Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 59

BOOK ONE. QUESTIONS ON GENESIS. As we were running through the holy Scriptures which are called canonical by reading them, and by comparing them with other manuscripts according to the Septuagint translations, it seemed good to set down in writing those questions which came to mind — whether they were merely proposed by noting them briefly, or even by treating them at length, or were solved in whatever fashion by men in haste — lest they should slip from memory: not that we might explain them fully, but that, when there were need, we might be able to look them over, whether that we might be reminded of what still had to be inquired into, or that, from what already seemed to have been discovered, we might, as far as we could, be both equipped for thinking and ready for answering.

If, therefore, anyone should not disdain to read these things on account of the unpolished style of our haste, and should find certain proposed questions unsolved, let him not on that account think that nothing has been conferred upon him; for it is no small part of discovery to know what you are seeking. But of those questions whose solution shall have pleased him, let him not there despise the language as cheap, but rather let him give thanks for some sharing in doctrine; for it is not truth that is sought through disputation, but truth through disputation.

Setting aside, therefore, those matters which, from the beginning, where God is related to have made heaven and earth, down to the dismissal of the first two human beings from paradise, can be treated in many ways — concerning which we have discoursed elsewhere, as far as we were able — these are the things which, coming to us as we read, we wished to commit to writing. QUESTION 1. How could Cain have founded a city, since a city is surely established for some multitude of men, whereas those two are reported to have been the parents and their two sons, of which sons the one was slain by the other, and in the place of the slain one another is narrated to have been born?

Or is it a question for this reason, that those who read suppose that the only men then existing were those whom divine Scripture mentions, and do not observe that those two who were first created, or even those whom they begot, lived so long that they begot many? For not even Adam himself begot only those whose names are read, since Scripture, speaking of him, so concludes that he begot sons and daughters. Accordingly, since those men lived many more years than the Israelites were in Egypt, who does not see how many men could be born, whence that city might be filled — if the Hebrews were able to multiply so greatly in a much shorter time?

It is commonly asked how Methuselah could, according to the reckoning of the years, have lived after the flood, since all except those who entered the ark are said to have perished. But this question was born of the faultiness of many manuscripts. For not only in the Hebrew is it found otherwise, but even in the Septuagint translation Methuselah is found, in fewer but more accurate manuscripts, to have died six years before the flood. Likewise it is asked how the angels could have lain with the daughters of men, from whom giants are reported to have been born; although some Latin and Greek manuscripts have not 'angels' but 'sons of God.'

Some, in order to solve this question, have believed these to have been just men, who could be called even by the name of angels. For concerning the man John it is written: 'Behold, I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way.' But this is what troubles: how giants were born from the intercourse of men, or how they could have coupled with women, if they were not men but angels. But concerning giants, that is, men exceedingly great and strong, I think it need cause no wonder that they could be born from men, since even after the flood certain men are found to have been such, and certain bodies of men, incredibly huge, have existed even in our times — not only of men but also of women.

Whence it is more credible that just men, called either angels or sons of God, fell through concupiscence and sinned with women, than that angels, having no flesh, could have descended to that sin — although concerning certain demons, who are wicked toward women, so many things are said by so many, that it is not easy to reach a settled judgement on this matter. Concerning Noah's ark it is commonly asked whether, with such a capacity as is described, it could have carried all the animals which are said to have entered it, and their food. This question Origen solves by the geometric cubit, asserting that Scripture did not say without reason that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, who cherished geometry.

He says, moreover, that the geometric cubit is worth as much as six of our cubits. If, therefore, we understand cubits so great, there is no question that the ark was of such capacity that it could contain all those things. Likewise it is asked whether an ark so great could have been built in a hundred years by four men, that is, Noah and his three sons. But if it could not, it was no great matter to bring in other workmen, who, though they received the wages of their work, cared not whether Noah was building it wisely or indeed vainly, and therefore did not enter into it, because they did not believe what he had believed. What does he mean, when speaking of the building of the ark: 'Thou shalt make its lower parts with two decks and three decks'?

For the lower parts were not going to be with two decks and three decks. But by this distinction he wished the whole structure of it to be understood: that it should have lower parts, and should have also the upper parts of the lower, which he called 'with two decks,' and should have also the upper parts of the upper, which he called 'with three decks.' For in the first dwelling, that is, in the lowest parts, the ark was decked once; but in the second dwelling, above the lower, it was now with two decks; and thereby in the third, above the second, it was without doubt with three decks.

Since God said that the animals in the ark should not only live but also be fed, and commanded that Noah should take for himself and for those which were to enter unto him from all foods, it is asked how there the lions or the eagles, which are wont to live on flesh, could be fed: whether animals beyond that number were brought in for the food of the others, or whether — which is rather to be believed — certain things besides flesh were provided, by the wise man or by God's showing, which might be suited also to the food of such living creatures. As to what is written:

'both of the clean birds and of the unclean birds, and of the clean cattle and of the unclean cattle, and of all the creeping things upon the earth' — where 'clean and unclean' is then not added but understood — and it is joined: 'two by two they entered in unto Noah into the ark, male and female,' it is asked how above he distinguished 'two by two' of the unclean, but now says that two by two entered, whether of the clean or of the unclean. But this is referred not to the number of clean or unclean animals, but to the male and female, because in all, whether clean or unclean, there are two, male and female. It is to be noted, what is written:

'in which is the spirit of life' — said not only of men but also of cattle — on account of that view which some wish to understand of the Holy Spirit, where it is written: 'and God breathed into his face the spirit of life,' which certain manuscripts better have as: 'the breath of life.' Concerning the height of the mountains, all of which Scripture writes that the water surmounted by fifteen cubits, on account of the story of Mount Olympus: for if the earth could invade the space of that tranquil air, where it is said that neither clouds are seen nor winds felt, why not the water too by rising? As to what is written:

'and the water was exalted above the earth a hundred and fifty days,' it is asked whether it grew up to this day, or whether for so many days it remained at the height to which it had grown — since other translators seem to say this more plainly. For Aquila said 'it prevailed,' Symmachus 'they prevailed,' that is, the waters.

As to what is written, that after a hundred and fifty days a wind was brought over the earth and the water ceased, and the fountains of the deep and the cataracts of heaven were closed, and the rain from heaven was held back, it is asked whether these things were done after a hundred and fifty days, or whether by recapitulation all those things were recorded which had begun to be done after the forty days of rain — so that this alone pertains to the hundred and fifty days, namely that the water was exalted up to them, either because the fountains of the deep had ceased when the rain had now stopped, or because it remained at its height while it was dried by no wind; but the rest of the things that were said were not all done after a hundred and fifty days, but all were recorded which had begun to be done from the end of the forty days.

As to what is written, that a raven was sent forth and did not return, and after it a dove was sent forth, and it returned because it had not found rest for its feet, a question is wont to arise, whether the raven died or could in some way have lived. For surely, if there was earth where it might rest, the dove too could have found rest for its feet. Whence it is conjectured by many that the raven could settle upon a carcass, which the dove naturally shuns. Likewise there is a question how the dove could not find where to settle, if, as the order of the narrative is woven, the tops of the mountains had already been laid bare.

This question seems capable of being resolved either by recapitulation, so that those things are understood to be narrated later which were done earlier, or rather because the mountains had not yet been dried. What does the Lord mean by saying: 'I will not again add to curse the earth on account of the works of men, because the mind of man is set toward evil things from his youth. I will not therefore again add to strike all living flesh, as I have done,' and then joins those things which, according to the largesse of his goodness, he grants to unworthy men? Whether here the indulgence of the New Testament is figured, and the past vengeance pertains to the Old Testament — that is, the former to the severity of the Law, this to the goodness of grace. What is:

'and from the hand of a man, a brother, will I require the soul of a man'? Or did he wish every man to be understood as the brother of every man, according to the kinship drawn from one? It is asked why Ham, sinning in the offence against his father, is cursed not in himself but in his son Canaan. Unless it be because it was in some way prophesied that the sons of Israel, who were to come from the seed of Shem, would receive the land of Canaan, when the Canaanites had been cast out thence and vanquished. It is asked how it was said of Nimrod: 'This man began to be a giant upon the earth,' since Scripture mentions that giants had been born even before. Or is it perhaps because after the flood the newness of the human race being restored anew is again mentioned, in which newness 'this man began to be a giant upon the earth'? It is asked what is:

'and to Heber were born two sons; the name of one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided' — unless perhaps in his days there arose that diversity of tongues, through which it came about that the nations were divided. 'And the whole earth was of one lip.' How can this be understood, when it was said above that the sons of Noah, or of his sons, had been distributed throughout the earth according to their tribes and according to their nations and according to their tongues, unless it be that by recapitulation he afterward mentions what was earlier? But it makes for obscurity, that he weaves these things together in such a manner of speech, as though a narrative of the things that were done afterward followed. 'Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, whose top shall be even unto heaven.'

If they believed they could do this, exceedingly foolish audacity and impiety is detected. And because on this account God's vengeance followed, so that their tongues were divided, they are not absurdly believed to have thought this. 'Come, let us go down and there confound their tongue, that each may not hear the voice of his neighbour.' Is the Lord understood to have said this to the angels? Or is it to be taken according to that which is read in the opening of the book: 'Let us make man to our image and likeness'? For also, as regards what is afterward said in the singular number, 'because there the Lord confounded the lips of the earth,' so there too, when it had been said, 'Let us make man to our image,' in what follows it was nevertheless not said 'they made,' but 'God made.' As to what is written:

'and Arphaxad was a hundred and thirty-five years old when he begot Cainan; and Arphaxad lived after he begot Cainan four hundred years,' or, as we find in the Greek, 'three hundred years,' it is asked how God said to Noah: 'and the years of their life shall be a hundred and twenty'; for Arphaxad was not yet born when God said this, nor was he in the ark with his parents. How then are the years of human life foretold as a hundred and twenty thereafter, when a man is found to have lived more than four hundred years?

Unless it be understood that God said this to Noah twenty years before the ark began to be made — which is found to have been made in a hundred years — when he was now foretelling that he would make a flood; and that he did not foretell the span of human life thereafter to be in those who would be born after the flood, but the life of those men whom he was about to destroy by the flood. It is asked why it is written: 'Shem was the father of all the sons of Heber,' since Heber is found to be the fifth from Shem the son of Noah. Is it because from him the Hebrews are said to be named? For through him the generation passes to Abraham. Which then is more probable — that the Hebrews were named from Heber, as it were 'Heberaeans,' or from Abraham, as it were 'Abrahaeans' — is rightly asked.

How is it to be taken, that when Terah, the father of Abram, was seventy years old, he begot Abram, and afterward remained with all his household in Haran and lived two hundred and five years in Haran and died; and the Lord said to Abram that he should go out from Haran, and he went out thence when the same Abram was seventy-five years old? Unless it be that by recapitulation it is shown that the Lord spoke while Terah was living, and that Abram, while his father was living, went out of Haran according to the Lord's command, when he was seventy-five years old — in the hundred and forty-fifth year of his father's life, if the days of his father's life were two hundred and five years, so that it is therefore written: 'the years of Terah's life were two hundred and five in Haran.'

For there he completed all the years of his whole life. The question is therefore solved by recapitulation, which would otherwise remain insoluble. If we took it that the Lord spoke to Abram after Terah's death, that he should go out from Haran, then he could not yet be seventy-five years old, since his father, who had begotten him in the seventieth year of his own age, was already dead — so that Abram would be a hundred and thirty-five years old after his father's death, if all his father's years were two hundred and five. This recapitulation, therefore, if it be attended to in the Scriptures, solves many questions which can seem insoluble, according also to the exposition of the earlier questions made through this same recapitulation.

This question, however, is also resolved otherwise by certain people: that the years of Abraham's age are reckoned from the time when he was delivered out of the fire of the Chaldeans, into which he had been cast to be burned because he refused to worship that same fire in the superstition of the Chaldeans. That he was delivered from it, although it is not read in the Scriptures, is nevertheless handed down in Jewish tradition. It can also be resolved thus: since the Scripture which said, 'When Terah was seventy years old, he begot Abram and Nahor and Haran,' did not at all intend this to be understood, namely that in that same seventieth year of his life he begot all three, but rather the Scripture recorded the year from which he began to beget offspring.

But it may also be that Abram was born later, yet on account of the excellence for which he is greatly commended in the Scriptures, he was named first — just as the prophet named the younger first, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,' and in Chronicles, although Judah is fourth in the order of birth, he is mentioned first, he from whom the Jewish nation takes its name, on account of the royal tribe. And it is more convenient that several ways out be found by which difficult questions may be resolved. Certainly Stephen's account of this matter must be considered, so that whichever of these expositions does not conflict with it may be preferred. And indeed that account compels us not to hold, as it seems to be narrated in Genesis, that God spoke to Abraham after the death of Terah, telling him to go out from his kindred and from his father's house;

but rather, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, having already indeed departed from the land of the Chaldeans, so that God is understood to have spoken to him on that journey. But what Stephen afterwards narrates thus: 'Then Abram, having gone out from the land of the Chaldeans, dwelt in Haran, and from there, after his father died, He settled him in this land' — this brings no small difficulty to this exposition, which is made by way of recapitulation. For he seems to have received the command of the Lord, which had been spoken to him on the journey through Mesopotamia after he had gone out from the land of the Chaldeans and was going to Haran, and to have obediently fulfilled this command after the death of his father, when it is said, 'And he dwelt in Haran.'

'And from there, after his father died, He settled him in this land.' And on account of this the question remains: if he was seventy-five years old — as the Scripture of Genesis plainly states — when he went out from Haran, how can this be true? Unless perhaps what Stephen says, 'Then Abram went out from the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran,' is not to be taken thus: 'then he went out, after the Lord had spoken to him' — for he was already in Mesopotamia, as was said above, when he heard that from the Lord — but rather Stephen, by that very rule of recapitulation, wished to weave the account together and to say at once from where he went out and where he dwelt, when he says, 'Then Abram went out from the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran.'

But in between, that is, between his going out from the land of the Chaldeans and his dwelling in Haran, God spoke to him. And afterwards, as to what Stephen adds, 'and from there, after his father died, He settled him in this land,' it must be observed that he did not say, 'and after his father died, he went out from Haran,' but 'from there God settled him in this land,' so that after his dwelling in Haran he was settled in the land of Canaan — not that he went out after his father's death, but that after his father's death he was settled in the land of Canaan; so that the order of the words is: 'he dwelt in Haran;

and from there He settled him in this land, after his father died' — so that we may understand Abram to have been settled or established in the land of Canaan at the time when he received there a grandson, whose entire seed was destined to reign there according to the inheritance granted by the promise of God. For from Abram himself was born Ishmael by Hagar, and others were born by Keturah, to whom the inheritance of that land did not belong. And from Isaac was born Esau, who likewise was excluded from that inheritance. But from Jacob the son of Isaac, however many sons were born — that is, his entire seed — belonged to that inheritance.

So then, Abram having been settled and established in that land — since he lived until the birth of Jacob — if this is rightly understood, the question is resolved according to recapitulation, although the other solutions too are not to be despised. 'It shall be, therefore, that when the Egyptians see you, they will say, This is his wife. And it came to pass, as soon as Abram entered into Egypt, the Egyptians, seeing the woman, that she was very beautiful.' How is it to be taken that Abram, coming into Egypt, wished to conceal that Sarah was his wife, according to all that is written on this matter? Whether this befitted so holy a man, or whether some faltering of his faith is to be understood, as several have thought?

Indeed I have already disputed on this matter against Faustus, and it has been more diligently expounded by the presbyter Jerome, why it does not follow that, when Sarah spent several days with the king of Egypt, she should be believed to have been defiled by his intercourse; since it was the royal custom to admit his women to himself by turns, and no woman went in to the king unless her body had first been long and carefully groomed with cosmetic washes and unguents.

While these things were being done, Pharaoh was smitten by the hand of God, so that he might return untouched to her husband the woman whom the husband had entrusted to God Himself, keeping silent that she was his wife, yet not lying that she was his sister — so as to guard against what he could, as far as a man could, and to commend to God what he could not guard against; lest, if he had committed even that which he could guard against to God alone, he should be found not to be believing in God but rather to be tempting God. The land of Sodom and Gomorrah, before it was destroyed, is compared to the paradise of God, because it was well-watered, and to the land of Egypt, which the Nile irrigates. By this it is sufficiently shown, as I think, how that paradise which God planted, where He set Adam, ought to be understood. For what other paradise of God is to be understood, I do not see.

And surely, if the fruit-bearing trees in paradise were to be understood as the virtues of the soul, as some suppose — with no bodily paradise having been established on earth with true kinds of trees — it would not be said of that land, 'like the paradise of God.' 'Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you now are, to the north and the south and the east and the sea, for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your seed forever.' Here it is asked how it is to be understood that as much land was promised to Abraham and his seed as he could survey with his eyes through the four quarters of the world. For how much is it that the keenness of bodily sight can reach in beholding land?

But there is no question, if we notice that this alone was not promised; for it was not said, 'I will give you as much land as you see,' but 'I will give you the land which you see.' For since even more was being given on every side, assuredly this in particular, which was seen, was being given. Then attention must be paid to what follows; for lest Abram himself should think that only that portion of land was being promised which he could look upon or survey, 'Arise,' He says, 'and walk through the land in its length and breadth, for I will give it to you,' so that by walking he might come to that land which, standing in one place, he could not see with his eyes.

But that land is signified which the first people, Israel, the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, received — not that wider seed according to faith, which, lest it be passed over in silence, was foretold to him would be 'like the sand of the sea,' by hyperbole indeed, yet nevertheless so great that no one could number it. 'It was announced to Abram the man beyond the river.' That Abram was called 'the man beyond the river' the Greek copies also sufficiently indicate; but why he was so called, this seems to be the reason: that coming from Mesopotamia, having crossed the river Euphrates, he established his dwelling in the land of Canaan, and was called 'beyond the river' from that region whence he had come. Whence Joshua the son of Nun says to the Israelites, 'What? Do you wish to serve the gods of your fathers who are beyond the river?' Concerning that which is written:

'And about the setting of the sun a dread fell upon Abram, and behold, a great fear came upon him.' This question must be treated for the sake of those who contend that these disturbances do not befall the mind of the wise man: whether it is something such as Aulus Gellius recounts in his books of the Attic Nights, of a certain philosopher who, being on a ship in a great storm at sea, was disturbed, and was observed by a certain dissolute young man. When, after the danger had passed, the young man taunted him because the philosopher had been quickly disturbed — whereas he himself had neither feared nor turned pale — the philosopher replied that the young man was not disturbed for this reason, that he had nothing to fear for his utterly worthless soul, which was not worth anything for which anything should be feared.

But to the other studious men who had been in the ship and were waiting, he produced a certain book of Epictetus the Stoic, in which it was read that it had not so pleased the Stoics that no such disturbance befalls the mind of the wise man — as though nothing of the sort appeared in their affections — but that a disturbance is defined by them as when reason yields to such motions; whereas when it does not yield, it is not to be called a disturbance. But it must be considered how Aulus Gellius says this, and it must be carefully inserted. 'And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land in which you dwell, all the cultivated land, for an everlasting possession.' The question is how He said 'everlasting,' since it was given to the Israelites temporally:

whether it was called 'everlasting' according to this age, so that from that which in Greek is 'aion,' which also signifies 'age,' was said 'aionion,' as if in Latin it could be said 'saeculare' (pertaining to the age); or whether from this we are compelled to understand something here according to the spiritual promise, so that it was called 'eternal' because from this something eternal is signified; or whether rather it is an idiom of the Scriptures, that they call 'eternal' that of which no end is appointed, or which does not so come to pass that it is thereafter not to be done, as far as pertains to the care or power of the one doing it. As Horace says: 'He will serve forever who knows not how to use a little.' For he cannot serve forever, whose very life, by which he serves, cannot be eternal.

This testimony I would not adduce, unless it were a matter of idiom; for those poets are our authorities for words, not for things or for opinions. But if the Scriptures are defended according to their proper modes of speech, which are called idioms, how much more according to those which they hold in common with other tongues! It is asked how it was said to Abraham concerning his son, 'and kings of nations shall be from him' — whether, because it did not come about according to earthly kingdoms, it ought to be taken according to the Church, or whether on account of Esau it happened even according to the letter. 'And seeing, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent and bowed himself to the ground and said, Lord, if I have found grace before you, do not pass by your servant.'

It is asked how, when there were three men who had appeared to him, he addresses the Lord in the singular, saying, 'Lord, if I have found grace before you.' Did he understand one of them to be the Lord and the others angels? Or rather, perceiving the Lord in the angels, did he choose to speak to the Lord rather than to the angels — since, with one of the three remaining afterward with Abraham himself, two are sent to Sodom, and Lot speaks to them as to the Lord? 'Let water be taken and let them wash your feet and refresh yourselves under the tree. And I will take bread and eat.' It is asked, if he understood them to be angels, how he could invite them to this human hospitality, which is necessary for the refreshment of mortal flesh, not for the immortality of angels. 'But Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in days;

and it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.' The age of the elderly (seniores) is less than that of the aged (senes), although the aged too are called elders. Whence, if what is asserted by some physicians is true — namely, that an elderly man cannot beget children with an elderly woman, even if the woman's monthly courses still come — according to this we can take Abraham to have marvelled at the promise of a son, and the Apostle to have set it down as a miracle: 'his body being now as good as dead.' For 'a body as good as dead' is not to be so understood as though it could have no power of generation at all, if the woman were of youthful age, but 'dead' in this respect, that he could no longer beget of a woman of advanced age. For he was able to beget of Keturah precisely because he found her youthful in age.

For thus the physicians teach, that a man whose body has so far failed in this respect that he cannot beget with a woman of that age — even though she still suffers her monthly courses — can yet beget of a young woman; and again, a woman who is already of advanced age, though her monthly courses still flow, so that she cannot bear by an old man, can yet bear by a young man. Therefore that was a miracle, because, according to what we have said, with the man's body as good as dead, the woman too was of such advanced age that the manner of women had ceased to be with her. For if anyone presses the word by which the Apostle says 'a body as good as dead' — because he said 'dead,' then it must be understood that it had no soul either, but was a corpse — that is of the most absurd falsehood.

Thus, then, this question is resolved. Otherwise it rightly perplexes us how, when Abraham was near the middle age according to which men then lived, and afterward begot sons of Keturah, he is said by the Apostle to have had a body as good as dead, and is proclaimed as a miracle because he begot. 'And the Lord said to Abraham, Why did Sarah laugh within herself, saying, Shall I then truly bear a child? But I have grown old.' It is asked why the Lord reproves her laughter, since Abraham also laughed — unless it be that his laughter was of wonder and gladness, but Sarah's of doubt, and this could be discerned by Him who knows the hearts of men. 'Sarah denied it, saying, I did not laugh; for she was afraid.'

How did they understand that it was God who was speaking, when Sarah even dared to deny that she had laughed, as though He could be ignorant of this? Unless perhaps Sarah thought them to be men, while Abraham understood Him to be God. But he too, by offering those services of hospitality of which I spoke above, which could be necessary only for weak flesh, it would be strange if he did not first suppose them to be men. But perhaps, you will say, he understood God to be speaking through certain signs of divine majesty existing and appearing, as the Scripture testifies has often happened in men of God. But again it is asked, if this is so, how they afterward came to know that they had been angels — unless perhaps because, while they watched, they went up into heaven.

'For I knew that he will command his sons and his household after him, and they will keep the ways of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham all the things which He has spoken to him.' Behold, here the Lord promises Abraham not only rewards, but also the obedience of his sons to justice, so that concerning them too the promised rewards may be fulfilled. 'Going down, therefore, I will see whether they are being consummated according to their cry which comes to me; but if not, that I may know.' If we take these words not as of one doubting which of two things will rather come to pass, but as of one who is angry and threatening, there is no question. For God speaks in the Scriptures to men after the human manner, and those who have known His anger have known how to understand it without perturbation in Him.

We too are accustomed to speak thus by way of threat: 'Let us see whether I do not do it to you,' or 'Let us see whether I do not do it to him,' and 'If I cannot do it to you, at least let me know,' that is, 'This very thing I will try, whether I cannot.' When this is said by way of threatening, not of ignorance, the affection of one angry appears; but perturbation does not befall God. The manner of human speech is both customary and suited to human weakness, to which God adapts His own speech. It is customarily asked whether what God said concerning Sodom — that He would not destroy the place if even ten just men were found there — is to be understood by a certain special sentence concerning that city, or generally concerning all, that God spares a place in which even ten just men are found.

In this question it is indeed not necessary that we be compelled to take this concerning every place; yet nevertheless concerning Sodom it could be said thus also, because God knew that there were not even ten there. And therefore it was answered thus to Abraham, so that it might be signified that not even so many could be found there, to the aggravation of their iniquity. For it was not necessary for God to spare such wicked men, lest He should destroy the just along with them, since He was able, the just being delivered from thence, to render fitting punishments to the ungodly. But, as I have said, to show the malignity of that multitude, He said, 'If I find ten there, I will spare the whole city.' As if He were to say:

'Certainly I can neither destroy the godly with the ungodly, nor yet on that account spare the ungodly, since, the godly being delivered and separated thence, I can repay the ungodly their due; and yet, if they are found there, I spare' — that is, because not even so many could be found there. Something similar occurs in Jeremiah, where he says: 'Go about the streets of Jerusalem and see and seek in her squares and know: if you find a man doing justice and seeking faith, then I will be merciful to their sins' — that is, 'Find even one, and I spare the rest,' to aggravate and demonstrate that not even one could be found there. That Lot met the angels and bowed his face to the ground, he seems to have understood that they were angels;

but again, when he invites them to the refreshment of the body, which is necessary for mortals, he seems to have thought that they were men. Therefore the question is resolved in like manner as it was resolved concerning the three who came to Abraham: that by certain signs it appeared they were sent from God, who nevertheless were believed to be men. For this too is in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where, when the Scripture was speaking of the good of hospitality, it says: 'For by this some, without knowing it, entertained angels as guests.' As to what Lot said to the Sodomites: 'I have two daughters who have not yet known men; I will bring them out to you, use them as it pleases you; only to these men do no wrong.'

Since he wished to prostitute his daughters by this compensation, so that his guests should suffer no such thing from the Sodomites, it is rightly asked whether such a compensation of shameful deeds or of any sins whatever is to be admitted — that we should do some evil, lest another do a graver evil — or whether it is rather to be attributed to Lot's perturbation, not to his deliberate counsel, that he said this. And doubtless this compensation is admitted most perilously. But if it is attributed to human perturbation and to a mind so agitated by so great an evil, it is by no means to be imitated. 'But the men who were at the door of the house they smote with blindness.' The Greek has 'aorasia,' which signifies more, if it could be so said, 'not-seeing' — such as makes one not see, not all things, but what is not needful.

For it rightly perplexes us how they could fail in seeking the door, if they had been smitten with such blindness that they saw nothing at all; for in that case, confounded by their own calamity, they would seek the door no further. This 'aorasia' both those who sought Elisha were smitten with. This too those had who, walking with the Lord on the road after the resurrection, did not recognize Him, although the word is not there set down, but the thing itself is understood. 'And Lot said to them, I pray, Lord, since your servant has found mercy before you and you have magnified your justice which you do toward me, that my soul may live; but I cannot be saved in the mountain, lest perhaps evils overtake me and I die.'

In this perturbation of fear he did not believe the Lord Himself, whom he recognized in the angels — the same fear by which he had also said that thing about prostituting his daughters — so that we may understand that what he said about the shame of his daughters is not to be held as of authority; for neither is this to be held as of authority, that the Lord is not to be believed. 'And God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow.' The Scripture commends that Lot was delivered rather by the merits of Abraham, so that we may understand Lot to have been called just in a certain manner, chiefly because he worshipped the one true God, and on account of the comparison with the crimes of the Sodomites, among whom, living, he could not be inclined to a life like theirs. 'And Lot went up from Zoar and dwelt in the mountain.'

It would be strange if it were not that same mountain, into which he went up of his own accord, though at the Lord's warning he had been unwilling to go up; for either there is no other, or none appears. 'For he feared to dwell in Zoar.' To his weakness and his fear the Lord had granted the city which Lot himself had chosen, and in it He had promised him safety, that on his account He would spare the city. Yet even there he was afraid to be; so his faith was of no great strength. 'And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister; for he feared to say, She is my wife, lest perhaps the men of the city should kill him on her account.' It is customarily asked how at that age Abraham still feared danger on account of Sarah's beauty.

But the power of her beauty, which could still be loved, is rather to be marvelled at than to be thought a difficult question. As to what God said to Abimelech on account of Sarah: 'And I spared you, that you should not sin against me,' when He warned him that she whom he thought to be his sister was Abraham's wife — it must be observed and noted that one sins against God when such things are committed as men think are to be held lightly, as sins of the flesh. But as to what He said to him, 'Behold, you shall die,' this too must be noted, how God speaks as one foretelling without doubt that which will come to pass, which He says by way of warning, so that by abstaining from the sin it may be guarded against. It is rightly asked why Abraham made a feast neither on the day his son was born to him nor on the day he was circumcised, but on the day he was weaned.

Unless this be referred to some spiritual signification, there is no solution to the question: namely, that there ought then to be great joy of the spiritual age, when a man has been made a new spiritual man — that is, not such as those to whom the Apostle says: 'I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not yet able. But neither are you yet able; for you are still carnal.' It is asked, since Sarah said, 'Cast out the handmaid and her son; for the son of the handmaid shall not be heir with my son Isaac,' why Abraham was grieved, since this was a prophecy, which surely he himself ought to have known better than Sarah.

But it must be understood either that Sarah said this from a revelation, because it had first been revealed to her, while he — whom the Lord afterward instructs concerning this — was moved with fatherly affection for his son; or that both were at first ignorant of what that might be, and that this was prophetically spoken through Sarah, who did not know it, when she was moved with a womanly spirit on account of the handmaid's pride. It must be noted that Ishmael too was called by God the seed of Abraham, on account of that which the Apostle teaches is to be so taken, that was said, 'In Isaac shall your seed be called,' that is, 'Not the children of the flesh, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed':

so that this properly pertains to Isaac, who was not a son of the flesh, but a son of the promise, where the promise is made concerning all nations. 'And Abraham rose up in the morning and took loaves and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar; and he placed them on her shoulders, and the boy; and he sent her away.' A question is customarily raised how he placed on her shoulders the boy also, so grown. For he who had been circumcised at thirteen years before Isaac was born — when Abraham was ninety-nine, and Isaac was born when his father was a hundred — and since Ishmael was playing with Isaac when Sarah was provoked, that is, with the boy grown somewhat larger, who had already been weaned, Ishmael was assuredly more than sixteen years old when he was expelled with his mother from his father's house.

But even if we take what is said of his playing with the little one to be said by way of recapitulation, before Isaac was weaned, then even so it is quite absurd that a boy of more than thirteen years should be believed to have been placed on his mother's shoulders with the skin and the loaves. Yet how easily the question is resolved, if we understand not 'he placed,' but 'he gave.' For Abraham gave, as it is written, to his mother the loaves and the skin, which she placed on her own shoulders. And when it is added and said 'and the boy,' we understand 'he gave' — he who had given the loaves and the skin — not 'he placed on her shoulders.' 'And the water failed from the skin, and she cast the boy under a single fir tree; and she went away and began to sit down opposite him, far off, about a bowshot; for she said:

I will not see the death of my son. And she sat opposite him. But the boy, crying out, wept. And God heard the voice of the boy from the place where he was. And the angel of God called Hagar from heaven and said to her: What is it, Hagar? Do not fear; for God has heard the voice of your son from the place in which he is. Arise and take the boy and hold him with your hand; for I will make him into a great nation.' It is customarily asked how, since the boy was more than fifteen years old, his mother cast him under a tree and went far off, about a bowshot, so as not to see him dying. For it seems to sound, from what is said, as though she cast down the one she was carrying, especially because there follows, 'the boy wept.' But it must be understood that he was cast out not by one carrying him, but,

as it happens, by the mind, as one about to die. For neither was he being carried who said, as it is written, 'I have been cast away from before your eyes.' And it is in everyday usage of speech, when someone is said to be cast off by another with whom he was, so as not to be seen by him or to remain with him. But it must be understood — what the Scripture left unsaid — that the mother so withdrew from her son that the boy did not know where his mother had gone, and that she hid among the woodland thickets, so as not to see her son failing from thirst. And he, even at that age, what wonder if, his mother not being seen for a longer time and as it were lost, he wept in that place where he had remained alone? Therefore what is afterward said,

'Take the boy,' was said not so that she should lift him from the ground as though lying there, but that she should be joined to him and thenceforth hold him by the hand as a companion, just as he was — which those walking together, of whatever age, generally do. 'And it came to pass at that time that Abimelech said,' and so forth. It can be asked when Abraham made a covenant with this Abimelech and the well which he dug was called 'the well of the oath,' how it agrees with the truth. For Hagar, expelled from Abraham's house with her son, was wandering near the well, as was said, 'of the oath,' which is said to have been made by Abraham much later; for there Abimelech and Abraham swore, which had by no means yet been done when Hagar with her son had been expelled from Abraham's house.

How then was she wandering near the well of the oath? Is it to be understood that it had already been done and afterward recorded by way of recapitulation — what Abraham transacted with Abimelech? Unless perhaps he who wrote the book long afterward named, from the name of the well of the oath, the region in which the mother was wandering with her son, as though he said: she was wandering in that region where the well of the oath was made — although the well was made afterward, yet long before the age of the writer; and it was so called when the book was being written, retaining the ancient name which Abraham had imposed. But if it is the same well which Hagar saw with opened eyes, nothing remains except that the question be resolved by way of recapitulation.

Nor ought it to trouble anyone how Hagar did not know the well which Abraham had dug, if it was dug before she was expelled. For it could very well have happened that, for the sake of his flocks, he dug a well far from the house in which he dwelt with his own, which she did not know. It can be asked how Abraham had planted a field at the well of the oath, if in that land, as Stephen says, he had received no inheritance nor even a foot's space. But that inheritance is to be understood which God was to give by His own gift, not bought with a price. And the space around the well is understood to pertain to that pact of purchase, in which seven ewe-lambs were given, when Abimelech and Abraham also swore to each other. 'And God tempted Abraham.'

It is commonly asked how this can be true, since James in his epistle says that God tempts no one. The answer is that, by the usage of Scripture, 'to tempt' is regularly said in the sense of 'to test.' But the temptation of which James speaks is understood only of that by which anyone becomes entangled in sin. Hence the Apostle says: lest perchance he who tempts should have tempted you. For elsewhere too it is written: The Lord your God tempts you, that he may know whether you love him. Here also the phrase 'that he may know' is used as if it were said 'that he may make you know,' since the strength of one's own love lies hidden from a man unless it is made known even to himself by a divine trial. The voice of the angel from heaven to Abraham: Lay not your hand upon the boy, neither do anything to him;

For now I know that you fear God. This question too is resolved by a similar mode of speech; for this is its meaning: 'Now I know that you fear God' signifies 'Now I have made you to know it.' In what follows this manner of speaking clearly appears, where it is said: And Abraham called the name of that place 'the Lord has seen,' so that men say to this day, 'On the mountain the Lord appeared.' 'He has seen' stands for 'he appeared,' that is, 'he has seen' stands for 'he caused to be seen,' signifying through the efficient cause the thing that is brought about, just as cold is called 'sluggish' because it makes men sluggish. And you have not spared your beloved son for my sake. Did Abraham not spare his son for the angel's sake and not for God's sake?

Either, then, the Lord Christ is signified under the name of the angel — who without doubt is God, and is plainly called by the prophet 'the Angel of great counsel' — or else God was in the angel and the angel spoke in the person of God, as often happens with the prophets too. For in what follows this seems the more apparent, where it is read: And the angel of the Lord called Abraham a second time from heaven, saying: By myself have I sworn, says the Lord. For it is not easily found that the Lord Christ calls the Father 'Lord' as though his own Lord, especially at that time, before he took flesh. For according to that whereby he took the form of a servant, this does not seem incongruously said. For according to the prophecy of this future thing is that saying in the psalm: The Lord said to me:

You are my Son. For not even in the Gospel itself do we easily find that God the Father is called 'Lord' by Christ, as though he were his Lord; although we do find 'God' in that place where he says: I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God. But as for what is written: The Lord said to my Lord, this is referred to the very one who was speaking, that is: 'The Lord said to my Lord' — namely, the Father to the Son; and 'the Lord rained from the Lord' — he who was writing said this, so that it may be understood that his Lord rained from his Lord, that is, our Lord from our Lord, the Son from the Father.

As to the fact that among those who were reported to Abraham to have been born as sons to his brother, there is also named Kemuel the father of the Syrians, surely those who brought the report could not have reported the father of the Syrians; for from his origin the Syrian race was propagated long afterward. But it was said from the person of the writer, who, after all those times, narrated these things in writing, just as we said above concerning the well of the oath. And Abraham, rising up, did obeisance to the people of the land. It is asked how it is written: You shall adore the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve, whereas Abraham thus honoured a certain gentile people, so as even to do obeisance to them. But it must be observed that in the same precept it was not said: 'the Lord your God only shall you adore,' as it was said:

and him only shall you serve, which in Greek is 'latreuseis.' For such service is owed to none but God. Hence idolaters are condemned, that is, those who render to idols this kind of service which is owed to God. Nor let it disturb anyone that in another place, in a certain Scripture, an angel forbids a man to worship him and admonishes that the Lord should rather be worshipped; for such an angel had appeared as could be worshipped in place of God, and therefore the worshipper had to be corrected.

As to the fact that Abraham commands his servant to place his hand under his thigh, and so puts him under oath by the Lord God of heaven and the Lord of earth, this is wont to move the untutored who do not attend to the great prophecy about Christ contained therein — namely, that the Lord God of heaven and Lord of earth himself was to come in that flesh which was propagated from that thigh. It must be inquired how unlawful auguries differ from that asking for a sign by which Abraham's servant asked that God would show him her who was to be the wife of his master Isaac: he asked that, when he had begged of her that she give him to drink, it might be said to him, 'Drink you also, and I will draw water for your camels too until they cease to drink.'

For it is one thing to ask for some marvel which by the miracle itself may be a sign, and another to observe those things which happen in such a way that they are not marvels, but are interpreted by diviners with superstitious vanity. But this very thing — that some marvel is demanded whereby may be signified what anyone wishes to know, whether the matter should be ventured — is no small question. For to this pertains the fact that those who do this wrongly are said to tempt the Lord. For the Lord himself, when he was tempted by the devil, brought forward the testimony from the Scriptures: You shall not tempt the Lord your God. For it was suggested to him, as to a man, that he should himself by some sign explore how great he was, that is, how much he could avail with God: which is done faultily, when it is done.

But from this is distinguished what Gideon did when the danger of battle was imminent; for that was rather a consultation than a tempting of God. Hence also Ahaz in Isaiah is afraid to ask a sign, lest he should seem to tempt God, when the Lord admonishes him to do so through the prophet — believing, I suppose, that he was being tested by the prophet himself, whether he was mindful of the precept whereby we are forbidden to tempt God. The servant of Abraham, narrating what had been commanded him by his master, says that he had said to him: You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell in their land, but you shall go into the house of my father and into my tribe, and shall take a wife for my son from thence — and the rest.

If one reads how these things were commanded him, the same sense is found; but the words are not all either the same or spoken in the same way. This I thought worth pointing out on account of foolish and unlearned men who on this ground bring a calumny against the evangelists, because in certain words they do not agree in every respect, although in matters and meanings they do not disagree at all. For certainly one man wrote this book, so that he was able to set down thus, or on rereading, those things which Abraham said above when he gave the command, if he judged it pertinent to the matter — since the truth of a narrative requires nothing except that it be of the matters and meanings whereby the intention, for the sake of imparting which the words are made, may be sufficiently apparent. As to what the Latin codices have, when Abraham's servant narrates what his master had commanded him:

then you shall be guiltless of my oath, or: of my swearing — the Greek has: of my curse. For 'horkos' means an oath, 'ara' a curse; whence also one is called 'kataratos,' cursed, or 'epikataratos.' Accordingly the question arises how that oath can be understood as a curse, except that he is cursed who acts against the oath. If, then, you show mercy and righteousness toward my master, tell me. Those two things which are constantly set together in the other holy Scriptures, and especially in the Psalms — mercy and righteousness (for 'mercy and truth' means just as much) — here already begin to appear. Behold, Rebecca is before you; take her and run; and let her be the wife of your master's son, as the Lord has spoken.

It is asked when the Lord had spoken. The answer must be either that they knew Abraham to be a prophet and recognized that what had been said through him was spoken prophetically by the Lord; or else they called the Lord's speaking that sign which his servant narrated had been given to him — for this is the more clearly expressed regarding Rebecca. For what Abraham had said, he had not said of Rebecca, but of some woman from his tribe or kindred; and this was said as covering both cases, that the servant might be free from the oath if he did not obtain his request. But this is by no means said when something is prophesied; for prophecy ought to be certain. As to what Rebecca's brothers said to her as she set out: You are our sister;

may you become thousands of thousands, and may your seed possess by inheritance the cities of their adversaries — they were not prophets, nor did they wish this out of so great a vanity; but what God had promised to Abraham could not lie hidden from them. As to what is written: And Isaac went out to exercise himself in the field toward evening — those who do not know the Greek word regarding this matter think it means bodily exercise. But it is written in Greek 'adoleschesai'; and 'adoleschein' pertains to exercise of the mind, and is often reckoned a fault, yet by the usage of the Scriptures is for the most part set in a good sense. For this word some of our translators put 'exercise,' some 'garrulity' as it were 'wordiness,' which in a good sense, so far as pertains to Latin speech, is scarcely or never found.

But, as I have said, in the Scriptures it is for the most part used in a good sense, and it seems to me to signify the disposition of a mind pondering something most studiously with delight in the thought — unless those who understand these Greek words better hold another opinion. Now Abraham, adding, took a wife by name Keturah. This would be a question if it were a sin, especially in the ancients who gave attention to the propagation of offspring. For whatever else may be suspected here rather than incontinence in so great a man, especially at that already advanced age. But why he begot sons of this woman, he who had begotten a son of Sarah by a miracle, was stated above;

although some assert that the gift which Abraham received, as of a body restored to life for the begetting of sons, remained a long while, so that he could beget others also. But it is much more decisive that an older man could beget of a young girl what he could not beget of an older woman, unless God had there wrought a miracle, especially on account of Sarah's not only age but also barrenness. Yet even a man of greater age, and, as the Scripture says, full of days, can be called an old man — that is, 'presbytes' — as may be understood from this, that Abraham was so called when he died. Accordingly every old man is also a 'presbytes,' but not every 'presbytes' an old man;

even so, one is an old man — because this is generally a name for the age which is below old age yet near to old age, and from this even old age itself takes its name in the Latin tongue, so that the elder is called 'presbys.' But among the Greeks, especially as the Scripture speaks, men are called 'presbyteroi' and 'neoteroi' even if the ages of young men are compared, which we call the elder and the younger. But this deed of Abraham — that after Sarah's death he begot sons of Keturah — is not to be taken as though it were done merely by human custom and by the thought of substituting a more numerous offspring.

For so men could take even what was done concerning Hagar, did not the Apostle admonish that those things were done prophetically, so that in both persons of the women and of their sons an allegorical signification figured forth the two Testaments unto the foretelling of things to come. Hence in this deed of Abraham too something of the sort must be sought. And even if it does not readily occur, I meanwhile state what does occur to me. The gifts which the sons of the concubines received seem to me to signify certain gifts of God given either in sacraments or in various signs, given even to the carnal people of the Jews and to heretics as to sons of concubines, whereas the gift of the inheritance, which is charity and eternal life, pertains to none but Isaac, that is, to the sons of the promise.