth? Is it not also in the houses of Christ, that is,
in the churches, that the “enlargement” of the nations dwells?
For Japheth means “enlargement.” And Ham (i.e. hot), who
was the middle son of Noah, and, as it were, separated himself
from both, and remained between them, neither belonging
to the first-fruits of Israel nor to the fulness of the Gentiles,
what does he signify but the tribe of heretics, hot with the
spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which the
breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which they
disturb the peace of the saints? But even the heretics yield
an advantage to those that make proficiency, according to the
apostle’s saying, “There must also be heresies, that they which
are approved may be made manifest among you.”[225] Whence,
too, it is elsewhere said, “The son that receives instruction
will be wise, and he uses the foolish as his servant.”[226] For
while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about
many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending
them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to
understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more
earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes
the occasion of instruction. However, not only those who
are openly separated from the church, but also all who glory
in the Christian name, and at the same time lead abandoned[Pg 106]
lives, may without absurdity seem to be figured by Noah’s
middle son: for the passion of Christ, which was signified
by that man’s nakedness, is at once proclaimed by their profession,
and dishonoured by their wicked conduct. Of such,
therefore, it has been said, “By their fruits ye shall know
them.”[227] And therefore was Ham cursed in his son, he being,
as it were, his fruit. So, too, this son of his, Canaan, is fitly
interpreted “their movement,” which is nothing else than their
work. But Shem and Japheth, that is to say, the circumcision
and uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls
them, the Jews and Greeks, but called and justified, having
somehow discovered the nakedness of their father (which
signifies the Saviour’s passion), took a garment and laid it
upon their backs, and entered backwards and covered their
father’s nakedness, without their seeing what their reverence
hid. For we both honour the passion of Christ as accomplished
for us, and we hate the crime of the Jews who crucified
Him. The garment signifies the sacrament, their backs
the memory of things past: for the church celebrates the
passion of Christ as already accomplished, and no longer
to be looked forward to, now that Japheth already dwells in
the habitations of Shem, and their wicked brother between
them.
But the wicked brother is, in the person of his son (i.e.
his work), the boy, or slave, of his good brothers, when good
men make a skilful use of bad men, either for the exercise of
their patience or for their advancement in wisdom. For the
apostle testifies that there are some who preach Christ from
no pure motives; “but,” says he, “whether in pretence or in
truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and
will rejoice.”[228] For it is Christ Himself who planted the
vine of which the prophet says, “The vine of the Lord of
hosts is the house of Israel;”[229] and He drinks of its wine,
whether we thus understand that cup of which He says, “Can
ye drink of the cup that I shall drink of?”[230] and, “Father,
if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,”[231] by which He
obviously means His passion. Or, as wine is the fruit of[Pg 107]
the vine, we may prefer to understand that from this vine,
that is to say, from the race of Israel, He has assumed flesh
and blood that He might suffer; “and he was drunken,” that
is, He suffered; “and was naked,” that is, His weakness
appeared in His suffering, as the apostle says, “though He
was crucified through weakness.”[232] Wherefore the same
apostle says, “The weakness of God is stronger than men;
and the foolishness of God is wiser than men.”[233] And when
to the expression “he was naked” Scripture adds “in his
house,” it elegantly intimates that Jesus was to suffer the
cross and death at the hands of His own household, His own
kith and kin, the Jews. This passion of Christ is only
externally and verbally professed by the reprobate, for what
they profess they do not understand. But the elect hold in
the inner man this so great mystery, and honour inwardly in
the heart this weakness and foolishness of God. And of this
there is a figure in Ham going out to proclaim his father’s
nakedness; while Shem and Japheth, to cover or honour it,
went in, that is to say, did it inwardly.
These secrets of divine Scripture we investigate as well as
we can. All will not accept our interpretation with equal
confidence, but all hold it certain that these things were
neither done nor recorded without some foreshadowing of
future events, and that they are to be referred only to Christ
and His church, which is the city of God, proclaimed from
the very beginning of human history by figures which we
now see everywhere accomplished. From the blessing of the
two sons of Noah, and the cursing of the middle son, down
to Abraham, or for more than a thousand years, there is, as
I have said, no mention of any righteous persons who worshipped
God. I do not therefore conclude that there were
none; but it had been tedious to mention every one, and
would have displayed historical accuracy rather than prophetic
foresight. The object of the writer of these sacred books, or
rather of the Spirit of God in him, is not only to record the
past, but to depict the future, so far as it regards the city of
God; for whatever is said of those who are not its citizens,
is given either for her instruction, or as a foil to enhance her[Pg 108]
glory. Yet we are not to suppose that all that is recorded
has some signification; but those things which have no signification
of their own are interwoven for the sake of the things
which are significant. It is only the ploughshare that cleaves
the soil; but to effect this, other parts of the plough are
requisite. It is only the strings in harps and other musical
instruments which produce melodious sounds; but that they
may do so, there are other parts of the instrument which are
not indeed struck by those who sing, but are connected with
the strings which are struck, and produce musical notes. So
in this prophetic history some things are narrated which have
no significance, but are, as it were, the framework to which the
significant things are attached.
3. Of the generations of the three sons of Noah.
We must therefore introduce into this work an explanation
of the generations of the three sons of Noah, in so far as that
may illustrate the progress in time of the two cities. Scripture
first mentions that of the youngest son, who is called Japheth:
he had eight sons,[234] and by two of these sons seven grandchildren,
three by one son, four by the other; in all, fifteen
descendants. Ham, Noah’s middle son, had four sons, and
by one of them five grandsons, and by one of these two great-grandsons;
in all, eleven. After enumerating these, Scripture
returns to the first of the sons, and says, “Cush begat Nimrod;
he began to be a giant on the earth. He was a giant hunter
against the Lord God: wherefore they say, As Nimrod the
giant hunter against the Lord. And the beginning of his
kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land
of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Assur, and built
Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between
Nineveh and Calah: this was a great city.” Now this
Cush, father of the giant Nimrod, is the first-named among
the sons of Ham, to whom five sons and two grandsons are
ascribed. But he either begat this giant after his grandsons
were born, or, which is more credible, Scripture speaks of him[Pg 109]
separately on account of his eminence; for mention is also
made of his kingdom, which began with that magnificent city
Babylon, and the other places, whether cities or districts,
mentioned along with it. But what is recorded of the land
of Shinar which belonged to Nimrod’s kingdom, to wit, that
Assur went forth from it and built Nineveh and the other
cities mentioned with it, happened long after; but he takes
occasion to speak of it here on account of the grandeur of
the Assyrian kingdom, which was wonderfully extended by
Ninus son of Belus, and founder of the great city Nineveh,
which was named after him, Nineveh, from Ninus. But
Assur, father of the Assyrian, was not one of the sons of Ham,
Noah’s middle son, but is found among the sons of Shem, his
eldest son. Whence it appears that among Shem’s offspring
there arose men who afterwards took possession of that giant’s
kingdom, and advancing from it, founded other cities, the first
of which was called Nineveh, from Ninus. From him Scripture
returns to Ham’s other son, Mizraim; and his sons are
enumerated, not as seven individuals, but as seven nations.
And from the sixth, as if from the sixth son, the race called
the Philistines are said to have sprung; so that there are in
all eight. Then it returns again to Canaan, in whose person
Ham was cursed; and his eleven sons are named. Then the
territories they occupied, and some of the cities, are named.
And thus, if we count sons and grandsons, there are thirty-one
of Ham’s descendants registered.
It remains to mention the sons of Shem, Noah’s eldest
son; for to him this genealogical narrative gradually ascends
from the youngest. But in the commencement of the record
of Shem’s sons there is an obscurity which calls for explanation,
since it is closely connected with the object of our investigation.
For we read, “Unto Shem also, the father of all
the children of Heber, the brother of Japheth the elder, were
children born.”[235] This is the order of the words: And to
Shem was born Heber, even to himself, that is, to Shem himself
was born Heber, and Shem is the father of all his children.
We are intended to understand that Shem is the patriarch of all
his posterity who were to be mentioned, whether sons, grandsons,[Pg 110]
great-grandsons, or descendants at any remove. For
Shem did not beget Heber, who was indeed in the fifth generation
from him. For Shem begat, among other sons, Arphaxad;
Arphaxad begat Cainan, Cainan begat Salah, Salah begat
Heber. And it was with good reason that he was named
first among Shem’s offspring, taking precedence even of his
sons, though only a grandchild of the fifth generation; for
from him, as tradition says, the Hebrews derived their name,
though the other etymology which derives the name from
Abraham (as if Abrahews) may possibly be correct. But
there can be little doubt that the former is the right etymology,
and that they were called after Heber, Heberews, and
then, dropping a letter, Hebrews; and so was their language
called Hebrew, which was spoken by none but the people of
Israel among whom was the city of God, mysteriously prefigured
in all the people, and truly present in the saints.
Six of Shem’s sons then are first named, then four grandsons
born to one of these sons; then it mentions another son of
Shem, who begat a grandson; and his son, again, or Shem’s
great-grandson, was Heber. And Heber begat two sons, and
called the one Peleg, which means “dividing;” and Scripture
subjoins the reason of this name, saying, “for in his days was
the earth divided.” What this means will afterwards appear.
Heber’s other son begat twelve sons; consequently all Shem’s
descendants are twenty-seven. The total number of the progeny
of the three sons of Noah is seventy-three, fifteen by
Japheth, thirty-one by Ham, twenty-seven by Shem. Then
Scripture adds, “These are the sons of Shem, after their
families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.”
And so of the whole number: “These are the families of the
sons of Noah after their generations, in their nations; and
by these were the isles of the nations dispersed through the
earth after the flood.” From which we gather that the
seventy-three (or rather, as I shall presently show, seventy-two)
were not individuals, but nations. For in a former passage,
when the sons of Japheth were enumerated, it is said in conclusion,
“By these were the isles of the nations divided in
their lands, every one after his language, in their tribes, and
in their nations.”
But nations are expressly mentioned among the sons of
Ham, as I showed above. “Mizraim begat those who are
called Ludim;” and so also of the other seven nations. And
after enumerating all of them, it concludes, “These are the
sons of Ham, in their families, according to their languages, in
their territories, and in their nations.” The reason, then, why
the children of several of them are not mentioned, is that they
belonged by birth to other nations, and did not themselves
become nations. Why else is it, that though eight sons are
reckoned to Japheth, the sons of only two of these are mentioned;
and though four are reckoned to Ham, only three are
spoken of as having sons; and though six are reckoned to
Shem, the descendants of only two of these are traced? Did
the rest remain childless? We cannot suppose so; but they
did not produce nations so great as to warrant their being
mentioned, but were absorbed in the nations to which they
belonged by birth.
4. Of the diversity of languages, and of the founding of Babylon.
But though these nations are said to have been dispersed
according to their languages, yet the narrator recurs to that
time when all had but one language, and explains how it
came to pass that a diversity of languages was introduced.
“The whole earth,” he says, “was of one lip, and all had one
speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the
east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt
there. And they said one to another, Come, and let us make
bricks, and burn them thoroughly. And they had bricks for
stone, and slime for mortar. And they said, Come, and let us
build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top shall reach
the sky; and let us make us a name, before we be scattered
abroad on the face of all the earth. And the Lord came down
to see the city and the tower, which the children, of men
builded. And the Lord God said, Behold, the people is one,
and they have all one language; and this they begin to do:
and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they
have imagined to do. Come, and let us go down, and confound
there their language, that they may not understand one
another’s speech. And God scattered them thence on the[Pg 112]
face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and
the tower. Therefore the name of it is called Confusion;
because the Lord did there confound the language of all the
earth: and the Lord God scattered them thence on the face of
all the earth.”[236] This city, which was called Confusion, is the
same as Babylon, whose wonderful construction Gentile history
also notices. For Babylon means Confusion. Whence we
conclude that the giant Nimrod was its founder, as had been
hinted a little before, where Scripture, in speaking of him,
says that the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, that is,
Babylon had a supremacy over the other cities as the metropolis
and royal residence; although it did not rise to the
grand dimensions designed by its proud and impious founder.
The plan was to make it so high that it should reach the sky,
whether this was meant of one tower which they intended to
build higher than the others, or of all the towers, which might
be signified by the singular number, as we speak of “the
soldier,” meaning the army, and of the frog or the locust, when
we refer to the whole multitude of frogs and locusts in the
plagues with which Moses smote the Egyptians.[237] But what
did these vain and presumptuous men intend? How did
they expect to raise this lofty mass against God, when they
had built it above all the mountains and the clouds of the
earth’s atmosphere? What injury could any spiritual or
material elevation do to God? The safe and true way to
heaven is made by humility, which lifts up the heart to the
Lord, not against Him; as this giant is said to have been a
“hunter against the Lord.” This has been misunderstood by
some through the ambiguity of the Greek word, and they have
translated it, not “against the Lord,” but “before the Lord;”
for ἔναντιον means both “before” and “against.” In the
Psalm this word is rendered, “Let us weep before the Lord
our Maker.”[238] The same word occurs in the book of Job,
where it is written, “Thou hast broken into fury against the
Lord.”[239] And so this giant is to be recognised as a “hunter
against the Lord.” And what is meant by the term “hunter”
but deceiver, oppressor, and destroyer of the animals of the[Pg 113]
earth? He and his people, therefore, erected this tower
against the Lord, and so gave expression to their impious
pride; and justly was their wicked intention punished by
God, even though it was unsuccessful. But what was the
nature of the punishment? As the tongue is the instrument
of domination, in it pride was punished; so that man, who
would not understand God when He issued His commands,
should be misunderstood when he himself gave orders. Thus
was that conspiracy disbanded, for each man retired from
those he could not understand, and associated with those
whose speech was intelligible; and the nations were divided
according to their languages, and scattered over the earth as
seemed good to God, who accomplished this in ways hidden
from and incomprehensible to us.
5. Of God’s coming down to confound the languages of the builders of the city.
We read, “The Lord came down to see the city and the
tower which the sons of men built:” it was not the sons of
God, but that society which lived in a merely human way,
and which we call the earthly city. God, who is always
wholly everywhere, does not move locally; but He is said to
descend when He does anything in the earth out of the usual
course, which, as it were, makes His presence felt. And in
the same way, He does not by “seeing” learn some new
thing, for He cannot ever be ignorant of anything; but He is
said to see and recognise, in time, that which He causes
others to see and recognise. And therefore that city was
not previously being seen as God made it be seen when He
showed how offensive it was to Him. We might, indeed,
interpret God’s descending to the city of the descent of His
angels in whom He dwells; so that the following words,
“And the Lord God said, Behold, they are all one race and
of one language,” and also what follows, “Come, and let us
go down and confound their speech,” are a recapitulation, explaining
how the previously intimated “descent of the Lord”
was accomplished. For if He had already gone down, why
does He say, “Come, and let us go down and confound?”—words
which seem to be addressed to the angels, and to intimate
that He who was in the angels descended in their descent.[Pg 114]
And the words most appropriately are, not, “Go ye
down and confound,” but, “Let us confound their speech;”
showing that He so works by His servants, that they are
themselves also fellow-labourers with God, as the apostle says,
“For we are fellow-labourers with God.”[240]
6. What we are to understand by God’s speaking to the angels.
We might have supposed that the words uttered at the
creation of man, “Let us,” and not Let me, “make man,” were
addressed to the angels, had He not added “in our image;”
but as we cannot believe that man was made in the image of
angels, or that the image of God is the same as that of angels,
it is proper to refer this expression to the plurality of the
Trinity. And yet this Trinity, being one God, even after
saying “Let us make,” goes on to say, “And God made man
in His image,”[241] and not “Gods made,” or “in their image.”
And were there any difficulty in applying to the angels the
words, “Come, and let us go down and confound their speech,”
we might refer the plural to the Trinity, as if the Father were
addressing the Son and the Holy Spirit; but it rather belongs
to the angels to approach God by holy movements, that is,
by pious thoughts, and thereby to avail themselves of the unchangeable
truth which rules in the court of heaven as their
eternal law. For they are not themselves the truth; but partaking
in the creative truth, they are moved towards it as the
fountain of life, that what they have not in themselves they
may obtain in it. And this movement of theirs is steady,
for they never go back from what they have reached. And
to these angels God does not speak, as we speak to one another,
or to God, or to angels, or as the angels speak to us, or
as God speaks to us through them: He speaks to them in an
ineffable manner of His own, and that which He says is conveyed
to us in a manner suited to our capacity. For the
speaking of God antecedent and superior to all His works,
is the immutable reason of His work: it has no noisy and
passing sound, but an energy eternally abiding and producing
results in time. Thus He speaks to the holy angels; but to
us, who are far off, He speaks otherwise. When, however, we[Pg 115]
hear with the inner ear some part of the speech of God, we
approximate to the angels. But in this work I need not
labour to give an account of the ways in which God speaks.
For either the unchangeable Truth speaks directly to the mind
of the rational creature in some indescribable way, or speaks
through the changeable creature, either presenting spiritual
images to our spirit, or bodily voices to our bodily sense.
The words, “Nothing will be restrained from them which
they have imagined to do,”[242] are assuredly not meant as an
affirmation, but as an interrogation, such as is used by persons
threatening, as, e.g., when Dido exclaims,
“They will not take arms and pursue?”[243]
We are to understand the words as if it had been said, Shall
nothing be restrained from them which they have imagined to
do?[244] From these three men, therefore, the three sons of
Noah we mean, 73, or rather, as the catalogue will show, 72
nations and as many languages were dispersed over the earth,
and as they increased filled even the islands. But the nations
multiplied much more than the languages. For even in
Africa we know several barbarous nations which have but
one language; and who can doubt that, as the human race
increased, men contrived to pass to the islands in ships?
7. Whether even the remotest islands received their fauna from the animals
which were preserved, through the deluge, in the ark.
There is a question raised about all those kinds of beasts
which are not domesticated, nor are produced like frogs from
the earth, but are propagated by male and female parents,
such as wolves and animals of that kind; and it is asked how
they could be found in the islands after the deluge, in which
all the animals not in the ark perished, unless the breed was
restored from those which were preserved in pairs in the ark.
It might, indeed, be said that they crossed to the islands by
swimming, but this could only be true of those very near the
mainland; whereas there are some so distant, that we fancy
no animal could swim to them. But if men caught them[Pg 116]
and took them across with themselves, and thus propagated
these breeds in their new abodes, this would not imply an
incredible fondness for the chase. At the same time, it cannot
be denied that by the intervention of angels they might
be transferred by God’s order or permission. If, however,
they were produced out of the earth as at their first creation,
when God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature,”[245]
this makes it more evident that all kinds of animals
were preserved in the ark, not so much for the sake of renewing
the stock, as of prefiguring the various nations which
were to be saved in the church; this, I say, is more evident,
if the earth brought forth many animals in islands to which
they could not cross over.
8. Whether certain monstrous races of men are derived from the stock of Adam
or Noah’s sons.
It is also asked whether we are to believe that certain
monstrous races of men, spoken of in secular history,[246] have
sprung from Noah’s sons, or rather, I should say, from that
one man from whom they themselves were descended. For
it is reported that some have one eye in the middle of the
forehead; some, feet turned backwards from the heel; some,
a double sex, the right breast like a man, the left like a woman,
and that they alternately beget and bring forth: others
are said to have no mouth, and to breathe only through the
nostrils; others are but a cubit high, and are therefore called
by the Greeks “Pigmies:”[247] they say that in some places the
women conceive in their fifth year, and do not live beyond
their eighth. So, too, they tell of a race who have two feet
but only one leg, and are of marvellous swiftness, though they
do not bend the knee: they are called Skiopodes, because in
the hot weather they lie down on their backs and shade themselves
with their feet. Others are said to have no head, and
their eyes in their shoulders; and other human or quasi-human
races are depicted in mosaic in the harbour esplanade
of Carthage, on the faith of histories of rarities. What shall
I say of the Cynocephali, whose dog-like head and barking[Pg 117]
proclaim them beasts rather than men? But we are not
bound to believe all we hear of these monstrosities. But
whoever is anywhere born a man, that is, a rational mortal
animal, no matter what unusual appearance he presents in
colour, movement, sound, nor how peculiar he is in some
power, part, or quality of his nature, no Christian can doubt
that he springs from that one protoplast. We can distinguish
the common human nature from that which is peculiar, and
therefore wonderful.
The same account which is given of monstrous births in
individual cases can be given of monstrous races. For God,
the Creator of all, knows where and when each thing ought to
be, or to have been created, because He sees the similarities
and diversities which can contribute to the beauty of the
whole. But he who cannot see the whole is offended by
the deformity of the part, because he is blind to that which
balances it, and to which it belongs. We know that men are
born with more than four fingers on their hands or toes on
their feet: this is a smaller matter; but far from us be the
folly of supposing that the Creator mistook the number of a
man’s fingers, though we cannot account for the difference.
And so in cases where the divergence from the rule is greater.
He whose works no man justly finds fault with, knows what
He has done. At Hippo-Diarrhytus there is a man whose
hands are crescent-shaped, and have only two fingers each,
and his feet similarly formed. If there were a race like him,
it would be added to the history of the curious and wonderful.
Shall we therefore deny that this man is descended
from that one man who was first created? As for the Androgyni,
or Hermaphrodites, as they are called, though they are
rare, yet from time to time there appear persons of sex so
doubtful, that it remains uncertain from which sex they take
their name; though it is customary to give them a masculine
name, as the more worthy. For no one ever called them
Hermaphroditesses. Some years ago, quite within my own
memory, a man was born in the East, double in his upper,
but single in his lower half—having two heads, two chests,
four hands, but one body and two feet like an ordinary man;
and he lived so long that many had an opportunity of seeing[Pg 118]
him. But who could enumerate all the human births that have
differed widely from their ascertained parents? As, therefore,
no one will deny that these are all descended from that one
man, so all the races which are reported to have diverged in
bodily appearance from the usual course which nature generally
or almost universally preserves, if they are embraced in
that definition of man as rational and mortal animals, unquestionably
trace their pedigree to that one first father of all.
We are supposing these stories about various races who differ
from one another and from us to be true; but possibly they are
not: for if we were not aware that apes, and monkeys, and
sphinxes are not men, but beasts, those historians would possibly
describe them as races of men, and flaunt with impunity
their false and vainglorious discoveries. But supposing they
are men of whom these marvels are recorded, what if God has
seen fit to create some races in this way, that we might not
suppose that the monstrous births which appear among ourselves
are the failures of that wisdom whereby He fashions
the human nature, as we speak of the failure of a less perfect
workman? Accordingly, it ought not to seem absurd to us,
that as in individual races there are monstrous births, so in
the whole race there are monstrous races. Wherefore, to conclude
this question cautiously and guardedly, either these
things which have been told of some races have no existence
at all; or if they do exist, they are not human races; or if
they are human, they are descended from Adam.
9. Whether we are to believe in the Antipodes.
But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say,
men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises
when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours,
that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed
that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by
scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended
within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room
on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that
the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they
do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically
demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form,[Pg 119]
yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare
of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately
follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the
truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its
prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to
say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the
whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to
the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant
region are descended from that one first man. Wherefore let
us seek if we can find the city of God that sojourns on earth
among those human races who are catalogued as having been
divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages. For
it continued down to the deluge and the ark, and is proved to
have existed still among the sons of Noah by their blessings,
and chiefly in the eldest son Shem; for Japheth received this
blessing, that he should dwell in the tents of Shem.
10. Of the genealogy of Shem, in whose line the city of God is preserved till the
time of Abraham.
It is necessary, therefore, to preserve the series of generations
descending from Shem, for the sake of exhibiting the
city of God after the flood; as before the flood it was exhibited
in the series of generations descending from Seth. And therefore
does divine Scripture, after exhibiting the earthly city as
Babylon or “Confusion,” revert to the patriarch Shem, and
recapitulate the generations from him to Abraham, specifying
besides, the year in which each father begat the son that belonged
to this line, and how long he lived. And unquestionably
it is this which fulfils the promise I made, that it should
appear why it is said of the sons of Heber, “The name of the
one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided.”[248] For
what can we understand by the division of the earth, if not
the diversity of languages? And, therefore, omitting the
other sons of Shem, who are not concerned in this matter,
Scripture gives the genealogy of those by whom the line runs
on to Abraham, as before the flood those are given who carried
on the line to Noah from Seth. Accordingly this series of
generations begins thus: “These are the generations of Shem:
Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two[Pg 120]
years after the flood. And Shem lived after he begat
Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.”
In like manner it registers the rest, naming the year of his
life in which each begat the son who belonged to that line
which extends to Abraham. It specifies, too, how many years
he lived thereafter, begetting sons and daughters, that we may
not childishly suppose that the men named were the only
men, but may understand how the population increased, and
how regions and kingdoms so vast could be populated by the
descendants of Shem; especially the kingdom of Assyria, from
which Ninus subdued the surrounding nations, reigning with
brilliant prosperity, and bequeathing to his descendants a vast
but thoroughly consolidated empire, which held together for
many centuries.
But to avoid needless prolixity, we shall mention not the
number of years each member of this series lived, but only
the year of his life in which he begat his heir, that we may
thus reckon the number of years from the flood to Abraham,
and may at the same time leave room to touch briefly and
cursorily upon some other matters necessary to our argument.
In the second year, then, after the flood, Shem when he was
a hundred years old begat Arphaxad; Arphaxad when he was
135 years old begat Cainan; Cainan when he was 130 years
begat Salah. Salah himself, too, was the same age when he
begat Eber. Eber lived 134 years, and begat Peleg, in whose
days the earth was divided. Peleg himself lived 130 years,
and begat Reu; and Reu lived 132 years, and begat Serug;
Serug 130, and begat Nahor; and Nahor 79, and begat Terah;
and Terah 70, and begat Abram, whose name God afterwards
changed into Abraham. There are thus from the flood to
Abraham 1072 years, according to the Vulgate or Septuagint
versions. In the Hebrew copies far fewer years are given; and
for this either no reason or a not very credible one is given.
When, therefore, we look for the city of God in these
seventy-two nations, we cannot affirm that while they had
but one lip, that is, one language, the human race had departed
from the worship of the true God, and that genuine
godliness had survived only in those generations which descend
from Shem through Arphaxad and reach to Abraham;[Pg 121]
but from the time when they proudly built a tower to heaven,
a symbol of godless exaltation, the city or society of the
wicked becomes apparent. Whether it was only disguised
before, or non-existent; whether both cities remained after the
flood,—the godly in the two sons of Noah who were blessed, and
in their posterity, and the ungodly in the cursed son and his
descendants, from whom sprang that mighty hunter against
the Lord,—is not easily determined. For possibly—and certainly
this is more credible—there were despisers of God
among the descendants of the two sons, even before Babylon
was founded, and worshippers of God among the descendants
of Ham. Certainly neither race was ever obliterated from
earth. For in both the Psalms in which it is said, “They
are all gone aside, they are altogether become filthy; there is
none that doeth good, no, not one,” we read further, “Have
all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my
people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.”[249] There
was then a people of God even at that time. And therefore
the words, “There is none that doeth good, no, not one,” were
said of the sons of men, not of the sons of God. For it had
been previously said, “God looked down from heaven upon
the sons of men, to see if any understood and sought after
God;” and then follow the words which demonstrate that all
the sons of men, that is, all who belong to the city which
lives according to man, not according to God, are reprobate.
11. That the original language in use among men was that which was afterwards
called Hebrew, from Heber, in whose family it was preserved when the
confusion of tongues occurred.
Wherefore, as the fact of all using one language did not
secure the absence of sin-infected men from the race,—for even
before the deluge there was one language, and yet all but the
single family of just Noah were found worthy of destruction
by the flood,—so when the nations, by a prouder godlessness,
earned the punishment of the dispersion and the confusion of
tongues, and the city of the godless was called Confusion or
Babylon, there was still the house of Heber in which the primitive
language of the race survived. And therefore, as I
have already mentioned, when an enumeration is made of the[Pg 122]
sons of Shem, who each founded a nation, Heber is first mentioned,
although he was of the fifth generation from Shem.
And because, when the other races were divided by their own
peculiar languages, his family preserved that language which
is not unreasonably believed to have been the common
language of the race, it was on this account thenceforth
named Hebrew. For it then became necessary to distinguish
this language from the rest by a proper name; though, while
there was only one, it had no other name than the language
of man, or human speech, it alone being spoken by the whole
human race. Some one will say: If the earth was divided
by languages in the days of Peleg, Heber’s son, that language,
which was formerly common to all, should rather have been
called after Peleg. But we are to understand that Heber
himself gave to his son this name Peleg, which means Division;
because he was born when the earth was divided, that is, at
the very time of the division, and that this is the meaning of
the words, “In his days the earth was divided.”[250] For unless
Heber had been still alive when the languages were multiplied,
the language which was preserved in his house would not
have been called after him. We are induced to believe that
this was the primitive and common language, because the
multiplication and change of languages was introduced as a
punishment, and it is fit to ascribe to the people of God an
immunity from this punishment. Nor is it without significance
that this is the language which Abraham retained, and
that he could not transmit it to all his descendants, but only
to those of Jacob’s line, who distinctively and eminently constituted
God’s people, and received His covenants, and were
Christ’s progenitors according to the flesh. In the same way,
Heber himself did not transmit that language to all his posterity,
but only to the line from which Abraham sprang. And
thus, although it is not expressly stated, that when the wicked
were building Babylon there was a godly seed remaining, this
indistinctness is intended to stimulate research rather than to
elude it. For when we see that originally there was one
common language, and that Heber is mentioned before all
Shem’s sons, though he belonged to the fifth generation from[Pg 123]
him, and that the language which the patriarchs and prophets
used, not only in their conversation, but in the authoritative
language of Scripture, is called Hebrew, when we are asked
where that primitive and common language was preserved
after the confusion of tongues, certainly, as there can be no
doubt that those among whom it was preserved were exempt
from the punishment it embodied, what other suggestion can
we make, than that it survived in the family of him whose
name it took, and that this is no small proof of the righteousness
of this family, that the punishment with which the other
families were visited did not fall upon it?
But yet another question is mooted: How did Heber and
his son Peleg each found a nation, if they had but one language?
For no doubt the Hebrew nation propagated from Heber through
Abraham, and becoming through him a great people, is one
nation. How, then, are all the sons of the three branches of
Noah’s family enumerated as founding a nation each, if Heber
and Peleg did not so? It is very probable that the giant
Nimrod founded also his nation, and that Scripture has named
him separately on account of the extraordinary dimensions of
his empire and of his body, so that the number of seventy-two
nations remains. But Peleg was mentioned, not because he
founded a nation (for his race and language are Hebrew), but
on account of the critical time at which he was born, all the
earth being then divided. Nor ought we to be surprised that
the giant Nimrod lived to the time in which Babylon was
founded and the confusion of tongues occurred, and the consequent
division of the earth. For though Heber was in the
sixth generation from Noah, and Nimrod in the fourth, it does
not follow that they could not be alive at the same time. For
when the generations are few, they live longer and are born
later; but when they are many, they live a shorter time, and
come into the world earlier. We are to understand that, when
the earth was divided, the descendants of Noah who are registered
as founders of nations were not only already born, but
were of an age to have immense families, worthy to be called
tribes or nations. And therefore we must by no means
suppose that they were born in the order in which they were
set down; otherwise, how could the twelve sons of Joktan,[Pg 124]
another son of Heber’s, and brother of Peleg, have already
founded nations, if Joktan was born, as he is registered, after
his brother Peleg, since the earth was divided at Peleg’s birth?
We are therefore to understand that, though Peleg is named
first, he was born long after Joktan, whose twelve sons had
already families so large as to admit of their being divided by
different languages. There is nothing extraordinary in the
last born being first named: of the sons of Noah, the descendants
of Japheth are first named; then the sons of Ham, who
was the second son; and last the sons of Shem, who was the
first and oldest. Of these nations the names have partly survived,
so that at this day we can see from whom they have
sprung, as the Assyrians from Assur, the Hebrews from Heber,
but partly have been altered in the lapse of time, so that the
most learned men, by profound research in ancient records,
have scarcely been able to discover the origin, I do not say of
all, but of some of these nations. There is, for example,
nothing in the name Egyptians to show that they are descended
from Misraim, Ham’s son, nor in the name Ethiopians to show
a connection with Cush, though such is said to be the origin
of these nations. And if we take a general survey of the
names, we shall find that more have been changed than have
remained the same.
12. Of the era in Abraham’s life from which a new period in the holy
succession begins.
Let us now survey the progress of the city of God from the
era of the patriarch Abraham, from whose time it begins to
be more conspicuous, and the divine promises which are now
fulfilled in Christ are more fully revealed. We learn, then,
from the intimations of holy Scripture, that Abraham was
born in the country of the Chaldeans, a land belonging to
the Assyrian empire. Now, even at that time impious superstitions
were rife with the Chaldeans, as with other nations.
The family of Terah, to which Abraham belonged, was the
only one in which the worship of the true God survived, and
the only one, we may suppose, in which the Hebrew language
was preserved; although Joshua the son of Nun tells us that
even this family served other gods in Mesopotamia.[251] The[Pg 125]
other descendants of Heber gradually became absorbed in other
races and other languages. And thus, as the single family of
Noah was preserved through the deluge of water to renew the
human race, so, in the deluge of superstition that flooded the
whole world, there remained but the one family of Terah in
which the seed of God’s city was preserved. And as, when
Scripture has enumerated the generations prior to Noah, with
their ages, and explained the cause of the flood before God
began to speak to Noah about the building of the ark, it is
said, “These are the generations of Noah;” so also now, after
enumerating the generations from Shem, Noah’s son, down to
Abraham, it then signalizes an era by saying, “These are the
generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran;
and Haran begat Lot. And Haran died before his father
Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And
Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s
wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the
daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of
Iscah.”[252] This Iscah is supposed to be the same as Sarah,
Abraham’s wife.
13. Why, in the account of Terah’s emigration, on his forsaking the Chaldeans
and passing over into Mesopotamia, no mention is made of his son Nahor.
Next it is related how Terah with his family left the
region of the Chaldeans and came into Mesopotamia, and
dwelt in Haran. But nothing is said about one of his sons
called Nahor, as if he had not taken him along with him.
For the narrative runs thus: “And Terah took Abram his
son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarah his
daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and led them forth
out of the region of the Chaldeans to go into the land of
Canaan; and he came into Haran, and dwelt there.”[253] Nahor
and Milcah his wife are nowhere named here. But afterwards,
when Abraham sent his servant to take a wife for his
son Isaac, we find it thus written: “And the servant took ten
camels of the camels of his lord, and of all the goods of his
lord, with him; and arose, and went into Mesopotamia, into the
city of Nahor.”[254] This and other testimonies of this sacred
history show that Nahor, Abraham’s brother, had also left the[Pg 126]
region of the Chaldeans, and fixed his abode in Mesopotamia,
where Abraham dwelt with his father. Why, then, did the
Scripture not mention him, when Terah with his family went
forth out of the Chaldean nation and dwelt in Haran, since it
mentions that he took with him not only Abraham his son,
but also Sarah his daughter-in-law, and Lot his grandson?
The only reason we can think of is, that perhaps he had lapsed
from the piety of his father and brother, and adhered to the
superstition of the Chaldeans, and had afterwards emigrated
thence, either through penitence, or because he was persecuted
as a suspected person. For in the book called Judith, when
Holofernes, the enemy of the Israelites, inquired what kind of
nation that might be, and whether war should be made against
them, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, answered him thus:
“Let our lord now hear a word from the mouth of thy servant,
and I will declare unto thee the truth concerning the
people which dwelleth near thee in this hill country, and
there shall no lie come out of the mouth of thy servant. For
this people is descended from the Chaldeans, and they dwelt
heretofore in Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the
gods of their fathers, which were glorious in the land of the
Chaldeans, but went out of the way of their ancestors, and
adored the God of heaven, whom they knew; and they cast
them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia,
and dwelt there many days. And their God said to
them, that they should depart from their habitation, and go
into the land of Canaan; and they dwelt,”[255] etc., as Achior the
Ammonite narrates. Whence it is manifest that the house of
Terah had suffered persecution from the Chaldeans for the
true piety with which they worshipped the one and true God.
14. Of the years of Terah, who completed his lifetime in Haran.
On Terah’s death in Mesopotamia, where he is said to have
lived 205 years, the promises of God made to Abraham now
begin to be pointed out; for thus it is written: “And the days
of Terah in Haran were two hundred and five years, and he
died in Haran.”[256] This is not to be taken as if he had spent
all his days there, but that he there completed the days of his[Pg 127]
life, which were two hundred and five years: otherwise it
would not be known how many years Terah lived, since it is
not said in what year of his life he came into Haran; and it is
absurd to suppose that, in this series of generations, where it
is carefully recorded how many years each one lived, his age
was the only one not put on record. For although some
whom the same Scripture mentions have not their age recorded,
they are not in this series, in which the reckoning of
time is continuously indicated by the death of the parents and
the succession of the children. For this series, which is given
in order from Adam to Noah, and from him down to Abraham,
contains no one without the number of the years of his life.
15. Of the time of the migration of Abraham, when, according to the commandment
of God, he went out from Haran.
When, after the record of the death of Terah, the father of
Abraham, we next read, “And the Lord said to Abram, Get
thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy
father’s house,”[257] etc., it is not to be supposed, because this
follows in the order of the narrative, that it also followed in
the chronological order of events. For if it were so, there
would be an insoluble difficulty. For after these words of
God which were spoken to Abraham, the Scripture says: “And
Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot
went with him. Now Abraham was seventy-five years old
when he departed out of Haran.”[258] How can this be true if he
departed from Haran after his father’s death? For when Terah
was seventy years old, as is intimated above, he begat Abraham;
and if to this number we add the seventy-five years which
Abraham reckoned when he went out of Haran, we get 145
years. Therefore that was the number of the years of Terah,
when Abraham departed out of that city of Mesopotamia;
for he had reached the seventy-fifth year of his life, and
thus his father, who begat him in the seventieth year of his
life, had reached, as was said, his 145th. Therefore he did not
depart thence after his father’s death, that is, after the 205
years his father lived; but the year of his departure from
that place, seeing it was his seventy-fifth, is inferred beyond
a doubt to have been the 145th of his father, who begat him[Pg 128]
in his seventieth year. And thus it is to be understood that
the Scripture, according to its custom, has gone back to the
time which had already been passed by the narrative; just as
above, when it had mentioned the grandsons of Noah, it said
that they were in their nations and tongues; and yet afterwards,
as if this also had followed in order of time, it says,
“And the whole earth was of one lip, and one speech for all.”[259]
How, then, could they be said to be in their own nations and
according to their own tongues, if there was one for all; except
because the narrative goes back to gather up what it had
passed over? Here, too, in the same way, after saying, “And
the days of Terah in Haran were 205 years, and Terah died
in Haran,” the Scripture, going back to what had been passed
over in order to complete what had been begun about Terah,
says, “And the Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy
country,”[260] etc. After which words of God it is added, “And
Abram departed, as the Lord spake unto him; and Lot went
with him. But Abram was seventy-five years old when he
departed out of Haran.” Therefore it was done when his
father was in the 145th year of his age; for it was then the
seventy-fifth of his own. But this question is also solved in
another way, that the seventy-five years of Abraham when he
departed out of Haran are reckoned from the year in which
he was delivered from the fire of the Chaldeans, not from that
of his birth, as if he was rather to be held as having been
born then.
Now the blessed Stephen, in narrating these things in the
Acts of the Apostles, says: “The God of glory appeared unto
our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he
dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house,
and come into the land which I will show thee.”[261] According
to these words of Stephen, God spoke to Abraham, not
after the death of his father, who certainly died in Haran,
where his son also dwelt with him, but before he dwelt in
that city, although he was already in Mesopotamia. Therefore
he had already departed from the Chaldeans. So that
when Stephen adds, “Then Abraham went out of the land of[Pg 129]
the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran,”[262] this does not point
out what took place after God spoke to him (for it was not
after these words of God that he went out of the land of
the Chaldeans, since he says that God spoke to him in Mesopotamia),
but the word “then” which he uses refers to that
whole period from his going out of the land of the Chaldeans
and dwelling in Haran. Likewise in what follows, “And
thenceforth, when his father was dead, he settled him in this
land, wherein ye now dwell, and your fathers,” he does not
say, after his father was dead he went out from Haran; but
thenceforth he settled him here, after his father was dead. It
is to be understood, therefore, that God had spoken to Abraham
when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran;
but that he came to Haran with his father, keeping in mind
the precept of God, and that he went out thence in his own
seventy-fifth year, which was his father’s 145th. But he says
that his settlement in the land of Canaan, not his going forth
from Haran, took place after his father’s death; because his
father was already dead when he purchased the land, and personally
entered on possession of it. But when, on his having
already settled in Mesopotamia, that is, already gone out of
the land of the Chaldeans, God says, “Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house,”[263]
this means, not that he should cast out his body from thence,
for he had already done that, but that he should tear away
his soul. For he had not gone out from thence in mind, if
he was held by the hope and desire of returning,—a hope and
desire which was to be cut off by God’s command and help,
and by his own obedience. It would indeed be no incredible
supposition that afterwards, when Nahor followed his father,
Abraham then fulfilled the precept of the Lord, that he should
depart out of Haran with Sarah his wife and Lot his brother’s
son.
16. Of the order and nature of the promises of God which were made to
Abraham.
God’s promises made to Abraham are now to be considered;
for in these the oracles of our God,[264] that is, of the true God,[Pg 130]
began to appear more openly concerning the godly people,
whom prophetic authority foretold. The first of these reads
thus: “And the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house,
and go into a land that I will show thee: and I will make of
thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy
name; and thou shalt be blessed: and I will bless them that
bless thee, and curse them that curse thee: and in thee shall
all tribes of the earth be blessed.”[265] Now it is to be observed
that two things are promised to Abraham, the one, that his
seed should possess the land of Canaan, which is intimated
when it is said, “Go into a land that I will show thee, and I
will make of thee a great nation;” but the other far more
excellent, not about the carnal but the spiritual seed, through
which he is the father, not of the one Israelite nation, but of
all nations who follow the footprints of his faith, which was
first promised in these words, “And in thee shall all tribes of
the earth be blessed.” Eusebius thought this promise was
made in Abraham’s seventy-fifth year, as if soon after it was
made Abraham had departed out of Haran; because the Scripture
cannot be contradicted, in which we read, “Abram was
seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.”
But if this promise was made in that year, then of course
Abraham was staying in Haran with his father; for he could
not depart thence unless he had first dwelt there. Does this,
then, contradict what Stephen says, “The God of glory appeared
to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia,
before he dwelt in Charran?”[266] But it is to be understood that
the whole took place in the same year,—both the promise of
God before Abraham dwelt in Haran, and his dwelling in
Haran, and his departure thence,—not only because Eusebius
in the Chronicles reckons from the year of this promise, and
shows that after 430 years the exodus from Egypt took place,
when the law was given, but because the Apostle Paul also
mentions it.
17. Of the three most famous kingdoms of the nations, of which one, that is, the
Assyrian, was already very eminent when Abraham was born.
During the same period there were three famous kingdoms[Pg 131]
of the nations, in which the city of the earth-born, that is, the
society of men living according to man under the domination
of the fallen angels, chiefly flourished, namely, the three kingdoms
of Sicyon, Egypt, and Assyria. Of these, Assyria was
much the most powerful and sublime; for that king Ninus,
son of Belus, had subdued the people of all Asia except India.
By Asia I now mean not that part which is one province of
this greater Asia, but what is called Universal Asia, which
some set down as the half, but most as the third part of the
whole world,—the three being Asia, Europe, and Africa, thereby
making an unequal division. For the part called Asia stretches
from the south through the east even to the north; Europe
from the north even to the west; and Africa from the west
even to the south. Thus we see that two, Europe and Africa,
contain one half of the world, and Asia alone the other half.
And these two parts are made by the circumstance, that there
enters between them from the ocean all the Mediterranean water,
which makes this great sea of ours. So that, if you divide the
world into two parts, the east and the west, Asia will be in the
one, and Europe and Africa in the other. So that of the three
kingdoms then famous, one, namely Sicyon, was not under
the Assyrians, because it was in Europe; but as for Egypt,
how could it fail to be subject to the empire which ruled all
Asia with the single exception of India? In Assyria, therefore,
the dominion of the impious city had the pre-eminence.
Its head was Babylon,—an earth-born city, most fitly named,
for it means confusion. There Ninus reigned after the death of
his father Belus, who first had reigned there sixty-five years.
His son Ninus, who, on his father’s death, succeeded to the
kingdom, reigned fifty-two years, and had been king forty-three
years when Abraham was born, which was about the
1200th year before Rome was founded, as it were another
Babylon in the west.
18. Of the repeated address of God to Abraham, in which He promised the
land of Canaan to him and to his seed.
Abraham, then, having departed out of Haran in the
seventy-fifth year of his own age, and in the hundred and
forty-fifth of his father’s, went with Lot, his brother’s son,
and Sarah his wife, into the land of Canaan, and came even to[Pg 132]
Sichem, where again he received the divine oracle, of which
it is thus written: “And the Lord appeared unto Abram,
and said unto him, Unto thy seed will I give this land.”[267]
Nothing is promised here about that seed in which he is
made the father of all nations, but only about that by which
he is the father of the one Israelite nation; for by this seed
that land was possessed.
19. Of the divine preservation of Sarah’s chastity in Egypt, when Abraham
had called her not his wife but his sister.
Having built an altar there, and called upon God, Abraham
proceeded thence and dwelt in the desert, and was compelled by
pressure of famine to go on into Egypt. There he called his
wife his sister, and told no lie. For she was this also, because
she was near of blood; just as Lot, on account of the same
nearness, being his brother’s son, is called his brother. Now
he did not deny that she was his wife, but held his peace
about it, committing to God the defence of his wife’s chastity,
and providing as a man against human wiles; because if he
had not provided against the danger as much as he could, he
would have been tempting God rather than trusting in Him.
We have said enough about this matter against the calumnies
of Faustus the Manichæan. At last what Abraham had expected
the Lord to do took place. For Pharaoh, king of
Egypt, who had taken her to him as his wife, restored her to
her husband on being severely plagued. And far be it from
us to believe that she was defiled by lying with another;
because it is much more credible that, by these great afflictions,
Pharaoh was not permitted to do this.
20. Of the parting of Lot and Abraham, which they agreed to without breach
of charity.
On Abraham’s return out of Egypt to the place he had left,
Lot, his brother’s son, departed from him into the land of Sodom,
without breach of charity. For they had grown rich, and
began to have many herdmen of cattle, and when these strove
together, they avoided in this way the pugnacious discord of
their families. Indeed, as human affairs go, this cause might
even have given rise to some strife between themselves. Consequently
these are the words of Abraham to Lot, when taking[Pg 133]
precaution against this evil, “Let there be no strife between
me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for
we be brethren. Behold, is not the whole land before thee?
Separate thyself from me: if thou wilt go to the left hand, I
will go to the right; or if thou wilt go to the right hand, I
will go to the left.”[268] From this, perhaps, has arisen a pacific
custom among men, that when there is any partition of earthly
things, the greater should make the division, the less the
choice.
21. Of the third promise of God, by which He assured the land of Canaan to
Abraham and his seed in perpetuity.
Now, when Abraham and Lot had separated, and dwelt
apart, owing to the necessity of supporting their families, and
not to vile discord, and Abraham was in the land of Canaan,
but Lot in Sodom, the Lord said to Abraham in a third oracle,
“Lift up thine eyes, and look from the place where thou now
art, to the north, and to Africa, and to the east, and to the
sea; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the
dust of the earth: if any one can number the dust of the earth,
thy seed shall also be numbered. Arise, and walk through
the land, in the length of it, and in the breadth of it; for unto
thee will I give it.”[269] It does not clearly appear whether in
this promise that also is contained by which he is made the
father of all nations. For the clause, “And I will make thy
seed as the dust of the earth,” may seem to refer to this, being
spoken by that figure the Greeks call hyperbole, which indeed
is figurative, not literal. But no person of understanding can
doubt in what manner the Scripture uses this and other
figures. For that figure (that is, way of speaking) is used
when what is said is far larger than what is meant by it;
for who does not see how incomparably larger the number of
the dust must be than that of all men can be from Adam
himself down to the end of the world? How much greater,
then, must it be than the seed of Abraham,—not only that
pertaining to the nation of Israel, but also that which is and
shall be according to the imitation of faith in all nations of the
whole wide world! For that seed is indeed very small in[Pg 134]
comparison with the multitude of the wicked, although even
those few of themselves make an innumerable multitude,
which by a hyperbole is compared to the dust of the earth.
Truly that multitude which was promised to Abraham is not
innumerable to God, although to man; but to God not even
the dust of the earth is so. Further, the promise here made
may be understood not only of the nation of Israel, but of the
whole seed of Abraham, which may be fitly compared to the dust
for multitude, because regarding it also there is the promise[270] of
many children, not according to the flesh, but according to the
spirit. But we have therefore said that this does not clearly
appear, because the multitude even of that one nation, which
was born according to the flesh of Abraham through his
grandson Jacob, has increased so much as to fill almost all
parts of the world. Consequently, even it might by hyperbole
be compared to the dust for multitude, because even it alone
is innumerable by man. Certainly no one questions that only
that land is meant which is called Canaan. But that saying,
“To thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever,” may move
some, if by “for ever” they understand “to eternity.” But if
in this passage they take “for ever” thus, as we firmly hold
it means, that the beginning of the world to come is to be
ordered from the end of the present, there is still no difficulty,
because, although the Israelites are expelled from Jerusalem,
they still remain in other cities in the land of Canaan, and
shall remain even to the end; and when that whole land is inhabited
by Christians, they also are the very seed of Abraham.
22. Of Abraham’s overcoming the enemies of Sodom, when he delivered Lot
from captivity and was blessed by Melchizedek the priest.
Having received this oracle of promise, Abraham migrated,
and remained in another place of the same land, that is,
beside the oak of Mamre, which was Hebron. Then on
the invasion of Sodom, when five kings carried on war
against four, and Lot was taken captive with the conquered
Sodomites, Abraham delivered him from the enemy, leading
with him to battle three hundred and eighteen of his home-born
servants, and won the victory for the kings of Sodom,
but would take nothing of the spoils when offered by the king[Pg 135]
for whom he had won them. He was then openly blessed by
Melchizedek, who was priest of God Most High, about whom
many and great things are written in the epistle which is inscribed
to the Hebrews, which most say is by the Apostle
Paul, though some deny this. For then first appeared the
sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the
whole wide world, and that is fulfilled which long after the
event was said by the prophet to Christ, who was yet to come
in the flesh, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek,”[271]—that is to say, not after the order of Aaron,
for that order was to be taken away when the things shone
forth which were intimated beforehand by these shadows.
23. Of the word of the Lord to Abraham, by which it was promised to him that
his posterity should be multiplied according to the multitude of the stars;
on believing which he was declared justified while yet in uncircumcision.
The word of the Lord came to Abraham in a vision also.
For when God promised him protection and exceeding great
reward, he, being solicitous about posterity, said that a certain
Eliezer of Damascus, born in his house, would be his heir.
Immediately he was promised an heir, not that house-born
servant, but one who was to come forth of Abraham himself;
and again a seed innumerable, not as the dust of the earth,
but as the stars of heaven,—which rather seems to me a promise
of a posterity exalted in celestial felicity. For, so far as
multitude is concerned, what are the stars of heaven to the
dust of the earth, unless one should say the comparison is like
inasmuch as the stars also cannot be numbered? For it is not
to be believed that all of them can be seen. For the more
keenly one observes them, the more does he see. So that it is
to be supposed some remain concealed from the keenest observers,
to say nothing of those stars which are said to rise and
set in another part of the world most remote from us. Finally,
the authority of this book condemns those like Aratus or
Eudoxus, or any others who boast that they have found out and
written down the complete number of the stars. Here, indeed,
is set down that sentence which the apostle quotes in order to
commend the grace of God, “Abraham believed God, and it
was counted to him for righteousness;”[272] lest the circumcision[Pg 136]
should glory, and be unwilling to receive the uncircumcised
nations to the faith of Christ. For at the time when he believed,
and his faith was counted to him for righteousness,
Abraham had not yet been circumcised.
24. Of the meaning of the sacrifice Abraham was commanded to offer when he
supplicated to be taught about those things he had believed.
In the same vision, God in speaking to him also says, “I
am God that brought thee out of the region of the Chaldees,
to give thee this land to inherit it.”[273] And when Abram
asked whereby he might know that he should inherit it, God
said to him, “Take me an heifer of three years old, and a
she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and
a turtle-dove, and a pigeon. And he took unto him all these,
and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against
another; but the birds divided he not. And the fowls came
down,” as it is written, “on the carcases, and Abram sat
down by them. But about the going down of the sun, great
fear fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell
upon him. And He said unto Abram, Know of a surety that
thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs, and they shall
reduce them to servitude; and shall afflict them four hundred
years: but the nation whom they shall serve will I judge;
and afterward shall they come out hither with great substance.
And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; kept in a good old
age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither
again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. And
when the sun was setting, there was a flame, and a smoking
furnace, and lamps of fire, that passed through between those
pieces. In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram,
saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land, from the river of
Egypt unto the great river Euphrates: the Kenites, and the
Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites,
and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites,
and the Hivites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”[274]
All these things were said and done in a vision from God;
but it would take long, and would exceed the scope of this
work, to treat of them exactly in detail. It is enough that
we should know that, after it was said Abram believed in[Pg 137]
God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, he did not
fail in faith in saying, “Lord God, whereby shall I know
that I shall inherit it?” for the inheritance of that land
was promised to him. Now he does not say, How shall I
know, as if he did not yet believe; but he says, “Whereby
shall I know,” meaning that some sign might be given by
which he might know the manner of those things which he
had believed, just as it is not for lack of faith the Virgin
Mary says, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”[275]
for she inquired as to the way in which that should take
place which she was certain would come to pass. And when
she asked this, she was told, “The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee.”[276] Here also, in fine, a symbol was given, consisting of
three animals, a heifer, a she-goat, and a ram, and two birds,
a turtle-dove and pigeon, that he might know that the things
which he had not doubted should come to pass were to
happen in accordance with this symbol. Whether, therefore,
the heifer was a sign that the people should be put under the
law, the she-goat that the same people was to become sinful,
the ram that they should reign (and these animals are said to
be of three years old for this reason, that there are three
remarkable divisions of time, from Adam to Noah, and from
him to Abraham, and from him to David, who, on the rejection
of Saul, was first established by the will of the Lord in
the kingdom of the Israelite nation: in this third division,
which extends from Abraham to David, that people grew up
as if passing through the third age of life), or whether they
had some other more suitable meaning, still I have no doubt
whatever that spiritual things were prefigured by them as
well as by the turtle-dove and pigeon. And it is said, “But
the birds divided he not,” because carnal men are divided
among themselves, but the spiritual not at all, whether they
seclude themselves from the busy conversation of men, like
the turtle-dove, or dwell among them, like the pigeon; for
both birds are simple and harmless, signifying that even in
the Israelite people, to which that land was to be given, there
would be individuals who were children of the promise, and[Pg 138]
heirs of the kingdom that is[277] to remain in eternal felicity.
But the fowls coming down on the divided carcases represent
nothing good, but the spirits of this air, seeking some food for
themselves in the division of carnal men. But that Abraham
sat down with them, signifies that even amid these divisions
of the carnal, true believers shall persevere to the end. And
that about the going down of the sun great fear fell upon
Abraham and a horror of great darkness, signifies that about
the end of this world believers shall be in great perturbation
and tribulation, of which the Lord said in the gospel, “For
then shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the
beginning.”[278]
But what is said to Abraham, “Know of a surety that thy
seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs, and they shall
reduce them to servitude, and shall afflict them 400 years,”
is most clearly a prophecy about the people of Israel which
was to be in servitude in Egypt. Not that this people was
to be in that servitude under the oppressive Egyptians for
400 years, but it is foretold that this should take place in
the course of those 400 years. For as it is written of
Terah the father of Abraham, “And the days of Terah in
Haran were 205 years,”[279] not because they were all spent
there, but because they were completed there, so it is
said here also, “And they shall reduce them to servitude,
and shall afflict them 400 years,” for this reason, because
that number was completed, not because it was all spent in
that affliction. The years are said to be 400 in round
numbers, although they were a little more,—whether you
reckon from this time, when these things were promised to
Abraham, or from the birth of Isaac, as the seed of Abraham,
of which these things are predicted. For, as we have already
said above, from the seventy-fifth year of Abraham, when the
first promise was made to him, down to the exodus of Israel
from Egypt, there are reckoned 430 years, which the apostle
thus mentions: “And this I say, that the covenant confirmed
by God, the law, which was made 430 years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”[Pg 139][280]
So then these 430 years might be called 400, because
they are not much more, especially since part even of that
number had already gone by when these things were shown
and said to Abraham in vision, or when Isaac was born in
his father’s 100th year, twenty-five years after the first
promise, when of these 430 years there now remained 405,
which God was pleased to call 400. No one will doubt that
the other things which follow in the prophetic words of God
pertain to the people of Israel.
When it is added, “And when the sun was now setting
there was a flame, and lo, a smoking furnace, and lamps of
fire, which passed through between those pieces,” this signifies
that at the end of the world the carnal shall be judged by
fire. For just as the affliction of the city of God, such as
never was before, which is expected to take place under Antichrist,
was signified by Abraham’s horror of great darkness
about the going down of the sun, that is, when the end of
the world draws nigh,—so at the going down of the sun, that
is, at the very end of the world, there is signified by that fire
the day of judgment, which separates the carnal who are to
be saved by fire from those who are to be condemned in the
fire. And then the covenant made with Abraham particularly
sets forth the land of Canaan, and names eleven tribes in it
from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates.
It is not then from the great river of Egypt, that is, the Nile,
but from a small one which separates Egypt from Palestine,
where the city of Rhinocorura is.
25. Of Sarah’s handmaid, Hagar, whom she herself wished to be Abraham’s
concubine.
And here follow the times of Abraham’s sons, the one by
Hagar the bond maid, the other by Sarah the free woman,
about whom we have already spoken in the previous book.
As regards this transaction, Abraham is in no way to be
branded as guilty concerning this concubine, for he used
her for the begetting of progeny, not for the gratification of
lust; and not to insult, but rather to obey his wife, who supposed
it would be a solace of her barrenness if she could
make use of the fruitful womb of her handmaid to supply
the defect of her own nature, and by that law of which[Pg 140]
the apostle says, “Likewise also the husband hath not power
of his own body, but the wife,”[281] could, as a wife, make use
of him for childbearing by another, when she could not
do so in her own person. Here there is no wanton lust,
no filthy lewdness. The handmaid is delivered to the husband
by the wife for the sake of progeny, and is received
by the husband for the sake of progeny, each seeking, not
guilty excess, but natural fruit. And when the pregnant
bond woman despised her barren mistress, and Sarah, with
womanly jealousy, rather laid the blame of this on her
husband, even then Abraham showed that he was not a
slavish lover, but a free begetter of children, and that in
using Hagar he had guarded the chastity of Sarah his wife,
and had gratified her will and not his own,—had received her
without seeking, had gone in to her without being attached,
had impregnated without loving her,—for he says, “Behold
thy maid is in thy hands: do to her as it pleaseth thee;”[282]
a man able to use women as a man should,—his wife temperately,
his handmaid compliantly, neither intemperately!
26. Of God’s attestation to Abraham, by which He assures him, when now old,
of a son by the barren Sarah, and appoints him the father of the nations,
and seals his faith in the promise by the sacrament of circumcision.
After these things Ishmael was born of Hagar; and Abraham
might think that in him was fulfilled what God had promised
him, saying, when he wished to adopt his home-born servant,
“This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth
of thee, he shall be thine heir.”[283] Therefore, lest he should
think that what was promised was fulfilled in the handmaid’s
son, “when Abram was ninety years old and nine, God
appeared to him, and said unto him, I am God; be well-pleasing
in my sight, and be without complaint, and I will
make my covenant between me and thee, and will fill thee
exceedingly.”[284]
Here there are more distinct promises about the calling of
the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by
which grace is signified, and not nature; for the son is promised
from an old man and a barren old woman. For[Pg 141]
although God effects even the natural course of procreation,
yet where the agency of God is manifest, through the decay
or failure of nature, grace is more plainly discerned. And
because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but
by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son
was promised of Sarah. And by ordering all, not only sons,
but also home-born and purchased servants to be circumcised,
he testifies that this grace pertains to all. For what else does
circumcision signify than a nature renewed on the putting off
of the old? And what else does the eighth day mean than
Christ, who rose again when the week was completed, that is,
after the Sabbath? The very names of the parents are
changed: all things proclaim newness, and the new covenant
is shadowed forth in the old. For what does the term old
covenant imply but the concealing of the new? And what
does the term new covenant imply but the revealing of the
old? The laughter of Abraham is the exultation of one who
rejoices, not the scornful laughter of one who mistrusts. And
those words of his in his heart, “Shall a son be born to me
that am an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety
years old, bear?” are not the words of doubt, but of wonder.
And when it is said, “And I will give to thee, and to thy
seed after thee, the land in which thou art a stranger, all the
land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession,” if it troubles
any one whether this is to be held as fulfilled, or whether its
fulfilment may still be looked for, since no kind of earthly
possession can be everlasting for any nation whatever, let him
know that the word translated everlasting by our writers
is what the Greeks term αἰώνιον, which is derived from αἰὼν,
the Greek for sæculum, an age. But the Latins have not
ventured to translate this by secular, lest they should change
the meaning into something widely different. For many
things are called secular which so happen in this world as to
pass away even in a short time; but what is termed αἰώνιον
either has no end, or lasts to the very end of this world.
27. Of the male, who was to lose his soul if he was not circumcised on the
eighth day, because he had broken God’s covenant.
When it is said, “The male who is not circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people,[Pg 142]
because he hath broken my covenant,”[285] some may be troubled
how that ought to be understood, since it can be no fault of
the infant whose life it is said must perish, nor has the
covenant of God been broken by him, but by his parents, who
have not taken care to circumcise him. But even the infants,
not personally in their own life, but according to the common
origin of the human race, have all broken God’s covenant in
that one in whom all have sinned.[286] Now there are many
things called God’s covenants besides those two great ones,
the old and the new, which any one who pleases may read
and know. For the first covenant, which was made with the
first man, is just this: “In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall
surely die.”[287] Whence it is written in the book called Ecclesiasticus,
“All flesh waxeth old as doth a garment. For the
covenant from the beginning is, Thou shalt die the death.”[288]
Now, as the law was more plainly given afterward, and the
apostle says, “Where no law is, there is no prevarication,”[289]
on what supposition is what is said in the psalm true, “I
accounted all the sinners of the earth prevaricators,”[290] except
that all who are held liable for any sin are accused of dealing
deceitfully (prevaricating) with some law? If on this
account, then, even the infants are, according to the true belief,
born in sin, not actual but original, so that we confess
they have need of grace for the remission of sins, certainly it
must be acknowledged that in the same sense in which they
are sinners they are also prevaricators of that law which was
given in Paradise, according to the truth of both scriptures,
“I accounted all the sinners of the earth prevaricators,” and
“Where no law is, there is no prevarication.” And thus, because
circumcision was the sign of regeneration, and the infant,
on account of the original sin by which God’s covenant
was first broken, was not undeservedly to lose his generation
unless delivered by regeneration, these divine words are to be
understood as if it had been said, Whoever is not born again,
that soul shall perish from his people, because he hath broken
my covenant, since he also has sinned in Adam with all[Pg 143]
others. For had He said, Because he hath broken this my
covenant, He would have compelled us to understand by it
only this of circumcision; but since He has not expressly said
what covenant the infant has broken, we are free to understand
Him as speaking of that covenant of which the breach
can be ascribed to an infant. Yet if any one contends that
it is said of nothing else than circumcision, that in it the
infant has broken the covenant of God because he is not circumcised,
he must seek some method of explanation by which
it may be understood without absurdity (such as this) that
he has broken the covenant, because it has been broken in
him although not by him. Yet in this case also it is to be
observed that the soul of the infant, being guilty of no sin of
neglect against itself, would perish unjustly, unless original
sin rendered it obnoxious to punishment.
28. Of the change of name in Abraham and Sarah, who received the gift of
fecundity when they were incapable of regeneration owing to the barrenness
of one, and the old age of both.
Now when a promise so great and clear was made to
Abraham, in which it was so plainly said to him, “I have made
thee a father of many nations, and I will increase thee exceedingly,
and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall
go forth of thee. And I will give thee a son of Sarah; and I
will bless him, and he shall become nations, and kings of
nations shall be of him,”[291]—a promise which we now see fulfilled
in Christ,—from that time forward this couple are not
called in Scripture, as formerly, Abram and Sarai, but Abraham
and Sarah, as we have called them from the first, for
every one does so now. The reason why the name of
Abraham was changed is given: “For,” He says, “I have
made thee a father of many nations.” This, then, is to be
understood to be the meaning of Abraham; but Abram, as he
was formerly called, means “exalted father.” The reason of
the change of Sarah’s name is not given; but as those say
who have written interpretations of the Hebrew names contained
in these books, Sarah means “my princess,” and Sarai
“strength.” Whence it is written in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, “Through faith also Sarah herself received strength[Pg 144]
to conceive seed.”[292] For both were old, as the Scripture
testifies; but she was also barren, and had ceased to menstruate,
so that she could no longer bear children even if she
had not been barren. Further, if a woman is advanced in
years, yet still retains the custom of women, she can bear
children to a young man, but not to an old man, although that
same old man can beget, but only of a young woman; as
after Sarah’s death Abraham could of Keturah, because he
met with her in her lively age. This, then, is what the
apostle mentions as wonderful, saying, besides, that Abraham’s
body was now dead;[293] because at that age he was no longer
able to beget children of any woman who retained now only
a small part of her natural vigour. Of course we must understand
that his body was dead only to some purposes, not to
all; for if it was so to all, it would no longer be the aged
body of a living man, but the corpse of a dead one. Although
that question, how Abraham begot children of Keturah,
is usually solved in this way, that the gift of begetting which
he received from the Lord, remained even after the death of
his wife, yet I think that solution of the question which I
have followed is preferable, because, although in our days an
old man of a hundred years can beget children of no woman,
it was not so then, when men still lived so long that a hundred
years did not yet bring on them the decrepitude of old age.
29. Of the three men or angels, in whom the Lord is related to have appeared
to Abraham at the oak of Mamre.
God appeared again to Abraham at the oak of Mamre in
three men, who it is not to be doubted were angels, although
some think that one of them was Christ, and assert that He
was visible before He put on flesh. Now it belongs to the
divine power, and invisible, incorporeal, and incommutable
nature, without changing itself at all, to appear even to mortal
men, not by what it is, but by what is subject to it. And
what is not subject to it? Yet if they try to establish that
one of these three was Christ by the fact that, although he
saw three, he addressed the Lord in the singular, as it is
written, “And, lo, three men stood by him: and, when he
saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent-door, and worshipped[Pg 145]
toward the ground, and said, Lord, if I have found
favour before thee,”[294] etc.; why do they not advert to this
also, that when two of them came to destroy the Sodomites,
while Abraham still spoke to one, calling him Lord, and interceding
that he would not destroy the righteous along with
the wicked in Sodom, Lot received these two in such a way
that he too in his conversation with them addressed the Lord
in the singular? For after saying to them in the plural,
“Behold, my lords, turn aside into your servant’s house,”[295] etc.,
yet it is afterwards said, “And the angels laid hold upon his
hand, and the hand of his wife, and the hands of his two
daughters, because the Lord was merciful unto him. And it
came to pass, whenever they had led him forth abroad, that
they said, Save thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay
thou in all this region: save thyself in the mountain, lest
thou be caught. And Lot said unto them, I pray thee, Lord,
since thy servant hath found grace in thy sight,”[296] etc. And
then after these words the Lord also answered him in the
singular, although He was in two angels, saying, “See, I have
accepted thy face,”[297] etc. This makes it much more credible that
both Abraham in the three men and Lot in the two recognised
the Lord, addressing Him in the singular number, even when
they were addressing men; for they received them as they did
for no other reason than that they might minister human refection
to them as men who needed it. Yet there was about them
something so excellent, that those who showed them hospitality
as men could not doubt that God was in them as He
was wont to be in the prophets, and therefore sometimes
addressed them in the plural, and sometimes God in them in
the singular. But that they were angels the Scripture
testifies, not only in this book of Genesis, in which these
transactions are related, but also in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
where in praising hospitality it is said, “For thereby some
have entertained angels unawares.”[298] By these three men,
then, when a son Isaac was again promised to Abraham by
Sarah, such a divine oracle was also given that it was said,
“Abraham shall become a great and numerous nation, and all[Pg 146]
the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.”[299] And here
these two things are promised with the utmost brevity and
fulness,—the nation of Israel according to the flesh, and all
nations according to faith.
30. Of Lot’s deliverance from Sodom, and its consumption by fire from heaven;
and of Abimelech, whose lust could not harm Sarah’s chastity.
After this promise Lot was delivered out of Sodom, and a
fiery rain from heaven turned into ashes that whole region of
the impious city, where custom had made sodomy as prevalent
as laws have elsewhere made other kinds of wickedness. But
this punishment of theirs was a specimen of the divine judgment
to come. For what is meant by the angels forbidding
those who were delivered to look back, but that we are not
to look back in heart to the old life which, being regenerated
through grace, we have put off, if we think to escape the last
judgment? Lot’s wife, indeed, when she looked back, remained,
and, being turned into salt, furnished to believing
men a condiment by which to savour somewhat the warning
to be drawn from that example. Then Abraham did again
at Gerar, with Abimelech the king of that city, what he had
done in Egypt about his wife, and received her back untouched
in the same way. On this occasion, when the king
rebuked Abraham for not saying she was his wife, and calling
her his sister, he explained what he had been afraid of, and
added this further, “And yet indeed she is my sister by the
father’s side, but not by the mother’s;”[300] for she was Abraham’s
sister by his own father, and so near of kin. But her beauty
was so great, that even at that advanced age she could be
fallen in love with.
31. Of Isaac, who was born according to the promise, whose name was given on
account of the laughter of both parents.
After these things a son was born to Abraham, according
to God’s promise, of Sarah, and was called Isaac, which means
laughter. For his father had laughed when he was promised
to him, in wondering delight, and his mother, when he was
again promised by those three men, had laughed, doubting for
joy; yet she was blamed by the angel because that laughter,
although it was for joy, yet was not full of faith. Afterwards[Pg 147]
she was confirmed in faith by the same angel. From this,
then, the boy got his name. For when Isaac was born and
called by that name, Sarah showed that her laughter was not
that of scornful reproach, but that of joyful praise; for she
said, “God hath made me to laugh, so that every one who
hears will laugh with me.”[301] Then in a little while the
bond maid was cast out of the house with her son; and, according
to the apostle, these two women signify the old and new
covenants,—Sarah representing that of the Jerusalem which is
above, that is, the city of God.[302]
32. Of Abraham’s obedience and faith, which were proved by the offering up of
his son in sacrifice; and of Sarah’s death.
Among other things, of which it would take too long time
to mention the whole, Abraham was tempted about the offering
up of his well-beloved son Isaac, to prove his pious obedience,
and so make it known to the world, not to God. Now
every temptation is not blameworthy; it may even be praiseworthy,
because it furnishes probation. And, for the most
part, the human mind cannot attain to self-knowledge otherwise
than by making trial of its powers through temptation,
by some kind of experimental and not merely verbal self-interrogation;
when, if it has acknowledged the gift of God, it
is pious, and is consolidated by stedfast grace and not puffed
up by vain boasting. Of course Abraham could never believe
that God delighted in human sacrifices; yet when the divine
commandment thundered, it was to be obeyed, not disputed.
Yet Abraham is worthy of praise, because he all along
believed that his son, on being offered up, would rise again;
for God had said to him, when he was unwilling to fulfil his
wife’s pleasure by casting out the bond maid and her son, “In
Isaac shall thy seed be called.” No doubt He then goes on
to say, “And as for the son of this bond woman, I will make
him a great nation, because he is thy seed.”[303] How then is
it said, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” when God calls
Ishmael also his seed? The apostle, in explaining this, says,
“In Isaac shall thy seed be called, that is, they which are the
children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but[Pg 148]
the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”[304] In
order, then, that the children of the promise may be the seed
of Abraham, they are called in Isaac, that is, are gathered
together in Christ by the call of grace. Therefore the father,
holding fast from the first the promise which behoved to be
fulfilled through this son whom God had ordered him to slay,
did not doubt that he whom he once thought it hopeless he
should ever receive would be restored to him when he had
offered him up. It is in this way the passage in the Epistle
to the Hebrews is also to be understood and explained. “By
faith,” he says, “Abraham overcame, when tempted about
Isaac: and he who had received the promise offered up his
only son, to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be
called: thinking that God was able to raise him up, even
from the dead;” therefore he has added, “from whence also
he received him in a similitude.”[305] In whose similitude but
His of whom the apostle says, “He that spared not His own
Son, but delivered Him up for us all?”[306] And on this
account Isaac also himself carried to the place of sacrifice the
wood on which he was to be offered up, just as the Lord
Himself carried His own cross. Finally, since Isaac was not
to be slain, after his father was forbidden to smite him, who
was that ram by the offering of which that sacrifice was completed
with typical blood? For when Abraham saw him, he
was caught by the horns in a thicket. What, then, did he
represent but Jesus, who, before He was offered up, was
crowned with thorns by the Jews?
But let us rather hear the divine words spoken through
the angel. For the Scripture says, “And Abraham stretched
forth his hand to take the knife, that he might slay his son.
And the Angel of the Lord called unto him from heaven, and
said, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay
not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto
him: for now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not
spared thy beloved son for my sake.”[307] It is said, “Now I
know,” that is, Now I have made to be known; for God was not
previously ignorant of this. Then, having offered up that ram[Pg 149]
instead of Isaac his son, “Abraham,” as we read, “called the
name of that place The Lord seeth: as they say this day, In
the mount the Lord hath appeared.”[308] As it is said, “Now I
know,” for Now I have made to be known, so here, “The
Lord sees,” for The Lord hath appeared, that is, made Himself
to be seen. “And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham
from heaven the second time, saying, By myself have I sworn,
saith the Lord; because thou hast done this thing, and hast
not spared thy beloved son for my sake; that in blessing I
will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed
as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore;
and thy seed shall possess by inheritance the cities of
the adversaries: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”[309] In
this manner is that promise concerning the calling of the
nations in the seed of Abraham confirmed even by the oath
of God, after that burnt-offering which typified Christ. For
He had often promised, but never sworn. And what is the
oath of God, the true and faithful, but a confirmation of the
promise, and a certain reproof to the unbelieving?
After these things Sarah died, in the 127th year of her life,
and the 137th of her husband; for he was ten years older
than she, as he himself says, when a son is promised to him
by her: “Shall a son be born to me that am an hundred years
old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?”[310] Then
Abraham bought a field, in which he buried his wife. And
then, according to Stephen’s account, he was settled in that
land, entering then on actual possession of it,—that is, after
the death of his father, who is inferred to have died two years
before.
33. Of Rebecca, the grand-daughter of Nahor, whom Isaac took to wife.
Isaac married Rebecca, the grand-daughter of Nahor, his
father’s brother, when he was forty years old, that is, in the
140th year of his father’s life, three years after his mother’s
death. Now when a servant was sent to Mesopotamia by his
father to fetch her, and when Abraham said to that servant,
“Put thy hand under my thigh, and I will make thee swear
by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the Lord of the earth,[Pg 150]
that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son Isaac of the
daughters of the Canaanites,”[311] what else was pointed out by
this, but that the Lord, the God of heaven, and the Lord of
the earth, was to come in the flesh which was to be derived
from that thigh? Are these small tokens of the foretold
truth which we see fulfilled in Christ?
34. What is meant by Abraham’s marrying Keturah after Sarah’s death.
What did Abraham mean by marrying Keturah after
Sarah’s death? Far be it from us to suspect him of incontinence,
especially when he had reached such an age and such
sanctity of faith. Or was he still seeking to beget children,
though he held fast, with most approved faith, the promise
of God that his children should be multiplied out of Isaac as
the stars of heaven and the dust of the earth? And yet, if
Hagar and Ishmael, as the apostle teaches us, signified the
carnal people of the old covenant, why may not Keturah and
her sons also signify the carnal people who think they belong
to the new covenant? For both are called both the wives
and the concubines of Abraham; but Sarah is never called a
concubine (but only a wife). For when Hagar is given to
Abraham, it is written, “And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar
the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years
in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram
to be his wife.”[312] And of Keturah, whom he took after
Sarah’s departure, we read, “Then again Abraham took a
wife, whose name was Keturah.”[313] Lo, both are called wives,
yet both are found to have been concubines; for the Scripture
afterward says, “And Abraham gave his whole estate
unto Isaac his son. But unto the sons of his concubines
Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from his son Isaac,
(while he yet lived,) eastward, unto the east country.”[314] Therefore
the sons of the concubines, that is, the heretics and the
carnal Jews, have some gifts, but do not attain the promised
kingdom; “For they which are the children of the flesh, these
are not the children of God: but the children of the promise
are counted for the seed, of whom it was said, In Isaac shall
thy seed be called.”[315] For I do not see why Keturah, who[Pg 151]
was married after the wife’s death, should be called a concubine,
except on account of this mystery. But if any one is
unwilling to put such meanings on these things, he need not
calumniate Abraham. For what if even this was provided
against the heretics who were to be the opponents of second
marriages, so that it might be shown that it was no sin in the
case of the father of many nations himself, when, after his
wife’s death, he married again? And Abraham died when
he was 175 years old, so that he left his son Isaac seventy-five
years old, having begotten him when 100 years old.
35. What was indicated by the divine answer about the twins still shut up in the
womb of Rebecca their mother.
Let us now see how the times of the city of God run on
from this point among Abraham’s descendants. In the time
from the first year of Isaac’s life to the seventieth, when his
sons were born, the only memorable thing is, that when he
prayed God that his wife, who was barren, might bear, and
the Lord granted what he sought, and she conceived, the
twins leapt while still enclosed in her womb. And when she
was troubled by this struggle, and inquired of the Lord, she
received this answer: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two
manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the
one people shall overcome the other people, and the elder
shall serve the younger.”[316] The Apostle Paul would have us
understand this as a great instance of grace;[317] for the children
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, the
younger is chosen without any good desert, and the elder is
rejected, when beyond doubt, as regards original sin, both
were alike, and as regards actual sin, neither had any. But
the plan of the work on hand does not permit me to speak
more fully of this matter now, and I have said much about it
in other works. Only that saying, “The elder shall serve the
younger,” is understood by our writers, almost without exception,
to mean that the elder people, the Jews, shall serve the
younger people, the Christians. And truly, although this
might seem to be fulfilled in the Idumean nation, which was
born of the elder (who had two names, being called both Esau
and Edom, whence the name Idumeans), because it was afterwards[Pg 152]
to be overcome by the people which sprang from the
younger, that is, by the Israelites, and was to become subject
to them; yet it is more suitable to believe that, when it
was said, “The one people shall overcome the other people,
and the elder shall serve the younger,” that prophecy meant
some greater thing; and what is that except what is evidently
fulfilled in the Jews and Christians?
36. Of the oracle and blessing which Isaac received, just as his father did, being
beloved for his sake.
Isaac also received such an oracle as his father had often
received. Of this oracle it is thus written: “And there was
a famine over the land, beside the first famine that was in
the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech
king of the Philistines unto Gerar. And the Lord appeared
unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; but dwell in
the land which I shall tell thee of. And abide in this land,
and I will be with thee, and will bless thee: unto thee and
unto thy seed I will give all this land; and I will establish
mine oath, which I sware unto Abraham thy father: and I
will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give
unto thy seed all this land: and in thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed; because that Abraham thy
father obeyed my voice, and kept my precepts, my commandments,
my righteousness, and my laws.”[318] This patriarch
neither had another wife, nor any concubine, but was content
with the twin-children begotten by one act of generation.
He also was afraid, when he lived among strangers, of being
brought into danger owing to the beauty of his wife, and did
like his father in calling her his sister, and not telling that
she was his wife; for she was his near blood-relation by the
father’s and mother’s side. She also remained untouched by
the strangers, when it was known she was his wife. Yet we
ought not to prefer him to his father because he knew no
woman besides his one wife. For beyond doubt the merits
of his father’s faith and obedience were greater, inasmuch as
God says it is for his sake He does Isaac good: “In thy seed,”
He says, “shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because
that Abraham thy father obeyed my voice, and kept my precepts,[Pg 153]
my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” And
again in another oracle He says, “I am the God of Abraham
thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee,
and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake.”[319] So
that we must understand how chastely Abraham acted, because
imprudent men, who seek some support for their own
wickedness in the Holy Scriptures, think he acted through
lust. We may also learn this, not to compare men by single
good things, but to consider everything in each; for it may
happen that one man has something in his life and character
in which he excels another, and it may be far more excellent
than that in which the other excels him. And thus, according
to sound and true judgment, while continence is preferable
to marriage, yet a believing married man is better than
a continent unbeliever; for the unbeliever is not only less
praiseworthy, but is even highly detestable. We must conclude,
then, that both are good; yet so as to hold that the
married man who is most faithful and most obedient is certainly
better than the continent man whose faith and obedience
are less. But if equal in other things, who would hesitate to
prefer the continent man to the married?
37. Of the things mystically prefigured in Esau and Jacob.
Isaac’s two sons, Esau and Jacob, grew up together. The
primacy of the elder was transferred to the younger by a
bargain and agreement between them, when the elder immoderately
lusted after the lentiles the younger had prepared
for food, and for that price sold his birthright to him,
confirming it with an oath. We learn from this that a person
is to be blamed, not for the kind of food he eats, but for
immoderate greed. Isaac grew old, and old age deprived him
of his eyesight. He wished to bless the elder son, and
instead of the elder, who was hairy, unwittingly blessed the
younger, who put himself under his father’s hands, having
covered himself with kid-skins, as if bearing the sins of others.
Lest we should think this guile of Jacob’s was fraudulent
guile, instead of seeking in it the mystery of a great thing,
the Scripture has predicted in the words just before, “Esau[Pg 154]
was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a
simple man, dwelling at home.”[320] Some of our writers have
interpreted this, “without guile.” But whether the Greek
ἄπλαστος means “without guile,” or “simple,” or rather
“without feigning,” in the receiving of that blessing what is
the guile of the man without guile? What is the guile of
the simple, what the fiction of the man who does not lie, but
a profound mystery of the truth? But what is the blessing
itself? “See,” he says, “the smell of my son is as the smell
of a full field which the Lord hath blessed: therefore God
give thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fruitfulness of the
earth, and plenty of corn and wine: let nations serve thee,
and princes adore thee: and be lord of thy brethren, and let thy
father’s sons adore thee: cursed be he that curseth thee, and
blessed be he that blesseth thee.”[321] The blessing of Jacob is
therefore a proclamation of Christ to all nations. It is this
which has come to pass, and is now being fulfilled. Isaac is
the law and the prophecy: even by the mouth of the Jews
Christ is blessed by prophecy as by one who knows not, because
it is itself not understood. The world like a field is filled
with the odour of Christ’s name: His is the blessing of the dew
of heaven, that is, of the showers of divine words; and of
the fruitfulness of the earth, that is, of the gathering together
of the peoples: His is the plenty of corn and wine, that is,
the multitude that gathers bread and wine in the sacrament of
His body and blood. Him the nations serve, Him princes
adore. He is the Lord of His brethren, because His people
rules over the Jews. Him His Father’s sons adore, that is,
the sons of Abraham according to faith; for He Himself is
the son of Abraham according to the flesh. He is cursed
that curseth Him, and he that blesseth Him is blessed.
Christ, I say, who is ours is blessed, that is, truly spoken of out
of the mouths of the Jews, when, although erring, they yet
sing the law and the prophets, and think they are blessing
another for whom they erringly hope. So, when the elder
son claims the promised blessing, Isaac is greatly afraid, and
wonders when he knows that he has blessed one instead of the
other, and demands who he is; yet he does not complain that[Pg 155]
he has been deceived, yea, when the great mystery is revealed
to him, in his secret heart he at once eschews anger,
and confirms the blessing. “Who then,” he says, “hath
hunted me venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of
all before thou camest, and have blessed him, and he shall be
blessed?”[322] Who would not rather have expected the curse
of an angry man here, if these things had been done in an
earthly manner, and not by inspiration from above? O
things done, yet done prophetically; on the earth, yet celestially;
by men, yet divinely! If everything that is fertile of
so great mysteries should be examined carefully, many volumes
would be filled; but the moderate compass fixed for this work
compels us to hasten to other things.
38. Of Jacob’s mission to Mesopotamia to get a wife, and of the vision which he
saw in a dream by the way, and of his getting four women when he
sought one wife.
Jacob was sent by his parents to Mesopotamia that he
might take a wife there. These were his father’s words on
sending him: “Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters
of the Canaanites. Arise, fly to Mesopotamia, to the house of
Bethuel, thy mother’s father, and take thee a wife from thence
of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother. And my
God bless thee, and increase thee, and multiply thee; and
thou shalt be an assembly of peoples; and give to thee the
blessing of Abraham thy father, and to thy seed after thee;
that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou dwellest,
which God gave unto Abraham.”[323] Now we understand here
that the seed of Jacob is separated from Isaac’s other seed
which came through Esau. For when it is said, “In Isaac
shall thy seed be called,”[324] by this seed is meant solely the
city of God; so that from it is separated Abraham’s other
seed, which was in the son of the bond woman, and which was
to be in the sons of Keturah. But until now it had been
uncertain regarding Isaac’s twin-sons whether that blessing
belonged to both or only to one of them; and if to one,
which of them it was. This is now declared when Jacob is
prophetically blessed by his father, and it is said to him,[Pg 156]
“And thou shalt be an assembly of peoples, and God give to
thee the blessing of Abraham thy father.”
When Jacob was going to Mesopotamia, he received in a
dream an oracle, of which it is thus written: “And Jacob went
out from the well of the oath,[325] and went to Haran. And he came
to a place, and slept there, for the sun was set; and he took of
the stones of the place, and put them at his head, and slept in
that place, and dreamed. And behold a ladder set up on the
earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and the angels of
God ascended and descended by it. And the Lord stood
above it, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father, and
the God of Isaac; fear not: the land whereon thou sleepest,
to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be
as the dust of the earth; and it shall be spread abroad to the
sea, and to Africa, and to the north, and to the east: and all
the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in thee and in thy
seed. And, behold, I am with thee, to keep thee in all thy
way wherever thou goest, and I will bring thee back into
this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done all
which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob awoke out of
his sleep, and said, Surely the Lord is in this place, and I
knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is
this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this
is the gate of heaven. And Jacob arose, and took the stone
that he had put under his head there, and set it up for a
memorial, and poured oil upon the top of it. And Jacob
called the name of that place the house of God.”[326] This is
prophetic. For Jacob did not pour oil on the stone in an
idolatrous way, as if making it a god; neither did he adore
that stone, or sacrifice to it. But since the name of Christ
comes from the chrism or anointing, something pertaining to
the great mystery was certainly represented in this. And
the Saviour Himself is understood to bring this latter to
remembrance in the gospel, when He says of Nathanael,
“Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”[327] because
Israel who saw this vision is no other than Jacob. And in
the same place He says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye[Pg 157]
shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon the Son of man.”
Jacob went on to Mesopotamia to take a wife from thence.
And the divine Scripture points out how, without unlawfully
desiring any of them, he came to have four women, of
whom he begat twelve sons and one daughter; for he had
come to take only one. But when one was falsely given him
in place of the other, he did not send her away after unwittingly
using her in the night, lest he should seem to have
put her to shame; but as at that time, in order to multiply
posterity, no law forbade a plurality of wives, he took her also
to whom alone he had promised marriage. As she was barren,
she gave her handmaid to her husband that she might have
children by her; and her elder sister did the same thing in
imitation of her, although she had borne, because she desired
to multiply progeny. We do not read that Jacob sought any
but one, or that he used many, except for the purpose of begetting
offspring, saving conjugal rights; and he would not
have done this, had not his wives, who had legitimate power
over their own husband’s body, urged him to do it. So he
begat twelve sons and one daughter by four women. Then
he entered into Egypt by his son Joseph, who was sold by his
brethren for envy, and carried there, and who was there exalted.
39. The reason why Jacob was also called Israel.
As I said a little ago, Jacob was also called Israel, the
name which was most prevalent among the people descended
from him. Now this name was given him by the angel
who wrestled with him on the way back from Mesopotamia,
and who was most evidently a type of Christ. For when
Jacob overcame him, doubtless with his own consent, that the
mystery might be represented, it signified Christ’s passion, in
which the Jews are seen overcoming Him. And yet he
besought a blessing from the very angel he had overcome; and
so the imposition of this name was the blessing. For Israel
means seeing God,[328] which will at last be the reward of all the
saints. The angel also touched him on the breadth of the[Pg 158]
thigh when he was overcoming him, and in that way made
him lame. So that Jacob was at one and the same time
blessed and lame: blessed in those among that people who
believed in Christ, and lame in the unbelieving. For the
breadth of the thigh is the multitude of the family. For there
are many of that race of whom it was prophetically said beforehand,
“And they have halted in their paths.”[329]
40. How it is said that Jacob went into Egypt with seventy-five souls, when most
of those who are mentioned were born at a later period.
Seventy-five men are reported to have entered Egypt along
with Jacob, counting him with his children. In this number
only two women are mentioned, one a daughter, the other a
grand-daughter. But when the thing is carefully considered,
it does not appear that Jacob’s offspring was so numerous on the
day or year when he entered Egypt. There are also included
among them the great-grandchildren of Joseph, who could not
possibly be born already. For Jacob was then 130 years old,
and his son Joseph thirty-nine; and as it is plain that he
took a wife when he was thirty or more, how could he in nine
years have great-grandchildren by the children whom he had
by that wife? Now, since Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons
of Joseph, could not even have children, for Jacob found them
boys under nine years old when he entered Egypt, in what
way are not only their sons but their grandsons reckoned
among those seventy-five who then entered Egypt with Jacob?
For there is reckoned there Machir the son of Manasseh, grandson
of Joseph, and Machir’s son, that is, Gilead, grandson of
Manasseh, great-grandson of Joseph; there, too, is he whom
Ephraim, Joseph’s other son, begot, that is, Shuthelah, grandson
of Joseph, and Shuthelah’s son Ezer, grandson of Ephraim,
and great-grandson of Joseph, who could not possibly be in
existence when Jacob came into Egypt, and there found his
grandsons, the sons of Joseph, their grandsires, still boys under
nine years of age.[330] But doubtless, when the Scripture mentions
Jacob’s entrance into Egypt with seventy-five souls, it does[Pg 159]
not mean one day, or one year, but that whole time as long as
Joseph lived, who was the cause of his entrance. For the
same Scripture speaks thus of Joseph: “And Joseph dwelt
in Egypt, he and his brethren, and all his father’s house: and
Joseph lived 110 years, and saw Ephraim’s children of the
third generation.”[331] That is, his great-grandson, the third from
Ephraim; for the third generation means son, grandson, great-grandson.
Then it is added, “The children also of Machir,
the son of Manasseh, were born upon Joseph’s knees.”[332] And
this is that grandson of Manasseh, and great-grandson of
Joseph. But the plural number is employed according to
scriptural usage; for the one daughter of Jacob is spoken of
as daughters, just as in the usage of the Latin tongue liberi is
used in the plural for children even when there is only one.
Now, when Joseph’s own happiness is proclaimed, because he
could see his great-grandchildren, it is by no means to be
thought they already existed in the thirty-ninth year of their
great-grandsire Joseph, when his father Jacob came to him in
Egypt. But those who diligently look into these things will
the less easily be mistaken, because it is written, “These are
the names of the sons of Israel who entered into Egypt along
with Jacob their father.”[333] For this means that the seventy-five
are reckoned along with him, not that they were all with
him when he entered Egypt; for, as I have said, the whole
period during which Joseph, who occasioned his entrance, lived,
is held to be the time of that entrance.
41. Of the blessing which Jacob promised in Judah his son.
If, on account of the Christian people in whom the city of
God sojourns in the earth, we look for the flesh of Christ in
the seed of Abraham, setting aside the sons of the concubines,
we have Isaac; if in the seed of Isaac, setting aside Esau,
who is also Edom, we have Jacob, who also is Israel; if in
the seed of Israel himself, setting aside the rest, we have
Judah, because Christ sprang of the tribe of Judah. Let us
hear, then, how Israel, when dying in Egypt, in blessing his
sons, prophetically blessed Judah. He says: “Judah, thy
brethren shall praise thee: thy hands shall be on the back of[Pg 160]
thine enemies; thy father’s children shall adore thee. Judah
is a lion’s whelp: from the sprouting, my son, thou art gone
up: lying down, thou hast slept as a lion, and as a lion’s
whelp; who shall awake him? A prince shall not be
lacking out of Judah, and a leader from his thighs, until the
things come that are laid up for him; and He shall be the
expectation of the nations. Binding his foal unto the vine,
and his ass’s foal to the choice vine; he shall wash his robe
in wine, and his clothes in the blood of the grape: his eyes
are red with wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk.”[334] I
have expounded these words in disputing against Faustus the
Manichæan; and I think it is enough to make the truth of
this prophecy shine, to remark that the death of Christ is predicted
by the word about his lying down, and not the necessity,
but the voluntary character of His death, in the title of
lion. That power He Himself proclaims in the gospel, saying,
“I have the power of laying down my life, and I have the
power of taking it again. No man taketh it from me; but I
lay it down of myself, and take it again.”[335] So the lion roared,
so He fulfilled what He said. For to this power what is added
about the resurrection refers, “Who shall awake him?” This
means that no man but Himself has raised Him, who also
said of His own body, “Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up.”[336] And the very nature of His death,
that is, the height of the cross, is understood by the single
word, “Thou art gone up.” The evangelist explains what is
added, “Lying down, thou hast slept,” when he says, “He
bowed His head, and gave up the ghost.”[337] Or at least His
burial is to be understood, in which He lay down sleeping,
and whence no man raised Him, as the prophets did some,
and as He Himself did others; but He Himself rose up as if
from sleep. As for His robe which He washes in wine, that
is, cleanses from sin in His own blood, of which blood those
who are baptized know the mystery, so that he adds, “And
his clothes in the blood of the grape,” what is it but the
Church? “And his eyes are red with wine,” [these are] His
spiritual people drunken with His cup, of which the psalm
sings, “And thy cup that makes drunken, how excellent it is!”[Pg 161]
“And his teeth are whiter than milk,”[338]—that is, the nutritive
words which, according to the apostle, the babes drink, being
as yet unfit for solid food.[339] And it is He in whom the promises
of Judah were laid up, so that until they come, princes,
that is, the kings of Israel, shall never be lacking out of Judah.
“And He is the expectation of the nations.” This is too plain
to need exposition.
42. Of the sons of Joseph, whom Jacob blessed, prophetically changing his hands.
Now, as Isaac’s two sons, Esau and Jacob, furnished a type
of the two people, the Jews and the Christians (although
as pertains to carnal descent it was not the Jews but the
Idumeans who came of the seed of Esau, nor the Christian
nations but rather the Jews who came of Jacob’s; for the type
holds only as regards the saying, “The elder shall serve the
younger”[340]), so the same thing happened in Joseph’s two sons;
for the elder was a type of the Jews, and the younger of the
Christians. For when Jacob was blessing them, and laid his
right hand on the younger, who was at his left, and his left
hand on the elder, who was at his right, this seemed wrong to
their father, and he admonished his father by trying to correct
his mistake and show him which was the elder. But he
would not change his hands, but said, “I know, my son, I
know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be
exalted; but his younger brother shall be greater than he, and
his seed shall become a multitude of nations.”[341] And these
two promises show the same thing. For that one is to become
“a people;” this one “a multitude of nations.” And what can
be more evident than that these two promises comprehend the
people of Israel, and the whole world of Abraham’s seed, the
one according to the flesh, the other according to faith?
43. Of the times of Moses and Joshua the son of Nun, of the judges, and thereafter
of the kings, of whom Saul was the first, but David is to be regarded
as the chief, both by the oath and by merit.
Jacob being dead, and Joseph also, during the remaining
144 years until they went out of the land of Egypt that
nation increased to an incredible degree, even although wasted[Pg 162]
by so great persecutions, that at one time the male children
were murdered at their birth, because the wondering Egyptians
were terrified at the too great increase of that people. Then
Moses, being stealthily kept from the murderers of the infants,
was brought to the royal house, God preparing to do great
things by him, and was nursed and adopted by the daughter
of Pharaoh (that was the name of all the kings of Egypt), and
became so great a man that he—yea, rather God, who had promised
this to Abraham, by him—drew that nation, so wonderfully
multiplied, out of the yoke of hardest and most grievous
servitude it had borne there. At first, indeed, he fled thence
(we are told he fled into the land of Midian), because, in
defending an Israelite, he had slain an Egyptian, and was
afraid. Afterward, being divinely commissioned in the power
of the Spirit of God, he overcame the magi of Pharaoh who
resisted him. Then, when the Egyptians would not let God’s
people go, ten memorable plagues were brought by Him upon
them,—the water turned into blood, the frogs and lice, the flies,
the death of the cattle, the boils, the hail, the locusts, the
darkness, the death of the first-born. At last the Egyptians
were destroyed in the Red Sea while pursuing the Israelites,
whom they had let go when at length they were broken by
so many great plagues. The divided sea made a way for the
Israelites who were departing, but, returning on itself, it overwhelmed
their pursuers with its waves. Then for forty years
the people of God went through the desert, under the leadership
of Moses, when the tabernacle of testimony was dedicated,
in which God was worshipped by sacrifices prophetic of things
to come, and that was after the law had been very terribly
given in the mount, for its divinity was most plainly attested
by wonderful signs and voices. This took place soon after the
exodus from Egypt, when the people had entered the desert,
on the fiftieth day after the passover was celebrated by the
offering up of a lamb, which is so completely a type of Christ,
foretelling that through His sacrificial passion He should go
from this world to the Father (for pascha in the Hebrew
tongue means transit), that when the new covenant was
revealed, after Christ our passover was offered up, the Holy
Spirit came from heaven on the fiftieth day; and He is called[Pg 163]
in the gospel the Finger of God, because He recalls to our
remembrance the things done before by way of types, and
because the tables of that law are said to have been written
by the finger of God.
On the death of Moses, Joshua the son of Nun ruled the
people, and led them into the land of promise, and divided it
among them. By these two wonderful leaders wars were also
carried on most prosperously and wonderfully, God calling to
witness that they had got these victories not so much on
account of the merit of the Hebrew people as on account of
the sins of the nations they subdued. After these leaders
there were judges, when the people were settled in the land of
promise, so that, in the meantime, the first promise made to
Abraham began to be fulfilled about the one nation, that is,
the Hebrew, and about the land of Canaan; but not as yet
the promise about all nations, and the whole wide world, for
that was to be fulfilled, not by the observances of the old law,
but by the advent of Christ in the flesh, and by the faith of the
gospel. And it was to prefigure this that it was not Moses,
who received the law for the people on Mount Sinai, that led
the people into the land of promise, but Joshua, whose name
also was changed at God’s command, so that he was called
Jesus. But in the times of the judges prosperity alternated
with adversity in war, according as the sins of the people and
the mercy of God were displayed.
We come next to the times of the kings. The first who
reigned was Saul; and when he was rejected and laid low in
battle, and his offspring rejected so that no kings should arise
out of it, David succeeded to the kingdom, whose son Christ
is chiefly called. He was made a kind of starting-point and
beginning of the advanced youth of God’s people, who had
passed a kind of age of puberty from Abraham to this David.
And it is not in vain that the evangelist Matthew records the
generations in such a way as to sum up this first period from
Abraham to David in fourteen generations. For from the age
of puberty man begins to be capable of generation; therefore
he starts the list of generations from Abraham, who also was
made the father of many nations when he got his name
changed. So that previously this family of God’s people was[Pg 164]
in its childhood, from Noah to Abraham; and for that reason
the first language was then learned, that is, the Hebrew. For
man begins to speak in childhood, the age succeeding infancy,
which is so termed because then he cannot speak.[342] And
that first age is quite drowned in oblivion, just as the first age
of the human race was blotted out by the flood; for who is
there that can remember his infancy? Wherefore in this
progress of the city of God, as the previous book contained
that first age, so this one ought to contain the second and
third ages, in which third age, as was shown by the heifer of
three years old, the she-goat of three years old, and the ram
of three years old, the yoke of the law was imposed, and there
appeared abundance of sins, and the beginning of the earthly
kingdom arose, in which there were not lacking spiritual men,
of whom the turtle-dove and pigeon represented the mystery.
Enjoying this classic?
Get physical books that build on these ideas — delivered to your door across Cameroon.