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.
What does it mean that it is written: These are the names of the sons of Ishmael according to the names of their generations? For it is not sufficiently clear why it was added 'according to the names of their generations,' since these alone are named whom he begot, not also those who were begotten of them. Unless perhaps this was signified — that the nations propagated from them are called by their names — when it was said 'according to the names of their generations.' Although in this way those nations are rather named after these men, not these names after those nations, since the nations arose later. Hence the manner of speech is to be noted, because afterward too it is said of them: twelve princes according to their nations.
As to what is written concerning Rebecca, that she went to inquire of the Lord when the babes struggled in her womb, it is asked whither she went. For there were not then prophets or priests according to the order of the Lord's tabernacle or temple. Therefore whither she went rightly moves us — unless perhaps to the place where Abraham had set up an altar. But how responses were given forth there Scripture is entirely silent: whether through some priest — which is incredible, that if there was one, he should not have been named, and no mention at all should have been made there of any priests — or perhaps that there, when in praying they had laid out their desires, they slept in the place, so as to be admonished through a dream?
Or was Melchizedek still living, whose excellence was so great that it is doubted by some whether he was a man or an angel? Or were there even in that time certain such men of God in whom God could be inquired of? Whichever of these it is — and if there is any other which may perhaps have escaped me so that I did not mention it — nevertheless the Scripture cannot lie, which said that Rebecca went to inquire of the Lord, and that the Lord answered her. In that which the Lord answered to Rebecca: Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your belly;
and one people shall be stronger than the other, and the elder shall serve the younger — by spiritual understanding, the carnal among the people of God are signified through the elder son, and the spiritual through the younger, because, as the Apostle says, not first that which is spiritual but that which is animal, afterward the spiritual. It is also wont to be understood thus, that in Esau is figured the greater people of God, that is, the Israelite according to the flesh, while through Jacob is figured Jacob himself according to the spiritual offspring. But this response is found to be fulfilled also by historical property, where the people of Israel — that is, Jacob the younger son — overcame the Edomites, that is, the nation which Esau propagated, and made them tributaries through David:
which lasted a long time, down to the king under whom the Edomites rebelled and cast off the yoke of the Israelites from their neck, according to the prophecy of Isaac himself, when he blessed the younger before the elder. For he said this to the same elder son when he afterward blessed him also. But Jacob was a simple man dwelling at home. What in Greek is called 'aplastos,' the Latins have interpreted 'simple'; but properly 'aplastos' means 'not feigned.' Hence some Latin interpreters have rendered 'without guile,' saying: Jacob was without guile, dwelling at home — so that it is a great question how one who was without guile received the blessing through guile. But to signify something great the Scripture set this down beforehand.
For hence we are especially compelled to understand spiritual things in that place, because he was without guile who wrought guile. What we should feel about this we have said sufficiently in a certain sermon delivered before the people. As to what is written: Now there was a famine over the land, besides the famine which had been before in the time of Abraham; and Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines in Gerar — it is asked when this happened: whether after Esau sold his birthright for the food of lentils (for after that narrative this begins to be narrated), or whether, as often happens, the narrator returned by recapitulation to those events, when, having advanced concerning his sons, he had reached that point which is recorded about the lentils.
But it moves us — because the very same Abimelech is found who had also desired Sarah; for his groomsman and the commander of his army, who were mentioned there, are mentioned here also — whether they could even have lived. For when he became the friend of Abraham, Isaac was not yet born, but already promised. Let us suppose that this happened a year before Isaac was born; then Isaac begot sons when he was sixty years old; but those sons were young men when Esau sold his birthright — let us suppose that they too were about twenty years old; there come to be about eighty years of Isaac's age down to that deed of his sons.
let us take it that Abimelech was a young man when he desired Isaac's mother and became Abraham's friend: he could therefore now be about a hundred years old, if after that deed of his sons Isaac proceeded into that land under compulsion of famine. Therefore no necessity compels us on this ground to think that Isaac's journey into Gerar is narrated by recapitulation. But because it is written that Isaac was there a long time and dug wells and contended about them and was enriched with wealth, it would be a wonder if these things were not recorded by way of recapitulation — things which had for that reason been passed over, so that first the narrative concerning his sons might reach that point about the lentils. In that which the Scripture says of Isaac: And the Lord blessed him.
and the man was exalted and going forward became greater, until he became very great — the sequel teaches that this was said according to earthly prosperity. For the narrator pursues his very riches by which he became great; and moved by this, Abimelech feared him to be there, lest his power should be hostile to himself. Although, therefore, these things signify something spiritual, nevertheless according to that whereby they came to pass, it was for this reason set down beforehand, 'the Lord blessed him,' that by sound faith we may understand that even these temporal gifts can neither be given nor ought to be hoped for — even when they are sought by the weaker — save from the one God: so that he who is faithful in the least may be faithful also in much, and he who has been found faithful in the unrighteous mammon
may also be counted worthy to receive the true riches, as the Lord speaks in the Gospel. Such things were said also of Abraham, that the gifts of God came to him. Hence this narrative not a little edifies sound faith for those who understand it piously, even if from these matters no allegorical signification can be carved out. Let there be an execration between us and you — that is, an oath which binds with curses that may befall him who perjures himself. According to this must be considered also what Abraham's servant recorded, narrating to those from whom he received a wife for his master Isaac. What is the meaning of what is written, that when Isaac's servants came and said, 'We have dug a well and have not found water,' Isaac called that same well 'Oath'?
Or, although it was a fact, must it without doubt be led to some spiritual signification, since it has no fitness according to the letter, that he should for this reason have called the well 'Oath,' because no water was found there? Although other interpreters have said that Isaac's servants rather announced that water had been found; but even so, why was it called 'Oath,' where no swearing had taken place? Since so great a patriarch as Isaac, before he dies, seeks from his son venison and food such as he loves, as for a great benefit, and promises a blessing, we judge that it is by no means empty of prophetic signification:
especially since his wife hastens that the younger, whom she loved, may receive that blessing, and the rest in the same narrative greatly move us to understand or seek out greater things. As to what the Latin codices have: But Isaac was struck with a very great fear — the Greek has: 'exestē de Isaak ekstasin megalēn sphodra' — wherein is understood so great a commotion that a certain alienation of mind followed. For this properly is called 'ekstasis.' And because it is wont to happen in revelations of great things, in this we must understand that a spiritual admonition was made, so that he might confirm his blessing upon the younger son, upon whom rather he ought to have been angry because he had deceived his father.
尤其因他的妻子急切要那她所愛的幼子得那祝福，而同一敘述中其餘的內容也大大促使我們去理解或尋求更大之事。至於拉丁抄本所載：以撒大大戰兢——希臘文作：「exestē de Isaak ekstasin megalēn sphodra」——其中所理解的震動如此之大，以致隨之而來一種心思的恍惚。因為這才正稱為「ekstasis（出神）」。而因為這常在偉大之事的啟示中發生，在此我們當理解為有一種屬靈的指示臨到，好使他堅定他對幼子的祝福，儘管他本該對那幼子發怒，因為他欺騙了父親。
So also concerning Adam, when that great sacrament is prophesied which the Apostle speaks of in Christ and in the Church — They shall be two in one flesh — it is said that an ecstasy preceded. How were Esau's words announced or reported to Rebecca, by which he threatened to kill his brother, when the Scripture says that he said this in his own thought? Only that from this we are given to understand that all things were divinely revealed to them. Hence it pertains to a great mystery that she wished her younger son to be blessed before the elder. As to what the Latin codices have, Isaac saying to his son: Go into Mesopotamia, into the house of Bethuel your mother's father, and take yourself a wife from thence — the Greek codices do not have 'go' but 'flee,' that is, 'apodrathi.'
whence it is understood that Isaac too had come to know what his son Esau had said in his thought concerning his brother. And Jacob rose up from his sleep and said, 'The Lord is in this place, and I knew it not.' And he was afraid and said: 'How terrible is this place! This is nothing else than the house of God; and this is the gate of heaven.' These words pertain to prophecy, because there was to be there the tabernacle which the Lord established among men in his first people. But the gate of heaven we ought to understand thus, as if from thence there be made an entrance for believers to lay hold of the kingdom of heaven. As to the fact that Jacob set up the stone which he had placed for himself at his head, and set it up as a pillar and poured oil upon it, he did nothing resembling idolatry.
For neither then nor afterward did he frequent the stone by adoring it or sacrificing to it; but it was a sign set up in a most evident prophecy, which pertains to anointing: whence the name of Christ is from 'chrism.' And Jacob called the name of that place 'the house of God'; and Ulammaus was the name of the city before. If it be understood that he slept beside the city, there is no question; but if within the city, it seems a wonder how he could have set up that pillar. And as to the fact that he vowed a vow, if he should prosper in going and returning, and promised tithes to the house of God that would be in that place, it is a prophecy of the house of God, where he himself also, on returning, sacrificed to God — not calling that stone God, but the house of God, that is, because in that place the house of God was to be.
As to the fact that Rachel came with her father's sheep, and Scripture says that when Jacob had seen Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, he drew near and rolled the stone from the mouth of the well, it is rather to be noted that the Scripture passes over something which we ought to understand, than that any question should be raised. For it is understood that those with whom Jacob first spoke, being asked who it was that was coming with the sheep, themselves said that she was the daughter of Laban — whom of course Jacob did not know; but Scripture, passing over their questioning and the answer of those men, wished it to be understood. As to what is written: And Jacob kissed Rachel and, crying out with his voice, wept.
and he told her that he was her father's brother and that he was the son of Rebecca — it was indeed the custom, especially in that simplicity of the ancients, for kinsmen to kiss their kinswomen, and this is done today in many places. But it may be asked how she received a kiss from one unknown, if Jacob afterward declared his kinship. Therefore it must be understood either that he, who had already heard who she was, confidently rushed to kiss her, or that Scripture afterward narrated by recapitulation what had first happened, that is, that Jacob declared who he was.
Just as concerning paradise it is afterward said how God established it, when it had already been said that God planted paradise and placed there the man whom he had fashioned; and many things are understood to be said by recapitulation. As to what is written: And Jacob served for Rachel seven years; and they were in his sight as but a few days, because he loved her — it must be inquired how this was said, since rather even a brief time is wont to be long for lovers. It was said, therefore, on account of the labour of servitude, which love made easy and light. If the narrative of this matter be little attended to, it will be thought that, after Jacob married Leah, he then served another seven years for Rachel and then married her.
But truly it is not so; rather Laban said to him: Fulfil therefore the week of this one, and I will give you this one also for the work which you will work with me yet another seven years. So what he says, 'Fulfil the week of this one,' pertains to the celebration of the wedding, which is wont to be celebrated for seven days. So this is what he says: Fulfil the seven days of the wedding pertaining to this one whom you have married, and I will give you this other one also for that which you will work with me yet another seven years. Then follows: And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week — that is, the seven days of Leah's wedding — and Laban gave him Rachel his daughter to himself as wife. And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid as a handmaid for her. And he went in to Rachel:
and he loved Rachel more than Leah; and he served him another seven years. Assuredly it appears that, after he had married Rachel, he then served for her another seven years. For it would have been too harsh and exceedingly unjust that Laban should still, after deceiving him, defer another seven years and only then hand over her whom he first owed. And that weddings were wont to be celebrated for seven days the book of Judges too shows in the case of Samson, when he made a feast for seven days. And Scripture added that young men were wont to do so; and he did this on account of his own wedding.
It is not easily discerned whom Scripture calls concubines and whom wives, since Hagar too is called a wife, who afterward is called a concubine, and Keturah likewise, and the handmaids whom Rachel and Leah gave to their husband. Unless perhaps every concubine is a wife, but not every wife is called a concubine according to the manner of speaking of the Scriptures; that is, so that Sarah and Rebecca and Leah and Rachel cannot be called concubines, but Hagar and Keturah and Bilhah and Zilpah are both wives and concubines. As to what the Latins have, when a son was born to Leah of Zilpah, that she said: I am made blessed, or happy — the Greek has 'eutychēs,' which rather signifies good fortune.
Hence it seems an occasion is given to those who do not understand well, as though those men worshipped Fortune, or as though the authority of the divine Scriptures received this word into usage. But either Fortune must be understood for those things which seem to happen by chance — not because there is any deity — since these very things which seem fortuitous are nevertheless divinely given by hidden causes; whence also the words which no one can remove from the custom of speaking are ready at hand, that is, 'perhaps' and 'peradventure' and 'perchance' and 'by chance'; whence in the Greek tongue too there seems to resound what they call 'tychē,' as if from that which is 'tynchanō' — or else Leah spoke thus for this reason, because she still retained the custom of gentile heathenism. For Jacob did not say this,
so that from this authority should be thought to be given to this word. As to what Jacob says: And the Lord blessed you at my foot, the sense of the Scriptures is well to be attended to and noted, lest, when anyone has spoken thus, he should seem as it were to be auguring. For it makes a great difference what he added: the Lord blessed you at my foot; for he wished it to be understood 'at my coming in,' giving thanks to God for this. In the deed of Jacob, when he peeled the rods, stripping off the green so that the white might appear variegated, and thus at conception the young of the flocks were made variegated, when the mothers drank in the troughs of water and, seeing the rods, conceived that variegation — many things are said to happen similarly in the offspring of animals.
But it is reported to have happened also to a woman, and it is found written in the books of Hippocrates, that most ancient and most skilled physician, that she was to be punished on suspicion of adultery, since she had borne a most beautiful boy unlike either parent or their kindred — had not the aforesaid physician resolved the matter by advising them to inquire whether perhaps some such picture might be in the bedchamber; and when it was found, the woman was freed from suspicion. But as for this thing which Jacob did, the joining of rods from three different kinds of trees, what usefulness it contributed, so far as pertains to multiplying the variegated flocks, does not appear at all.
Nor does it make any useful difference whether the rods are variegated from wood of one kind or whether there are several kinds of wood, since only the variety of the wood is sought. And therefore this matter compels us to inquire into a prophecy and some figurative signification — a thing which Jacob without doubt did as a prophet; and for this reason he is not to be charged with fraud. For we must not believe that he did anything of the sort except by spiritual revelation. But as to what pertained to justice, as other translators narrate this more openly, he did not place the rods at the second conception of the sheep. This the Septuagint has said the more obscurely the more briefly: for it says that when they had given birth, he did not place them.
This is understood to mean when they had first given birth, so that it is to be understood that he was no longer accustomed to place them when they were about to give birth a second time, lest he himself should take away all the offspring, which would have been unjust. As for Laban's saying, «Why have you stolen my gods?» — this perhaps is the reason: he had said that he practiced divination, and his daughter had named her «good fortune.» And it is to be noted that from the beginning of the book we now for the first time find «the gods of the nations»; for in the earlier places of Scripture they named «God.» As for what Jacob says to his father-in-law, «and you cheated my wage by ten lambs» — when and how this was done, Scripture does not narrate; but assuredly what he here mentions was done. For he said this also to his wives when he called them into the field.
For complaining about their father, he says among other things: «and he changed my wage by ten lambs.» It is therefore understood that at each several season of the sheep's bearing, when Laban saw that such offspring were born as it had been agreed should belong to Jacob, he fraudulently changed the compact and stipulated that in the future offspring Jacob should have in his wage animals of other colors. But then Jacob would not put the variegated rods underneath, and no variegated ones were born, but only of one color, which Jacob took away by the new compact. And when Laban saw this, he again fraudulently changed the compact, so that the variegated should belong to Jacob; then by the placing of those rods variegated ones were born. Therefore what Jacob says to his wives, «he changed my wage by ten lambs,» and afterwards to Laban himself:
«you cheated my wage by ten she-lambs» — he did not so speak as though the fraud itself succeeded for his father-in-law; for that it might not succeed for him, he said that God had stood by him against Laban. And by «ten lambs» or «ten she-lambs» he meant ten seasons, in which the sheep he pastured gave birth during the six years. For they bore twice in the year. But it had happened that in the first year, in which they made their compact and he entered upon pasturing them by the agreement of this wage, they bore only once, at the year's end, because when he began, they had already borne once; and again in the sixth, that is the last year, when they had borne once, the necessity of departure arose, and he withdrew before they bore again.
And thus, since the first year and the last had two lambings of the sheep under him — that is, one each — while the middle four years had two each, they make ten in all. Nor is it surprising that he called these ten seasons by the name of «lambs,» which were born in those very seasons — just as if someone should say «through so many vintages» or «so many harvests,» by which the number of years may be understood. Whence a certain poet says «after some ears of corn,» meaning by «ears» the harvests, and by «harvests» the years. But the fertility of the flocks of that region is said to be as great as that of the Italian flocks, so that they bear twice a year. «Now Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar.»
It is to be carefully observed how they set up these pillars as a testimony to some particular matter, not that they might worship them as gods, but that they might signify something by them. As for the heap of stones which Laban and Jacob had set up between them, they named it with some difference, so that Laban called it «the heap of testimony,» Jacob «the heap witness»; this is reported by those who know both the Syriac and the Hebrew tongue to have been done on account of the properties of each of their languages. For it commonly happens that a thing is not expressed in one language by a single word which in another is so expressed, and that a thing is named by the nearness of its signification. For afterwards it is said: «On account of this the name was called The heap witnesses.»
For this was set in the middle, so as to suit both — both him who had said «the heap of testimony» and him who had said «the heap of the witness.» What does it mean that in speaking Laban says to Jacob, «This heap testifies and this pillar testifies; on account of this the name is called The heap testifies,» and «the vision which he called, Let God look between me and you»? — unless perhaps the order should run: «and the vision, which God spoke, let it look between me and you»; for God had spoken to him in a vision, that he should not harm Jacob. What does it mean that Laban says in what follows, «See, no one is with us»? — unless perhaps «no one of strangers,» or on account of the attestation of God, whom they ought so to hold, as though no one were with them whom they might join to His testimony.
«And Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac.» «By the fear,» that is, by which he feared God — which fear he also commended above, when he said: «The God of my father Abraham and the fear of my father Isaac.» As for the camp of God which Jacob saw on the way, there is no doubt that it was a multitude of angels; for this in the Scriptures is called «the host of heaven.» When it was announced to him that his brother Jacob — that is, Esau — was coming to meet him with four hundred men, he was indeed troubled and confused in mind, since he greatly feared; and, as seemed good to a man in perturbation, he arranged his divided multitude into two camps. Here it may be asked how he had faith in God's promises, seeing that he said:
«If my brother comes to the first camp and destroys it, the second shall be for safety.» But this too could have happened, that Esau should overthrow his camp, and yet that God should be present after that affliction and deliver him and fulfill what He had promised. And we were meant to be admonished by this example that, although we believe in God, we should nevertheless do the things that ought to be done by men for the safeguard of our welfare, lest by neglecting them we should seem to tempt God. Finally, after this it is to be considered what words this same Jacob speaks. «O God,» he says, «of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord, who said to me: Return to the land of your birth, and I will do you good; you are worthy of me from all the righteousness and from all the truth which you have shown to your servant.»