Pauline Commentaries 1 part 2/28

For the law is set down concerning the parricide, that if anyone should commit homicide—since every parricide is a homicide—he should be guilty sevenfold more than Cain had been, so that by this severity the rest, being terrified, might restrain themselves from this crime. VI. DID LAMECH SLAY CAIN, AS IS SUPPOSED? Those think this in vain who suppose that Lamech said it of Cain: 'I have slain a man to my own wounding, and a young man to my own bruising.' For Lamech was born in the fifth generation from Cain, that is, from Methuselah, the great-great-grandson of Cain. Lamech mentions this for the reason of showing that he who has sinned under a manifested law is to be bound more severely.

And thereby, if after Cain vengeance was taken sevenfold on his imitator, how much more is vengeance to be taken on him whom neither Cain's deed and reproof, nor the sentence pronounced after him, deterred—so that he might turn his will away from so impious and cruel a crime! After Cain, then, Lamech committed homicide, who without doubt, according to what is said above, paid seven vengeances. And what would befall, after Lamech, him who followed this example, He shows by saying: 'But of Lamech seventy-and-sevenfold'—because a wicked deed is not followed by repentance, let him be struck with seventy-seven strokes of the plagues. Whence the Savior also commanded that one who sins seventy-and-sevenfold, if he repents, be forgiven.

But lest it be supposed that someone else before Lamech committed homicide after Cain—because he said, 'Vengeance has been taken of Cain,' as though it had already been done—how could Lamech say of himself that vengeance had been taken upon him, when the homicide which he had confessed himself to have committed was still recent, since it is agreed that every deed carries its sentence with it? For when there is no other hope, except that what is fitting for the completed work is known, the future is reckoned as already done. Thus it was said to Adam: 'On the day you eat, you shall die the death'; and surely they did not die at once, but after a long interval of time; yet because the hope of immortality had already been lost, the future death was spoken of as present, because it began to be held as already in prospect.

Therefore Lamech confesses that he slew a young man, and Cain, as has become clear, could not have reached this time, or, if he did reach it (which is impossible), he was an old man. VII. WHAT TEN WORDS WERE GIVEN ON THE TABLETS, OR HOW MANY WORDS DID EACH TABLET CONTAIN? He called the ten sentences 'ten words,' because the Savior too signified a meaning by the term 'word,' saying among other things to the Jews: 'I also ask you one word; answer me: the baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or from men?' This 'meaning' he called a 'word.' In like manner, on the two tablets ten words are said to have been written, which are ten meanings. Finally He says: 'Thou shalt have no other gods besides me'—this is the first word—and He added:

'Thou shalt not make for thyself any likeness of the things which are in heaven above and in the earth beneath, nor in the water which is under the earth.' Then He added thirdly: 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold guiltless him who takes His name in vain'—that is, 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in falsehood, so as to perjure thyself by it.' Then in the fourth place He says: 'Thou shalt keep the sabbaths of the Lord thy God, and shalt do no servile work therein.' These four words are of the ten; these pertain properly to the Lord; these are written on the first tablet. Then on the second tablet these are contained: the first word is, 'Honor thy father and thy mother'; the second, 'Thou shalt not kill'; the third, 'Thou shalt not commit fornication'; the fourth, 'Thou shalt not steal'; the fifth:

'Thou shalt not bear false witness'; the sixth: 'Thou shalt not covet anything of thy neighbor's,' and the like. That these are written on the second tablet the Apostle Paul proves, saying: 'Honor thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise.' How would it be 'first,' unless it began with this very one on the second tablet? And he said 'with a promise' for this reason, because he at once added: 'that thou mayest be long-lived upon the earth and that it may be well with thee.' This is the promise made to those who keep the commandments. And so you have both the commandments set out distinctly, and their number completed, and what and how many things are written on each tablet. VIII. WHY DID MOSES, COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN WITH THE TABLETS, HAVE A FACE SHINING AND UNBEARABLE?

Having received power over sinners, he came down from the mountain with honor, with a glorious face. For the Law was given against sinners. Moses, therefore, because he had not sinned, appeared glorious to such a degree that he could not be looked upon by sinners. For it was shown in him that sinners do not deserve to behold the glory of God. For after the image of the molten calf and the breaking of the tablets on which the Law had been given, Moses, ascending the mountain again with the tablets, on which, when he came down with the Law he had received, his face was made glorious, so that the sons of Israel could not look upon his face, nor Aaron, because he too had sinned;

but with a veil interposed he spoke to them, so that they should be unworthy of the glory of God for as long as they continued in their sins. Whence the Apostle says: 'When he shall have turned to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away,' so that, cleansed by the gift of God, they might become worthy to gaze upon the glory of God. For in the breaking of the tablets which he had received before, he signified the reprobate people of the Jews, in that, being devoted to sins, they were destined to be unworthy of the promise of God. But the fact that the Law was repeated signified that there would be another people, for whom the Law given on the mountain would profit. IX. IF GOD MADE ALL THINGS GOOD, AND VERY GOOD, HOW IS IT THAT HE SAYS TO NOAH, 'OF THE CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN BRING IN WITH THEE INTO THE ARK,' WHEN ABSOLUTELY THE UNCLEAN CANNOT BE CALLED GOOD?

Because words have a manifold sense, they give rise to questions. For if they are referred to the matter under discussion, there will be no question, since the things themselves will disclose themselves in their proper order. For sometimes we call 'common' what is undivided, sometimes what is unclean; for 'common' is used in two ways. Thus Peter the Apostle says: 'Anything common and unclean never entered my mouth,' and the Apostle Paul says: 'Everything that is not of faith is sin,' and elsewhere: 'The Law is not of faith,' and yet it is not sin. You see, then, that one and the same word does not always signify the same thing.

Therefore also when 'unclean' is said, one must consider for what reason it is said, because sometimes a thing is called unclean by comparison with better things, sometimes it refers to sordid deeds, so that evil is understood. No substance, then, is evil, because those things which are thought unclean by their substance are unclean only by comparison with the most beautiful things. For bread too is called unclean, and oil and lead are unclean by comparison with gold, and the crow by comparison with the peacock; and although the members of one body are some called honorable, others dishonorable, yet they are known not to be evil. And so all things are good in their own nature, because they are useful. X.

WHEN GOD SAYS TO ABRAHAM CONCERNING THE SONS OF ISRAEL THAT THEY WOULD COME OUT FROM THE POWER OF THE EGYPTIANS IN THE FOURTH GENERATION, HOW IS IT THAT, ON THE CONTRARY, THE LAW SAYS, 'IN THE FIFTH GENERATION THE SONS OF ISRAEL CAME OUT FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT'? IT SEEMS VERY MUCH A CONTRADICTION. As far as the words are concerned, it seems to be a contradiction; but if the meaning be sought, it will be found to be not at variance. For Scripture speaks thus, that it may be understood by the diligent and the attentive, so that the reasoning of the truth reveals itself not to the careless, but to the earnest. For surely God said 'in the fourth generation,' and Moses wrote 'in the fifth generation,' although Moses recorded both, and it is impossible for him to err, in whom so great a power was at work.

And thereby the meaning must be investigated, because divine Scripture says nothing idly or improvidently. So there are two parts, which each one recorded. For God signified four generations, which were born in Egypt; but Moses, adding to these one from which these had taken their origin when they had entered into Egypt, says: 'In the fifth generation the sons of Israel came out.' For he embraced together both the generation which entered into Egypt and the four which were born there. For from Abraham down to the going-out of the sons of Israel from Egypt there are eight generations. For two hundred and fifteen years from the promise made to Abraham they dwelt in Canaan, and two hundred and fifteen in Egypt.

These are the years which the Apostle comprehends in writing to the Galatians, saying: 'After four hundred and thirty years the Law was made.' Therefore these four generations were born in Canaan, that is: one in Isaac, another in Jacob, the third in Levi, the fourth in Gershon and Kohath and Merari. But when the sons of Israel had entered into Egypt, Kohath begot Amram—this is the first generation made in Egypt—; and Amram begot Aaron and Moses and Miriam, which is the second generation made in Egypt; and Aaron begot Eleazar and his brothers, which is the third generation; and Eleazar begot Phinehas in the fourth generation. These are the four generations begotten in Egypt. Whence God says to Abraham:

'Thy seed shall be a stranger, and they shall oppress them with servitude; but I will deliver them; in the fourth generation they shall go out thence.' See whether it is not plain that God signified nothing other than what was done in Egypt. But Moses, in order to set down also that generation which entered into Egypt with its father Jacob, from which these four have their origin, said: 'In the fifth generation the sons of Israel came out from the land of Egypt.' XI. IF THE WILL OF A JUST MAN IS GOOD, HOW IS IT THAT ISAAC BLESSED NOT ESAU, WHOM HE WISHED, BUT JACOB, WHOM HE DID NOT WISH? As far as his conscience is concerned, the will of a just man is good; but as far as foreknowledge is concerned, it is exempt from adverse outcomes. For God alone is He who judges of things to come.

And thereby Isaac, as a just man, judged—as is fitting for present humanity—that his elder son should rather be blessed. But God, who is the knower of hidden things, showed that the younger deserved the blessing, so that in the blessing He might show that the benefit was not of man but of God, and that it is the dignity of an office, not the merit of a man, that the blessing of God follows. Finally it was said by God in Numbers to Moses and Aaron the priests: 'But you shall put my name upon the sons of Israel; I the Lord will bless them,' so that grace, by the tradition through one who has been ordained for the ministry, might be poured out upon men, and neither could the will of the priest harm or profit, but rather the merit of the one asking the blessing.

But how great the dignity of the priestly order is, let us note from this. It was said concerning the most wicked Caiaphas, the slayer of the Savior, among other things: 'But this he did not say of himself, but, being the high priest of that year, he prophesied.' By which it is shown that the Spirit of graces does not follow the person, whether worthy or unworthy, but the ordination of the tradition, so that, however much someone may be of good merit, he nevertheless cannot bless unless he has been ordained, that he may discharge the office of ministry. But it belongs to God to grant the effect of the blessing. XII. WHY DID ABRAHAM RECEIVE CIRCUMCISION AS THE SIGN OF HIS FAITH? If you are willing to consider, you will not see anything incongruous in what you think to be contrary to reason.

For believing that he would have a son, in whom all nations would be blessed, and from whom holiness was to arise, he received the sign in that part through which the begetting of children takes place and ceases, that it might be the holier. But if to some it seems a disfigurement, let them observe that Abraham rejoiced in it, and that his sons were glorious by this testimony. For Achior—surely one of the chiefs of the Gentiles—seeing how great a power there was in the God of Abraham, that He beheaded with her own hand Holofernes, the commander of the army of the Assyrians, whose power the whole earth trembled at, by his own sword and by the hand of a woman—of his own accord circumcised himself, judging that by this very act dignity was won for himself. Does not one set himself forth honorably, if for the name of Christ he should lose an eye or some member?

Does he not thrust that very part before human faces, that he may appear glorious? For to lose something for a time for the sake of faith is to make gain. So too Abraham, receiving the sign of his faith, was not disfigured, but improved. Spiritually, indeed, it signified this: that the cloud of the flesh was to be circumcised from the hearts of men through faith in Christ, because carnal error stood in the way, casting a darkness over human hearts, lest they should know the Creator. But Abraham, because it was promised that from his seed the future Christ would come, who would wipe away this darkness, was therefore circumcised, because he believed he would have a son who would cut off this error. Now see whether it was not fittingly in that part that he received such a sign. XIII.

IF THE JUDGMENT OF GOD IS JUST, WHY WERE THE INFANTS IN SODOM BURNED TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARENTS? That the exceedingly impious crime of the Sodomites might be perceived, their sin reached even to the death of their own children, lest any sign should remain of their origin. Was it not provided for in their case, lest, living long, they should follow the examples of their fathers? For from Gehenna they are free, having been slain in another's cause. For the parents are guilty both for themselves and for these, because, that their works might be obliterated, all their offspring was wiped out.

For if children rejoice in the goods of their parents, and are commended by their prerogative, so too, concerning the death which is inflicted for the parents' evils, they cannot complain—that, just as they are partners in the gain, so they may be partners also in the loss. Likewise also in Egypt the children were punished for the guilt of the fathers, but in such a way that it might profit toward their correction, so that—because for other reasons they had refused to believe and venerate the Lord who was in Moses—being terrified by this plague, they might confess with satisfaction, lest they should feel Him angry more grievously. This death, then, of the children is the fathers' crime.

For in whatever manner the children rendered up the spirit owed, they would be future accusers of their parents, because they could not overcome their own faithlessness even with the blood of their children; therefore not for the future, but for the present time, did the evils of the parents overtake the children. And is it not some kind of benefit to be not glorious, yet also not guilty? For if some, set in their last extremity, strive with prayers to come to the faith of the truth, so that, if not a crown, they may yet deserve pardon, how shall any be able to complain in this matter, with whom it was so dealt that there was neither anything for which they should beg to be forgiven, nor were they held in exaltation who had by no means labored? Compare now the torment of a single moment with the punishment of a long time;

consider also that many labor and, because they cannot persevere, not only lose the effect of their labor but are also punished with penalty; add too that it is difficult for those born of the wicked and brought up or living among the most worthless to temper their minds to following the discipline of God: see, then, whether it was not rather better dealt with the children of the lost. XIV. HOW IS IT THAT GOD, WHO IS PROCLAIMED JUST, PROMISED THAT HE WOULD REPAY THE SINS OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN UNTO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION? Whoever doubts that the Lord does or says nothing unjustly is insane. And so, if the words of the Lord be not suppressed, but all things that pertain to the same question be set forth, what seems obscure will shine, and what is thought least just will be esteemed godly.

For he who suppresses the words of the question is either ignorant or an evasive quibbler, who is more devoted to calumny than to teaching. Now then, God indeed promised that He would repay the sins of the fathers upon the children, but upon those who hate Him, that is, who, living in their fathers' evils, serve idols, just as their fathers did. For he is an enemy of God who claims the honor of His name for a creature. For just as the children of the just, themselves also just, ennoble in themselves the race of righteousness, while they are exalted by both their fathers' righteousness and their own, so too the children of the most wicked, themselves also most wicked, make an increase of malice, because they are both the children of the wicked and have copied their wickedness to the perdition of many.

With terror, then, God seems to have spoken, but it is true, and reason supports this. For who would not execrate with a double reckoning a wicked man and the son of a wicked man, just as he judges a good man and the son of a good man to be honored with a double merit? And He promised to repay unto the third and fourth generation for this reason: so that, if after a wicked father the son does not follow the faithlessness of his father, but the grandson, becoming an imitator of his grandfather in evils, may know that he will not be exempt from the severity of the sentence; or if perchance the grandson too, not following his grandfather but his father's footsteps, loves the testament of God, the great-grandson may not be ignorant that the sentence reaches even to himself, if he be a rival of his great-grandfather's faithlessness.

By this manifestation of the Law God willed to deter impious fathers, so that, recognizing how much evil the pursuit of idolatry brought forth, they might be recalled to reverence for the Creator even by affection for their children; or that the children, fearing lest they should incur their fathers' sins, might obey the Law of God. But those, attending to wickedness, began to interpret this otherwise, saying: 'The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge,' as if secure of impunity, since their sins were repaid upon their children, while they themselves had the piety neither of spirit nor of flesh—whence it is said to them, 'The son shall not die for the father,' nor 'the father for the son,' but:

'the soul that sins, it shall die'—and that they might learn that it would not be unpunished for them, but that the sins of the fathers are repaid upon the children in this way: that, because, following the wickedness of their parents, they copied the evils which ought to have been obliterated, they are more bitterly punished. After God had shown what evil idolatry brings forth, He at once added what good things follow those who love Him, saying: 'and showing mercy unto thousands of thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments,' so that He may repay the good of the father not only unto the great-grandson, but unto thousands of thousands.

For example, if anyone of the seed of David loves the Lord—who, it is agreed, lived more than a thousand years ago—to this one the mercy of God is added, so that in time of need, with two causes pleading on his behalf, he may deserve to receive mercy, because he is both a worshipper of God himself and is of the seed of one who loved God. And in this the clemency of God is praiseworthy, that to those who hold Him in hatred He repays unto the third and fourth generation, and not unto thousands of thousands; so that if the evil should be drawn out unto the fifth generation, from there it may begin again to have a head, so that from it the count may be made unto the third and fourth generation. But someone will say:

'It seems more just that more should be repaid to the originator than to the imitator.' Upon the originator a fitting vengeance is given; but as for the children, the fact that He says more is repaid to them—this is the punishment of the fathers. And if you ask, with the advent of the Law sinners become more guilty, as did Lamech, and those after Lamech. To some, nevertheless, it seems that the sins of the fathers were thus repaid upon the children, in that they were led into captivity on account of the fathers and were there until the fourth generation. But if this be true, then God repaid the sins of the fathers not only upon those who hate Him, but also upon those who love His name, because Daniel too was carried off, and the three young men, and Baruch, and Ezekiel, and Ezra was born there. Plainly, then, that which we said above appears to fit the proposed question. XV.

SINCE THE LAW PROCLAIMS THE JUST MAN, AND HE IS TRULY JUST WHO POSSESSES FULL RIGHTEOUSNESS, YET SOLOMON SAYS TO THE CONTRARY: 'DO NOT BE JUST OVERMUCH.' Excessive righteousness runs into sin, but tempered righteousness makes men perfect. For he is not without malice who is just to excess, since if you should respond to wrongdoers in every single matter, there will be no lack of occasion for you to sin. God's righteousness, accordingly, is tempered. For sometimes He pardons sinners, sometimes He is angry, sometimes He repays them not according to what they deserve; for He bears with them, so that there may be those who make progress. The Law, indeed, since it cannot soften itself, must be moderated by us, that it may be able to benefit those who live under it. This man, therefore, who is an imitator of God, is not just overmuch.

WHY WAS THE ANGEL, WHO WISHED TO KILL MOSES ON THE WAY, APPEASED BY THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE CHILD? What Moses had done without due deliberation, the appearing of the threatening angel set right. For seeing what had been overlooked through negligence, the angel ceased from his wrath. Moses therefore saw the angel so hostile toward him and ready for vengeance, because a fault in an eminent man is a grave sin. For the more his person is held in high regard, the more does even a slight transgression of his become a most bitter sin. He was on his way, then, to the children of Israel, sent by God, yet he was not bearing the sign of Abraham's righteousness, in which he knew the Jews gloried; lest he be called either a mere instigator, or one not sent by the very God who had chosen Abraham.

For while dwelling in Midian he had by no means circumcised his sons, whom he ought neither to have led with him to Egypt—he who was going to lead the rest forth from there—nor indeed to have taken along uncircumcised, for the reasons we have stated above. Zipporah therefore, Moses' wife—since Scripture speaks in summary fashion—not being ignorant of the reason for which the angel appeared hostile to her husband, took a flint and circumcised her son, and the angel departed. For the wrath was appeased by the very means by which it had also been kindled. For Scripture sometimes speaks in summary, intending things to be understood by inference from the reason set forth, as also in that saying which the Saviour, among other things, addresses to the Jews: 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God, that you may establish your tradition? For God said: Honour your father and your mother, and:'

'Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death. But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, Whatever gift of mine that might profit you, and has not honoured his father or his mother.' Without doubt the Saviour said this in summary fashion, so that it might be understood that the priests of the Jews, while pursuing greed, had despised the law of God; for by an impious conspiracy they gave counsel to sons that, while cursing father or mother, they should offer whatever they had as a gift to God, by which the verdict pronounced against revilers might be dissolved; whence the sons, made secure, came to despise their parents contrary to God's commandment.

So too Moses, when he saw the angel hostile to him, understanding the cause, showed his wife what ought to be done, that the angel who sought to kill him might depart from him. This is to be understood by inference in this matter, just as in that which we discussed above concerning the priests. WHY DOES SCRIPTURE CALL ACCURSED THOSE WHO HAVE LEFT NO SEED IN ISRAEL, YET THROUGH ISAIAH SAYS THAT IT IS NO HINDRANCE TO EUNUCHS THAT THEY CANNOT BEGET? Because it had begun to be understood otherwise than had been intended, the prophet Isaiah therefore afterward showed in what sense it had been said.

For since this had been placed as a sentence on account of the offence given to God—because those forsaking God were thereby smitten, lest by taking wives they should leave seed—human error so seized upon it that they supposed men to be guilty before God if any either did not wish to take wives, or, having taken them, could not, as it often happens, beget; as though God sought nothing other than seed, as they are reproved through the prophet Malachi. Isaiah therefore, in order to console those whom a wrong understanding had grieved, taught that it was no hindrance if anyone either could not have children or did not wish to, provided only that he kept the law of God.

For the curse was fitting to those who, though they could and wished, were sterile by the obstruction of the divine judgment, lest they should have the fruit of God's creation, which they despised; so that when they saw either that they could not beget, or could in no way keep those begotten, they might recognize that it was the wrath of an indignant God, and being converted might make satisfaction. For even holy men, when they were desirous of children and did not obtain them, supposed that sins were the obstacle and grieved, not knowing that it belonged to the providence of God, for whom they were being kept. Thus by God's procurement Hannah conceived and bore Samuel, and Elizabeth bore John, and the wife of Manoah bore Samson.

Nevertheless the spiritual understanding in this matter is this: that those are held accursed who have left no seed that sees the Lord, that is, 'who has not instructed either a son or a servant or a neighbour, to teach the fear of God upon the earth.' WHY DID SAUL, WHEN HE SINNED, ASK THAT PRAYER BE MADE FOR HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE PARDONED, AND COULD NOT OBTAIN IT, WHEREAS DAVID, WHEN HE SINNED, MADE REQUEST AND OBTAINED FORGIVENESS? The judgment of God ought not to be called into question; for human weakness and inexperience ought to be instructed by the judgment of God in that which it does not understand, so that from the sentence of God it may grasp the truth, and that nothing ought to have been done other than what it sees the Lord to have done, whom it knows to be no respecter of persons.

For if the Lord received David's prayer and refused Saul's, nothing is to be thought to have been done by the Lord contrary to justice. For knowing with what mind each had spoken, He accepted the petition of the one whom He saw begging pardon with a troubled heart; but He despised the other, because grief had not touched his soul with repentance, since God is a hearer of the heart rather than of the voice. Hence it is said: 'Man looks on the face, but God on the heart.' Therefore we too are deceived, because pretence in words and countenance circumvents us; for we cannot see what is in the heart. Wherefore it behooves us to follow the judgment of God, who examines individuals according to the heart, in which lies each one's true verdict. We find that the Saviour also did this.

For He did not receive the scribe who offered himself, but He called Levi sitting at the tax-booth, because the scribe's heart did not follow his words, whereas Levi, keeping silent, had in his heart what the scribe had in his words. But Jesus, who according to what is written knew what was in man, chose Levi. Moreover David did not wish another to be humbled on his behalf as Saul did, but he himself, a suppliant with a troubled heart, prayed for pardon. IT MUST BE INQUIRED WHETHER ADAM, WHEN MADE, HAD AN IMMORTAL BODY OR A MORTAL ONE.