保羅書信註釋 第 1 章 第 25/28 段

Was it decreed otherwise than that the woman should be subject to the dominion of her husband? From this, then, it is plain that the woman was recalled to that which she had been made, but with an addition. Whence He says: 'Filling I will fill up thy sorrows and thy groaning.' What does He fill up? He adds to that which is less; He does not appear to work upon that which does not exist. Here, then, the sentence which had earlier gone forth, 'increase and multiply,' does not begin a thing to be created, but turns to the ruin of the creature that had been granted. To the woman, for the bearing of children, sorrow is added, difficulty is imposed; no new mode of procreation is devised.

For if from this generation is rightly to be looked for, it may rather be understood that generation arose by the will of the serpent than by that of the Lord; and truly, as He says, it is a 'brood of vipers.' But if anyone thinks himself born in this way, let him consider what he deserves, namely, that on account of sin his pain at birth should be magnified, so that she who was to have but little of the pain of childbearing should have the cause of her offense increased, since children are brought forth with groaning and grief, and the newborn are never had without sadness. Now, in the third place, against the man such a sentence is brought forth: 'Because thou hast hearkened,' He says, 'unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat, thereof hast thou eaten: cursed is the earth in thy works, and in thy sorrows shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life:'

'thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee,' and the rest. Here too, that is, Adam, is recalled to that for which he had been made, but with loss. For before he had been placed there to till the earth simply, so that the effect of labor should follow him; but when he scorned the commandment of God, believing that better provision was made for him by the counsel of the serpent than God had made, he was recalled to his former appointment but with the cost of toil, so that the earth, cursed not in him but in his works, should by no means answer him according to his labor, and that it might be shown that the purpose of God cannot be overthrown, and that no one can provide better than God.

For no one can love another's work more than he himself who made it, as the Apostle says, for 'no man,' he says, 'ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as also Christ the Church.' Let us now look at what follows in the law, whether it agrees with its beginnings. Abraham, when he had pleased God, among the other things that pertain to the reward of his faith, though he was an old man, was even judged worthy to beget a son. How then can that be accused which seems to have been granted as a reward, so that, because he himself had done the will of God, God fulfilled his will? Which surely would not have been fulfilled had it not been blameless, nor would God have fulfilled it. For He saw that what was asked wickedly or unwisely—especially by one who pleased Him—was something that does not even befit a man.

And Hannah, when she was barren and loved God, asked that she might have a son, and received him. But if it were a thing contrary to God's will, she could have been warned by Him whom she loved, not to request an adverse thing. And the most holy Samuel, born of her, begot sons, and yet did not thereby diminish the merits of his righteousness. For in his earliest age he was ever increasing, so that in his more advanced old age he is commended by the fuller testimony of God. And Zechariah the priest, a righteous man, in his old age begot a son by the nod of God, and at his birth was found worthy to prophesy. By what reasoning, then, is that accused which is shown to do no harm at all? And who would deny that what injures no one ought to be called good? And that something may here be said of the apostles, it pertains to the strengthening of the case. Surely the holy John was a keeper of holiness;

but his fellow-disciple, the equally holy Peter, is known to have had a wife and children, and the begetting of children did not hinder him from receiving the primacy among the apostles. How then is that thought to be condemned which does not impede merits? Hence the Apostle shows that he who has a wife, if in other respects he keeps the commandments, can and ought to be made a priest. But if it were unlawful, he surely could not say that a sinner ought to be made a priest. And what is so plain? For it is the voice of the same Apostle, saying: 'Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord.' For when the Corinthians were being agitated by heretics, who in hypocrisy taught that marriage was to be condemned, they consulted the Apostle by letter, whether it was lawful to marry or to send away a wife.

Then the Apostle commanded that a wife should not depart from her husband—though he had occasion to say, had he known that this was to be taught, that it was in no way lawful for a husband to marry. By showing that he himself knew this had not been handed down to him, he made clear that he could not teach it. Who then of the disciples would dare to teach what was not handed down by the Master, and whom they hear preaching: 'I would have the younger women marry, bear children'? But perhaps it will be said: 'If it is lawful and good to marry, why is it not lawful for priests to have wives, that is, why may not those already ordained come together with them?' Who does not know that each one has his own law according to his person and dignity? For there is something that is wholly unlawful for all in general; there is again something that is lawful for some and not lawful for others;

and there is something that is sometimes lawful, but at other times not lawful. To fornicate is never lawful for anyone; but to engage in trade is sometimes lawful and sometimes not lawful. For before a man is a churchman, it is lawful for him to trade; once he has become one, it is no longer lawful. And for a Christian to come together with his own wife is sometimes lawful, but at other times not lawful. For on account of the days of procession it is sometimes not lawful to come together, because one must abstain even from lawful things, that what is asked may more easily be obtained. Whence the Apostle says: 'By consent abstain for a time, that ye may be free for prayer.' For according to the law also it is not lawful to strike or to quarrel during a fast, but afterward it is lawful, because greater reverence is owed to the things of God.

Is everything that is lawful among other men also lawful in the emperor's presence? How much more in the things of God! And therefore His high priest ought to be purer than the rest, for he is seen to bear the very person of God. For he is His vicar, so that what is lawful for others is not lawful for him, because he has the daily necessity of acting in Christ's stead, whether of praying for the people, or of offering, or of baptizing. And not only is it not lawful for him, but also for his minister, because he too ought to be cleaner, since the things which he administers are holy.

For just as, compared with a lamp, darkness is not only obscure but also foul, while compared with the stars a lamp is but a gloom, and compared with the stars the moon is misty, and compared with the sun the stars are cloudy, and compared with the brightness of God the sun is night; so the things that to us are lawful and clean are, in comparison with the dignity of God, as it were unlawful and unclean. For although they are good, yet they do not befit the person of God. Is not the tunic of an ordinary man, however clean, nevertheless foul and unlawful for an emperor? And likewise the coarse garment of a senator. And therefore the high priests of God ought to be purer than the rest, because they bear the person of Christ, and the ministers of God ought to be cleaner; for no one serves the emperor unless meticulously groomed;

therefore they minister clothed in bright and clean garments. But since God is by nature most resplendent, His ministers ought to be clean rather by nature than by garments. (Of this recension, question 1 = question 1 of the recension of questions numbered 127. II. AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY THAT ANYTHING PERTAINS TO GOD.)

To many, whom this worldly blindness has darkened, we are most displeasing, if we are anxiously careful to keep the precepts of God, if we flee occasions of sinning, if we strive with a saving zeal to fulfill every good thing, if we neglect the seductive blandishments of enticements and vices, if we suffer ourselves to be captured by no worldly sweetness, if of our own accord we undergo torments and punishments for the name of God, if we despise even death itself by the strength of the spirit—displeasing, of course, to those whom this mortal sense has persuaded that everything which is done is worthy neither of praise nor of blame. For they will not have any of these things pertain to God. Some, indeed, desiring to defend their crimes and offenses, say: 'It profits nothing whether you live well or ill.

For God now has no such care, that He should anxiously hasten to behold you behaving in diverse ways according to your own disposition and disease, and should sometimes sully His eyes with your foul deeds. All things are vain, which are performed as one pleases. He who pertains to God is withdrawn and removed from these human affairs, and therefore is neither angered nor moved. He has no contemplation of human affairs, none of our actions; the whole course of the whirling age and a certain inexplicable rolling of the worldly orb so seizes, snatches, and casts a man away, that whoever supposes he can be recalled to the care of God is held a fool.'

'Not even the resolve of the martyrs is to be approved, who suppose that their God, whom they proclaim to be merciful, is delighted by the shedding of their own blood. Nothing in us is dear to God, nothing hateful; He rejoices in no condition of our death, in no soundness of our health, nor does He desire to know what is done where—not that it is impossible for the divine majesty to have knowledge of nearly all things that have been done or are being done, but because He is unwilling to know the miseries of men and the vanities of the world. So, in fine, it is written: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.' Their opinion, established upon despair, is loosened by the authority of the divine sense, and likewise is convicted and overthrown by their own sacred saying, the one most commonly held in use.

For when, amid business and the contracts of various men, good faith and treachery contend, the Godhead is called as a witness—the very Godhead which is sometimes said not to know what we do. 'God is witness,' they say; 'may God see, may God judge, may God act, may God repay.' And when it comes to the necessity of an oath, and the mind of the one swearing fears lest something befall him if he forswears himself, and demands an oath, he is confident that it can be repaid to him by the one who has sworn falsely against him. And when desired health and good condition have been obtained, thanks are rendered to the Godhead; and when, some material falling, a man near at hand has by chance escaped unhurt, God is said to have been good and to have granted it;

and when, the waves of the troubled sea rising up under the adverse blast of the winds, and the ship being battered and shaken on every side, the crowds of those sailing stretch out their hands to heaven, beseech God with suppliant voice, and are confident that they can be heard and delivered. Whence comes this, if God has no care for us and is ignorant of what we do? Vain, therefore, is that persuasion: all things are known to God. Let no one flatter himself with the impunity of the crimes he has committed. Of a good life the greatest fruit is, of an evil one perpetual punishment and eternal torment. To us, therefore, who believe that God knows all things, who devoutly hasten to martyrdom, an inestimable fruit, perpetual life, will be granted;

but to the impious, who have taught that God is ignorant of their crimes and the secrets of their wickedness, a consuming flame of fire and an ever-unfailing conflagration will be administered. (III. III—XII = II–XI. XIII. XIII = XXXV. XIIII. XIIII–XXXVI = XII–XXXIIII. XXXVII. WHY DID GOD SAY: 'MY SPIRIT SHALL NOT ABIDE IN THESE MEN, BECAUSE THEY ARE FLESH, AND THEIR YEARS SHALL BE A HUNDRED AND TWENTY'?) Since in those days there were upon the earth giants, pestilent and proud, exalted by the loftiness of their stature, going after the desires of the flesh, born apostates—then, when it displeased God, He promised that He would destroy the race of men by a flood, and set a time, so that, if anyone perchance, having heard of the wrath and indignation of God over this, should be willing to correct himself, he might have space to amend himself.

Accordingly, the ark seems on this reckoning to have been built in a hundred years; but before the beginning of the ark there are said to have been twenty years. But the narrative, in what it added after speaking of the number of Noah's years, seems to obscure this. For this sentence is recognized as having been pronounced before Noah was five hundred years old. For what does it say? 'My spirit shall not abide in these men.' And therefore it added, 'because malice has increased upon the earth: I will blot out man from the face of the earth, even to the cattle'—which was surely fulfilled when the flood took place; for after the flood too we remember that men lived many years, and Aaron the brother of Moses is recorded to have lived a hundred and twenty-three years.

But Moses himself, that he might not be able to pass a hundred and twenty years, did this: he did not glorify God in the contradiction of the water. For he was about to enter the land of promise, had not sin stood in the way. For it seems to some that this saying pertains to the time of Moses, since Jehoiada the priest is found to have lived a hundred and thirty years. (XXXVIII. WHAT THE BLESSING OF JACOB, WHICH HE GAVE, CONTAINS.) Not only did he foretell from present causes the future of each several tribe, but also from things future he signified, in the Jewish people, things to come, of which as yet there was not even a shadow. For he showed what each tribe would be like in character, faith, discipline, luxury, wantonness, and contempt of faith, so that, though they were of one stock, yet they would not keep that oneness.

For some advanced for the better, others grew worse, others remained as they were, so that by this they should not claim for themselves the prerogative of their lineage, since it had been foretold by him that certain of these—who were surely of his stock—would be reprobate, indeed that many would perish, so that others would be signified to enter in, who, to their disgrace and condemnation, would be grafted into the nature from which those had fallen away. He declared, therefore, that the people would be of mixed character in all the tribes, by which diversity it might be understood that the good were few, while the evil were many.

And although he gave the scepter to his son Joseph for a time, he nevertheless set Judah over all—not because all who came from Judah would be fit, but because the Savior, who is truly King, was to arise from that tribe according to the flesh. (XXXVIIII. XXXVIIII = XLII. XL. WAS THERE NO OTHER SIGN DONE BY MOSES OPENLY BEFORE PHARAOH EXCEPT THE SERPENT?) Whoever thinks this reprehensible, let him say what else ought to have been done. For surely he made a serpent, which would both strike terror, yet not do harm, in that, being somewhat slow to harm through a certain torpor. For if he had made a lion, or a bear, or some such thing, how would those present escape?

For he wished neither to kill anyone, but only to instill fear and to show power, so that, because the first transgression began through the serpent, likewise also the recalling to the knowledge of God and the amendment of morals might come about through the sign of the serpent—so that, in the manner in which sin was committed, in that same manner it might also be amended; just as through a woman sin was committed, and through a woman it was taken away, namely through Mary the mother of the Lord, from whom Christ was born and condemned sin. Eve transgressed while yet a virgin, just as Mary too was a virgin. In this way, then, the things that had perished were recalled to their former state, because both the kingdom had been lost through the tasting of the tree, and again through wood it was sought again. For 'the Lord,' he says, 'reigned from the tree.'

In like manner, the world too, in that very season in which it was made, was in the same reformed, that is, in the beginning of the first month, which is the Passover. There will, therefore, be no evil nature except transgression alone, since sin was amended through that very thing through which it was also committed. (XLI. WHAT IS IT THAT IN THE PSALM HE SAYS, 'MEN AND BEASTS THOU WILT SAVE,' AND TO THE PROPHET JONAH HE SAYS, 'I WILL NOT SPARE THE CITY IN WHICH DWELL A HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND MEN AND MUCH CATTLE,' WHILE ON THE CONTRARY THE APOSTLE SAYS, 'IS IT FOR OXEN THAT GOD HATH CARE?') As far as the words go, it seems contradictory; but if the case of man and of cattle be examined, it will be made plain that it is not at variance.

God bears care for all things as the maker of all; but He does not preserve the cattle for their own sake, but preserves the cattle for the sake of men, not men for the sake of the cattle. And so He who bears care for men guards the cattle, in such a way that His care is not for the oxen, but for men. For what hope is there in cattle? (XLII. IF ADAM, MADE BY GOD AND ANIMATED, RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, 'GOD BREATHED INTO HIS FACE THE BREATH [SPIRIT] OF LIFE'?) It was not in the order of things that he should receive the Holy Spirit, because this was reserved by God for later, that in the last days, when the mystery of the one God was made manifest, it should be given to believers. From the beginning, indeed, the Trinity was proclaimed, but the understanding of it was as it were under a veil.

For first the person of God the Father was proclaimed and made manifest without hesitation and without figure, because from Him are all things. But the persons of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit were not passed over in silence, yet neither were they made manifest. In short, concerning the Lord a question is raised by the faithless, and concerning the Holy Spirit. For certain madmen call the Holy Spirit Himself the Father, just as Sabellius too calls Him the Father whom he also calls the Son. But concerning the person of God the Father no one doubts. When, therefore, the manifestation of the Trinity is made, then at last the Holy Spirit is given to believers, so that both His person may be made manifest, and those receiving Him may have a sign that they are sons of God, in that they have within themselves the Spirit of God, who is surely of God.

For this is the signification of perfection, when it is known that there is both Father and Son and Holy Spirit. This perfection bestows this gift. For the Son of God, coming and opening up and making these things manifest, ought to give something more, and it was fitting that He should bestow this perfection upon believers, because perfection or salvation is neither in the Son alone nor in the Father alone, but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Whence John the Evangelist says that 'of His fullness have we all received, grace for grace, because the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Christ.'

It is plain that at the coming of the Savior the fullness of truth was made, for the things that lay hidden, and what was promised, when it is revealed and made manifest, the fullness of truth comes to be. Then believers, having received the Holy Spirit, become sons of God. For the inbreathing which is read to have been made by God into Adam is the handing over of a soul. For 'spirit' is frequently put for 'soul,' as the Gospel says among other things: 'And his spirit returned to her'; and in the Psalm: 'A spirit afflicted and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.' Yet frequently some manuscripts do not read 'and God breathed,' but 'God breathed into his face the breath [spirit] of life, and man became a living soul.' Not because He said:

'the breath [spirit] of life,' did He therefore signify the Holy Spirit; for of the animals also it says thus: 'in which was the breath [spirit] of life.' It is called the breath of life because it animates bodies unto life. (XLIII. XLIII = XXXVI. XLIIII. XLIIII = XXXVII. XLV. 'IN THE SUN,' HE SAYS, 'HE HATH SET HIS TABERNACLE,' THAT IS, HIS BODY, IN WHICH CHRIST DWELT, BECAUSE HE WAS SCOURGED WITH WHIPS BY PILATE: HOW THEN IN THE PSALM CONCERNING CHRIST, 'THE SCOURGE SHALL NOT COME NIGH THY TABERNACLE,' SEEING THAT HE CALLED HIS BODY A TEMPLE?) Both of the son of man and of the Son of God the body is understood to be a temple.

Yet God, that is, the Son of God, although He came in the flesh, nevertheless dwelt in the soul; therefore both the soul and the body are the tabernacle of the Son of God, although the Son of God and the son of man is one God and man. Therefore, on this side the scourge is said not to have come nigh His tabernacle, that is, His soul, in which His divinity dwells, which was immune from the punishment of hell or of its princes. Lest, because here He was crucified as though a sinner, though He was innocent, and the flesh suffered something of sadness, His soul should be supposed to be among the dead, the Scripture shows that His soul could not be troubled among the dead, because for this He descended—that is, permitted Himself to suffer—that He might confound the darkness and send back its princes blunted.

Whence the Lord Himself also says: 'My soul is sorrowful even unto death.' For it was permitted, as was proper to its nature, that it should be made sorrowful; yet straightway it bears off trophies and the spoils of those by whom it had been made sorrowful even unto death, having after death been established already in eternal joy. It can also be understood of the whole man, because He who knew no sin could not be scourged by the law. (XLVI. WHY DID ADAM, PLACED IN THE WORLD, RECEIVE A COMMANDMENT OR LAW, WHEN HE HIMSELF HAD DOMINION OVER THE REST?)

Although Adam was placed as lord in the world, nevertheless, because he held this not from himself but had received it from God, he ought to receive the signification of this matter from a law, so that he himself, who seems to be lord, should through the law be made subject to Him who had given him this power, so that the authority of the Creator might make him render reverence to Him through the law, lest so great a dominion should exalt him and he become unmindful of God his Maker. (XLVII. THE OLD LAW ALLEGES THAT GOD SWORE—FOR THUS IT SAYS: 'BY MYSELF HAVE I SWORN, SAITH THE LORD'—BUT THE SAVIOR FORBADE SWEARING: HOW THEN DID HE NOT DESTROY THE OLD THINGS?)

Before the knowledge of God was upon the earth, it was not fitting to provoke men to an unheard-of hope otherwise than that the promise should be made to them by an oath—made, of course, by Him whom they did not, as was fitting, know. But when He began to be known, it was surely not fitting to swear by Him whom it was not right to suppose could lie. Therefore the Lord commanded that His servants too should no longer swear, but should so conduct themselves that faith should be placed in their words. For the sacrament of an oath either treachery demands, or the deceit of an inconstant man, so that, because men are wont to deceive, they may perhaps from fear of God show reverence; or surely it will be enough even that one who is deceived suffers, because from this he acquires the offense. (XLVIII.)

(WHY IN THE LAW WAS IT SAID EVEN TO AARON HIMSELF THAT HE SHOULD OFFER BURNT-OFFERINGS FOR HIS OWN SINS, WHEN DAVID SAYS: 'FOR OFFENSES THOU HAST NOT REQUIRED A BURNT-OFFERING,' AND IN WHAT FOLLOWS: 'IN BURNT-OFFERINGS THOU WILT NOT DELIGHT.' HOW DID HE COMMAND THAT TO BE OFFERED IN WHICH HE TAKES NO DELIGHT?) It is manifest that God does not delight in burnt-offerings, but that by the satisfaction of sin, with groaning and grief of heart, pardon can be merited. But He willed the sacrifice to be a testimony of sin, so that the sinner might, through the oblation of the sacrifice, confess himself to have sinned. But how forgiveness might be obtained, He Himself shows in another place, saying: 'Break thy bread to the hungry; if thou seest one naked, clothe him, and despise not those of the household of thy seed'; or surely: 'A contrite and humbled heart God will not despise.'

First, then, He admonished that the offense should be confessed; then He showed in what manner it can be pardoned. For never did He command a sacrifice for a manifest offense, but for things done in ignorance, because a man sins even when he does not know, and, when he thinks he is acting rightly, he transgresses with a certain intention. Such a sin He said could be purged through sacrifice. (XLVIIII. WHY DID SOLOMON HAVE THE SPIRIT OF WISDOM, WHEN HE DID NOT HAVE A CLEAN LIFE? FOR HE WAS GREATLY DELIGHTED BY WOMEN, AND THROUGH THIS SINNED.) First, by his own merit he received the spirit of prudence; but afterward, when he began to make excessive use of women and through this to sin, if he had the spirit of wisdom, he had it by the merit of his kingship, just as Nebuchadnezzar too, by the merit of his kingship, saw Christ in the furnace. (L. IN TOBIT:)

'To reveal and confess the works of God,' he says, 'is honorable'; but the Savior, doing the work of God, says, 'Tell no one.' The Savior did not say that the works of God ought to be concealed—for in another place He says, 'Go and tell how great things God hath done for thee'—but He sometimes refused their testimony and repressed boasting, lest it should seem (which is absurd to the prudent) that He bore witness to Himself like a seducer. (LI. WHY WERE CIRCUMCISION AND THE PRECEPTS GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE, WHICH BEFORE WERE NOT, NOR ARE NOW HELD IN AUTHORITY?) Circumcision is a sign of the faith of Abraham, so that, when this sign was seen in his children, they might be known to be the children of him who, believing God, had received this sign;

but the precepts concerning the Sabbaths were given both as a testimony of things past and as bearing the figure of things to come. For of the Sabbath to come, which will give rest in things eternal, this Sabbath is a figure, which is made up of a completed week. But the law of foods was not given at the very beginning of the law, but when, with treachery for their guide, they would not give faith to the words and promises of God, they received, for the hardness of their heart, precepts that were not good, as the prophet Jeremiah says. For this was done that their neck might be bowed down for their advancement—for the whole creation ought not to be subjected to proud and contumacious men—but afterward, when the mercy of God came, the freedom of eating was restored, whence Peter the apostle says:

'Why put ye a yoke upon the neck of the brethren, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?' (LII. LII = XXXVIII. LIII. LIII = XXXVIIII. LIIII. IN WISDOM: 'WHO CREATED,' IT SAYS, 'THE WORLD OUT OF UNSEEN MATTER,' AND ON THE CONTRARY: 'THAT WE WERE MADE OUT OF NOTHING.') The sense of the Scriptures declares that God created the confused substances together. For with the darkness mingled, He called this confusion of things—that is, the air, the water, the dark earth—'unseen matter,' as is read in Genesis: 'And the earth,' it says, 'was invisible and unformed.' Out of this confusion, then, He created the world, the firmament being established, so that within it, the waters being gathered together into one, a habitation might be made for the human race.

For, the substances being distinguished and separated, he made within the hollow a dwelling fit for habitation. WHY HAVE THE DEEDS AND WORDS OF THE LORD BEEN ARRANGED IN SCRIPTURE IN FOUR VOLUMES AND BY FOUR WRITERS? It was fitting that the acceptable year of the Lord, as the prophet says, should be contained in four volumes as it were in four seasons. For just as the year unfolds in four seasons, in such a way that they have need of one another, so too the deeds and words of the Lord have been defined in four books, in such a way that one has need of another; yet together, in their fullness, they are made complete.

Now the reason why they were arranged by four writers was this: that, since the seasons have diverse names, the Gospels too should have diverse titles. And if any things seem contrary in their wording, yet in sense they do not disagree, once a fitting interpretation is given according to the matter—just as the seasons, though they seem indeed diverse in name, in temperature and in the course of the stars, yet in the effect of the things they bring forth do not disagree. SINCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FOUR BOOKS OF THE LORD'S DEEDS AND WORDS HAVE BEEN DULY COMPOSED, WE MUST KNOW WHAT THEIR ORDER IS. The Gospel is gathered together by arrangement rather than by chronology.