Latin original · 39 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 59:834–59:872 (1230 verses in all)
Accordingly, he who is rightly washed by the sacrament of baptism, which that water of sprinkling figured, is cleansed also spiritually, that is, invisibly, both in flesh and in soul, so that he may be clean both in body and in spirit. But as for its saying that the water of sprinkling is sprinkled with hyssop—by which herb we said above that faith is signified—what else occurs to us but what is written: 'cleansing their hearts by faith'? For baptism does not profit if faith be lacking. And it said that this is done by a clean man, wherein are signified the ministers who bear the person of their Lord, who is truly the clean Man. For of these ministers also it says in what follows:
'And he who sprinkles the water of sprinkling shall wash his garments'—that is, he shall be watchful also in body—'and he who touches the water of sprinkling shall be unclean until evening. And everything whatsoever that that unclean one touches shall be unclean; and the soul that touches it shall be unclean until evening.' I have already said above what 'until evening' seems to me to signify. 'Everyone who touches upon the face of the field one wounded or dead or a bone of a man or a grave.' It may be asked what is meant by 'wounded or dead.' For if it wished the wounded to be understood as one thing and the dead as another, care must be taken lest one also who touches a living wounded man be thought unclean—which is surely absurd.
But because the dead too can be wounded, it is understood to have distinguished the dead themselves, so that we understand also the wounded dead—that is, one slain by a wound, or dead without a wound. As for the water brought forth from the rock, the Apostle Paul explained what it was, when he says: 'And they all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ.' There is therefore signified the spiritual grace flowing from Christ, by which the inner thirst is watered. But that the rock is struck with a rod figures the cross of Christ. For with the wood applied to the rock this grace flowed forth; and that it is struck twice more evidently signifies the cross. For the cross is indeed two pieces of wood.
As for what is said of that water which flowed from the rock: 'This is the water of contradiction, because the children of Israel cursed before the Lord, and He was sanctified among them'—they cursed first, when they spoke against the benefit of the Lord by which they had been led out of Egypt; and afterward He was sanctified among them, when by that miracle of the flowing water His holiness was declared. Or perhaps it showed two kinds of men, both those who contradict the grace of Christ and those who receive the grace of Christ, so that to the former it be a water of contradiction, to the latter of sanctification. For of the Lord Himself it is read in the Gospel: 'And for a sign which shall be contradicted.' As for what Moses says among his commands to the king of Edom, among other things:
'Neither will we drink water from your well,' it is to be understood as 'gratis,' that is, 'because we will not drink gratis'—which he afterward makes plain, saying: 'But if we drink of your water, I and my cattle, I will give you a price. We will not turn aside to the right nor to the left'—it is said in the plural, in those things which are on the right or which are on the left. 'You shall not enter into the land which I have given to the children of Israel for a possession, because you have provoked me over the water of malediction'—which he called above the water of contradiction, he here calls the water of malediction: for he did not say 'antilogia' but 'loidoria.' 'And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said: If you deliver this people over to me subject'—that is:
'if by delivering him you shall subject him to me—I will devote him to destruction, him and his cities.' Here it must be seen how it is said 'I will devote to the anathema (anathemabo),' which is something vowed and yet is put in place of a curse, as is also said of this people. Whence comes that saying: 'If anyone shall preach to you a gospel other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.' Hence it has commonly been derived that it is called 'devotation'; for scarcely anyone says that someone 'devotes' himself except in the sense of cursing. 'And he devoted him and his cities to the anathema: and the name of that place was called Anathema.' Hence it has been derived that 'anathema' seems to be something detestable and abominable. For that the victor might carry off nothing thence for his own uses, but might vow the whole to be given over to punishment—this was to anathematize, which is commonly called 'to mark out for doom (denotare).'
But the origin of this word is in the Greek tongue, from those things which, being vowed and paid—that is, promised and rendered—were set up on high in the temples, 'apo tou anō tithenai,' that is, to set up on high, whether by fastening or by hanging. In the journey of the children of Israel, in which they moved forward and pitched their camps, among other things it is written: 'And thence they pitched camp beyond Arnon in Ermou, which stands out from the borders of the Amorites. For Arnon is the boundary of Moab, between Moab and the Amorite. Therefore it is said in the book: The war of the Lord set Zoob aflame, and the torrents of Arnon. And He set the torrents to inhabit Er.' In what book this was written, he did not mention, nor is it any of those which we call the canonical books of the divine Scriptures.
但這詞的起源出於希臘語，來自那些所許並償付之物——即所應許並奉還之物——被高高置於殿中，「apo tou anō tithenai」，即高高擺放，或釘掛，或懸置。以色列子民行程中，他們前行並紮營，經上於別的話之外記載：「他們從那裡越過阿爾農，在厄爾木紮營，那地凸出於阿摩黎人的邊界之外。因為阿爾農是摩阿布的邊界，在摩阿布與阿摩黎人之間。所以書上說：上主的戰爭焚燒了佐布，並阿爾農的急流。祂又使急流居於厄爾。」這寫在哪一卷書上，他未提及，也不是我們所稱為聖經正典書卷中的任何一卷。
From such passages those find occasions who try to insert apocryphal books into the ears of the incautious and the curious, in order to persuade men of fabulous impieties. But here it is said to be written in a book—it is not said in the sacred book of what prophet or patriarch. Nor is it to be denied that there were already books, whether of the Chaldeans, whence Abraham went forth, or of the Egyptians, where Moses had learned all their wisdom, or of any other nation, in some of whose books this could have been written—which nevertheless is not on that account to be taken up into those Scriptures to which divine authority is entrusted.
Just as neither that Cretan prophet, of whom the Apostle makes mention, nor the Greek writers—whether philosophers or poets—whom the same Apostle, speaking to the Athenians, affirms to have said something truly and genuinely put forth of some great matter: 'For in Him we live and move and have our being.' For it is permitted to divine authority to take testimony from wherever it wills, of whatever true thing it may find; but it does not on that account confirm that all things which are written there are to be received. But why this was mentioned in this place does not clearly appear; unless perhaps war was waged there in order that borders might be established between two nations, which war the men of that same place, on account of its magnitude, called 'the war of the Lord,' so that it was written in some book of theirs:
'The war of the Lord set Zoob aflame'—whether that city was burned in that same war, or was inflamed—that is, roused—to fighting, or whether something else lies hidden in the obscurity of this passage. 'This is the well of which the Lord said to Moses: Gather the people, and I will give them water to drink.' It is mentioned thus, as if somewhere above the Lord were read to have said this to Moses; but because it is nowhere found, here it is to be understood that there also the people drank, who were complaining of the drought. 'And Israel smote him with the slaughter of the sword; and they possessed his land from Arnon unto Jaboc, unto the children of Ammon, for Jazer is the border of the children of Ammon. And Israel took all these cities.'
'And Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites, in Hesebon.' Here certainly Israel possessed the cities of the Amorites, which they had overcome in war, because they did not devote them to the anathema; for if they had devoted them, it would not have been lawful for them to possess them, nor to appropriate anything of the spoil thence for their own uses. It is indeed to be noted how just wars were waged. For harmless passage was denied them, which by the most equitable law of human society ought to have lain open. But now, that God might fulfill His promises, He here aided the Israelites, to whom the land of the Amorites was to be given. For when Edom likewise denied them passage,
the Israelites did not fight with that very nation—that is, the sons of Jacob with the sons of Esau, of two brothers and twins—because He had not promised that land to the Israelites; but they turned aside from them. 'Therefore the riddlers (aenigmatistae) will say: Come into Hesebon,' and the rest. Who these riddlers are does not therefore appear, because they are not in the usage of our literature, nor in the divine Scriptures themselves is this name found in almost any other place.
But because they seem as it were to sing a song, in which they sang of the war waged between the Amorites and the Moabites, in which Seon king of the Amorites overcame the Moabites, it is not incredibly thought that these 'riddlers' were then so called whom we call poets, because it is the custom and license of poets to mix in their songs the riddles of fables, by which they are understood to signify something. For otherwise they would not be riddles, unless there were there a figurative mode of speech, which being examined, one might arrive at the understanding that lay hidden in the riddle.
As for what the Scripture says—that after Israel had conquered the Amorites and possessed all their cities, Balac king of the Moabites sent envoys to hire Balaam, by whom Israel might be cursed—it is sufficiently shown that not all the Moabites had come under the terms of Seon king of the Amorites when he overcame them in war, since indeed the nation of the Moabites remained until that time when Balac reigned as king of Moab. But as for what Moab said to the elders of Madian—that is, the Moabites to the elders of the Madianites: 'Now this synagogue will lick up all who are round about us'—it was not one nation, but neighbors said to neighbors what was equally to be guarded against. For Moab was the son of Lot by one of his daughters, but Madian was the son of Abraham by Cettura.
Therefore it was not one nation, but two, neighboring and adjoining. What is the meaning of what is written: 'and divinations in their hands,' since it was said of those whom Balac had sent to hire Balaam that he might curse Israel? Did they themselves divine? Or were they carrying something whence Balaam might do that by which he could divine—as it were some things which were burned in sacrifices or in some manner expended—and therefore they were called 'divinations,' because through these he could divine? Or was it something else? For it is obscurely said. It is indeed to be noted that God came to Balaam and said to him: 'What are these men with you?' and the rest.
Nor is it said whether this was done in a dream, although that it was done by night sufficiently appears, since after these things the Scripture says: 'And Balaam rising in the morning.' For it may disturb one how God spoke with a most wicked man—which, even if it were established to have been done in a dream, would not on that account leave no question remaining, on account of the very unworthiness. So also the Lord Jesus Christ says of that rich man who was planning to pull down his old storehouses and to fill larger new ones: 'God said to him: Fool, this night your soul shall be taken from you; and the things you have prepared, whose shall they be?'
Let no one glory that God speaks to him in the manner in which He knows such things are to be spoken, since this can happen even to the reprobate, because even when He speaks through an angel, He Himself speaks. As for what Balaam said, when more honorable messengers were sent to him again: 'If Balac shall give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot transgress the word of the Lord God to do it, small or great, in my mind'—this has no sin at all: but what follows is not without grave sin. For he ought already to have been constant, once he had heard what the Lord had said to him: 'You shall not go with them, nor curse the people;'
'for he is blessed,' nor should he give them any hope that the Lord could, like Balaam himself swayed by gifts and honors, change His sentence against His own people, whom He had said to be blessed. But there he showed himself overcome by covetousness, where he wished the Lord to speak to him again about this matter, concerning which he had already learned His will. For what need was there to add what follows: 'And now stay here, you also, this night, and I shall know what the Lord will add to speak to me'?
Accordingly the Lord, seeing his covetousness caught and vanquished by gifts, permitted him to go, that through the beast on which he rode He might restrain his avarice, confounding by this very thing that madness—namely, that the ass did not dare to transgress the prohibition of the Lord made through the angel, which he in his covetousness was attempting to transgress, though he suppressed that same covetousness through fear. For God came to Balaam by night and said to him: 'If the men have come to call you, rise up and follow them; but whatever word I shall speak to you, this you shall do. And Balaam rising in the morning saddled his ass and went with the princes of Moab.'
Why, after this permission, did he not consult God again, and yet after that prohibition think he must consult Him again, except because his malignant covetousness was appearing, though it was pressed down by fear of the Lord? Then the Scripture continues: 'And God was angry with indignation, because he himself was going; and the angel of God rose up, that he might not permit him on the way,' and the rest that follows, until the ass spoke. Nothing here indeed seems more marvelous than that, when the ass spoke, he was not terrified, but moreover replied to it with persevering anger, as though accustomed to such—monsters. Afterward the angel also speaks to him, rebuking and condemning his way: at the sight of which nevertheless, terrified, he adored.
Then he was permitted to go, so that now through him a most clear prophecy might be uttered. For he was by no means permitted to say what he wished, but what he was compelled to say by the power of the Spirit. And he himself indeed remained a reprobate; for later the holy Scripture spoke of him thus, that certain reprehensible and reprobate men were said to have followed his way. 'They have followed,' it says, 'the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of iniquity.' Concerning the angel who spoke to Balaam on the way, at whose sight his ass did not dare to advance, the Scripture speaks thus: 'And God was angry with indignation, because he himself was going; and the angel of God rose up to obstruct him on the way.'
Here first it is to be noted how, because God was angry, it said 'and the angel of God rose up,' and did not interpose that the angry God had sent the angel, but as it were signified the angry God in the angel, since the truth and justice of God made the angel to be angry. For that it said 'rose up' is surely to be understood as an agitation. Then, as for its saying 'to obstruct him on the way,' which in the Greek is placed as 'diabalein,' this the angel himself also says in what follows: 'And behold, I have come forth for your obstruction (dilationem),' where the Greek has 'diabolēn.' Here perhaps 'accusation' is more fittingly understood, so that here what is said 'to obstruct him on the way' may be taken as 'to accuse.'
Whence it is believed that the devil (diabolus) is so called, as one to be called in Latin an 'accuser,' not because no one can also accuse well and rightly, but because the devil loves to accuse, being surely goaded by the stings of envy, as is testified of him in the Apocalypse. This word is placed also in comedy, whence there is no doubt that it is Latin, under the same signification or at least a neighboring one, where it is said of a father angry with his son: 'He hopes to have found a speech by which he may put you off (differat te).' But here 'differat' is usually understood as 'may carry you here and there by a tempest of words,' as if 'may tear you apart and scatter you': which that one, by accusing, seemed likely to do.
But even if we understand 'to obstruct him on the way' thus—that the angel delayed his haste by holding him back, so that he might both show and tell him what was needful—the placing of this word even under that signification is not absurd. 'And when the ass had seen the angel of God standing in the way and the sword drawn in his hand, the ass turned aside from the way and went into the field.' This field was as yet outside the walls of the vineyards. 'And he struck the ass with a rod, that he might correct her onto the way. And the angel of God stood in the furrows of the vineyards, a wall on this side and a wall on that side.' It is rightly asked, if walls on this side and on that placed the way in the middle, as is usually the case, how the angel standing there is said to have stood in the furrows of the vineyards;
for the furrows of the vineyards could not have been in the way between the walls. But the order of the words is: 'that he might correct her onto the way, a wall on this side and a wall on that side.' In this way, then, Balaam wished to correct the ass, so that she might walk between the walls. But it is interposed: 'And the angel of God stood in the furrows of the vineyards'—namely in one of the vineyards, which placed the way in the middle. 'And when the ass had seen the angel of God, she pressed herself against the wall'—that is, against the wall of that very vineyard in which the angel was not, since he was on the other side in the furrows of the vineyards. 'And she pressed Balaam's foot against the wall; and he added still to beat her.'
'And the angel of God went on and, going forward, stood still in a narrow place'—now no longer in the furrows of the vineyards, but between the walls themselves, that is, in the way—'in which there was no turning aside to the right nor to the left. And when the ass had seen the angel of God, she sat down under Balaam.' For, being beaten, she did not go back, she did not press herself against the wall, since she was not frightened from the other side, but in the middle of the way, in the narrow place, was the angel; it remained, therefore, that she should sink down. 'And Balaam was angry and beat the ass with the rod. And God opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam: What have I done to you, that you have beaten me this third time? And Balaam said to the ass: Because you have mocked me. And if I had a sword in my hand, I would already have run you through.'
Doubtless this man was borne along by such great covetousness that he was not terrified even by the miracle of so great a portent, but answered as though speaking to a man—since God had by no means turned the soul of the ass into a rational nature, but had made what pleased Him to sound forth from her, in order to restrain that man's madness—foreshadowing perhaps that God was about to choose the foolish things of the world, that He might confound the wise, for the sake of that spiritual and true Israel, that is, the children of the promise. 'And the Spirit of God came upon him,' that is, upon Balaam. The Spirit of God was not 'made,' as though the Spirit of God were something made; but 'He was made upon him,' that is, it was brought about that He should be upon him: just as:
'He who came after me was made before me,' that is, it was brought about that He should be before me, that He should be preferred to me, 'because,' he says, 'He was prior to me,' just as: 'The Lord was made my helper'—for the Lord is not something made, but it was brought about that He should help me—and: 'The Lord was made a refuge for the poor,' that is, it was brought about that the poor should flee to Him, and: 'The hand of the Lord was made upon me,' that is, it was brought about that it should be upon me; and many such things are found in the Scriptures. 'And the Lord said to Moses: Take the leaders of the people and set them up as an example to the Lord over against the sun; and the wrath of the Lord's indignation shall be turned away from Israel.'
God, being angry over the fornications of Israel, both carnal and spiritual—for they had both mingled themselves shamefully with the daughters of Moab and had been consecrated to idols—said this to Moses, that he should set up the leaders of the people as an example to the Lord over against the sun. In which word it is understood that they were commanded to be crucified, so that this is the meaning: 'set them up as an example to the Lord over against the sun,' that is, openly in the sight of this light. For the Greek says 'paradeigmatison,' which might be rendered 'make them examples,' because 'paradeigma' means 'example.' For besides the Seventy translators, Aquila is reported to have said 'fasten,' or rather 'fasten up on high,' which is 'anapēxon,' while Symmachus with a plainer word said 'hang.'
It is indeed remarkable that the Scripture ceased to relate whether this was fulfilled according to the Lord's command: which I do not see could have been despised, or, if it was despised, despised with impunity. But if it was done and passed over in silence, why does the Scripture testify that the Lord was appeased and the plague ceased because Phinees the son of Eleazar ran the adulterers through? As if, the leaders having been crucified as the Lord had commanded, the indignation still persevering seemed to need to be appeased in another way—when it could beyond doubt not be false what the Lord had foretold and promised, saying: 'Take the leaders of the people and set them up as an example to the Lord over against the sun; and the wrath of the Lord's indignation shall be turned away from Israel.'
If, then, it had been done, who would doubt that the Lord's wrath had been turned away from Israel? Why, therefore, was there still need for Phinehas to take vengeance thus upon the adulterers in order to appease God, and for Scripture to bear him witness that in this way he appeased the Lord? Unless perhaps we are to understand that, when Moses was preparing to carry out concerning the leaders of the people what he had commanded, he willed also that such shameful deeds and sacrilegious audacity be punished according to the law, so that he ordered each man to kill his neighbour who had been wickedly consecrated to strange gods; and that in the meantime Phinehas did that deed as well, and thus, the Lord's wrath being now appeased, there was no need for the leaders of the people to be crucified.
This severity, indeed, suited to that age, shows sufficiently plainly to the faith of the prudent how great an evil are fornication and idolatry. The Lord names for Moses the same cause of death as for his brother; for to both he had beforehand foretold this also, that they would not enter with the people of God into the land of promise, because they had not sanctified Him before the people at the water of contradiction; that is, because they had doubted concerning His gift, that water could flow forth from the rock, as we have expounded in that very passage of Scripture.
But the mystery of this matter is given us to understand: that neither the priesthood which was first instituted, whose person Aaron bore, nor the law itself, whose person Moses bore, brings the people of God into the land of the eternal inheritance, but Joshua (Jesus), in whom there was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, grace through faith. And Aaron indeed died before Israel entered into any part of the land of promise; but while Moses was still living the land of the Amorites was taken and possessed, yet he was not permitted to cross the Jordan with them. For in some part the law is observed in the Christian faith; for there too are precepts which we Christians are commanded to observe even today.
But that priesthood and those sacrifices hold no part today in the Christian faith, except that they were performed and completed as shadows of things to come. But when it is said to both brothers, that is, to Aaron and Moses, that they be gathered to their people, it is manifest that there was not against them that wrath of God which separates from the peace of the holy and eternal fellowship. From which it is made clear that not only their offices but even their deaths were signs of things to come, not punishments of God's indignation. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Take to yourself Joshua the son of Nun, a man who has the Spirit in himself, and lay your hands upon him; and you shall set him before Eleazar the priest, and shall give him a charge before all the congregation, and so on.
It is to be noted that, although Joshua the son of Nun already had the Spirit in himself, as Scripture testifies—where what else ought we to understand than the Holy Spirit? for it would not say this of the spirit of a man, which there was no one who did not have—yet Moses was nevertheless commanded to lay his hands upon him, lest any man, however excelling in grace, should dare to refuse the sacraments of consecration. What is it that, when God was giving Moses a command concerning Joshua the son of Nun, He says among other things: and you shall give of your glory upon him? For in the Greek expression it has 'tēs doxēs,' which means as much as if it said 'of your glory,' that is, tēs doxēs. But some Latin translators have rendered it: 'you shall give your glory,' not 'of your glory.'
But whether it were so that it said 'your glory,' Moses would not on that account cease to have it; nor, because it said 'of your glory,' was what he had thereby diminished. For it is to be taken as if it said: you shall make him a sharer of your glory; but things of this kind, being as it were divided into parts, are not diminished, but are whole for all, whole for each individual who has fellowship in them. Any man whatsoever who shall vow a vow to the Lord, or shall swear an oath, or shall bind himself by a binding obligation concerning his soul, shall not profane his word: all things whatsoever that have gone forth out of his mouth he shall do.
This does not pertain to every oath, but to that in which someone vows concerning his soul abstinence from some particular thing which it was lawful for him to use according to the law, but which by his vow he makes unlawful for himself. But if a woman shall vow a vow to the Lord, or bind herself by a binding obligation in her father's house in her youth, and her father hears her vows and her bindings which she has bound against her soul, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and all the bindings which she has bound against her soul shall remain to her. But if her father utterly refuses on whatever day he hears all her vows and her bindings which she has bound against her soul, they shall not stand;
and the Lord will cleanse her, because her father refused. Since indeed it speaks of a woman who is still in her youth in her father's house, it is rightly here inquired also concerning the vow of virginity; for that women, even virgins, are wont to be called in Scripture is very well known. And the Apostle too seems to speak of the father when he says: let him keep his virgin, and: let him give his virgin in marriage, and other things in this manner. Where some have understood 'his virgin' to mean 'his virginity'; yet they show no like expression of the Scriptures for this, since it is most unusual. But what it says: against her soul, is not to be taken as though such vows harm the soul; rather 'against the soul' is said as 'against the animal delight.'
Just as also, giving a precept above concerning fasting, it says: and you shall afflict your souls. But what it says: and the Lord will cleanse her, because her father refused—by 'will cleanse' it means 'will absolve her from the guilt of the vow not fulfilled.' As in many places it is said: and the priest shall cleanse him; that is, he shall hold him clean, shall judge him clean; as is also that saying: in cleansing you shall not cleanse the guilty, that is: you shall not call clean him who is unclean. But if she has been given to a husband, and her vows are upon her according to the utterance of her lips whatever she has bound against her soul, and her husband hears and holds his peace at her on whatever day he hears, then all her vows shall stand, and the bindings which she has bound against her soul shall stand.