Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 59 part 6/33

Thus these two things, so greatly commended, are greatly to be considered. Now Abraham's servant had said: 'If you show mercy and justice toward my master,' just as this man too says to his son: 'And you shall show mercy and truth toward me.' But what does so anxious a commendation of his body mean in so great a man — that he should not be buried in Egypt, but in the land of Canaan beside his fathers? It seems strange, and as it were absurd, and unbefitting so great an excellence of a prophetic mind, if we measure it by the custom of men. But if in all these things sacred mysteries are sought, a joy of greater wonder will arise for the very one who finds them.

For it is beyond doubt that in the Law the corpses of the dead signify sins, since men are commanded to be purified, as it were from uncleanness, after handling them or any contact whatsoever. And hence that sentence is drawn: 'He who is baptized after touching a dead body, and touches it again, what has his washing profited him? So too is he who fasts for his sins and, walking again, does these same things.' Therefore the burial of the dead signifies the remission of sins, pertaining to what was said: 'Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered.' Where then were the corpses of the patriarchs, signifying this, to be buried, except in that land where He was crucified by whose blood the remission of sins was accomplished?

For by the deaths of the patriarchs the sins of men were prefigured. Now the place is said — the one called Abrahamium, where those bodies are — to be distant from the place where the Lord was crucified about thirty miles, so that even this very number may be understood to signify Him who appeared at His baptism at about thirty years of age; and if anything else concerning so great a matter can be understood, whether in this way or more sublimely, provided only that we do not think it in vain that such and so great men of God bestowed such care upon the burial of their bodies, since this is, and ought to be, the confidence of the faithful:

namely, that wherever their bodies may be buried, or even left unburied through the rage of enemies, or torn apart and consumed at the pleasure of their foes, not for that reason will their resurrection be any less entire or any less glorious. As to what the Latin codices have: 'And he worshiped upon the top of his (eius) staff,' some, emending it, have: 'he worshiped upon the top of his own (suae) staff,' or 'upon the head of his own staff,' or 'toward the point,' or 'upon the point.' For the Greek word deceives them, which is written with the same letters whether it means 'his' or 'his own'; but the accents differ, and by those who know these things they are not disregarded in the codices, for they avail for a great distinction.

Although it could also have one more letter, if it were 'his own' (suae), so that it would not be 'autou' but 'heautou.' And therefore it is rightly asked what the meaning is of what was said. For it is easily understood that the old man, who carried a staff after the manner in which that age is wont to bear a walking-stick, when he inclined himself to worship God, assuredly did so upon the top of his own staff, which he carried in such a way that, bowing his head over it, he worshiped God. What then does 'he worshiped upon the top of his (eius) staff' mean — that is, of his son Joseph? Or had he perhaps taken the staff from him when that same son swore to him, and while holding it, after the words of the one swearing, had he, before the staff was yet returned, straightway worshiped God?

For he was not ashamed to bear for a while the insignia of his son's power, where a figure of a great thing to come was being prefigured. Although in the Hebrew the resolution of this question is said to be very easy, where they report it is written: 'And Israel worshiped toward the head of the bed,' on which of course the old man was lying, and which he had so placed that on it he might, without effort, pray whenever he wished. Nor for that reason, however, is what the Seventy translated to be thought to have no meaning, or only a slight one. Here too, when he recalls the promises of God made toward him, Jacob says that it was said to him: 'I will make you into congregations of nations.' By which words he signifies the calling of the faithful rather than the propagation of a carnal race. As to what is written, Jacob saying of Ephraim and Manasseh:

'Now therefore your two sons who were born to you in the land of Egypt, before I came to you into Egypt, are mine — Ephraim and Manasseh; like Reuben and Simeon they shall be to me. But the children whom you shall beget afterward shall be yours; they shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritances.' This sometimes deceives readers, so that they suppose it was said as though Joseph had begotten others, whom Jacob commanded to be called by the names of these; which is not so. For the order of the words is woven thus: 'Now therefore your two sons who were born to you in the land of Egypt, before I came to you into Egypt, are mine — Ephraim and Manasseh; like Reuben and Simeon they shall be to me, they shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritances,' that is:

they shall receive the inheritance together with their brothers, so as to be called together sons of Israel. For these very two tribes were added, so that, excepting the tribe of Levi which was priestly, there might be twelve to divide the land and to pay the tithes. But that other clause is inserted, which he said concerning Joseph's other sons, if they should be born. As to the fact that Jacob wished to indicate to his son Joseph, as though to one who did not know, where and when he had buried his mother, although he himself had been present together with his brothers — but even if he was so small in age that he could neither attend to that nor keep it in mind, what circumstance compelled that it be told just now? Unless perhaps it pertained to the matter to mention that Joseph's mother was buried there, where Christ was to be born.

As to the fact that Israel so blesses his grandsons that he lays his right hand on the younger and his left on the elder, and to his son Joseph, who wished to correct him as though he were erring and did not know, he thus replies: 'I know, my son, I know; this one too shall become a people, and this one shall be exalted; but his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall be in a multitude of nations.' This is to be understood of Christ only so far as it was also said of Jacob himself and his brother that 'the elder shall serve the younger.' For according to this, Israel signified something prophetically by doing this: that the later people, which was to come into being through Christ by spiritual generation, would surpass the earlier people that gloried in the carnal generation of the fathers.

As to the fact that Jacob says he is giving Shechem as a special portion to his son Joseph, and adds that he had taken possession of it with his sword and bow, it may be asked how this can fit literally. For he bought that possession with a hundred lambs; he did not seize it by right of martial victory. Or was it because his sons stormed Salem, a city of the Shechemites, and it could have become his by right of war — so that a just war might seem to have been waged with those who first did so great an injury in defiling his daughter? Why then did he not give that land to those who did this deed, that is, to his elder sons? Then, if he now gives that land to his son Joseph while glorying in that victory, why were the sons who committed this deed displeasing to him at the time?

Why, finally, even now, when he was blessing them, did he recall it reproachfully in their deeds? Beyond doubt, then, some prophetic mystery lies hidden here, because Joseph too by a certain special signification prefigured Christ, and to him is given that land where Jacob had destroyed and buried the strange gods — so that Christ may be understood as about to possess the nations who renounce the gods of their fathers and believe in Him. It must be seen how the Scriptures say what they constantly say concerning the dead: 'And he was gathered to his fathers,' or 'he was gathered to his people.' For behold, it is said of Jacob, now indeed dead but not yet buried; and to what people he is gathered is not readily seen.

For from him the earlier people is born, which was called the people of Israel; but those who preceded him are named as so few righteous men that we hesitate to call them a people. For if it had been said 'he was gathered to his fathers,' no question would arise. Or is the people perhaps not only of holy men but also the people of the angels of that city, whence it is said to the Hebrews: 'But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of God, Jerusalem, and to thousands of exulting angels'? To this people are gathered those who end this life pleasing to God. For then they are said to be gathered, when there no longer remains any anxiety of temptations and danger of sins. Looking to which, Scripture says: 'Before death praise no man.'

The forty days of burial which Scripture mentions perhaps signify something of penitence, by which sins are buried. For not in vain were the forty days of fastings also appointed, on which Moses and Elijah and the Lord Himself fasted; and the Church calls the chief observance of fastings the 'Quadragesima' (Lent). Hence too in the Hebrew, concerning the Ninevites, they report it is written in the prophet Jonah: 'Forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown' — so that through so many days, suited of course to the humiliation of the penitent, they may be understood to have bewailed their sins in fastings and to have obtained the mercy of God. Yet this number is not to be thought to suit only the mourning of the penitent;

otherwise the Lord would not have spent forty days with His disciples after the resurrection, going in and out among them, eating and drinking — days which were assuredly of great gladness. Nor are the Seventy translators, whom the Church is accustomed to read, to be believed to have erred in not saying 'forty days,' but 'three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.'

For endowed with greater authority than the office of translators — namely with the prophetic Spirit, by which they are affirmed to have agreed even with one voice in their translations (which was a great miracle) — they set down 'three days,' although they were not unaware that 'forty days' was read in the Hebrew codices, so that in the glorification of the Lord Jesus Christ might be understood the dissolving and abolishing of sins, of whom it was said: 'He was delivered up for our trespasses and rose again for our justification.' Now the glorification of the Lord is recognized in the resurrection and in the ascension into heaven. Hence too He gave the one and the same Holy Spirit twice in number: first, after He rose again; again, after He ascended into heaven.

And since He rose again after three days, but ascended after forty days, the one of these, which was done later, the Hebrew codices signify by the number of days; the other, concerning the three days — which also pertains to the same matter — the Septuagint chose to mention, not by the servitude of translation but by the authority of prophecy. Let us therefore not say that one of these is false, nor let us quarrel on behalf of some translators against others, since both those who translate from the Hebrew prove to us that this is written which they translate, and the authority of the Seventy translators — which is commended even by so great a miracle divinely wrought — is confirmed by such great antiquity in the churches.

As to what Joseph charged the great men of Egypt, that they should say to Pharaoh in his name: 'My father adjured me, saying: In the tomb which I dug for myself in the land of Canaan, there you shall bury me,' it may be asked how this is true, since these words of his father — when he charged him concerning his own burial — are not read. But we ought to refer the words to the sense, as we have advised in other words or narratives similarly repeated above. For the words ought to serve the intention that is to be declared and brought to knowledge. Now that Jacob dug a sepulcher for himself is nowhere read earlier in the Scriptures. But unless it had happened, since they were in those same lands, it would not now be said. What does it mean that, as they were going to bury Jacob, Scripture says:

'And they came to the threshing floor of Atad, which is beyond the Jordan'? For they passed by the place in which the dead man was to be buried, by more than fifty miles — as those who know report — for so great is the distance, more or less, from that place where the patriarchs were buried, among whom was Jacob, up to this place to which they are related to have come. For after the mourning and the great lamentation was made there, they returned to the place they had passed by, having again crossed the Jordan. Unless perhaps someone should say that, for the sake of avoiding certain enemies, they came with the body through the wilderness, by which way the people of Israel too was led when freed from Egypt by Moses.

For by that route both a great circuit is made, and one comes through the Jordan to the Abrahamium, where the bodies of the patriarchs are, that is, to the land of Canaan. But however it was done, that they went so far across those regions toward the east, and thence came to them through the Jordan, it must be believed to have been done for the sake of signification — because through the Jordan Israel, in his sons, was afterward to come to those lands. 'And he made mourning for his father seven days.' I do not know whether a mourning of nine days is found to have been observed for any of the saints in the Scriptures — what the Latins call the 'novendial.'

Hence those Christians who keep this number for their dead seem to me to be forbidden from this custom, since it belongs rather to the practice of the pagans. But the seventh day has authority in the Scriptures. Hence in another place it is written: 'The mourning of the dead is seven days, but of the fool all the days of his life.' Now the number seven, on account of the sacrament of the Sabbath, is chiefly a token of rest; hence it is fittingly shown to the dead as to those resting. Yet this number, in the mourning for Jacob, the Egyptians multiplied tenfold, for they mourned him seventy days. 'And Joseph lived a hundred and ten years. And Joseph saw the children of Ephraim to the third generation; and the sons of Machir the son of Manasseh were born upon Joseph's knees.'

Since Scripture says that Joseph, while living, saw these sons of his sons, or grandsons of his sons, how does it join them to those seventy-five persons with whom Scripture says Jacob entered Egypt — seeing that Joseph, by growing old, reached the point of seeing them born, whereas when Jacob entered Egypt, Joseph was a young man, and his father at his death left him at about his fifty-sixth year of age? Hence it is evident that Scripture wished, for the sake of a certain mystery, to commend that number, that is, the seventy-five.

But if anyone demands how, even according to the truth of history, it can be true that Jacob entered Egypt with seventy-five souls, it must be understood not of that one day on which his entry took place; but because Jacob is very often named in his sons, that is, in his descendants, and it is established that he entered Egypt through Joseph, his entry is to be reckoned for as long as Joseph lived, through whom it came about that he entered. For in all that time all those who are mentioned could be born and live, so that seventy-five souls are completed, down to the grandsons of Benjamin. For as it says: 'These are the sons of Leah,'

'whom she bore to Jacob himself in Mesopotamia of Syria,' speaking also of those who had not yet been born, because there she had borne the parents from whom they were born, thus representing us as born there, since the cause by which they were to be born was born there, that is, their parents whom Leah bore there: so, since Jacob had the cause of entering Egypt in Joseph, the whole time during which Joseph lived in Egypt was Jacob's entry into Egypt through his own offspring, which was being propagated while Joseph lived, through whom it came about that he entered. SECOND BOOK. QUESTIONS ON EXODUS. (At the end, a description of the tabernacle.) QUESTION I.

Concerning the lie of the midwives, by which they deceived Pharaoh, that they might not kill the male Israelites when they were born, saying that the Hebrew women do not bear as the Egyptian women bore, it is customarily asked whether such lies are approved by divine authority, since it is written that God did good to the midwives: but whether He was pardoning the lie out of mercy, or was judging the lie itself worthy of reward, is uncertain. For the midwives did one thing in giving life to the little infants, another in lying to Pharaoh; for in giving those infants life there was a work of mercy, but they used that lie for their own sake, lest Pharaoh should harm them — which could pertain not to praise, but to pardon.

Nor does it seem to me that from this an authority for lying is set forth for those of whom it is said: 'And no lie was found in their mouth.' For if the life of certain persons, far inferior to the profession of the saints, has these sins of lies, they are borne along by their very advancement and disposition, especially if they do not yet know how to await the heavenly divine benefits, but are occupied about earthly things. But those who so live that their conversation, as the Apostle says, is in heaven, I do not think ought to shape the measure of their tongue — as far as pertains to uttering the truth and avoiding falsehood — by that example of the midwives. But this question must be discussed more carefully on account of other examples that are found in the Scriptures.

Concerning the deed of Moses, when he killed the Egyptian to defend his brothers, we have disputed sufficiently in that work which we wrote 'On the Life of the Patriarchs against Faustus': whether the disposition in him was praiseworthy, by which he committed this sin — just as the richness of the earth is wont to be praised, even before useful seeds, by a certain fertility of herbs, however useless — or whether the deed itself is altogether to be justified; which does not seem to be the case, because he as yet bore no lawful power, neither received from God nor ordained by human society.

Yet, as Stephen says in the Acts of the Apostles, 'he supposed his brothers understood that through him God was giving them salvation,' so that by this testimony Moses may seem to have been already divinely admonished — which Scripture is silent about in that place — to have been able to dare this. 'The Lord called him out of the bush.' The Lord in an angel? Or the Lord — that angel who was called 'the angel of great counsel' and is understood to be Christ? For above it said: 'The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the bush.' 'To bring them out of that land into a good and large land, into a land flowing with milk and honey.' Are we to take 'a land flowing with milk and honey' spiritually, because according to our own understanding this is what that land was which was given to the people of Israel?

Or is it a manner of speaking, by which this is referred to the praise of fertility and sweetness? 'And now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel has come to me' — not like the cry of Sodom, by which iniquity without fear and without shame is signified. As to what the Lord commanded the Hebrews through Moses, that they should take from the Egyptians vessels of gold and silver and clothing, and He added: 'And you shall plunder them' — the judgment of this command cannot be unjust. For it is the command of God, concerning which there was to be no judging but obeying. For He knows how justly He commanded; but it belongs to the servant to do obediently what He commanded. As to what Moses said to the Lord:

'I beseech You, Lord, I have not been eloquent before yesterday nor before the day before yesterday, nor since You began to speak to Your servant' — it is understood that he can believe himself to be made suddenly eloquent by the will of God, when he says: 'nor since You began to speak to Your servant,' as though showing that it could have come about that one who had not been eloquent before yesterday and the day before yesterday might suddenly become so from the time the Lord began to speak with him. 'Who made the mute and the hearing, the seeing and the blind? Is it not I, the Lord God?' There are those who slander God, or rather the Scripture of the Old Testament, because God said that He Himself made the blind and the mute. What then do they say of the Lord Christ openly saying in the Gospel:

'I came, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind'? But who except a fool would believe that anything can happen to a man in respect of bodily defects which God does not will? Yet that He justly wills the whole, no one doubts. As to what the Lord says to Moses: 'But now go, and I will open your mouth and instruct you what you are to say' — it here sufficiently appears that not only the instruction of the mouth but the very opening of it also pertains to God's will and grace. For He does not say: 'Do you open your mouth and I will instruct you,' but He promised both Himself: 'I will open and I will instruct.' But elsewhere He says in the Psalm:

'Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it' — where He signifies in man the will to receive what God gives to the willing, so that to the beginning of the will pertains 'open your mouth wide,' and to God's grace 'and I will fill it' — but here: 'and I will open your mouth and instruct you.' 'And the Lord, being angry with anger, said.' As to how God can be understood as being angry — since it is not as a man, through an irrational disturbance — this must be held throughout wherever Scripture says any such thing, lest the same things have to be said often about this. But it is rightly asked why here, being angry, He spoke concerning Moses' brother, that he himself should speak for him to the people; for He seems, as to one distrustful, not to have given the fullest faculty which He was going to give.

and to have willed that it be done through two, which could have been done through one, if he had believed. Yet nevertheless, all these same words, more carefully considered, do not signify that the Lord, being angry, gave Aaron by way of vengeance. For thus He says: 'Is not Aaron your brother the Levite? I know that in speaking he himself will speak.' By which words God is shown rather to have rebuked him for fearing to go, on the ground that he himself was less suitable, when he had a brother through whom he could speak to the people what he wished, since he himself was weak of voice and slower of tongue; although concerning God he ought to have hoped for everything. Then He says the very same things which He had promised a little before and after He was angry. For He had said: 'I will open your mouth and instruct you'; but now He says:

'I will open your mouth and his mouth, and I will instruct you both what you are to do.' But since He added: 'and he himself shall speak for you to the people,' the opening of the mouth seems to have been granted on account of which Moses says that he is slower of tongue. As to the weakness of voice, however, the Lord willed to grant him nothing, but on account of this He joined the help of a brother who could use that voice which would suffice for teaching the people. So then, when He says: 'and you shall put my words in his mouth,' He shows that He was going to give what was to be spoken; for if only what was to be heard, as by the people, He would say 'into the ears.' Then, when He says a little after: 'and he himself shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth,' here too 'to the people' is understood. And when He says: 'he shall speak for you to the people':

He sufficiently indicates in Moses the primacy, in Aaron the ministry. Then, when He says: 'but you shall be to him in the things that pertain to God,' here perhaps a great mystery is to be searched out, of which Moses bears the figure, standing as it were in the middle between God and Aaron, and Aaron in the middle between Moses and the people. As to what is written: 'And it came to pass on the way, at the lodging-place, that an angel met him and sought to kill him. And Zipporah, taking a stone, circumcised the foreskin of her son and fell at his feet and said: The blood of my child's circumcision has stood; and he departed from him' — on account of which she said: 'The blood of the circumcision has ceased' — first it is asked whom the angel wished to kill, whether Moses, because it was said:

An angel met him and sought to kill him. For who is to be thought to have met him, except the one who was set over the whole company of his people and by whom the rest were being led? Or was it a boy that he sought to kill, whom the mother came to the aid of by circumcising him, so that it may be understood on this account that he wished to kill the infant, because he was not circumcised, and thus to confirm the precept of circumcision by the severity of the punishment? But if it is so, it is uncertain about whom he first spoke when he said 'he sought to kill him,' since it is not known whom he means, unless it be found from what follows — a truly wonderful and unusual manner of speech, that he should first say, 'He met him and sought to kill him,' concerning one about whom he had said nothing beforehand. But such a form is found in the psalm: 'His foundations are in the holy mountains;'

'The Lord loves the gates of Zion.' For the psalm begins there, and it had said nothing about him or about her whose foundations he wished to be understood when he said, 'His foundations are in the holy mountains.' But since there follows, 'The Lord loves the gates of Zion,' therefore the foundations are either of the Lord or of Zion, and, for the easier sense, rather of Zion, so that the foundations of the city may be understood.

But since in this pronoun 'his/its' (eius) the gender is ambiguous — for this pronoun is of every gender, that is, both masculine and feminine and neuter — yet in the Greek it is spoken in the feminine gender, 'autēs,' and in the masculine and neuter 'autou,' and the Greek codex has 'autou,' it compels us to understand not the foundations of Zion, but the foundations of the Lord, that is, those which the Lord established, concerning whom it was said, 'The Lord who builds Jerusalem.' And yet he had named neither Zion nor the Lord beforehand, when he said, 'His foundations are in the holy mountains.' So too here, the infant not yet having been named, it was said, 'He met him and sought to kill him,' so that we may recognize from what follows about whom he spoke.

Although, even if anyone should wish to take it as referring to Moses, one need not strenuously resist. Rather, what follows should, if possible, be understood: what it means that the angel therefore withdrew from the slaying of any of them, because the woman said, 'The blood of the child's circumcision has stopped.' For she does not say, 'He withdrew from him' on account of the fact that she circumcised the infant, but because the blood of the circumcision stopped: not because it flowed, but because it stopped — by a great sacrament, unless I am mistaken. As to what was said above, that Moses set his wife and infants upon the beasts of burden, that he might go with them into Egypt, but that afterward Jethro his father-in-law met him together with them, after he had led