«For with this my staff I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two camps. Deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, lest when he comes he strike me and the mothers with the children. But you said: I will do you good and make your seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for its multitude.» In these words both human weakness and the faith of piety sufficiently appear. As for what the Latin codices have concerning Jacob, «For he said: I will appease his face with the gifts going before him» — the writer of the book, narrating, says of Jacob, «For he said: I will appease his face»: thus far the words of Jacob are understood to have been spoken, but the rest he added of his own, when he says «with the gifts going before him,» as though he were saying:
«With the gifts which went before Jacob, I will appease the face of my brother.» The order therefore of Jacob's words is: «I will appease his face, and after this I will see his face; for perhaps he will receive my face.» But the words of the writer are interposed: «with the gifts going before him.» As for the fact that Jacob desires to be blessed by that angel over whom he prevailed in wrestling, it is a great prophecy concerning Christ. For by this very thing he admonishes us to perceive something mystical, since every man wishes to be blessed by one greater. How then did he wish it from one whom he had overcome in wrestling? For Jacob prevailed over Christ — or rather seemed to prevail — through those Israelites by whom Christ was crucified;
and yet by Him he is blessed in those Israelites who believed in Christ, of whom was he who said: «For I too am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.» One therefore and the same Jacob is both lame and blessed: lame in the breadth of the thigh, as in the multitude of the race, of whom it is said, «and they went lame from their paths»; but blessed in those of whom it is said, «a remnant according to the election of grace has been saved.» What does it mean that Jacob says to his brother, «Therefore I have seen your face, as when one sees the face of God»? Did the words of a frightened and disturbed mind break forth even into this flattery? Or according to some understanding can they be taken as spoken without sin?
For perhaps, since the gods of the nations too — which are demons — are so called, no prejudice arises from these words against the man of God. For he did not say «as if I saw the face of God,» but «as when one sees»; and it is uncertain whom this «one» might signify. And thus perhaps the words were so tempered that both Esau himself might gratefully receive so great an honor paid to him, and those who can understand these things otherwise might charge the one who spoke them with no crime of impiety. But even if these fraternal words were spoken with a kindly disposition — since after the good reception the fear itself had passed away — it could be so said, just as Moses too was called the god of Pharaoh, according to what the Apostle says:
«even if there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords» — especially because in the Greek it is said without the article, by which article the signification of the one true God is most evidently wont to be made. For he did not say «the face of the God,» but he said «the face of a god»; and those who are accustomed to hear and understand Greek speech easily understand by what distinction it is said. It is asked whether Jacob promised his brother falsely that, following the pace of his own people on the journey — on whose account, if he were to delay, he would come to him in Seir; for this, as Scripture afterwards narrates, he did not do, but went by the road which led to his own people.
Or perhaps he had promised with a truthful mind, but afterwards, on reflection, chose otherwise? How does Scripture say that Shechem son of Hamor the Horite, prince of the land, saw Dinah daughter of Jacob, and took her and lay with her and humbled her; and set his mind upon Dinah daughter of Jacob and loved the virgin and spoke according to the mind of the virgin to her? How is she called a virgin, if he had already lain with her and humbled her? — unless perhaps «virgin» is a name of age according to Hebrew idiom. Or rather, is it by recapitulation that what was done first is mentioned afterwards? For first he could have set his mind upon her soul and loved the virgin and spoken according to the mind of the virgin, and then have lain with her and humbled her.
Since a little before, Jacob speaking with his brother Esau signifies that his sons are infants — those who in Greek are called paidia — it may be asked how they could make so great a slaughter and pillaging of the city, the men being killed although set in the pain of circumcision, on behalf of their sister Dinah. But it is to be understood that Jacob had dwelt there a long time, until both his daughter became a virgin and his sons youths. For it is thus written: «And Jacob came to Salem, a city of the Sichemites, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Mesopotamia of Syria; and he encamped before the face of the city. And he bought the part of the field in which he there set up his tent, from Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred lambs; and he set up there an altar, and called upon the God of Israel.»
«Now Dinah daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to become acquainted with the daughters of that region,» and so forth. It appears therefore from these words that Jacob did not dwell there in passing, as a traveler is wont, but that he bought a field, set up a tent, built an altar, and thereby dwelt there for a longer time; and that his daughter, when she had come to that age at which she could now have girlfriends, wished to become acquainted with the daughters of the citizens of the place; and thus that most bloody slaughter and plundering was carried out on her account, which now, as I think, presents no problem. For the multitude with Jacob was not small, since he had been greatly enriched; but his sons are named in this deed, because they were the chief agents and authors of the same deed.
As for what Jacob says, fearing the wars of the neighboring peoples about the city of Salem which his sons had stormed: «But I am few in number, and they gathering against me will kill me» — on account of the wars of many which could arise, he called himself few in number, not because he had fewer than could suffice for the storming of that city, since he had divided his men on the journey into two camps. «Now God said to Jacob: Arise and go up to the place Bethel and dwell there; and make there an altar to God who appeared to you, when you were fleeing from the face of your brother Esau.» What does it mean that He did not say «make there an altar to me, who appeared to you,» but God says, «make there an altar to God who appeared to you»? Did the Son appear there, and does God the Father say this?
Or is it to be reckoned as some kind of manner of speaking? As for the fact that Jacob, about to go up to Bethel where he was commanded to make an altar, says to his household and to all who were with him: «Put away the strange gods that are with you from your midst,» and so forth; then it is said: «And they gave Jacob the strange gods which were in their hands, and the earrings which were in their ears.» It is asked why the earrings too — which, if they were ornaments, did not pertain to idolatry — unless because it is to be understood that they were phylacteries of the strange gods. For Scripture testifies that Rebecca received earrings from Abraham's servant; which would not have been done, if it were not lawful for them to have earrings for the sake of ornament. Therefore those earrings which were given along with the idols,
as has been said, were phylacteries of the idols. «And the fear of God came upon the cities which were around them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Israel.» Let us begin to observe how God works in the minds of men. For by whom was the fear of God brought upon those cities, except by Him who was guarding His promises in Jacob and his sons? «Now Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, which is Bethel.» It is to be observed that three names of this city are now mentioned: Ulammaus, which it is said it was formerly called, when Jacob, going there first, had come into Mesopotamia; and Bethel, which name he himself imposed, and it is interpreted «house of God»; and Luz, which has just been mentioned. Nor ought it to seem surprising;
for in many places this happens, both in cities and in rivers and in various lands, that from one cause or another names are either added or changed — just as also to men themselves. «Again in Luz God appeared to Jacob and said to him: Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.» Behold, God says this to him again in blessing, and this repetition confirms the great promise in this name. For this is a wonder: those to whom a name has once been given,
are no longer called by what they used to be called, but by the new name that was imposed on them, and are called by nothing more than what was imposed on them; but this man, throughout his whole life and thereafter, after his life, was called Jacob, to whom God had once said: «You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name.» Undoubtedly, therefore, this name is rightly understood to pertain to that promise, where God will be seen in such a way as He was not seen before by the fathers. For there the old name will not exist, because nothing of the old will remain even in the body itself, and the vision of God will be the highest reward. In the promises to Jacob it is said: «Nations and congregations of nations shall be from you.»
Is it that «nations» are according to the flesh, but «congregations of nations» according to faith? — or is both said on account of the faith of the nations, if the one nation of Israel according to the flesh cannot be called «nations»? «Now God went up from him from the place where He had spoken with him. And Jacob set up a pillar in the place in which He had spoken with him, a pillar of stone: and he poured a libation upon it and poured oil upon it. And Jacob called the name of the place in which God had spoken with him there, Bethel.» Was this done in this place, which had been done before? Or was it again mentioned? But whichever of these it be, Jacob poured a libation upon the stone, he did not pour a libation to the stone.
It is therefore not as idolaters are wont to set up altars before stones and to pour libations to stones as to gods. As for the fact that the twelve sons of Israel who were born to him are reckoned and it is said: «These are the sons of Israel who were born to him in Mesopotamia» — since Benjamin was born long afterward, when they had already passed Bethel and were approaching Bethlehem — certain persons, vainly attempting to resolve this question, have said that it should not be read «were born,» as most Latin codices have it, but «were made» — for in Greek it is written egenonto — thus wishing it to be understood that Benjamin too, although he was not born there, was nevertheless «made» there, because he had already been sown in the womb, so that Rachel is believed to have gone out from there pregnant.
But in this way, even if it were read «were born,» they could say: he had already been born in the womb, because he had been conceived; just as it was said of holy Mary to Joseph: «For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit.» But there is another thing that hinders this solution of this question. For if Benjamin had already been conceived there, those sons of Jacob who went out from there grown could scarcely have been twelve years old. For he completed twenty years there, of which the first seven he was without a wife, until by serving he might obtain one. So that in the first year in which he married a wife, a son might be born to him, the firstborn could have been twelve years old when he set out from there.
Accordingly, if Benjamin had already been conceived, within ten months that whole journey was accomplished and whatever is written of Jacob on the journey. Whence it follows that his sons, being so young, made so great a slaughter on behalf of their sister Dinah, and butchered so many men, and thus stormed the city — among whom Symeon and Levi, who first, girt with swords, entered upon those men and destroyed them, are found to have been the one eleven, the other ten years old, even if she had borne without interruption every single year. Which is surely incredible, that all those things could have been done by boys of that age, when even Dinah herself was scarcely yet six years old.
Accordingly, the question must be resolved otherwise, so that it may be understood, of the twelve sons mentioned, that it was said: «These are the sons of Jacob who were made to him in Mesopotamia of Syria» — because among all of them, who were so many, only one was not born there, who nevertheless had from there the cause of his birth, in that his mother was there joined to his father. But this solution of the question must be confirmed by some example of similar speech. Yet there is no easier solution of this question than that it be taken by synecdoche. For where the greater or the better part is, its name is wont to comprehend also that which does not pertain to the name itself.
Just as Judas no longer pertained to the twelve apostles — he who indeed was dead when the Lord rose from the dead — and yet the Apostle in his epistle retained the name of the very number twelve, when he says that He appeared to those «twelve.» For the Greek codices have this with the article, so that it cannot be understood as any twelve whatever, but those distinguished in that number. In that manner of speaking I think this too was said by the Lord: «Did I not choose you twelve? and one of you is a devil,» so that he himself may not seem to pertain even to the election. For the name of the elect is not easily found in a bad sense, except when the evil are chosen by the evil.
But if we should suppose that he too was chosen, in order that through his betrayal the Lord's passion might be accomplished — that is, his malice being chosen for some purpose, God using well even the evil — let us attend to another passage, where He says: «I do not speak of you all; I know whom I have chosen»: where He declares that none but the good pertain to the election. And therefore that which was said, «I chose you twelve,» was said by synecdoche, so that by the name of the greater and better part it might comprehend also that which does not pertain to the name itself. This mode is found in this same book, where Hamor, on behalf of his son Shechem, in order to receive Dinah daughter of Jacob, went out to speak with the same Jacob, and his sons who were absent also came, and to all of them Hamor says:
«My son Shechem has chosen in his heart your daughter; give her therefore to him as wife.» For because the person of the father was the more important, in saying «your daughter» by synecdoche he included under this name also the brothers, whose daughter she was not. Hence is also that: «Run to the sheep and take me from there two kids.» For sheep and goats were pastured together; and because sheep are the more important, under their name he included also the flock of goats. So because the number of the eleven sons of Jacob who had been born in Mesopotamia was the more important, by the mention of them Scripture included also Benjamin, who was not born there, and it was said: «These are the sons of Jacob who were made to him in Mesopotamia of Syria.»
As for the fact that after the narration of Isaac's death it is narrated what wives Esau took and whom he begot, this is to be understood as a recapitulation: for it did not begin to happen after Isaac's death, since Esau and Jacob were already a hundred and twenty years old. For Isaac begot them when he was sixty, and lived all the years of his life a hundred and eighty. There is a question how Scripture says that after the death of Isaac his father, Esau departed from the land of Canaan and dwelt in Mount Seir, whereas, when his brother Jacob came from Mesopotamia, it is read that he was already dwelling there. Accordingly, what could have happened, so that Scripture may not be believed either to err or to deceive, is ready at hand to consider.
Namely, that Esau, after his brother departed into Mesopotamia, was unwilling to dwell with his parents, whether from that agitation by which he grieved that he had been cheated of the blessing, or from some cause either of his wives, whom he saw to be hateful to his parents, or from any other whatsoever. And he began to dwell in Mount Seir. Then, after the return of his brother Jacob, when concord had been made between them, he too returned to his parents; and when they had together buried their dead father, because that land, as it is written, by no means held them, so greatly enriched, he departed again into Seir and there propagated the nation of the Idumeans. As for what is written: «These are the princes of the Horite, the sons of Seir in the land of Edom,» he mentions it according to the time in which the writer was living.
For when he who begot these dwelt in Seir, Esau not yet having come into that land, it was assuredly not yet called the land of Edom. For the name was not imposed on the land except from Esau himself, since the very same man was called both Esau and Edom, from whom the Idumeans were propagated, that is, the nation of Edom. As for what is written: «And these are the kings who reigned in Edom, before a king reigned in Israel» — it is not to be taken as though all the kings were named up to those times in which the kings of Israel began, of whom the first was Saul. For there were many in Edom up to the times of Saul, together also with the times of the judges, whose times were before the kings; but of these many, Moses could mention only those who were before he himself died.
Nor is it surprising that, for those who count from Abraham through Esau father of the nation of Edom, and through Raguel son of Esau, and Zara son of Raguel, and Jobab son of Zara — whom in the kingdom Balac succeeded, who is mentioned as having been the first king in the land of Edom — up to the last king whom Moses could name, more generations are found than are counted from Abraham through Jacob up to Moses. For there about twelve are found, but here up to Moses about seven. For it could have happened that more were named there for this reason, that by dying sooner more succeeded one another.
So too it came about that Matthew, following a different order, counted forty-two generations from Abraham to Joseph, while Luke, counting the generations in another order, not through Solomon as the former did, but through Nathan, mentions fifty-five from Abraham to Joseph. For in that order where more are counted, they died sooner than here where fewer. But lest perhaps it disturb anyone that among the kings of Edom Balac son of Beor is mentioned, and from the similarity of the name he should suppose that this is the Balac
who withstood Moses leading the people of Israel — let him know that that Balac was a Moabite, not an Idumean, and was the son of Sephor, not the son of Beor; but that there was also then a son of Beor there, namely Balaam, not Balac, whom that same Balac had hired to curse the people of Israel. How the death of Isaac could have found Joseph his grandson seventeen years old, as Scripture seems to narrate as it were in order, is difficult to find, whithersoever one may turn. For I do not wish to say that it cannot be found, lest perhaps that escape me which did not escape another.
For if after the death of his grandfather Isaac Joseph was seventeen years old when his brothers sold him into Egypt, then beyond doubt his father Jacob too, in the seventeenth year of his son Joseph, was a hundred and twenty years old. For Isaac begot them when he was sixty years old, as it is written. Isaac therefore lived a hundred and twenty years afterward, since he died at a hundred and eighty. Therefore he left his sons a hundred and twenty years old, and Joseph seventeen.
But since Joseph was thirty years old when he appeared in Pharaoh's sight, and there followed seven years of plenty and two of famine before his father came to him with his brothers, Joseph was assuredly thirty-nine years old when Jacob entered into Egypt. But then this same Jacob, as he says with his own mouth to Pharaoh, was in his hundred and thirtieth year of age; but Jacob was a hundred and twenty when Joseph was seventeen: which can in no way be true. For if in the seventeenth year of Joseph's life Jacob were a hundred and twenty, then beyond doubt in the thirty-ninth year of Joseph, Jacob would be found to be not a hundred and thirty, but a hundred and forty-two years old.
But if on the day of Isaac's death Joseph was not yet seventeen years old, but reached his seventeenth year some little time after the death of his grandfather — in which year, as Scripture testifies, he was sold by his brothers into Egypt — then his father ought to have been even more than a hundred and forty-two years old when he followed his son into Egypt. For Scripture, after it had narrated the last year of Isaac's life, the hundred and eightieth, and his death and burial, then mentioned how Esau had departed from his brother out of the land of Canaan into Mount Seir, and wove in the mention of the kings and princes of that nation, in which Esau established himself, or which he propagated;
After this the Scripture introduced the narrative concerning Joseph thus: 'Now Jacob dwelt in the land of Canaan. And these are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the sheep with his brothers.' Then there is told the occasion of the dreams, how he was made hateful to his brothers and was sold. Either, then, in that same seventeenth year, or even somewhat older, he came into Egypt. And on this account, whichever way it be, a question remains. For if he was seventeen years old after the death of his grandfather, when his father was a hundred and twenty, then assuredly in his father's hundred and thirty-ninth year, when Jacob came into Egypt, that same Jacob ought to have been a hundred and forty-two years old; but Jacob was then a hundred and thirty.
And on this account, if Joseph was sold into Egypt at seventeen years old, he is found to have been sold twelve years before his grandfather died. For he could not have been seventeen years old except twelve years before the death of Isaac, in the hundred and eighth year of the life of his father Jacob. For when we have added to these the twenty-two years during which Joseph was in Egypt until his father's arrival, Joseph's age will come to thirty-nine years and Jacob's to a hundred and thirty, and there will be no question. But because Scripture recounted these things after the death of Isaac, it is supposed that Joseph became seventeen years old after the death of that same grandfather of his.
Wherefore let us understand that Scripture kept silent about the life of Isaac, as of an aged man far advanced in years, when it was already speaking of Jacob and his sons; yet Joseph began to be seventeen years old while Isaac was still living. As to what Jacob says to Joseph: 'What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall we indeed come, I and your mother and your brothers, to bow down to you upon the earth?'—unless it be taken as spoken in some mystery, how is it understood of Joseph's mother, who was already dead? Hence it is not to be thought that this was fulfilled in Egypt, when he was exalted, since neither did his father bow before him when he came to him in Egypt, nor could his mother, long since deceased.
In the person of Christ, therefore, it can easily be understood even of the dead, according to that which the Apostle says: that God 'gave him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things on earth, and of things under the earth.' It is asked why Scripture also calls Midianites those Ishmaelites to whom Joseph was sold by his brothers, seeing that Ishmael is the son of Abraham by Hagar, while the Midianites are descended from Keturah. Is it perhaps because Scripture had said of Abraham that he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines—namely of Hagar and of Keturah—and sent them away from his son Isaac into the land of the east, so that they are to be understood as having become one people? Concerning Jacob it is written, when he mourned for Joseph:
'And all his sons and daughters gathered together and came to comfort him.' What daughters besides Dinah? Or does he say 'sons and daughters' with the grandsons and granddaughters included in the count? For by now his elder sons could have had sons. 'And he refused to be comforted, saying: I shall go down to my son mourning into the netherworld.' There is wont to be a great question as to how the netherworld (infernus) is to be understood: whether only the wicked, or also the good, are wont to descend there at death. If, then, only the wicked, how does this man say that he wishes to go down mourning to his son? For he does not believe that Joseph is in the pains of the netherworld. Or are these the words of one troubled and grieving, exaggerating his misfortunes even from this? 'And they sold Joseph into Egypt to Potiphar the eunuch, the chief of the cooks.'
Some are unwilling to interpret as 'chief of the cooks' the one who in Greek is called archimageiros; but rather 'chief of the soldiery,' one who had the power of putting to death. For so also was called that man whom Nebuchadnezzar sent, with whom rather the chief command of the soldiery is found to have been. 'And it came to pass at that time that Judah went down from his brothers to a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah. And Judah saw there the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua; and he took her and went in to her. And she conceived and bore a son'—and so forth. It is asked when these things could have happened.
For if it was after Joseph came into Egypt, how could it have happened, within about twenty-two years—for it is reckoned that after so long a time they came to that same brother Joseph in Egypt with their father—that Judah's sons could all be of an age to take wives? For Thamar his daughter-in-law, when his firstborn had died, he gave to another son; and when this one too had died, he waited for the third to grow up; and when he had grown up, he did not give her to him either, fearing that this one also might die. Whence it came about that she offered herself to her own father-in-law.
How, then, all these things could have happened within so few years, it rightly warns us to consider—unless, as it perchance is wont, Scripture wishes it to be understood, by way of recapitulation, that this began to happen some years before Joseph was sold, since it is so put as to say: 'And it came to pass at that time.' Yet here too it is asked, if Joseph was seventeen years old when he was sold, how old Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, could have been, seeing that Reuben himself, the firstborn, could at most have preceded his brother Joseph in age by five or six years. But Scripture plainly says that Joseph was thirty years old when he became known to Pharaoh.