Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 59 part 9/33

But that sense is more probable, that we should believe the land was then so called. For the names of many lands and places, as also of rivers and cities, have been changed through antiquity for certain existing causes. 'And the Lord said to Moses: Go before the people; and take with you some of the elders of the people; and take in your hand the rod with which you struck the river.' It is read that Aaron struck the river, not Moses, with the rod; for Moses with that same rod divided the sea, not the river. What, then, does 'take the rod with which you struck the river' mean for Him? Or did He perhaps call the sea a 'river'? An example of this manner of speaking must be sought, if that is so.

Or is it that what Aaron did was rather attributed to Moses, because it was through Moses that God commanded what Aaron should do, and in Moses lay the authority, while in the other lay the ministry? Since indeed even in his very first words God says this to him concerning his brother: 'He shall be to thee a mouth toward the people, and thou shalt be to him in the things that pertain to God.' And 'Behold, I stand upon the top of the hill, and the rod of God is in my hand,' Moses says to Joshua the son of Nun, when he was commanding that battle be waged against Amalek. Now therefore it is called the rod of God, which was first called the rod of Aaron, and afterward the rod of Moses. Just as the spirit of Elijah is spoken of, which is the Spirit of God, of which Elijah was made a partaker, so that rod could be so called. God's righteousness too is spoken of, which is ours, yet bestowed by God: speaking of which the Apostle rebukes the Jews, saying:

'being ignorant of God's righteousness, and wishing to establish their own righteousness'—that is, as though prepared for themselves by themselves. Against such he says: 'For what hast thou that thou didst not receive?' 'Now Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God,' or, as other copies have it, 'in the presence of God,' which in Greek is written 'enantion tou Theou.' It is asked how they ate 'before God,' when there was as yet neither the tabernacle nor the ark of the covenant, which were established afterward. For neither here can we take it as said of something future, as is said of the manna that was placed in the golden vessel. Therefore we ought to take 'before God' as meaning that what was done was done in God's honour; for where is God not present?

Moses says to his father-in-law: 'Because the people come to me to seek judgment from God; for when a dispute befalls them and they come to me, I judge each one and I make known to them the precepts of God and his law.' It may be asked how Moses could say these things, when as yet no law of God had been written down—unless it be because the law of God is eternal, which all pious minds consult, so that whatever they find in it they may do or command or forbid, according as that immutable Truth has enjoined. For are we to believe that Moses, although God spoke with him, was accustomed to consult God about every single matter, if any question arose in the disputes of so great a multitude, which detained him in this business of judging from morning until evening?

And yet, unless he consulted the Lord who presides over his own mind, and wisely attended to his eternal law, he could not have found out what was most just to judge among the disputants. As to the fact that Jethro gives counsel to his son-in-law Moses, lest, taken up with the judgments of the people, both he and the people be worn away with intolerable exhaustion, the first question is why God allowed his servant, with whom he himself spoke such great and such lofty things, to be admonished by a foreigner. In this Scripture admonishes us that counsel of truth, given through any man whatsoever, ought not to be despised. It must also be considered whether perhaps God willed Moses to be admonished by a foreigner precisely there where pride too might tempt him:

for he sat alone in the loftiness of the judgment seat while the whole people stood. For Jethro himself indicates this sense, when he ordered those to be chosen to judge the causes of the people who hated pride. Then, how much that ought to be observed which Scripture says elsewhere, 'Son, let not thy acts be in many things,' appears sufficiently here too. Next the words of Jethro giving counsel to Moses must be considered; for he says: 'Now therefore hearken to me, and I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee.' Here it seems to me signified that the mind excessively intent upon human affairs is in a certain way emptied of God, whereby it becomes fuller in proportion as it is more freely extended toward things heavenly and eternal. And where he adds and says: 'Be thou to the people in the things that pertain to God, and thou shalt bring their words to God';

'and thou shalt testify to them the precepts of God and his law, and shalt show them the ways in which they shall walk, and the works which they shall do'—he shows that these are to be done with the whole people. For he does not say: 'Bring each one's words to God,' but 'their words,' since he had said above: 'Be thou to the people in the things that pertain to God.' After these things he admonishes that the private affairs which men have among themselves not be neglected, but be committed of course to chosen men, mighty, worshipping God, just, and who hate pride, whom he was to set some over thousands, others over hundreds, others over fifties, others over tens.

Thus he removed both from Moses himself the heavy and dangerous occupations and did not burden these men, since they who had a thousand had one over themselves, and under him they had another ten, and under these others twenty, and under these others a hundred, so that scarcely anything reached each of the several officials which they needed of necessity to judge. Here too an example of humility is instilled, in that Moses, with whom God spoke, did not disdain nor despise the counsel of his foreigner father-in-law. And yet whether Jethro himself, since he was not an Israelite, is to be reckoned among the men who worshipped the true God and who were religiously wise—just as Job also, since he was not from that people—is rightly asked; indeed it is held the more credible.

For the words are set down ambiguously, whether he sacrificed to the true God among his people, when he saw his son-in-law, or whether Moses himself adored him; although concerning adoration, even if it had been expressly stated, it would seem to be honour rendered to a father-in-law in the manner in which it is wont to be shown to men by fathers for the sake of honour; just as it is written of Abraham that he adored the sons of Heth. But whom he calls 'grammatoeisagogeis' after the decurions cannot easily be known, since we have this name in no usage either of offices or of teaching posts. For some have interpreted them as 'doctors,' so that they be understood assuredly of letters, men who introduce others into letters, as the Greek word resounds.

Here indeed it is signified that before the law was given the Hebrews had letters; but when these began to exist, I know not whether it can be traced out. For to some it seems that they began from the first men and were carried down to Noah and thence to the forefathers of Abraham and thence to the people of Israel; but whence this can be proved, I do not know. 'And in the third month of the departure of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, on this day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. And they set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and there Israel encamped over against the mountain. And Moses went up into the mountain of God, and the Lord called him from the mountain, saying: These things shalt thou say to the house of Jacob and shalt announce to the children of Israel,' and so forth. Then a little after:

'Go down and testify to the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments and be ready against the third day. For on the third day the Lord shall come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.' On this day is found the giving of the law, which was written on tablets of stone by the finger of God, as what follows teaches. And this third day appears to be the third day of the third month from the departure of Israel out of Egypt. From the day, therefore, on which they kept the Passover—that is, immolated and ate the lamb—which was the fourteenth of the first month, up to this day on which the law is given, fifty days are numbered: seventeen namely of the first month, the rest reckoned from that very fourteenth;

then all thirty of the second month, which make forty-seven, and the third day of the third month, which is the fiftieth from the solemnity of the slain lamb. And through this, in that shadow of the thing to come, as the law was given on the fiftieth day after the festal day of the immolated lamb—the law that was written by the finger of God—so in the very truth of the New Testament, from the festivity of the immaculate Lamb Christ Jesus fifty days are numbered, until the Holy Spirit was given from on high. And that the finger of God is the Holy Spirit we have already said above too, with the Gospel as witness. It is asked how the ten precepts of the law are to be divided: whether there are four up to the precept concerning the sabbath, which pertain to God himself, and the remaining six, of which the first is:

'Honour thy father and mother'—which pertain to man; or rather whether the former are three and the latter seven. For those who say the former are four separate what is said, 'Thou shalt have no other gods besides me,' so that it be another precept, 'Thou shalt not make thee an idol,' and the rest, where the worship of fabricated images is forbidden; but they wish this to be one: 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,' and all the rest to the end. But those who say the former are three and the latter seven wish whatever is enjoined concerning the worship of the one God to be one, lest anything else besides him be worshipped for God; and these last they divide into two, so that one be 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,' and another 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.'

Yet that there are ten precepts neither party doubts, since Scripture attests this. To me, however, it seems more fitting to accept those three and these seven, because those which pertain to God seem also to intimate the Trinity to those who look more diligently. And indeed what is said, 'Thou shalt have no other gods besides me,' is itself more fully explained when the worship of fabricated images is forbidden. Furthermore, the coveting of another's wife and the coveting of another's house differ so much in the sinning, that to that which is said, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,' there are joined other things, Scripture saying:

'nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his beast of burden, nor any of his cattle, nor whatever is thy neighbour's.' But it appears that the coveting of another's wife is distinguished from the coveting of any other thing of another's, since it began each thus: 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife'; 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,' and to this latter it began to join the rest. But it did not, when it had said, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,' connect to this the others, saying, 'nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant,' and the rest; but altogether these appear to be conjoined which seem to be contained under one precept, and set apart from that in which the wife is named. But that in which it is said:

'Thou shalt have no other gods besides me,' it appears that a more diligent working-out of this matter is in those things which are subjoined. For to what does this pertain: 'Thou shalt not make thee an idol nor any likeness of whatever things are in heaven above and whatever are in the earth beneath and whatever are in the water under the earth, thou shalt not adore them nor serve them,' except to that which is said, 'Thou shalt have no other gods besides me'? But again it is asked how 'Thou shalt not steal' differs from that which a little after is enjoined concerning not coveting the neighbour's goods. Not indeed does everyone who covets his neighbour's thing steal; but assuredly everyone who steals covets his neighbour's thing.

In that generality, where it is enjoined not to covet the neighbour's thing, that also which pertains to theft could be contained. Similarly it is also asked how what is said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' differs from that which a little after is said, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.' For in that which is said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' that too could be understood—unless perhaps in those two sins, of adultery and of theft, the very deeds are marked, while in these last, the very coveting: which differ so far that sometimes one commits adultery who does not covet the neighbour's wife, when he is mingled with her for some other cause, and sometimes one covets and is not mingled with her, fearing punishment.

And this perhaps the law wished to show, that both are sins. Likewise it is wont to be asked whether under the name of adultery fornication too is comprehended. For this is a Greek word which Scripture already uses in place of a Latin one; yet in Greek 'moechos' means none but adulterers. But assuredly this law was given not to men only among the people but also to women. For not because it was said, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,' ought a woman to think that nothing here was enjoined for herself, and, as though lawfully, covet the husband of her neighbour. If therefore this is understood here from what was said to the man—although it was not said that it also pertains to the woman—how much more, by that which is said:

'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' both sexes are bound, since the precept itself can be referred to both, just as 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not steal,' and the others which likewise, without one sex being expressed, seem to sound in common for both! Yet where one is expressed, assuredly the more honourable is expressed, that is, the masculine, so that from this the woman too may understand what is enjoined upon her. And through this, if a woman is an adulteress, having a husband, by lying with him who is not her husband, even if he has no wife, assuredly he too is an adulterer, a man having a wife, by lying with her who is not his wife, even if she has no husband.

But whether, if one who has no wife, or a woman who has no husband, does this, they are held bound by the transgression of this precept, is rightly asked. For if they are not held, fornication is not forbidden in the Decalogue, but only adultery—that is, 'moechia'—although all adultery is understood to be also fornication, as the Scriptures speak; for the Lord says in the Gospel: 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.' Here assuredly he called it fornication, if she who has a husband sin with another, which is adultery, that is, 'moechia.' Every adultery, therefore, is also called fornication in the Scriptures.

But whether all fornication too can be called adultery, in those same Scriptures no example of the expression occurs to me for the present. But if not all fornication can also be called adultery, where in the Decalogue that fornication is forbidden which men who have no wives commit with women who have no husbands, whether it can be found, I do not know. But if under the name of theft is rightly understood every unlawful usurpation of another's thing—for he did not permit robbery who forbade theft; but assuredly he wished the whole to be understood from a part, whatever is unlawfully taken away of the neighbour's things—assuredly under the name of adultery too every unlawful intercourse and unlawful use of those members ought to be understood as forbidden. And as to what was said:

'Thou shalt not kill,' it is not to be thought that this precept is acted against when the law kills, or when God commands someone to be killed. For he does it who commands, when it is not lawful to refuse the ministry. In that too which is said, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour,' it is wont to be asked whether every lie is forbidden—lest perhaps this precept be not against those who say that one is then to lie, when that lie profits someone and does no harm to him to whom you lie. For such a lie is not 'against thy neighbour'; so that Scripture seems for this reason to have added this, which could briefly have said, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness,' just as it said, 'Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal.'

But hence there is a great question, nor can it be conveniently explained by those in haste, how this is to be taken: 'Thou shalt destroy all that speak a lie,' and: 'Be not willing to make any lie whatever,' and other things of this kind. 'And all the people saw the voice and the lamps and the voice of the trumpet and the mountain smoking.' It is wont to be asked how the people 'saw' a voice, since a voice seems to pertain not to sight but rather to hearing. But just as I said just now, 'it seems' of all the things that have been said by me, so 'to see' is wont to be put for the general sense, not only of the body but also of the mind. Whence too is that: 'When Jacob saw that there was food in Egypt,' from which of course he was absent.

Although some have judged that 'to see' a voice is nothing other than 'to understand,' which is the sight of the mind. But since here it had to be said briefly that the people 'saw the voice and the lamps and the voice of the trumpet and the mountain smoking,' a greater question would arise, how it 'heard' the lamps and the smoking mountain, which pertains to the sense of seeing—unless one should say that it ought not to have been said so briefly, so that the whole might be stated: 'It heard the voice and saw the lamps and heard the voice of the trumpet and saw the mountain smoking.' For there were two kinds of voice: from the clouds, like thunder, and from the trumpet—if indeed it called that a voice which was uttered from the clouds.

And through this, it is better that in those things which pertained to the sense of hearing the general sense was put—that is, of seeing—when Scripture wished briefly to embrace the whole, than that in those things which pertain to the sense of seeing, hearing should be understood by implication: a manner of speaking we are not accustomed to. For we are accustomed to say 'see what it sounds like,' but we are not accustomed to say 'hear what it shines like.' 'Speak thou to us, and let not God speak to us, lest perhaps we die.' It is much and solidly signified that fear rather pertains to the Old Testament, as love to the New, although in the Old the New too lies hidden, and in the New the Old lies open.

But how 'to see the voice of God' can be attributed to such a people—if this is to be taken as 'to understand'—when they fear that God should speak to them lest they die, does not sufficiently shine forth. 'And Moses says to them: Be steadfast; for God is come to you to try you, that the fear of him may be in you, that ye sin not.' Thus they had to be restrained from sins assuredly by fearing, lest they suffer sensible penalties, because they could not yet love righteousness. And in this was there a trial for them from the Lord, by which they were tested, that it might appear of what sort they were—not that they might become known to God, from whom they were not hidden whatever sort they were, but that they might be known among themselves and to themselves.

Yet in these terrors much of the difference of the Old Testament is commended, which is also most openly stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 'And Moses entered into the cloud, where God was'—that is, where the more express signs were made, by which God was recognized. For how was he in a cloud, whom the heaven of heavens does not suffice to contain? Except in the manner in which he is nowhere absent, who is in no place. 'Ye shall not make you gods of silver, and gods of gold ye shall not make you.' What was inculcated in the first precept is repeated; and by 'gods of silver and gold' assuredly all images are understood, as in that psalm too: 'The idols of the nations are silver and gold.'

As to what is enjoined concerning the Hebrew slave, that he should serve six years and be sent away free without price—lest Christian slaves demand this of their masters, apostolic authority bids slaves to be subject to their masters, lest the name of God and the doctrine be blasphemed. For that this was enjoined in a mystery is sufficiently clear from this, because God also commanded that the ear of him who had refused that liberty be bored through with an awl to the doorpost. 'And if anyone shall sell his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go out as the female slaves go out. But if she please not her master, to whom he had not betrothed her, he shall let her be ransomed. But to a foreign nation the master has no power to sell her, since he has despised her. But if he betroth her to his son, he shall do to her according to the ordinance of daughters.'

'But if he take another for him, he shall not defraud her of what is needful, and of her clothing, and of her fellowship. But if he do not these three things for her, she shall go out free without price.' Unfamiliar words and expressions have made this a most obscure passage, so that our interpreters could scarcely find how to explain it. In the Greek diction itself too what is here said is very obscure. Nevertheless I will disclose, as I shall be able, what seems to be meant. 'But if anyone,' it says, 'shall sell his daughter as a maidservant'—that is, that she be a maidservant, whom the Greeks call 'oiketis'—'she shall not go out as the female slaves go out,' is to be understood: 'she shall not go out as the Hebrew female slaves go out after six years.'

For that law which is observed in males must be understood as given also in the case of a Hebrew woman. Why then shall she not go out thus, except because in that servitude she is understood to have been humbled, in that the master mingled himself with her? For this in the sequel becomes somehow clear. For it follows and says: 'But if she please not her master, to whom he had not betrothed her'—that is, did not make her his wife—'he shall let her be ransomed,' this is what it said above: 'she shall not go out as the female slaves go out.' For it is just that she should receive something for the fact that she was humbled, since he did not mingle with her in such a way as to make her his wife, that is, to betroth her to himself. But this which we said, 'he shall let her be ransomed,' certain interpreters have rendered:

'he shall redeem her,' which, if it had been said in Greek 'apolysetai,' it would have been written as it is written: 'and he himself shall redeem Israel'; for 'apolytrosetai' is written there. But in this place 'apolytrosei' is read, where it is understood that he receives something rather than gives it on her behalf, that she be redeemed. For to whom shall her master give, that he may redeem her whom he himself possesses as maidservant? 'But to a foreign nation the master has no power to sell her, since he has despised her'—that is: not because he has despised her is the master therefore empowered to sell her, that is, to have such dominion over her that he may lawfully sell her even to a foreign nation. But this is 'he has despised her,' which is 'he despised her'; and 'he despised her' is this: 'he humbled her,' that is, by lying with her and not making her his wife.

But it said in Greek 'ethetesen,' which we rendered 'he despised'; which word Scripture uses in Jeremiah: 'as a woman despises him with whom she is joined.' Then it follows and says: 'But if he betroth her to his son, he shall do to her according to the ordinance of daughters.' Here it now begins to appear how it said above: 'to whom he had not betrothed her.' For what else is 'if he betroth her to his son' but 'if he join her to his son as wife?' Since indeed it says: 'he shall do to her according to the ordinance of daughters,' that is, 'so that he hand her over as though a daughter,' setting a dowry of course for her. Then it adds:

'But if he take another for him'—that is, does not reckon this one as wife for his son, but takes another for him—'he shall not defraud her of what is needful, and of her clothing, and of her fellowship'; he shall give her by a like law the things that are fitting, since she did not remain a wife to his son, in the same way as he would give if he had not betrothed her to himself and yet had humbled her by lying with her. But what we rendered 'he shall not defraud her of her fellowship,' the Greek has 'homilian,' that is, 'converse,' by which name Scripture is understood more decorously to designate intercourse.

But what is 'he shall not defraud her of intercourse' but 'he shall give a recompense in place of intercourse'? For in Daniel, the elders bearing false witness against Susanna say: 'a young man came to her, who was hidden in concealment, and lay with her.' But Daniel, questioning about this very thing, says: 'under what tree did you see them conversing together?' whereas they had said, 'he lay with her.' Then, accusing and convicting the other, he said: 'O seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thy heart; for thus ye did to the daughters of Israel, but they, fearing, complied with you.'

But the Greek has 'omiloun hymin,' which could be said in Latin word for word 'they conversed with you,' by which intercourse would be signified. Now where it says: 'under what tree didst thou apprehend them?' the Greek has: 'didst thou apprehend them conversing with one another?' and there too intercourse is signified. As to what, therefore, concerning this woman with whom we are dealing, Scripture adds and says: 'But if he do not these three things for her, she shall go out free,' this is understood: if he himself has not humbled her by intercourse, nor joined her to his son, nor, another having been married by his son, cast this one out, she shall go out free—that is, it shall suffice for her not to be held in servitude; for she shall go out receiving nothing, like a Hebrew slave.

For her master is not permitted to unite her to a non-Hebrew man, whom it is not permitted to hand over to a foreign nation. But if he has united her to a Hebrew slave, this assuredly is understood, that she shall go out free with him, in no way separated from her husband. 'If anyone shall strike someone and he die, let him die the death; but he who did it unwillingly, but God delivered him into his hands, I will give thee a place to which he may flee.' It is asked here how it was said: 'but he who unwillingly, but God delivered him into his hands,' as though even if he had killed willingly, he could not kill unless God delivered into his hands. It is understood, therefore, that God alone did it when someone is killed by one unwilling; and for this, that God alone did it, it was said: 'but God delivered him into his hands.'

But when one kills willingly, both he himself kills and God delivered into his hands. This, therefore, is the difference: that there God alone did it, but here both God and man, on account of the will of the doer—yet not as God, as man. For God does it only justly, but man worthy of punishment: not because he killed him whom God would not have killed, but because through iniquity. For he did not offer a ministry to God commanding, but served his own malignant desire. In one and the same deed, therefore, both God is praised for his hidden equity and man is punished for his own iniquity. For not because God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, is Judas therefore excused, who delivered the same Christ to death.