For both according to the promise made to Abraham all the Gentiles are justified by believing in Him, and according to the prophecy of Isaiah He was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, of the tribe of Judah, as was promised, of the seed of David; and, in accordance with what Jeremiah prophesied, He proclaimed the New Testament which God had promised would come; and after showing all the signs of His mighty works He humbled Himself, according to the sayings of the prophets, and having suffered all things that had been foretold, He rose again on the third day, just as it is written in the prophet.
And if they require the time of the promise, as it was shown to the prophet Daniel, they will find it fulfilled in the time in which Christ was born and suffered. For from the time of the first year of Darius, king of the Persians, up to the nativity and passion of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem—which was accomplished by Vespasian, the chief of the Roman empire—seventy weeks were fulfilled, which are four hundred and ninety years. This reckoning is made plain through the kingdoms and through the successions of empire, in the very way it is found computed also by Tertullian in the book which he wrote against the Jews—which, lest it should serve to his injury (since he reckoned rightly), we have passed over. And who could be in doubt about this number, when about three hundred years are now found beyond this number?
It is therefore the mark of an impudent man, after so great a number has been added beyond the coming of the Savior, to say, 'He has not come.' For under the apostles, or at the very time when the Lord was dwelling among men, malice contradicting the truth could still hide itself, so that, although it saw in the Savior all the signs of the promised Christ, it might yet say it was in doubt about the time, in order to conceal its faithlessness. But afterward, when many years began to grow beyond the promised number, what impudence it is to deny that He has come, who is known to have been fulfilled both by signs and by times! For when something is complete and does not overflow, some contentious person can say it is not complete; but if it overflows, the mouth of the contentious is shut.
So also the Jews, in the time of the Savior, could say—though by deceit—that the reckoning from the time of Darius up to the Lord Christ was not correctly made, so that He might not be said to be the one who was promised. For we are mistaken in the years and months and days of the emperors, and we do not gather them up exactly. But once the times had grown beyond the prescribed number of years of the promised Christ, no excuse can be put forward for Him who came not to be called the Christ—unless (which God forbid) He who made the promise be said to have lied. For when the time of the promise has been measured out, and He who was promised is denied to have come, what else is this but that He who promised is convicted of falsehood?
But that He who promised is truthful is taught by all the signs which were foretold and are known to be found in Christ. The Jews, however, while they blush to amend their error, do not consider the judgment to come. For nothing is worse than for someone to deny to be true what he understands not to be a lie. XLV. ON THE IMAGE. 'Let us make,' He says, 'man after our image and likeness.' To some this seems to be understood from another passage of the reading, namely that in which we read that God said, 'Come, let us go down and confound their tongues'—because, so far as appears on the surface, it is similar: for it is the voice of one speaking in the plural number, yet it differs in meaning, since the reasoning is also unlike.
For there He speaks of creating man, whom God wills to be created after His own image and likeness. But that saying, 'Come, let us go down and confound their tongues,' pertains to this: that men should not understand one another; whence God may seem to have spoken to the angels, as a commander to his army. For He spoke in common, because He was about to act through them, inasmuch as He was their creator; and on this account He says, 'Let us confound their tongues.' But when He says, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness,' He cannot be said to have spoken to angels, because the image of God and of angels cannot be said to be one—just as that of an emperor and his retinue cannot—since of those whose image is one, the dignity or nature cannot be unlike. Then He adds:
'And God,' it says, 'made man; after the image of God He made him,' so that God spoke and God made—not another God or a different one, but the same God. For the fact that one spoke to one signified no different nature, but a Person. For though God is one, yet there are three Persons; and therefore He is one God, because, whether in the Son or in the Holy Spirit, the substance is of the one God, since that which is from Him cannot but be what He Himself is. It is, then, the Person of God the Father who says, 'Let us make'; and of the Son who makes man after the image of God—whether after the Father's image or after His own, it makes no difference, since the image of both is one. The Son therefore made through the Holy Spirit.
For just as the Father is said to act through the Son, so also the Son acts through the Holy Spirit, as He Himself says: 'For I cast out demons by the Spirit of God.' Therefore the image of the three is one, since, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, it is one God. And on this account man was made one, after the image of the one God. But man is the image of God in this respect: that, just as there is one God in the heavens, from whom all spiritual things subsist, so there should be one man on earth, from whom the rest should have their carnal origin. To some, however, it seems that man was made the image of God in dominion, because He said:
'And let him have dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air and over all the earth'—since these things are seen to be subject not only to the man but also to the woman, who it is agreed does not have the image of God. This view, however, lacks reason in a twofold manner. For by this it is asserted that God did not say to the Son, 'Let us make man after our image and likeness,' but to the heavenly dominions which the Apostle mentions; and if man has the image of God in dominion, it is granted to the woman also that she herself is the image of God—which is absurd. For how can it be said of the woman that she is the image of God, when it is agreed that she is subject to the dominion of the man and has no authority? For she can neither teach, nor be a witness, nor give a pledge of faith, nor judge: how much less rule! XLVI.
ON SAMUEL. There are some among us who, partly being occupied with worldly affairs, partly being less studious concerning the sacred Scriptures, suffer an error in supposing that Samuel was a priest, that is, that he had his origin from Aaron, from whose progeny the Lord God ordained that priests should be born, not made; nor was it granted to anyone except his sons to place incense upon the altar. Some of these, erring still more, indeed deny that Samuel was of the lineage of Aaron—that is, they say he was not born a priest—and nonetheless assert that he exercised the priesthood. To these we must reply first.
For it is worse to deny that Samuel was born a priest and yet to assert that he exercised the priesthood, than to say that he was a priest from among the sons of Aaron. For the latter is ignorance, the former is folly. For when those who think him born a priest have learned that he was not of the sons of Aaron, they will hold it manifest that, in their ignorance, he was not a priest, since it was not lawful for anyone to perform the priesthood except him who was of the seed of Aaron. For they have it ascertained—indeed it is manifest—that Korah, since he was not of the sons of Aaron and had wished to place incense upon the altar, was swallowed up by the opening of the earth together with his companions.
And King Uzziah, since he was certainly not of the seed of Aaron but of the tribe of Judah, and had presumed to perform the priesthood, while standing before the altar was struck with leprosy in his forehead and thus expired. But those who say that Samuel was not born a priest and nonetheless assert that he exercised the priesthood—what they say is foolish enough. And to persuade a fool of what is good is a labor most great. For by what dullness are they led, that when the sun appears over the earth they say it is night! For when they read—and read in more than one place—that this was decreed by God, that no one should dare to perform the priesthood except Aaron and his sons, with obstinate mind they contend that Samuel was a priest.
For they do not understand that, if Samuel was not born a priest and yet performed the priesthood, he is called a presumptuous usurper, since God decreed this: that priests should be born, not made. And concerning Samuel I think it is not safe to hold such an opinion. For how could it come to pass that a man so praiseworthy and commended by the testimony of God should do that which he knew to be forbidden? For of such presumption he held it for certain that punishment had been inflicted once and again. Nor could he, by the judgment of God, aspire to this—God whom he knew to be unchangeable; from whom, if perchance he had heard such a thing, he would rather have believed himself to be tempted, knowing that God can in no way rescind His own sentence.
For he could rather believe that this was done with him under the appearance and name of God, so that he might be circumvented by the adversary, than that God could change His own judgment. Indeed, when Balaam had been forbidden by God to go to Balak, and afterward had again inquired whether he should go, God, being angry with him, rebuked him by the example of the donkey, because the donkey, seeing the angel that forbade him, was unwilling to complete the journey it had begun. But Balaam, though God forbade him to go, by inquiring again whether He would have him go, thus judged of God as of a man, who through that which is unforeseeing is variable and changeable.
But Balaam is commended by no divine testimony—for he was a soothsayer—whereas Samuel was a man dear to God and knowing that the sentence of His judgments is fixed: how then could he believe that anything ought to be done otherwise than he knew to have been ordained by God? 'But Eli,' they say, 'and his sons the priests being dead, Samuel began to perform the priesthood'—which neither the reading teaches nor reason admits. For in saying this they suppose that there was then no one who might perform the priesthood, so that, these three being dead, unless Samuel had offered the gifts of the people, the priesthood would have ceased to be performed; which assertion is hostile to God. For by such reasoning God is judged improvident, since, as though unknowing, He ordained that which could not endure.
For why did He ordain that the priesthood should be performed by none other than the sons of Aaron forever—that is, until the times of the coming of Christ—if He knew that it would fail? But if He did not know—which God forbid!—He was improvident; and therefore it might be that Samuel was priest when they failed. But if God is provident and foreknowing, what He ordained endured; and if what He ordained endured, Samuel did not perform the priesthood, because they were not priests. In the old Law God decreed that priests be born; in the new, however, the Lord commanded that priests be made. Let them now choose one of two things: let them either prove Samuel a priest by birth or a priest by making. But they agree that he was not born a priest, because they know that he was not of the sons of Aaron.
If, therefore, Samuel was not born a priest, and is neither read nor proved to have been made one—because God had not decreed that priests be made—it is beyond all doubt that Samuel was by no means a priest. But the gainsayers, with closed eyes, say: 'If he was not a priest, yet he performed the office of a priest, since he is read to have offered sacrifice to God!' Who would dare deny what is proved by Scripture? For Samuel did offer sacrifice to God, but from this he is not known to have performed the office of a priest. For he is always said to offer whose oblations they are, which the priest places upon the altar. And Saul offered in this very manner, that is, through a priest, just as it is offered even now; and David offered and Solomon offered, and the rest likewise offered.
Did they all perform the office of a priest? For although the priest discharges his own proper office, yet he is said to offer in whose name the priest acts; for it is reckoned to him whose gifts are offered. And he who was not a priest—how could he perform the office of a priest? Can a deacon perform the office of a priest? For a prefect can perform the office of a prefect, and a praetor that of a praetor; yet a private person cannot perform the office of any authority: how much less can he perform the office of a priest who is not a priest! For with what counsel does he dare aspire to that which he knows is not permitted to him?
For if a priest is lacking in some place, a priest of another place can, on request, come and perform his office; yet a prophet, however holy his life may be, cannot perform what he knows is by no means granted to him. For it is one thing to live well, and another to receive the power of some office. For just as he who is a priest ought not on that account to think his life commended, so too he who is of holy conduct and life ought not on that account claim the priesthood for himself. For although the priesthood is good, yet it will be evil to him to whom it is not granted and who presumes upon it. For if we consider what is written concerning holy Samuel, we shall see what testimony Scripture gives him, saying: 'And he was made known,'
it says, 'to all the people, that Samuel is faithful as a prophet to the Lord'; and in the psalm it says, 'Let Moses and Aaron be among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name.' Who would not observe from this distinction that the persons are divided for the sake of their dignities, so that Moses and Aaron are recognized as having obtained priestly dignity, while Samuel is held to have stood among the prophets as worthy of God—these who by their prayers called upon God to protect His people, as is read? And to such a degree are priests proved by no means to have been lacking, that when the ark had been brought back by the Levite bearers, the men of Beth-shemesh offered sacrifices to God in the absence of Samuel. And when Saul had been made king, Ahimelech was the great-grandson of Eli the priest, who bore the ephod.
'But from this,' they say, 'Samuel seems to have been a priest, because he was clothed with an ephod.' As though deacons are not today clad in dalmatics, just as the bishop is. We read, moreover, that David too was clothed with an ephod, and a double ephod. But Samuel, while still a small boy, was girded with an ephod: could a small boy offer the gifts of the people to God? You see, therefore, that 'ephod' is indeed one name, but it does not always signify one thing. For the priests bore, they were not clothed with, the ephod; but kings and the Levite Samuel were clothed with an ephod. Sometimes, then, the ephod signifies a garment, sometimes as it were a little chest which the priests bore for inquiring of the Lord. As far as appears, it has been proved that Samuel was not a priest but a prophet.
Now we reply to those who, being ignorant that Samuel is not of the sons of Aaron the priest, suppose that he was a priest; for it was not lawful that one descending from the lineage of Aaron should not be a priest. These I wish first to recognize that, if Samuel was a priest, without doubt Elkanah his father was also a priest. It would also have been fitting that his sons too were priests—whom, because they were not priests, he appointed as judges over the children of Israel, just as he himself, Samuel, also was. For thus we read, 'that he judged the children of Israel.' But Elkanah the father of Samuel, in that he was not a priest: 'He went up,' it says, 'from days to days from his city Ramathaim to worship and sacrifice to the Lord God Almighty of hosts.'
'And there was Eli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord.' What is so plain as that Elkanah came to offer his gifts before the Lord through the priests at the proper time, according to what Moses had ordained—that at three seasons of the year they should offer their gifts and tithes where the ark of the Lord and the priests should be—especially since he had two wives at one time, which is unlawful for priests? For Elkanah was of the Levites, as the order of the generations is contained in the book of Paralipomenon. For as yet the Levites did not have an established order of ministry concerning the priests and the ark of the Lord. For David in his reign arranged the courses for the priests and the Levites, that from twenty years and upward, according to the Law,
—but from twenty-five years and upward—should begin to render their services to the divine ceremonies, namely those of the sons of Aaron, that is, of the line of Phinehas and Ithamar, twenty-four courses of priests, who should perform their turns at fixed times. But the Levites were appointed who should be doorkeepers of the tabernacle, and who should be bearers of the ark of the Lord, and who should keep watch, and who should be custodians of the vessels, and who should receive the various offerings. And twenty-four courses were instituted of singers and harpers and the rest of the musicians, so that even these, that is all the Levites, might have their turns of time, since it was necessary for them also to have leisure, that they might attend to the care of their own households.
And not only do these things avail for the case stated above—namely that Samuel was not of the sons of Aaron—but also that which his mother says to the Lord: 'If thou wilt give me,' she says, 'a son, I will lend him to the Lord all the days of his life.' She would not say this if he were born a priest—for he ought then to serve the altar—but because he was a Levite, and as yet no law had been laid down for the Levites, but each one acted according to his own will, so that, going astray, they presumed upon unlawful things. For Jonathan the son of the son of Moses, though he had been assigned among the Levites, presumed to perform the priesthood for the tribe of Dan. And on this account we read in the book of Judges, 'that everyone,' it says, 'did what pleased himself, because there was no king in Israel.'
Therefore Hannah vowed, saying, 'I lend him to the Lord,' lest he go astray with the rest. And that the question may be more fully discussed, let us also treat that which was said concerning Elkanah, that he came from days to days to offer his gifts and tithes. How did he offer tithes, who possessed nothing? For the Levites received no fields, because they sought their sustenance from the tithes which were given by the people. But it can be so, and is so understood: that he could have possessed his wife's property, or property purchased; because from the other tribes they received wives—not only these, but also the rest—so that even the priests took wives for themselves from the other tribes. For Jehoiada the high priest took a wife from the tribe of Judah, the daughter of king Joram. XLVII.
ON THE READING OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH: 'AND SEVEN WOMEN SHALL TAKE HOLD OF ONE MAN, SAYING: WE WILL EAT OUR OWN BREAD AND BE COVERED WITH OUR OWN GARMENTS; ONLY LET THY NAME BE CALLED UPON US: TAKE AWAY OUR REPROACH.' It is beyond all doubt that the seven women signify seven churches; for although the Church is one, yet it is called sevenfold, so that one body consists of a sevenfold number of members. For not only we, but also the heavenly ones on high, are members of the Church, whose head is Christ. Whether, then, one church or seven churches be spoken of, there is no discrepancy. For it is called one, because it has one head, which is Christ; but seven, because, just as the members are diverse, so also are the spiritual powers.
Among which we too are reckoned, the virtues are diverse, on which account they are also said to be in want. For they are diverse for this reason, that single members may not be able to do all things, but that all together may be the body of Christ, since He Himself is the head of the body, the Church, from whom the whole body subsists—that is, from whom all things in heaven and on earth have their origin. In this Church, therefore, which is on earth, mention was made of all the churches; because, when the sacrament of the Creator is preached to it, doctrine of this kind is intimated also to the heavenly ones. For when it is imparted to those below, it is necessary that those on high also hear. Whence the Apostle: 'To me,'
it says, 'to me, the least of all the saints, was this grace given, to evangelize among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to enlighten all men as to what is the dispensation of the mystery hidden from the ages in God, who created all things; and to make known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God.' Through this Church, therefore, those on high are taught, since, he says, 'truth has sprung up from the earth.' For in order that mention may be made of those above, here seven churches are named in one people, which seven churches the prophet brings forward as suppliants to the Savior become man. For they understood that Christ was born for this: to take away their reproach—first indeed of those living under His law, then of the rest.
But they had in remembrance that it was written: 'There shall come out of Zion one who shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.' These seven churches, then, took hold of one man, that is, the born Christ, saying: 'We will eat our own bread and be covered with our own garments; only let thy name be called upon us, take away our reproach.' What is this that they pray? For if they use their own bread and are clothed in their own garments—that is, both live and are not naked—what is lacking to them? For if bread signifies that which is unto life, and clothing that which is unto devotion to God—since he who is without God is called naked; whence the Apostle: 'As many of you,' he says, 'as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ,' and again:
'if so be that being clothed,' he says, 'we shall not be found naked'—what is it that they ask, that the reproach may be taken away from them, except that this people is signified in the number of the seven churches, who, living under the Law, awaited the promised Christ for the abolishing of sins? Therefore they say: 'We will eat our own bread'—that is, we shall be fed on the words of the Law, which deliver one God, since man lives not by bread alone but by every word of God—'and we shall be covered with our own garments,' that is, we are reckoned in the name of our Creator, because each one is said to be clothed with that which he both is and professes. And so senators or officials are understood by their garments as to what they are.
But because these things do not suffice for meriting God's favor, He ordained this also: that through the sacrament of the knowledge of the one God, man should be heir of the kingdom of heaven. For through faith, washed from his sins and freed from the second death—which by the sentence given in Adam held men in the lower regions—he goes, a stranger detained by none, into the paradise of God the Father, in which the Lord said to the thief that he should be with Him. For although the aforesaid people, who are signified in the seven churches, were under the law of God and in devotion from the very origin of the world, yet they needed purification both of their own and of their father's sin, since 'all,' he says, 'have sinned and are in need of the glory of God.'
For this reason the aforementioned churches pray that their reproach may be taken away by the invocation of the name of Christ, since those who have His sign, by which He conquered death, cannot be held by the enemy. And not only do these churches of Christ pray that His name may be invoked upon them, but also the supernal spiritual ones dwelling in the heavenly places. For although the spiritual and heavenly powers are such, yet they lie under reproach if they have become estranged from their Creator, and they will not be members of the body, who, not knowing their own head, go astray. And because it is nothing other than what we have explained, in the following words the prophet testifies, saying: 'But in that day God shall enlighten in counsel upon the earth'; and he added:
'For the Lord,' it says, 'shall wash away the filth of the sons and of the daughters, and shall purge the blood from the midst of them.' What is so evident as that in that day—that is, in which the promise of God was fulfilled and the sacrament of faith was made manifest to men—they were enlightened, so that, purified through the knowledge of the Creator, those who had been guilty of death might become heirs of eternal life? The prophet, therefore, spoke indiscriminately, in order to signify that all stand in need of the gift of God, so that—
—whether sinners or righteous, they might be known to have awaited the mercy of God: sinners on account of their own offenses, that they might be snatched from the jaws of death; but the righteous, absolved from the father's sin, the sentence given in Adam—by which all were held by death—being blotted out, having received liberty, might enter into the kingdom of God, no longer slaves but sons of God. QUESTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. XLVIII. GOD CERTAINLY IS PERFECTION AND IN NEED OF NOTHING: WHAT NEED, THEN, WAS THERE OF CHRIST THE SAVIOR, THAT HE SHOULD BE BORN OF GOD, AND THAT GOD SHOULD HAVE A SON THROUGH WHOM HE MIGHT MAKE ALL THINGS?
When God had willed that the things which were not should come into being, and knew that this work was by no means worthy of His majesty, He first, out of Himself—since He is of a simple and incorporeal nature—begot a Son, who would in no way differ from Him, so that an effect congruous with His own greatness might correspond to it. For what more could He do than to beget another self, who is perfect? This, then, is the perfect work, than which nothing can be seen more excellent. For all other things are lesser; for by as much as Christ is more excellent than all these, by so much the more is their creation inferior to His generation. There is also another point. For God, from whom are all things, willing to found creation, first begot the Word which He held within Himself in mystery—that is, He made it to exist.
He called that Word 'Son' for this reason: to show that the Son came forth from Himself and is consubstantial with Himself, so that the law by which sons proceed from their parents might make this credible, by which He might disclose the mystery of the creature that lay hidden in Him from eternity. XLIX. WHY WAS THE SAVIOR BAPTIZED, WHEN HE WAS BORN HOLY AND WAS CALLED CHRIST THE LORD AT HIS VERY NATIVITY, SINCE BAPTISM IS FOR THE SAKE OF PURIFICATION AND OF SIN? It is indeed manifest that the Savior had no need of baptism, since Christ was not made but born, as the angel says to the shepherds: 'Behold, today there is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.'
Indeed John, knowing His holiness, sought to forbid Him from baptism, but the Savior insisted that it must be done—not on account of sin, of course, but for the fulfilling of righteousness. For it was fitting that He Himself should be an example to those who would become sons of God, since He taught that men become sons of God through baptism; and He who promised that the Holy Spirit would be given to believers ought to demonstrate this visibly in Himself, so that, having learned this, believers might hold in hope that they were invisibly receiving the Holy Spirit. For the Savior indeed, since He is born of the Holy Spirit, had a purified body. For the anointing was given spiritually to His flesh in the womb; for the Holy Spirit purified that which from the Virgin Mary came forth into the Savior's body.