Книга шестнадцатая

The first part of this book, from chapter one to twelve, sets out the further destinies of both, earthly and heavenly, cities according to the Sacred History from Noah to Abraham. The last part examines the fate of only the City of Heaven, from Abraham to the kings of Israel. Chapter I. Are there any families living according to God after the flood from Noah to Abraham? It is difficult to find in the words of Scripture clear traces of the further fate of the holy city after the flood: did it continue its existence, or was it interrupted by an intermediate period of wickedness so that not a single admirer of the true God remained among people. After Noah, who was honored with his wife, three sons and as many daughters-in-law to be saved in the ark from destruction by the flood, we do not meet in the canonical books before Abraham a single person whose piety was exposed to the divine word with undoubted clarity. Only Noah, in a prophetic blessing, approved of his two sons, Shem and Japheth, contemplating and foreseeing what was about to happen in the distant future. Accordingly, he cursed his middle son, that is, the youngest in relation to the first-born and the eldest in relation to the least, who sinned against his father, not himself, but through him, his son, his grandson, with the following words: “Cursed is Canaan; He will be a servant of servants to his brothers” (Gen. IX, 25). This Canaan was born by Ham, who not only did not cover the nakedness of his sleeping father, but even hastened to publicize it. Continuing his speech, he added a blessing to his two sons, the eldest and the youngest, saying: “Blessed is the Lord God of Shem; Canaan will be his slave. May God extend Japheth; and let him dwell in the tents of Shem” (Gen. IX, 26–27). All this: Noah’s planting of grapes, and his intoxication from the fruits of these grapes, and his exposure during sleep, and everything else that then happened and is described, is full of prophetic meaning and very secret. Chapter II. What prophetic type was given in the person of the sons of Noah But now, when all this has already been fulfilled in posterity, what was previously hidden has become quite clear. Who, delving into the matter carefully and wisely, does not recognize the fulfillment of this in the person of Christ? For Shem, from whose seed Christ was born according to the flesh, translated means “renowned.” And who is more famous than Christ, whose name is so glorious everywhere that the prophecy itself compares Him to “poured overflowing ointment” (Song 1:2)? In His “tents”, i.e. in the Church, dwells a breadth of languages. For Japheth translated means “breadth.” Ham, whose name in translation means “hot,” the middle son of Noah, differing from both and staying between one and the other, not adhering to either the firstfruits of the Israelites or the redundancy of languages, what else does it mean but a race of heretics, burning not with the spirit of wisdom, but with impatience, with which the passions of heretics usually inflame and disturb the world of the saints? The latter, however, turns to the benefit of those who are successful, according to the well-known saying of the Apostle: “There must also be differences of opinion among you, so that those who are skillful may be revealed among you” (1 Cor. XI, 19). This is why Scripture says: “He who gathers during the summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during the harvest is a dissolute son” (Prov. X, 5). For many things pertaining to the Catholic faith, at the very time that it is attacked by the restless fervor of heretics, with a view to a possible defense against them, are more carefully examined, and more clearly understood, and more persistently preached. However, in the middle son of Noah one can, not without reason, see a prototype not only of those who separated openly, but also of all who bear the name of Christians, but live very badly: by their confession they proclaim the sufferings of Christ, the symbol of which was the nakedness of that man (Noah), and by their bad life they dishonor them. About such it is said: “By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew VII: 20). Therefore, Ham was cursed in his son, as in his fruit, that is, in his work. Accordingly, the name of his son, Canaan, translated means “their movement”: what is this if not their work? Shem and Japheth, as “circumcised and uncircumcised,” or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, “Jews and Greeks,” called and justified, having learned about the nakedness of their father, which meant the suffering of the Savior, took clothes, put them on their backs, entered “backward,” covered their father’s nakedness and did not see what they covered out of respect (Gen. IX, 23). In the suffering of Christ, in a certain way, we honor what was done for us, and we turn away from the atrocities of the Jews. Clothes signify mystery, and backs represent memories of the past; because at the time when Japheth has already taken up residence in the tents of Shem, and the evil brother is still turning among them, the Church is already celebrating the completed sufferings of Christ, and does not expect them, as still to be accomplished. But the evil brother in the person of his son, that is, through his actions, serves as a slave for the good brothers, when the good ones skillfully use the evil ones either to exercise patience or to excel in wisdom. There are, according to the testimony of the apostle, those who “preach Christ uncleanly.” But, he says, “however Christ is preached, feignedly or sincerely, I rejoice and will rejoice” (Phil. 1:16-18). After all, he grew the grapes about which the prophet speaks: “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel” (Isa. V, 7). He also drank from his wine: is it clear in this case that the cup about which He said: “Can you drink the cup that I will drink” (Matthew XX, 22); and again: “My Father! if possible, let this cup pass from Me” (Matthew XXVI, 39), by which He meant His suffering; or, since wine is the fruit of the grape, this signifies that He took flesh and blood from the grape itself, that is, from the generation of Israelites, for our sake, in order to be able to suffer. “Drank”, i.e. suffered; “lying naked” because in this case she was naked, i.e. His weakness was revealed, about which the apostle speaks: “He was crucified in weakness” (II Cor. XIII, 4). Therefore, the same apostle says: “The weak things of God are stronger than men” (I Cor. I, 25). And the fact that after the words “lay naked” Scripture adds “in his tent” (Gen. IX, 21) perfectly shows that He had to endure the cross and death from the people of his flesh and from the household of his blood, that is, from the Jews. Worthless people proclaim these sufferings of Christ only outwardly, with the sounds of their voices: they do not understand what they proclaim. Good people contain this great sacrament in their inner man, and inside, in their hearts, they honor the weak and foolish God, who is stronger and wiser than men. The image of this (we see) is that Ham, going out, announced this outside; and Shem and Japheth, in order to cover, that is, to honor it, entered, that is, they did it inside. We trace these mysteries of divine Scripture as best we can, sometimes more or less similar to each other; but we firmly hold to one thing: that what happened and what was written must, as a certain type, relate to Christ and His Church, which is the city of God. From the very beginning of the human race, there was no shortage of predictions about this city, the fulfillment of which we now see in the Case. After the story of Noah’s blessing of two sons and the curse of the third, the middle one between them, until Abraham himself, that is, for more than a thousand years, not a single righteous person is mentioned who would piously honor God. I don’t think there aren’t any; It would simply be too long to mention them all. The latter would correspond to historical goals, but not to prophetic goals. The writer of these sacred books, or rather, through him, the Holy Spirit, tells only that which is not only a narrative of the past, but also a prediction of the future, and all this ultimately relates to the city of God, because everything that is said there about people who are not citizens of this city is said with the sole purpose of making it exalted or better defined by comparing it with the city opposite it. Not all, however, the events narrated should necessarily be considered to have any significance; but even those that have no meaning are added for the sake of what has meaning. The earth, for example, is loosened by one coulter; but for this to happen, other components of the plow are also necessary. Likewise, in zithers and other similar instruments, only the strings are adapted for playing; but in order for them to sound, the instruments also include other parts that the players do not strike, but with which are connected those that sound when struck. So in a prophetic story something is told that does not mean anything in itself, but is somehow connected with something that matters. Chapter III. About the generations of the three sons of Noah So, let us now consider the generations of the sons of Noah, and what turns out to be necessary to say about them, we will add to this work, which sets out the gradual development of both cities, that is, the earthly and the heavenly. Scripture begins with the younger son, named Japheth. All his sons are named eight, and the grandchildren from his two sons are seven: three from one, four from the other; in total, therefore, fifteen are named. The sons of Ham, that is, the middle son of Noah, are named four, grandchildren from one son - five, and great-grandsons from one grandson - two; in total, therefore, eleven. After counting them, a return is made, as it were, to the beginning, and it is said: “Cush also begat Nimrod: he began to be strong on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; That is why it is said: a strong hunter is like Nimrod before the Lord. His kingdom at first consisted of: Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Chalne, in the land of Shinar. From this land came Asshur and built Nineveh, Rehobothir, Kalah, and Resen between Nineveh and Kalah; this is a great city” (Gen. X, 8–12). This Cush, the father of the giant Nimrod, was named first among the sons of Ham, and his five sons and two grandsons were already listed. It is possible that he gave birth to the giant after the birth of his grandchildren; but it is more likely that Scripture speaks of him separately because of his special celebrity; since his kingdom is also mentioned, the beginning of which was the famous city of Babylon and the cities or regions mentioned after it. What was said about Assyria, that he came out of that land, that is, from the land of Shinar, and built Nineveh with other cities that are mentioned, happened much later, and was noted in passing due to the fame of the kingdom of Assyria, which was extremely widespread by Ninus, the son of Bel, the founder of the great city of Nineveh. The city received its name from his name, since the name Nineveh comes from the name Nin. Assur, from whom the Assyrians took their name, was not one of the sons of Ham, the middle son of Noah, but one of the sons of Shem, who was the eldest son of Noah. From this it is clear that from the descendants of Shem there appeared those who subsequently took possession of the kingdom of the mentioned giant, and did not stop there, but founded other cities, including the glorious Nineveh. Then the writer returns to another son of Ham, called Mizraim, and those born from him are mentioned, but not individual people, but seven whole nations. From the sixth of them, as if from a sixth son, the people who were called the Philistines seem to have descended, which is why there are eight nations in all. Then the writer returns to Canaan, to that son in whose person Ham was cursed; mentions eleven that came from him and speaks, naming famous cities, about the limits to which they spread. Thus, counting sons and grandsons, Ham's descendants number thirty-one. It remains to be said about the sons of Shem. The narrative about the mentioned generations, starting with the youngest, gradually reached him. But in the place from which the sons of Shem begin to be mentioned, there appears to be some darkness that requires clarification, especially since it is closely related to the subject we are studying. The passage reads like this: “Shem, the father of all the sons of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, also had children” (Gen. X, 21). Sim, therefore, appears to be the patriarch of all those descended from his tribe, whom the writer intends to mention, whether they are his sons, or grandsons, or great-grandsons, or even later descendants. Shem did not give birth to Eber himself: Eber is mentioned as the fifth in the series of those descended from him. Among other sons, Shem gave birth to Arphaxad, Arphaxad gave birth to Cainan, Cainan gave birth to Shelah, Shem gave birth to Eber. The latter, however, is not in vain called the first in the line of descendants descended from Shem and even placed ahead of his sons. The reason, obviously, lies in the tradition that the Jews, or Jews, got their name from him. Although, however, there is another assumption, namely, that they received their name from Abraham - Avraei; but the truth, of course, is that they were called from Eber - Jews, and then, due to the reduction of one letter, Jews. Subsequently, the Hebrew language was preserved only by the people of Israel, in which the city of God wandered in the person of the saints, and was mysteriously shaded in the person of all others. So, first the six sons of Shem are mentioned, then the four grandsons born from one of them; in turn, another of the sons gave birth to a grandson, from whom a great-grandson was then born, from whom Eber was then born. Eber gave birth to two sons, of whom he named one Peleg, which translated means “divider.” Giving the reason for this name, Scripture says: “Because in his days the earth was divided” (Gen. X, 25). What this is will become clear later. Another, born of Eber, begat twelve sons. Thus, all the descendants of the three sons of Noah, counting fifteen from Japheth, thirty-one from Ham, and twenty-seven from Shem, are numbered seventy-three. Then in Scripture we read: “These are the sons of Shem, according to their tribes, according to their languages, in their lands, according to their peoples.” And then Scripture notes about everyone: “These are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogy, among their nations. From them nations spread throughout the earth after the flood” (Gen. X, 31–32). This serves as a basis for the conclusion that at that time there were seventy-three, or rather (which will be proven later) seventy-two separate peoples, not people. For even before, when the sons of Japheth were listed, it was said in conclusion: “From these the islands of nations were inhabited in their lands, each according to his language, according to his tribes, among his nations” (Gen. X, 5). However, as I showed above, already when counting the sons of Ham, nations are quite clearly mentioned in one place. “From Mizraim came Ludim...”, and so on, up to seven nations. And then, after listing everyone, it is like this: “These are the sons of Ham, according to their tribes, according to their languages, in their lands, in their nations” (Gen. X, 20). So, if the sons of many are not mentioned, it is because, when they were born, they joined other nations, but they themselves were unable to produce nations. For what other reason could there be that in counting the eight sons of Japheth, only the children born to two of them are mentioned; and when the four sons of Ham are named, the names of those born only from three of them are given; and when the six sons of Shem are named, the offspring of only two are mentioned? Are others left childless? This can't be true. But they did not produce nations for whose sake they would deserve mention; because as they were born they joined other nations. Chapter IV. About the difference of languages, and about the beginning of Babylon But although it is said about the mentioned peoples that they lived according to their languages, the narrator nevertheless returns to the time when they all had one common language, and describes the event that caused the difference in languages. “On the whole earth,” he says, “there was one language and one dialect. Moving from the East, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to each other: Let us make bricks and burn them with fire. And they used bricks instead of stones, and earthen resin instead of lime. And they said: Let us build ourselves a city and a tower, its height reaching to heaven; and let us make a name for ourselves, before we are scattered over the face of all the earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men were building. And the Lord said: Behold, there is one people, and they all have one language; and this is what they began to do, and they will not deviate from what they planned to do. Let us go down and confuse their language there, so that one does not understand the speech of the other. And the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore the name was given to it: Babylon; for there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth, and from there the Lord scattered them throughout all the earth” (Gen. XI, 1–9). This city, called “confusion,” is that very Babylon, the construction of which seems amazing even to pagan historians. For Babylon translated means “confusion.” From this it is concluded that its founder was the famous giant Nimrod, as was noted above, when Scripture, mentioning him, said that the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, that is, that it stood at the head of other cities as a metropolis and was the seat of government; although it had not yet been brought to the extent to which wicked pride intended to bring it. For they were designing an extraordinary, “high to the heavens” either one tower, to which they wanted to give superior dimensions over others, or all the towers, which are designated by the singular number, just as they say “soldier”, but thousands of soldiers are meant; as they say “locusts” when talking about the multitude of locusts that struck the Egyptians who did not listen to Moses (Ex. X, 4, Ps. 78:45–46). But what did human and vain arrogance expect to achieve? No matter how large a mass it raises to the sky against God, would it exceed all the mountains? Would you go beyond the boundaries of this cloudy air? And what harm could any exaltation, whether spiritual or physical, cause God? The safe and sure path to heaven is paved by humility, which elevates the heart to the Lord, but not against the Lord, which was the aforementioned giant. Not understanding this, some were deceived by the ambiguity of the Greek expression, and translated not “against the Lord”, but “before the Lord,” because ἐναντίον means both “against” and “before.” This word is used, for example, in the psalm: “Let us bow our knees before the Lord our Creator” (Ps. 94:6). We also read it in the book of Job, where it is written: “Why do you direct your spirit against God” (Job XV, 13). One should also understand what was said about Nimrod: “A giant fisher is against the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). The name “catcher” used in this place means nothing more than a deceiver, pursuer, destroyer of earthly animals. So, with his people, he erected a tower against the Lord, in which wicked pride was revealed. An evil desire is justly punished even if it is not fulfilled. What was the type of punishment? For a ruler, language is an instrument of domination; in it pride received condemnation, so that the commander, who did not want to understand that one must obey the commanding God, became incomprehensible to man. Thus the aforementioned conspiracy was destroyed, because everyone lagged behind the one he did not understand and stuck to the one with whom he could speak; and the nations were divided according to languages, and scattered throughout different countries of the earth, as it pleased God, who did this in secret ways inaccessible to our understanding. Chapter V. About the descent of the Lord to confuse the language of those involved in the construction of the tower For the expression of Scripture: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men were building” (Gen. XI, 5), i.e. not the sons of God, but that society living according to man, which we call an earthly city, does not mean that God, who is always and everywhere, moved from place; it is said “descended” in those cases when He does something that, being accomplished in some extraordinary way, different from the ordinary course of nature, shows in some way His presence. In the same way, and not through inspection, He who can never be ignorant of something will know at a certain time; but it is said that at a certain time He sees and recognizes because He allows Himself to be seen and recognized. So, it was not so much the city itself that was examined, but rather that God allowed him to see Himself when He showed to what extent it was displeasing to Him. One can, however, understand this expression this way: God came down to the mentioned city because the angels in whom He dwells came down to it; so the following words: “And the Lord said: Behold, there is one people, and they all have one language,” etc. up to the words: “Let us go down, and let us confound their language there” (Gen. XI, 6–7), represents a repetition of what was said, indicating the particulars of the mentioned descent of the Lord. After all, if the Lord has already descended, then what is the meaning of the expression: “Let us go down” (understanding that this was said by angels), if not He who descended through the angels, Who was present in the angels who descended? He does not say: “Come, and go down and mix,” but: “Let us go down and mix”; This perfectly shows that He acts through His servants in such a way that they too are co-workers with God, as the Apostle says: “For we are co-workers with God” (I Cor. III, 9). Chapter VI. In what sense should we understand the conversation that God has with an angel? One could also see an indication of angels in the words spoken at the creation of man: “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26); because God did not say: “I will create.” But since it follows further “in our image” (it is impossible to imagine that man was created in the image of angels or that the image of angels and God is one and the same), then it is absolutely correct to understand in that place the plurality of the Trinity. Since this Trinity is one God, then after the word “let us create,” Scripture says: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God” (Gen. I, 27), and does not say “the gods created” or “in the image of the gods.” It would be possible to understand the same Trinity in the place under consideration, as if it were the Father who said to the Son and the Holy Spirit: “Let us go down and confound their language there,” if anything prevented us from understanding the angels here. But rather, it is fitting for them to come to God with holy movements, that is, with pious thoughts, through which they inquire about the unchangeable Truth, as the eternal law at the court of the Heavenly King. This movement, by which those who do not move away come, is stable. And God speaks to the angels not as we speak to each other, or as we speak to God, to the angels, or even as the angels speak to us, or God through them to us; but He speaks in His ineffable way, and for us it is signified in our own way. For the speech of God is more sublime than the action of God: it is the unchangeable cause of the action itself, not expressed in a transitory sound, but representing an eternally abiding force, acting temporarily. With this speech God speaks to the holy angels, who were created far from being like us. When we catch something from such speech with our inner hearing, we too draw closer to the angels. But in this work, I did not set out to enter into a detailed examination of the types of speech of God (for the unchangeable Truth speaks to the minds of rational creatures either directly in an ineffable way, or through a changeable creature - either in spiritual images to our spirit, or in bodily sounds to our bodily senses). The expression: “And they will not cease from what they are planning to do” (Gen. XI, 6.), has, of course, not an affirmative meaning, but a kind of interrogative one, which is usually used when making threats, just as someone says: Will they not come out, having armed the whole city in pursuit? 168 Therefore, it must be understood as if it were said: “Will they not lag behind what they are planning to do?” Only if it were said so, there would not be a threat expressed. When we say “isn’t it”, we add “isn’t it” for those who are less understanding; because we cannot depict the intonation of the voice of the one who pronounces it in writing. So, from the mentioned three people, the sons of Noah, seventy-three lands scattered throughout the countries, or rather (as it will become clear later), seventy-two peoples and the same number of languages ​​originated. These peoples, growing, filled the islands. The number of peoples, however, significantly exceeded the number of languages. We know in Africa a lot of barbarian peoples who speak the same language. And that people, with the proliferation of the human race, could move to live on the islands through shipping, who would doubt this? Chapter VII. Did all the genera of dumb animals, even on the islands most distant from the earth, originate from those that were preserved in the ark from destruction by the flood? But a question arises regarding various kinds of dumb animals, which are not the subject of human care and are not born from the earth, like frogs, but reproduce only through the copulation of a male and female, such as wolves and others of the same kind: how could they, after the flood, which destroyed everything that was not in the ark, appear even on the islands, if their breed was restored precisely by those who were preserved in the ark? One can, of course, think that they swam to the islands, but this is only to the nearest ones. Meanwhile, there are islands located at such a great distance from the continents that no animals could swim to them. There is nothing incredible in the assumption that people, out of a passion for hunting, having caught them, transported them with them and thus bred their breeds in the places where they themselves lived; although it cannot be denied that they could have been transferred by the command or permission of God and by angels. But if they were born from the earth according to their original origin, when God said: “Let the earth bring forth a living soul” (Gen. I, 24), then from this it will become even more obvious that in the ark there were all kinds of animals, not so much for the restoration of their breeds, but for the mysterious transformation of various peoples in the Church, since on the islands where animals could not go, many of them were produced by the earth. Chapter VIII. From the tribe of Adam or the sons of Noah came some strange breeds of people It is asked, further, whether it is possible that from the sons of Noah, or even from the man from whom they received their existence, came some of the monstrous races of people about whom pagan history tells? They say, for example, that some have one eye in the middle of their forehead; some have their feet facing backwards; others have the nature of both sexes: the right breast is male, the left is female, and alternately communicating, they fertilize and give birth; others have no mouth, and they maintain life only by breathing through their nostrils; some are a cubit high, and the Greeks call them, from the name cubit, pygmies; some women conceive at the age of five and do not live longer than eight years. They also say that there is a people who have legs consisting of only shins, do not bend their knees and are distinguished by amazing speed: they are called Sciopods, because in the summer, lying supine on the ground, they cover themselves with the shadow of their legs; some, having no neck, have eyes in their shoulders. There are supposedly other breeds of people, or supposedly people, whose mosaic images, borrowed from books containing stories of various kinds of wonders, are located on a seaside street in Carthage. What can we say about Cynocephalus, whose dog-like head and barking are more likely to give them away as animals than as people? There is no need, however, to believe that all the kinds of people that are said to exist really exist. But no matter what and where a person is born, that is, a rational and mortal animal, then no matter how unusual for our senses he may have a bodily appearance, color, movement, voice, or no matter how different he may be in strength, or by any part of the body, or by any property of nature, none of the believers will doubt that he originates from that one first-created man. It is obvious, however, that nature retains something in greater number, and something, by its very rarity, will be amazing. But how we explain the monstrous races of people can also explain the origin of some monstrous peoples. The Creator of all is God, Who Himself knows where, when and what should or should have been created, knowing the similarity or dissimilarity of which parts He forms the beauty of the whole; those who cannot look at the whole are struck by the apparent ugliness of the part; because he does not know what it is conformed to and what it relates to. We know that people are born with more than five fingers and toes. The deviation (from the norm) in this case is, of course, less significant than in the above cases. But, probably, there is no such madman who would think that the Creator made a mistake in counting human fingers, even if he did not know for what purpose He did this. Likewise, even if there were a great deviation, He who created knows about it, whose works no one can justly reproach. In Hippo of Diarrite there lives a man who has sickle-shaped feet and only two toes; He also has similar hands. If any such people were found, they would become the subject of a strange and amazing story. But will we, on this basis, deny that he came from the one who was created first? Although they are too rare, it is difficult to imagine that from time to time there are not androgynes, who are also called hermaphrodites, in whom the characteristics of both sexes are so obvious that it is difficult to decide by which sex they should be named. It became customary, however, to name them according to their male sex; no one ever called such an “androgyne” or “hermaphrodite.” Many years ago a man was born in the East, bifurcated in the upper limbs and ordinary in the lower ones. He had two heads, two chests, four arms, and one belly and two legs, like one person; and he lived so long that rumor attracted many people to look at him. Who can remember all the births of people who are very different from those from whom they were born? Consequently, as regards these births, it cannot be denied that they originate from the first one; so it is necessary to recognize that from the same first father of all come all the peoples who, by their physical characteristics, seem to have deviated from the usual course of nature, which the majority, almost all, adhere to (if only what is told about the characteristics of those peoples and about such a difference between them and us is true). After all, if we didn’t know about monkeys, monkeys and sphinxes *************** that they are not people, but dumb animals, then those historians could, proud of their knowledge of wonders, present them to us with impunity as some kind of people. But if those people about whom such amazing things are written are really people, then what would be surprising if God wanted to create some peoples like that, so that if among us there were freaks born from people, we would not think that His wisdom had erred, like the art of some not very skilled artist? So, it should not seem incongruous to us that, just as some human deformities are discovered among one or another individual people, so in the whole human race there are certain folk deformities. Therefore, in order to close this question without haste and with prudence (let’s say this): either what is written in this way about any peoples is not at all; or, if there is, then these peoples are not people; or, if they are people, then, of course, they come from Adam. Chapter IX. Should we believe that the lower part of the earth, opposite to that on which we live, is occupied by the antipodes? There is no reason to believe that they say that antipodes exist, that is, that on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises at the same time as ours sets, people walk in the direction opposite to our feet. Those who assert this do not refer to any historical information, but express it as an assumption based on the fact that the earth is kept among the vault of heaven and that the world has in it at the same time both the lowest and the middle place. From this they conclude that the other side of the earth, which is located below, cannot but serve as a place for human habitation. They do not take into account that, even though it was possible to admit or even somehow prove that the figure of the world is spherical and round, it does not follow from this that that part of the earth is free from water; and even if it were free, it does not at all follow that people live there. For in no way can Scripture deceive, which confirms the reality of the past events it tells by the actual fulfillment of its predictions; and meanwhile, it would be extremely incongruous to assert that people could, having crossed the immense expanses of the ocean, move from this part of the earth to that, and thus lay the beginning of the human race there too from the same first man. Therefore, let us seek, if we can find it, among those human nations who seem to be divided into seventy-two tribes and seventy-two languages, this wandering city of God on earth, which was brought to the flood and the ark, and whose continued existence in the sons of Noah is indicated by their blessing, especially in the person of the eldest, who was called Shem: because Japheth was also blessed to dwell in the tents of the same brother. Chapter X. About the descendants of Shem, in whose generation the City of God in a straight line is brought to Abraham So, you need to keep track of the order of births from Sim. This order will serve as an indication of the city of God after the flood, just as the series of births from the one that was called Seth serves as an indication of it before the flood. That is why the Divine Scripture, after indicating the earthly city in Babylon, that is, in confusion, as if repeating itself, returns again to Shem and leads from him a series of births to Abraham, mentioning how old someone was when he gave birth to a son belonging to this series, and how long he lived. This time it is appropriate to make the remark I promised before to explain why it is said about one of the sons of Eber: “The name of one is Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided” (Gen. X, 25). What else should be understood by the division of the earth, if not division through the difference of languages? So, omitting the other sons of Shem, which are not relevant, the writer cites the births of those through whom he could reach Abraham; just as before the flood those were brought forward through whom it was possible to reach Noah by a series of births from that son of Adam, who was named Seth. A series of these births begins like this: “Here is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad, two years after the flood. After the birth of Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years and begat sons and daughters” (Gen. XI, 10-11). The writer speaks in a similar way about others, showing in which year of his life each of them gave birth to a son belonging to the series of births that stretches to Abraham, and how many years he lived after that, and noting that he gave birth to sons and daughters. The latter is done for the purpose of making us understand where peoples could have formed from, so that, while dealing with the few people mentioned, we, like children, would not become perplexed as to how the tribe of Simo could fill such vast regions and kingdoms, especially the kingdom of Assyria, from where the famous Ninus, who was a winner everywhere, ruled with extraordinary happiness the peoples of the East and strengthened for his descendants the most extensive and powerful kingdom for a long time continued its existence. But in order not to dwell on this subject more than necessary, we will not talk about how many years each person lived in this series of generations, but we propose to mention in this order only the year of his life in which he gave birth to a son, in order to thus count the number of years from the end of the flood to Abraham, and in connection with that. What you need to stop at, touch briefly and briefly on the rest. So, in the second year after the flood, Shem, being one hundred years old, begat Arphaxad, and Arphaxad, being one hundred and thirty-five years old, begat Cainan; the latter, when he was one hundred and thirty years old, gave birth to Salah. Salah was the same age when he gave birth to Eber. Eber was one hundred and thirty-four years old when he begat Peleg, during whose lifetime the earth was divided. Peleg himself lived one hundred and thirty years, and begat Ragab; and Raghav was one hundred and thirty-two, and begat Serukh; Serukh was one hundred and thirty, and begat Nahor; Nahor was seventy-nine, and begat Terah; Terah was seventy, and begat Abram, whom God later renamed Abraham. Thus, according to the generally used edition, i.e. Seventy interpreters, one thousand seventy-two years passed from the flood to Abraham. According to Jewish codes, they say, it turns out to be much less; but they are either not accounted for at all, or they are presented, but very confusingly. But looking for the city of God among the mentioned seventy-two nations, we find no reason to assert that, at a time when they had one language, the human race deviated from the veneration of the true God to such an extent that true piety was preserved only in those generations that descend from the seed of Shem through Arphaxad and go to Abraham. Only in the proud claim to build a tower to heaven, a sign of ungodly exaltation, was the (earthly) city revealed, that is, the society of the wicked. Whether it did not exist at all before that time, or whether it was hidden, or whether it was both: the pious - in the person of the two sons of Noah, who received the blessing, and their descendants, and the wicked - in the person of the cursed and his tribe, from which came the giant, a fisher against the Lord - it is difficult to make out. It is possible, and it is much more likely, that among the sons of the first two, even before the formation of Babylonia, there were already blasphemers of God, and among the sons of Ham - His admirers; one must assume that there has never been a shortage of people of both kinds on earth. Although it is said: “Everyone has turned aside and become equally indecent; there is none who does good, not one” (Ps. 52:4; Ps. XIII, 3), but in both psalms in which these words are found, the following is read: “Are not the workers of iniquity admonished, who eat up My people as they eat bread?” Consequently, there were at that time the people of God. Therefore, what was said: “There is no one who does good, not even one,” was said about the sons of men, but not about the sons of God. For before this it was stipulated: “God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there was one who understood, seeking God”; and then the above words are added, expressing condemnation of all the sons of men, that is, those who belong to the city that lives according to man, and not according to God. Chapter XI. That originally in human use there was that language which received the name Hebrew from Eber, in whose family it was preserved when a difference in languages followed Therefore, just as at the time when everyone had one language, there was no shortage of sons of destruction; because there was one language even before the flood, nevertheless, however, everyone, with the exception of only the family of the righteous Noah, deservedly suffered destruction by the flood; so when, for their wicked exaltation, the peoples were punished by the difference of languages, they were subjected to division, and the city of the wicked received the name of confusion, that is, it was called Babylon, there was a family of Eber, in which the language that was once common was preserved. That’s why, as I noted above, when the writer began to list the sons of Shem, who, each separately, were the ancestors of separate nations, he mentioned Eber first, although Eber was his great-great-grandson, that is, he was born in the fifth generation from him. Since in the family of the latter, after the division of other peoples by other languages, that language was preserved, which, not without reason, is thought to have previously been common to the entire human race, this language was later called Hebrew. It was necessary, unlike the others, to give him his own name, just as the others received their own names. While it was alone, it was simply called human language, or human dialect, since the entire human race spoke to it alone. Someone will say: “If the earth, that is, the people who lived on the earth at that time, were divided into languages ​​in the days of the son of Eber Peleg, then rather the name of the latter should be called the language that until that time was common to all.” But it must be taken into account that Eber himself gave such a name to his son, calling him Peleg, which translated means “division,” because he was born to him at a time when the earth was divided into languages, as can be seen from the words: “In his days the earth was divided” (Gen. XI, 25.). If Eber had no longer been alive when many languages ​​arose, he would not have received his name from his name and the language that could have been preserved by him. And this language should indeed be considered initially common: the proliferation and change of languages ​​followed as punishment; God's people should not have been subject to this punishment. And it is not in vain that this language is the same one that Abraham spoke, but which he was able to leave as an inheritance not to all his sons, but only to those who formed his tribe through Jacob, and, constituting the people of God by advantage and superiority, were able to keep the covenants of God and the branch of Christ. And Eber himself did not pass on this language to all his descendants, but only to those who went in a direct line to Abraham. Thus, although it is not expressed with complete clarity that there was a certain pious race of people at the time when the wicked were building Babylonia, this obscurity is not of such a nature as to deceive the researcher, but rather serves to exercise his attentiveness. For since the Scripture says that initially everyone had one language, and Eber is placed at the head of all the sons of Shem, although he is in the fifth generation from him; and since the language that the patriarch and the prophets not only used in speeches, but also perpetuated in the sacred Scriptures is called the Hebrew language, then it is natural that to the question: where during the division of languages ​​could that language remain that was previously common, which without any doubt remained where the punishment of mixing languages ​​did not take place - there can only be one answer, that it remained in the genus of the one from whose name it received its name; and a clear sign of the righteousness of this generation is that while other generations were punished by the change of languages, this punishment did not extend to it. There is still doubt about how Eber and his son Peleg could have formed separate nations, if both retained the same language. Indeed, there was only one Jewish race from Eber to Abraham, and from there on, until the great nation of Israel was formed. On what basis are all the descendants of the three sons of Noah considered to have formed separate nations, if Eber and Peleg did not form separate nations? In order to maintain the number of seventy-two peoples and languages, it can be assumed with a significant degree of probability that the famous giant Nimrod himself formed his own special people, but is mentioned separately as standing out from a number of others by the advantages of power and bodily strength. Peleg is mentioned not because he formed a people (his race and language are Jewish), but because his time was wonderful, since in his days the earth was divided. Nor should we be hampered by the question of how the giant Nimrod could have survived until the time when Babylon was built, the confusion of languages ​​and, as a result, the division of nations took place. From the fact that Eber was the sixth from Noah, and he was the fourth, it does not follow that they both could not have lived to the same time. This happened if they lived longer in those generations where there were fewer births, and less in those where there were more births; or were born later, where there are fewer, and earlier, where there are more. It is necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that at the time when the earth was divided, not only were all those sons of the children of Noah who are mentioned as the ancestors of nations already born, but they were already at such an age that they had numerous families that deserved the name of nations. Therefore, one should not at all think that they were born exactly in the order in which they are mentioned. Otherwise, how could the twelve sons of Joktan, another son of Eber, Peleg’s brother, have formed nations, if Joktan was born after his brother Peleg, as after him he is mentioned when the earth was divided at the time when Peleg was born? It is necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that although Peleg was named first, he was born much later than his brother Joktan, and the twelve sons of this Joktan already had such large families at that time that the latter could be divided into their own special languages. The latest in time could be mentioned first, just as of the three sons of Noah, the descendants of Japheth, who was the youngest, were first mentioned; then the sons of Ham, who was the middle one; finally, the sons of Shem, who was the first and eldest. The names of these peoples have been partially preserved, so that even today it is clear where they came from, like the Assyrians from Assur, and the Jews from Eber; partly they have changed from long ago to such an extent that the most learned researchers of antiquity are able to unravel from them the origin of not all, but only some peoples. So, for example, from the sound of the words it is difficult to guess that the Egyptians, as they say, descended from the son of Ham, who was called Mizraim; it is also true that the Ethiopians allegedly belong to the tribe of that son of Ham, who bore the name Cush. Just as accurately, if we consider all the names in general, more will be changed than retained. Chapter XII. About the era of Abraham, from which a new order of holy succession begins Let us now trace the destinies of the city of God from that era which begins with the forefather Abraham, from which it becomes better known, and when the clearest promises are given, which we now see fulfilled in Christ. From the instructions of Holy Scripture we learn that Abraham was born in the country of the Chaldeans (Gen. XI, 28), in an area that belonged to the kingdom of Assyria. Among the Chaldeans at that time, as among other peoples, wicked superstitions had already acquired very great power. There was only one house of Terah, from whom Abraham was born, in which the veneration of the one true God was preserved, and in which alone, in all likelihood, the Hebrew language was preserved; although this house, like later, only more openly, the people of God in Egypt, served in Mesopotamia, as can be seen from the words of Joshua, to other gods (Joshua XXIV, 2); Moreover, the remaining descendants of Eber little by little learned other languages ​​and joined other nations. Thus, just as during the disastrous flood of waters, only the house of Noah was preserved for the restoration of the human race, so during the disastrous flood of many superstitions throughout the world, one house of Terah was preserved, in which a seedling of the city of God was preserved. And then, as there, after counting births along with the years before Noah and after stating the cause of the flood, before God begins to speak to Noah about building the ark, it is said: “This is the life of Noah” (Gen. VI, 9); so here, after counting the births from that son of Noah, who was called Shem, to Abraham, in a similar way a special clause is introduced, which says: “This is the genealogy of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran gave birth to Lot. And Haran died under Terah his father, in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans. Abram and Nahor took wives; Avram's wife's name: Sarah; the name of Nahor’s wife: Milcah, daughter of Haran” (Gen. XI, 27–29). This Haran, the father of Milcah, was also the father of Isca, who is considered to be Sarai, the wife of Abram. Chapter XIII. What could be the reason that during the migration of Fara, when, leaving the Chaldeans, he moved to Mesopotamia, his son Nahor is not mentioned at all? It further tells how Terah and his family left the country of the Chaldeans, came to Mesopotamia and settled in Harran. But at the same time, he is silent about one of his sons, who was called Nahor, as if he did not take him with him. The story is as follows: “And Terah took his son Abram, and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of Abram his son, and went out with them from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to the land of Canaan: but when they came to Haran, they stopped there” (Gen. XI, 31). Neither Nahor nor his wife Milcah are mentioned here. But later, when Abraham sent his servant to take a wife for his son Isaac, we read the following. “And the servant took ten camels from his master’s camels, and went away. He also had in his hands all the treasures of his master. He got up and went to Mesopotamia, to the city of Nahor." (Gen. XXIV, 10). From this and from other evidence of sacred history it is clear that Nahor, Abram’s brother, left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Mesopotamia, where Abraham lived with his father. Why does Scripture not mention him at the time when Terah left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Mesopotamia, while not only about Abram his son, but also about Sarah and his grandson Lot, he mentions that he brought them with him? In our opinion, this can be explained using the following assumption: he may have deviated from his father’s and brother’s piety and became carried away by Chaldean superstition, and then, having repented or been persecuted because he was considered unreliable, he moved from there himself. For in the book attributed to Judith, when asked by Holofernes, the enemy of the Israelites, what kind of people they are and whether to wage war against them, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, answers him like this: “Listen, my lord, to the words of your servant, and I will tell you the truth about these people. These people came from the Chaldeans and settled first in Mesopotamia, because they did not want to worship the gods of their fathers who lived in the land of the Chaldeans; and they turned from the ways of their fathers, and worshiped the God of heaven; and (the fathers) drove them out from before their gods, and they fled to Mesopotamia, and lived there for many days,” etc. From this it is clear that the house of Terah was persecuted by the Chaldeans for true piety, by which they honored the one and true God. Chapter XIV. About the years of Farah, who ended his life in Harran The promises of God, which were spoken to Abraham, begin to be indicated from the time when Terah died in Mesopotamia, and it is noted that he lived two hundred and five years. Here are the words of Scripture on this matter: “And the days of Terah’s life were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran” (Gen. XI, 32). This must be understood not in the sense that he lived all these days there, but in the fact that he ended the days of his life there, which were two hundred and five years in total. Otherwise, the number of years that Terah lived would remain unknown: because it is not said in what year of his life he came to Haran. Meanwhile, it would be incongruous to believe that in this order of generations, which so carefully shows how many years each lived, the number of years lived by Terah alone was not mentioned. If the years of some mentioned in Scripture are kept silent, it is only those who are not included in this order. The same order, going from Adam to Noah, and from the latter to Abraham, does not contain anyone without indicating the years he lived. Chapter XV. About the time of the promise to Abraham, as a result of which, according to the commandment of God, he left Haran And that after the death of Terah is mentioned, it is written: “And the Lord said to Abram: get thee out of your land, from your kindred, and from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you” (Gen. XII, 1), this does not mean that the events followed exactly in the order in which they are presented in the book. If this were so, an insoluble question would arise, for after the words of God spoken to Abraham, we read in Scripture: “And Abram went, as the Lord said to him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran” (Gen. XII, 4). How could this be if Abraham left Haran after the death of his father? It was said above that Terah was seventy years old when he begat Abraham; thus, by the time Abraham left Haran, he would have been one hundred and forty-five years old. This means that he left Harran not after the death of his father, but in the one hundred and forty-fifth year of his life; Scripture, as usual, returned back and spoke about this event after reporting the death of Terah. This is similar to how above, speaking about the sons of Noah, it was said that they lived according to their tribes and their languages ​​(Gen. X, 31), and then, as if this followed in chronological order, it is said: “The whole earth had one language and one dialect” (Gen. XI, 1). How did they live according to their languages, when there was one language? It is obvious that the story returns to events that happened earlier. So it is here, although it was said: “And the days of the life of Terah were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran” (Gen. XI, 32.); but the Scripture then, returning to what was released before, says: “And the Lord said to Abram: get out of your land,” etc. And after these words of God it is added: “And Abram went, as the Lord said to him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran." This happened, therefore, when his father was one hundred and forty-five years old, because then he himself was seventy-five. This question is also resolved differently: the seventy-fifth year of Abraham’s life, in which he left Haran, is counted not from the moment of his birth, but from the time when he was saved from the Chaldean fire, for it was precisely this time that should have been primarily considered as the time of his birth 169. But blessed Stephen, talking about this in the Acts of the Apostles, says: “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he moved to Harran, and said to him: get out of your land and from your kindred, and from your father’s house, and go to the land that I will show you” (Acts VII, 2-3) According to these words of Stephen, God spoke to Abraham not after the death of his father, who undoubtedly died in Harran, where his son lived with him, and before he settled in this city, although after he was in Mesopotamia. He had already left Chaldea: therefore, the further words of Stephen: “Then he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran” do not serve as an indication of what happened after God spoke to him (for he did not leave the land of the Chaldeans after these words of God, since, according to Stephen, God spoke to him when he was in Mesopotamia), but refer to the entire time, which he designates with the word “then”, i.e. to the time after he left Chaldea and settled in Haran. Likewise, in the following words: “And from there, after the death of his father, God moved him to this land in which you now live.” Stephen does not claim that he left Haran after his father died, but says that God moved him from there after his father died. We need to understand all this this way: God spoke to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia and had not yet settled in Harran; but Abraham, keeping the commandment of God within himself, came with his father to Haran and left it in the seventy-fifth year of his life and in the one hundred and forty-fifth year of his father’s life. Stephen represents his settlement in the land of Canaan, and not his exit from Harran, as taking place after the death of his father, because his father had already died when he bought the land and became the owner there. And that immediately after crossing into Mesopotamia, that is, after leaving the land of the Chaldeans, God says: “Get out of your land, from your kindred and from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you,” this is not said in the sense that he left there in body, which he would certainly have done, but in the sense that he broke away in soul. He would not have left there in spirit if he had had the hope and desire to return. This hope and this desire, by God’s command and God’s help, and by his obedience, had to be cut off. There is nothing incredible in the assumption that after Nahor followed his father, Abraham fulfilled the commandment of God and left Haran with Sarah, his wife, and Lot, his brother’s son. Chapter XVI. On the order and nature of the promises of God expressed to Abraham Now consider the promises of God expressed to Abraham. With them begin the clearer sayings of our God, that is, the true God, regarding the people of the pious, about whom the prophecies foretold. The first of them reads like this: “And the Lord said to Abram: get thee out of your land, from your kindred, and from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you. And I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great; and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you; and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. XII, 1–3). Two things promised to Abraham are worthy of attention: the first is that his seed will take possession of the land of Canaan, which is indicated by the words: “Get thee out of your land, from your kindred, and from your father’s house, to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation" ; the other is much more excellent, and concerns not the physical, but the spiritual seed, according to which Abraham is the father not only of the people of Israel, but of all nations following in the footsteps of his faith. The promise of the latter begins with the words: “And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” According to Eusebius, this promise was given in the seventy-fifth year of Abraham’s life, for, as if following this saying, Abraham left Haran: because it cannot be allowed to contradict the Scripture, which says: “Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran” (Gen. XII, 4). But if the promise was spoken this year, then Abraham, in any case, was already living with his father in Haran. He could not have come out of it if he had not lived in it. Isn’t there a contradiction to this in the words of Stephen: “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he moved to Haran?” It is necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that everything happened within the same year, that is, both God’s promise to Abraham before his settlement in Harran, and Abraham’s settlement in Harran, and his departure from there. This is not only because Eusebius, in his chronicle, begins the count from the year of this promise, and shows that the exodus from Egypt, when the law was given, took place four hundred and thirty years later; but also because the Apostle Paul also mentions this (Gal. III, 17). Chapter XVII. About the three most famous pagan kingdoms, of which one, that is, Assyrian, surpassed the others in its power already at the time when Abraham was born At that time, there were famous pagan kingdoms which, under the rule of fallen angels, gave a special shine to the city of the earthly, that is, to the society of people living according to man. There were three of these kingdoms: Sikyon, Egyptian, Assyrian. The Assyrian was much more powerful and superior than the first two. The famous king Nin, the son of Bel, conquered with his power the peoples of all Asia, with the exception of India. In this case, I do not call Asia the known part of greater Asia, which is one province of Asia, but that which is called Asia in general, which others consider one of the two, and most consider the third part of the entire globe, including Asia, Europe and Africa. But they are divided unevenly. That part which is called Asia stretches from the south to the east to the north; Europe is from north to west; and Africa - from west to south. From this it is clear that one half of the globe is occupied by two parts, Europe and Africa, and the other half by Asia alone. The first two formed separate parts because between them enters from the ocean the entire amount of water that washed the continents, which is why our great sea was formed. Therefore, if the globe is divided into two parts, eastern and western, then Asia will be in one, and Europe and Africa will be in the other. Of these three kingdoms, famous at that time, the kingdom of Sikyon was not under the rule of the Assyrians, because it was in Europe; the kingdom of Egypt could not help but submit to those who ruled over all of Asia, with the exception, as they say, of India alone. So, the dominion of the wicked city had its greatest strength in Assyria. Its capital was Babylon, whose name, that is, confusion, was most suitable for the society of earth-born people. Ninus reigned there at this time, after the death of his father Bel, who was the first to reign there for sixty-five years. His son Nin, who inherited royal power after the death of his father, reigned for fifty-two years, and when Abraham was born, forty-three years of his reign had already passed. This was approximately twelve hundred years before the founding of Rome, in its own way another Babylonia in the West. Chapter XVIII. About the second appeal of God to Abraham with a speech in which the land of Canaan is promised to him and his seed So, leaving Harran in the seventy-fifth year of his life and in the one hundred and forty-fifth year of his father’s life, Abraham, with his brother’s son Lot and with his wife Sarah, headed to the land of Canaan and reached Shechem. There again he received a divine revelation, which is spoken of in Scripture: “And the Lord appeared to Abram and said: To your descendants will I give this land” (Gen. XII, 7). This time the promise did not concern the seed by which he became the father of all nations, but only the one by which he was the father of one nation of Israel; because that land came into the possession of this seed. Chapter XIX. About God's protection in Egypt of the chastity of Sarah, whom Abraham called not his wife, but his sister After this, having built an altar in that place and calling on God, Abraham left there and lived in the desert; but hunger forced him to leave her for Egypt. There he called his wife his sister, but without lying at all. She really was also a sister, because she was related by blood; just as Lot, due to the same relationship, was called his brother (Gen. XIII, 8.), although he was the son of his brother. He did not deny, but only kept silent that she was a wife, entrusting the protection of his wife’s chastity to God and being wary, like a man, of the machinations of men; If he had not been careful, as much as he could be careful, he would rather tempt God than trust in Him. We have said enough about this subject, refuting the slander of Faustus the Manichaean 170. What Abraham expected from the Lord later happened. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who took her as his wife, but was subjected to severe torture, returned her to her husband. Let us not think at the same time that she would be defiled by cohabitation with another: it is much more likely that severe punishments did not allow the pharaoh to do this. Chapter XX. About the separation of Lot from Abraham, which was decided between them while maintaining mutual disposition Upon Abraham's return from Egypt to his former place, his brother's son Lot, maintaining his family relationship, departed from him to the land of Sodom. They became rich and began to keep many shepherds for their flocks; since the latter quarreled among themselves, this was a means for them to avoid mutual clashes between their families. Because of this, some quarrels could have arisen between themselves, for this is also characteristic of man. Taking precautions against evil, Abraham said this to Lot: “Let there be no strife between me and you, and between my shepherds and your shepherds; for we are relatives. Is not the whole earth before you? separate yourself from me. If you go to the left, then I go to the right; and if you go to the right, then I will go to the left” (Gen. XIII, 8–9). Hence, perhaps, a peaceful custom was established between people, according to which, when dividing any plot of land into parts, the elder divides, and the younger chooses 171. Chapter XXI. About the third promise to Abraham, according to which God promised him and his seed the land of Canaan forever So, when Abraham and Lot separated from each other, not as a result of shameful discord, but to satisfy the needs of supporting their families, and lived separately - Abraham in the land of Canaan, and Lot in Sodom - the Lord in His third saying said to Abraham: “Lift up your eyes, and from the place where you are now, look to the north, and to the south, and to the east, and to the west. For all the land that you see I will give to you and to your descendants forever, and I will make your descendants like the sand of the earth; if anyone can count the sand of the earth, then your descendants will also be counted. Arise, walk through this land into the length and breadth of it: for I will give it to you” (Gen. XIII, 14-17). Whether this promise also includes the one by which Abraham became the father of all nations is not entirely clear. One might think that this promise refers to the expression: “And I will make your descendants like the sand of the earth”; because this expression is what the Greeks call hyperbole, and in any case it is a figurative expression, not a direct one. How Scripture usually uses this method of expression, as well as other paths, is known to everyone who has studied it. Such a trope, that is, a way of expression, occurs when what is said in it significantly exceeds what is denoted by speech. Who, for example, does not see that the number of sand is incomparably greater than the possible number of all people, from Adam himself to the end of the age? How much more is it than the seed of Abraham, and not only that which belongs to the people of Israel, but also that which, as a result of imitating his faith, stands out and will stand out from all nations throughout the world? Such offspring living by faith are, of course, small in comparison with the multitude of the wicked; but these small ones also constitute an innumerable multitude, which is hyperbolically compared to the sand of the earth. Of course, the multitude promised to Abraham is innumerable not for God, but for people: God also counted the sand of the earth. Therefore, since it is more appropriate to compare not just the people of Israel, but all the descendants of Abraham, to a multitude of sand, when the promise also speaks of a multitude of sons not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, in this place one can understand the promise of both. But we said that it is still not clearly expressed here, because the numerous people who descended in the flesh from Abraham through his grandson, Jacob, multiplied so much that they filled almost all the countries of the world. Hyperbolically, he alone can be compared to the sand of the earth; for he alone is innumerable for man. Regarding only one land mentioned in the promise, which is called Canaan, no one, of course, should have any doubts. Only the expression “I will give to you and to your descendants forever” may cause bewilderment in some if they understand this “forever” in the sense of eternity. If, like us, they understand this word in the precise sense that the beginning of the future age is determined by the end of the present age, then no difficulty will arise, for the Israelites, although expelled from Jerusalem, still live in other cities of the land of Canaan, and will live there until the end; Yes, even if Christians inhabited all that land, then they too are Abraham’s descendants. Chapter XXII. About the victory won by Abraham over the enemies of Sodom, when he freed Lot from captivity and received a blessing from the priest Melchizedek Having received this word of promise, Abraham moved and began to live in another place in the same country, near the oak of Mamri, which was in Hebron (Gen. XIII, 18). Then, when five kings waged war against four, and when in this war the enemies defeated the Sodomites and took Lot into captivity, Abraham, taking with him three hundred and eighteen of his household, freed him from captivity, granted victory to the Sodomite kings and did not want any of the spoils offered to him by the king, for whom he won the victory. But then he received an open blessing from Melchizedek, who was “priest of the highest God” (Gen. XIV, 1-20). Much has been written about this in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is considered the work of the Apostle Paul, although some are not recognized as such. On this occasion, for the first time, the sacrifice that Christians now offer to God throughout the world was announced, and what was said much later through the prophet to Christ, who was to come in the flesh, was fulfilled: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 109:4). Not according to the rank, that is, of Aaron, for the rank of Aaron had to be destroyed as soon as the very objects that were intended by those shadows appeared. Chapter XXIII. About the word of God to Abraham, which promised him that his descendants would multiply like numerous stars; as well as the fact that he was already justified by faith when he had not yet received circumcision At the same time, in the vision there was the word of the Lord to Abraham. The Lord promised him protection and a very great reward; but he, concerned that he had no offspring, said that his heir was a certain Eliezer, a member of his household. Then he was immediately promised an heir, not this member of the household, but one who was to come from Abraham himself, and at the same time, offspring were predicted, numerous no longer as the sand of the earth, but as the stars of heaven (Gen. XV, 4-5). It seems to me that the last comparison rather promises high heavenly happiness for the offspring. For, as for the multitude, what can the stars of heaven have in common with the sand of the earth, except perhaps that someone will call the comparison suitable to the extent that the stars of heaven cannot be counted? One must think, however, that they cannot all be seen. The more closely one looks, the more of them he sees. From here it is natural to conclude that some of them are invisible even to the most keen-sighted, especially since it is known: there are constellations that rise and set in another part of the world that is distant from us. And, finally, although some boast that they have determined and described the entire total number of stars, like Aratus, Evod and others like them, their assurances have no significance before the authority of this book. Here is also expressed that famous judgment that the Apostle mentions to show the effect of the grace of God: “Abram believed the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness” (Gen. XV, 6; Rom. IV, 3; Gal. III, 6 ), - is expressed so that the circumcised do not become arrogant and exclude the uncircumcised nations from the faith in Christ. For when it came to pass that Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness, Abraham was not yet circumcised. Chapter XXIV. About the meaning of the sacrifice that Abraham was commanded to make when he persistently desired to be convinced of what he believed In the same vision, speaking to Abraham, God said to him: “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land as your possession” (Gen. XV, 7). When Abraham asked how he would know that he would be her heir, “The Lord said to him, Take Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtle dove, and a young dove. He took them all, cut them in half and put one part opposite the other, but did not cut the birds. And birds of prey swooped down on the corpses; but Abram drove them away. As the sun set, Abram fell into a deep sleep; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him. And the Lord said to Abram: Know that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will enslave them, and will oppress them for four hundred years. But I will execute judgment on the people whose enslavement they will be; after this they will come out with great wealth. And you will go to your fathers in peace, and you will be buried in a good old age. In the fourth generation they will return here, for the measure of the iniquities of the Amorites has not yet been filled. When the sun set and darkness fell, behold, smoke as if from a furnace and the flames of fire passed between the dissected animals. On this day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: to your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenites, the Kenezites, the Kedmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites” (Gen. XV, 9-21). All this happened and was said miraculously in a vision. It is not the purpose of this essay to analyze in detail every detail of what was said. But we must know what is included in this task. Namely: if, after it was said that Abraham believed God, and this was counted to him as righteousness, he says: “Sovereign Lord! how can I know that I will own it?” (Gen. XV, 8) (for he was promised this land as an inheritance), this does not mean that his faith has become impoverished. For he did not ask: “How do I know?”, as if not believing; but he says: “By what shall I know,” so that the object of his faith may be presented with some likeness, by which he could understand the way of realizing what he believed. So, for example, the Virgin Mary did not have disbelief when she asked: “How will this be when I don’t know my husband?” She was sure it would; but asked how it would be. And when I asked, I received the answer: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke I, 34–35). But in the present case, likeness was given in animals: in a heifer, in a goat, in a ram and in two birds, in a turtledove and a dove, so that from them Abraham would know the future regarding which he had no doubt that it would be. So, was the people who were placed under the yoke of the law designated by the heifer, and the same people who had sinned by the goat? and the ram - the same people, who should then reign (three-year-old animals were required on the basis that this marks out three significant periods: from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham and from the latter to David, who, after the rejection of Saul, was the first, by the will of the Lord, to be appointed king of the people of Israel; and in this third period, from Abraham to David, this people entered, as it were, the third age, the age of youth); or did all this signify something else, more suitable: I, in any case, have no doubt that by the addition of the turtle dove and dove, those living in the spirit were represented. That is why it is said that he “only did not cut the birds,” that mutual division takes place only between the carnal, but not at all between the spiritual. The latter either completely withdraw from troublesome everyday relationships with people, like a turtledove; or they live among people just like a dove. Both birds, however, are equally pure and harmless: this signifies that in the very people of Israel, to whom this land was to be given, the future sons of the promise and heirs of the Kingdom will abide inseparably with them in eternal bliss. Birds flocking to dissected bodies do not signify something good, but airy spirits seeking some kind of food for themselves in the divisions occurring between the flesh. And the fact that Abraham sat near them means that even with divisions among the flesh, the faithful will remain just to the end. And that before the setting of the sun horror and fear fell on Abraham, means future confusion and great sorrow of the unbelievers before the end of this age, about which the Lord said in the Gospel: “Then there will be great sorrow, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, and will not be” (Matthew XXIV, 21). What was said to Abraham: “Your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them, and they will oppress them for four hundred years,” represents the clearest prophecy about the people of Israel, who in the near future will be enslaved in Egypt. It is not predicted here that this people will spend all four hundred years in slavery under the yoke of the Egyptians, but that this will happen during this four hundred year period. As about Terah, the father of Abraham, it is said: “And the days of the life of Terah were two hundred and five years” (Gen. XI, 32) not because he spent all these years in Haran, but because there they were fulfilled for him; so here it is added: “And they will enslave them and oppress them for four hundred years” because this number was fulfilled during the oppression itself, and not because all this time was spent in it. Four hundred years are mentioned here, of course, for the sake of rounding, for in reality there were several more of them, whether to count from the time when this promise was given to Abraham, or from the time when Isaac was born, as Abraham’s seed, to which the prediction relates. For, as we said above, from the first promise to Abraham, which was to him in the seventy-fifth year of his life, until the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, four hundred and thirty years are considered; about which the apostle says this: “I say this, that the covenant about Christ, previously confirmed by God, is not abolished by the law, which appeared four hundred and thirty years later, so that the promise loses its force” (Gal. III, 17). And these four hundred and thirty years could be called four hundred, since there were little more of them; moreover, a certain number of them had already passed by the time at which all this was shown and told to Abraham in a vision; and even more so when Isaac was born from a hundred-year-old father, that is, twenty-five years after the first promise. Then, out of the mentioned four hundred and thirty years, only four hundred and five remained, which the Lord called four hundred. That the subsequent words of God’s prophecy refer to the people of Israel, no one will doubt. But what is added: “When the sun set and darkness came, behold, smoke as from a furnace and the flames of fire passed between the cut-up animals,” this already means that at the end of the age there will be a fiery judgment for the carnal. Just as the oppression of the city of God, which has never happened before and which is expected during the time of the Antichrist, is signified by the fear of Abraham at the setting of the sun, that is, at the approaching end of the age, the fire after the setting of the sun, that is, at the very moment of the end of the world, signifies the day of judgment, dividing the fleshly for salvation through fire and for condemnation into fire. The covenant then bequeathed to Abraham makes known the land of Canaan itself and enumerates in it eleven nations, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates. This is not from the great Egyptian river, the Nile, but from the small one that divides Egypt and Palestine in the place where the city of Rinokorura is located. Chapter XXV. About Sarah's handmaiden, Hagar, whom Sarah herself wanted to become Abraham's concubine Then follow the times of the sons of Abraham: one from Hagar, a slave, the other from Sarah, about whom we already spoke in the previous book. Moreover, as for the fact itself, the mentioned concubine cannot in any way be imputed to Abraham as a crime. He used it to produce offspring, not to satisfy lust. At the same time, he did not violate fidelity to his wife, but obeyed her: she thought that she would find consolation in her infertility when she turned the slave’s fecundity into her own, if not by natural order, which was impossible, then at least by an act of her will; and the right of the wife, about which the apostle speaks: “Likewise, the husband has no power over his own body, but the wife” (I Cor. VII, 4), will use it to be born from another, if she could not use it to be born from herself. There is no lust of sensuality, no vile debauchery here. The wife gives her husband a slave for the sake of procreation, the husband accepts her for the sake of the offspring. Both of them think not about criminal lust, but about natural fruit. When later the pregnant slave begins to be proud of her barren mistress, and Sarah, out of female suspicion, blames her husband for this, Abraham, in this case, proves that he was not a slave-lover, but a free parent, and before Hagar he remained chastely faithful to his wife Sarah: he satisfied not his lust, but her desire; accepted the slave, but did not look for her; entered into her, but did not become attached to her; seeded, but did not love. He said, “Behold, your maid is in your hands; do with her what you please” (Gen. XVI, 6). Oh, husband who uses women as a husband should: a spouse in moderation, a slave out of obedience, and each one with abstinence! Chapter XXVI. About the confirmation of God given to Abraham, whereby God promised him, already an old man, a son from barren Sarah, declared him the father of nations and sealed the fidelity of the promise with the sacrament of circumcision After this, Ishmael was born from Hagar, in whose face Abraham could see the fulfillment of what was promised to him when he wanted to adopt a slave, in the words of God: “He will not be your heir; but the one who comes from your loins will be your heir” (Gen. XV, 4). But lest he should think that the promise had already been fulfilled in the son of the slave, when he was ninety-nine years old, “The Lord appeared to Abram and said to him: I am God almighty; Walk before Me and be blameless: and I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you greatly, greatly, and Abram fell on his face. God continued to speak to him and said: I am my covenant with you: you will be the father of many nations. And you will no longer be called Abram; but your name will be Abraham; for I will make you a father of many nations. And I will make you very, very fruitful, and I will make nations from you, and kings will come from you. And I will establish My covenant between you and your descendants after you throughout their generations, an everlasting covenant, that I will be the God of yours and of your descendants after you. And I will give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you wander, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said to Abraham: You shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you must keep between Me and you and your descendants after you: that all your males may be circumcised. Circumcise your foreskin: and this will be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. Every male child born in the house and bought for money from a foreigner who is not of your seed, shall be circumcised within your generations within eight days from birth. He who is born in your house and bought with your money shall certainly be circumcised, and My covenant shall be an everlasting covenant upon your body. But the uncircumcised male who does not circumcise his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from among his people; for he has broken My covenant. And God said to Abraham: Do not call your wife Sarai; but let her name be Sarah. I will bless her and give you a son by her; I will bless her, and nations will come from her, and kings of nations will come from her. And Abraham fell on his face, and laughed, and said to himself, “Shall there be a son from a man who is a hundred years old?” and Sarah, ninety years old, will she really give birth? And Abraham said to God: Oh, that Ishmael were alive before You! God said: It is Sarah your wife who will bear you a son, and you will call his name Isaac; And I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. And concerning Ishmael I have heard thee: behold, I will bless him, and will bring him back, and will multiply him greatly, greatly; twelve princes will be born from him; and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will give birth to you at this very time next year” (Gen. XVII, 1-21). This time, promises are made more clearly about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, the son of promise, who serves as an image of grace, and not of nature, because a son is promised from an old man and an old woman, and also a barren one. Although God arranges birth in a natural way, but where, when nature is damaged and inactive, God’s action is obvious, there it is more natural to understand the action of grace. And since this was not to be accomplished through birth, but through rebirth, circumcision was commanded along with the promise of a son from Sarah. And that God commands everyone to be circumcised, not only sons, but also slaves, household members and bought people, this shows that grace applies to everyone. For what else does circumcision mean, if not the renewal of nature, after putting off the oldness? And what else does the eighth day mean, if not Christ, who after the end of the week, that is, after the Sabbath, was resurrected? Even the parents' names change; everything bears the stamp of newness, and the Old Testament overshadows the New. For what is called the Old Testament if not the covering of the New, and what is called the New if not the revelation of the Old? Abraham's laughter is the delight of joy, not the mockery of unbelief. Also his words in his thoughts: “Will there really be a son from a hundred years old? and Sarah, ninety years old, will she really give birth?” , are the words not of one who doubts, but one who is surprised. If what is said: “And I will give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you wander, the whole land of Canaan, for an eternal possession” (in possessionem æternam), arouses in anyone bewilderment as to how this was fulfilled or should be fulfilled, when no people can have eternal possession of the land, then let him know that ours translated with the word æternum (eternal) what the Greeks express with the word ἀιώνιον, (although we) translate ἀιών as sæculum (age). But the Latins did not dare to translate this ἀιώνιον with the word sæculare, so as not to give the place a completely different meaning. For this word refers to many things that happen in this world (sæculo) that have a very short period of existence; meanwhile, what is called ἀιώνιον either has no end, or ends with the end of this age (world). Chapter XXVII. About the manly field - that if he is not circumcised on the eighth day, his soul will be consumed, as one who has destroyed the covenant of God There may also be confusion about how to understand what is said in this place: “But the uncircumcised male who does not circumcise his foreskin, that soul will be cut off from among his people; for he has broken my covenant." On the part of the baby, whose soul is doomed to destruction, there is no guilt in this; it was not he who violated God’s covenant in this case, but the parents who did not bother to circumcise him. It remains to be thought that infants, not by their personal way of life, but by the common origin of the human race, violated the covenant of God in that one person in whom all sinned (Rom. V, 12). Indeed, in addition to the well-known two great covenants, Old and New, many other covenants of God are mentioned. Everyone can be convinced of this by reading the Scriptures. The first covenant concluded with the first man is, without a doubt, the following: “In the day that you eat of it, you will surely die” (Gen. II, 17). Therefore, in the book called Ecclesiasticus, it is written: “All flesh, like a robe, has made a promise, for a covenant from everlasting: you will die by death” (Sir. XIV, 18). If later a clearer law was given, and the apostle says: “Where there is no law, there is no crime” (Rom. IV, 15), then how would it be true what is read in the psalm: “As dross, you sweep away all the wicked of the earth” (Ps. 119:119), if not everyone who committed some sin were not guilty of breaking some law? Therefore, even if infants, as true faith asserts, are born with sin not personal, but original, and we recognize that they also need the grace of remission of sins, then since they are sinners, they are also recognized as violators of the law that was given in paradise; so both of what is written and cited above turns out to be true. Therefore, if circumcision was a sign of rebirth; and the baby, due to original sin, is not in vain destroyed by birth, if rebirth does not save, then the above divine words should be understood as if they said “Whoever is not regenerated, that soul will perish from his people; because I broke My covenant when I sinned with everyone else in Adam.” If the Lord had said: “I have broken this covenant of mine,” then it would have been necessary to understand that he was talking about circumcision. But since He did not say which covenant the baby broke, this makes it clear that this is said about that covenant, the violation of which may also apply to the baby. If someone insists that this is said specifically about circumcision - that the baby broke the covenant of God only in relation to him, because he was not circumcised - then let him find some kind of turn of phrase in which, without much incongruity, the idea would be expressed that the baby broke the covenant because it was broken, although not by him, but in him. But even in this case, it should be taken into account that the soul of an uncircumcised child, innocent of personal negligence, would not have been subjected to unjust death if it had not been guilty of original sin. Chapter XXVIII. About the change of the names of Abraham and Sarah, who, being one incapable of infertility, and the other of old age, to birth, received the gift of fertility So, when such a great and such a clear promise was given to Abraham, to whom it was most clearly said: “I will make you the father of many nations. And I will make you very, very fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you... I will bless her (Sarah) and give you a son by her; I will bless her, and nations will come from her, and kings of nations will come from her,” the promise now fulfilled before our eyes in Christ, then these spouses are no longer called in Scripture as they were called before: Abram and Sarah, but as we called them from the very beginning, guided by their generally accepted names: Abraham and Sarah. The reason for changing Abraham's name is directly stated: “I will make you the father of many nations.” The name Abraham, therefore, has this meaning. Avram, as he was called before, translated means: high father. The reason for the change in Sarah's name is not indicated, but, as those who interpret the Hebrew names contained in these sacred Scriptures say, the name Sarah in translation means: my lady, and the name Sarah means strength. That is why it is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “By faith Sarah herself (being barren) received power to receive seed” (Heb. XI, 11). Both of them, as Scripture testifies, were old men; but she was also barren; and her monthly purifications had already stopped, so that she could no longer give birth, even if she were not barren. Further, if an elderly woman is in such a state that her usual feminine function still continues, then she can give birth to a young man, but not to an old man; although the same old man could still give birth, but only from a young maiden, just as Abraham, after the death of Sarah, was able to give birth from Keturah, since he took her at an ardent age. This is where the apostle sees the miraculous side; this is what he means when he says that Abraham’s body was “already dead” (Rom. IV, 19); because not from every woman who lived out the last days of the period of fertility, he could still give birth, being himself at that age. Here we must understand the deadness of the flesh only in relation to one thing, and not all. If it were relative to everything, then it would already be a corpse, and not the decrepit body of a living one. However, this question is also resolved in the sense that Abraham was able to give birth later from Keturah because the gift of birth, which he received from the Lord, remained with him even after the death of his wife. But it seems to me that the solution we propose is better. For, although every hundred-year-old man of our time can no longer give birth to any woman, at that time, when people lived for so long, a hundred years did not yet make a person a decrepit old man. Chapter XXIX. About three men, or angels, in whose image the Lord appeared to Abraham at the oak of Mamre Then again the Lord appeared to Abraham near the oak grove in Mamre in the form of three men, who, no doubt, were angels; although some believe that Christ was one of them, arguing that He could have been visible even before putting on flesh 172 . Of course, it is possible for divine power and the invisible, incorporeal, unchangeable divine nature to reveal itself to the eyes of mortals without any change on its part - to reveal itself not by what it is, but by something that is subject to it. What is beyond her control? But if they only assert that between these three there was Christ, that Abraham saw three, and addressed himself in the singular only to the Lord, as it is written: “Behold, three men stood against him. Seeing, he ran towards them from the entrance to the tent and bowed to the ground. And he said: Lord! if I have found favor in Your sight, do not pass by Your servant” (Gen. XVIII, 2-3), etc. d.; then why do they not pay attention to the fact that only two of them went to destroy the Sodomites, while Abraham continued to speak with one, calling him Lord and interceding so that He would not destroy the righteous with the wicked? After all, Lot also called those two in the singular Lord in his conversation with them. Although he addressed them in the plural, saying: “My sirs! go into your servant’s house,” and other things that are mentioned there; but then we read: “Lord! Behold, Your servant has found favor in Your sight,” and so on. After these words, the Lord answers him in the singular, although he was in the person of two angels: “Behold, I will do this to please you,” etc. (Gen. XIX, 2–21). Therefore, it is much more likely that Abraham in three, and Lot in two men, saw the same Lord with whom they spoke in the singular; although they thought they were people. The latter was the reason that they accepted them that way, i.e. that they served them as mortals in need of human rest; but at the same time, without any doubt, such superiority was visible in them, although similar to people, that those who showed them hospitality could not doubt that the Lord dwelt in them, as He usually did in the prophets; That is why they called them themselves in the plural, and the Lord in their person - in the singular. And that these were angels, Scripture testifies to this not only in the book of Genesis, where this is described, but also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the place where hospitality is praised: “Do not forget to love hospitable people; for through him some, unknowingly, showed hospitality to the angels” (Heb. XIII, 2). So, through these three men, with the second promise to Abraham from Sarah of the son of Isaac, the following divine definition was expressed: “A great and strong nation will certainly come from Abraham, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. XVIII, 18). And in this definition, the two previous promises are expressed in the shortest and most complete way: regarding the people of Israel according to the flesh, and regarding all nations according to faith. Chapter XXX. About the removal of Lot from Sodom and the destruction of the latter by fire; about Abimelech, whose lust could not harm Sarah's chastity When, after this promise, Lot was brought out of Sodom and a rain of fire came down from heaven, the entire region of the wicked city was turned into ashes, in which shamelessness among men had become as common as the laws usually provide freedom for other actions. And this punishment of the Sodomites was a prototype of the future divine judgment. For what is the meaning of the prohibition on the part of the angels for the liberated to look back, if not the fact that if we want to avoid the final judgment, then we should not return with our souls to the old life, which the regenerated one is stripped of by the action of grace? Therefore, Lot’s wife remained in the place from which she looked back, and, turning into salt, she presented herself as a kind of seasoning for the faithful, in order to make them wise about the fact that they should be wary of this example. After this, Abraham in Gerar, before the king of that city, Abimelech, again acted towards his wife as he had done in Egypt, and in the same way she was returned to him undefiled. When the king began to reproach Abraham for not saying that she was his wife, but calling her his sister, then, indicating the reason for his fear, Abraham added the following: “Yes, she is truly my sister; she is my father’s daughter” (Gen. XX, 12). On her father’s side, she was indeed Abraham’s sister, and on this side she was a relative to him. Her beauty was so great that even at her age she could inspire love. Chapter XXXI. About the birth according to the promise of Isaac, whose name was given from the laughter of both parents After this, according to God’s promise, Abraham had a son from Sarah, whom he named Isaac, which translated means “laughter.” For the father laughed in joyful surprise when he was promised to him, and the mother laughed in joyful doubt when he was again promised by the above-mentioned three men; although the latter’s laughter was not approved by the angel, because, even being a joyful laughter, it was not united with the fullness of faith (Gen. XVIII, 13). Then she was confirmed in faith by the same angel. This is how the youth got his name. When Isaac was born and was called by this name, Sarah herself showed that this laughter tended not to ridicule something shameful, but to an expression of joy; for she said then: “God has made me laugh; whoever does not hear about me will laugh” (Gen. XXI, 6). After some time, the servant girl and her son are expelled from the house and, according to the apostle, the transformation of two covenants, Old and New, is given; Moreover, Sarah represents the image of the highest Jerusalem, the city of God. Chapter XXXII. About the obedience and faith of Abraham, expressed in bringing his son to the slaughter, and about the death of Sarah Among other things, which would take too long to talk about, Abraham is tempted by the command to kill this most beloved son of his, Isaac, so that his pious obedience becomes obvious - obvious not to God, but to subsequent centuries. Not every temptation deserves blame. There are temptations that should be accepted with joy, since virtue is tested by them. And for the most part, the human soul is not able to clarify itself to itself otherwise than by answering questions posed to its own powers not by word, but by experience, a kind of temptation; if she recognizes the work of God in this, then she is pious, strengthened by this grace and not filled with vain vanity. Abraham, undoubtedly, did not at all think that God takes pleasure in human sacrifices; but the commandment of God thundered, and it was necessary to obey, and not reason. However, in praise of Abraham it must be said that he believed that his son would be resurrected immediately after the slaughter. For when he did not want to fulfill the will of his wife and expel the maid and her son from the house, God told him: “Your seed will be called Isaac” (Gen. XXI, 12); and after that it was added: “And from the son of your handmaid I will make a nation, because he is your seed” (Gen. XXI, 7). So, what is the meaning of the expression: “Thy seed shall be called in Isaac,” if God also called Ishmael his seed? The Apostle, explaining this, says: “That is, the children of the flesh are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are recognized as the seed” (Rom. IX, 8). It turns out that the sons of the promise, in order to be the seed of Abraham, are named in Isaac, that is, they are gathered in Christ, called by grace. Firmly remembering this promise, which was to be fulfilled through the one whom God commanded to kill, the pious father did not doubt that the slain could be returned to him, for it was given unexpectedly. This is how it is understood and explained in the book of Hebrews. “By faith Abraham, when he was tempted, sacrificed Isaac, and having the promise, he offered his only begotten, of whom it was said: “in Isaac your seed will be called”; for he thought that God was able to resurrect from the dead, which is why he received it as a sign” (Heb. XI, 17-19). What is the meaning of this parable, if not what the same apostle says: “He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all” (Rom. VIII, 32)? Therefore, just as the Lord carried His cross, so Isaac himself carried the wood on which he was to be laid for himself to the place of sacrifice. Finally, since Isaac was not supposed to be killed after his father was forbidden to raise a hand against him, who was the ram with whose slaughter the significant blood sacrifice ended? When Abraham saw him, he was standing with his horns entangled in the bushes. Who did he represent in this way, if not Jesus, crowned with Jewish thorns before His slaughter? But let’s listen better to the divine words spoken by the angel. Scripture says: “And Abraham stretched out his hand and took a knife to kill his son. But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said: Abraham! Abraham! He said: here I am. The angel said: Do not raise your hand against the boy and do nothing to him; for now I know (know) that you fear God and have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Gen. 22:10-12). It is said “knew” in the sense of “made known,” for God knew this before. Then, after sacrificing a ram in place of his son Isaac, the Scripture says: “And Abraham called the name of that place, “The Lord has appeared,” so that today they may say, “The Lord appeared on the mountain.” (Gen.22:14). Just as it says “know” in the sense of “made known,” so here: “The Lord appeared,” in the sense of “The Lord appeared,” that is, He made Himself visible. “And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said: By me I swear, says the Lord, that because you have done this deed and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will bless you in blessing, and by multiplying I will multiply your seed like the stars of heaven and like the sand that is on the seashore; and your seed shall take possession of the cities of their enemies; and through your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed, because you obeyed My voice” (Gen. XXII, 15-18). Thus, this promise of God about the calling of the nations in the seed of Abraham after the burnt offering, which signified Christ, was also confirmed by an oath. God has often promised before, but never sworn. And what does the oath of the true and righteous God mean, if not a confirmation of the promise and some reproach to unbelievers? After this, Sarah died in the one hundred and twenty-seventh year of her life and in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of her husband’s life. The latter was ten years older than her. This is what he himself says when he was promised a son from her: “Will there really be a son from a hundred years old? and Sarah, ninety years old, will she really give birth?” (Gen. XVII, 17). At this time, Abraham bought a field in which he buried his wife. Consequently, it was at this time, according to Stephen (Acts VII, 4), that he settled in that land, because he became a landowner there after the death of his father, who seems to have died two years before. Chapter XXXIII. About Rebekah, the granddaughter of Nahor, taken by Isaac as his wife Then Isaac, being already forty years old, took Rebekah, the granddaughter of Nahor, his paternal uncle, as his wife, in the one hundred and fortieth year of his father’s life and three years after the death of his mother. When his father sent a slave to Mesopotamia for her and said to him: “Put your hand under my whip, and swear to me by the Lord God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites” (Gen. XXIV, 2-3), then what else did this mean, if not that the Lord God of heaven and earth was to come in the flesh, which was taken from this whip? Is this really an insufficient indication of the foreshadowed truth, the fulfillment of which we see in Christ? Chapter XXXIV. What is the meaning of Abraham taking Keturah as his wife after the death of Sarah? But what does it mean that Abraham, after the death of Sarah, took Keturah as his wife? It goes without saying that in this case we should not assume intemperance, especially at such an age and with such holiness of faith. Was it really necessary to give birth to sons, when already with faith, fully tested, Isaac was expected to multiply sons in the number of stars of heaven and sand of the earth? But if, according to the teachings of the Apostle, Hagar and Ishmael signified the carnal of the Old Testament (Gal. IV, 24), then why shouldn’t Keturah and her sons signify those carnal who think that they belong to the New Testament? Both of them are called both wives and concubines of Abraham, while Sarah was never called a concubine. So, when Hagar was given to Abraham, it is written: “And Sarai Abram’s wife took her maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, after Abram’s sojourn in the land of Canaan was ten years, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife” (Gen. XVI, 3). And about Keturah, whom he took after the death of Sarah, we read: “And Abraham took another wife, named Keturah” (Gen. XXV, 1). Here they are both called wives. And then both turn out to be concubines. Then the Scripture says: “And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. And Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he was still alive, to the east, to the land of the east” (Gen. XXV, 5-6). So, the sons of concubines also have certain gifts; but neither heretics nor carnal Jews cross over into the promised kingdom, because there is no other heir besides Isaac, and “the children of the flesh are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are recognized as the seed” (Rom. IX, 8), about which it is said: “Your seed will be called in Isaac” (Gen. XXI, 12). And I don’t see why Keturah, taken in marriage after the death of her wife, is called a concubine, if not because of this very secret. But those who do not want to see this in these omens should not blame Abraham. Could it not be that in this case a warning was given to future heretics, opponents of second marriages, by the fact that the example of the father of many nations himself showed that after the death of a spouse, remarrying is not a sin? And Abraham died at one hundred and seventy-five years old. Consequently, he left a son, Isaac, who was seventy-five years old, for he gave birth to him in the hundredth year of his life. Chapter XXXV. What divine revelation came about the twins while they were still in the womb of their mother, Rebekah? Now let us move on to consider the temporal destinies of the city of God in the descendants of Abraham. So, during the period of Isaac’s life, from his first year until his sixtieth year, when his sons were born, the following is worthy of note. When, as a result of his prayers to God that his barren wife would give birth to him, the Lord deigned to give him what he asked for, and his wife conceived, the twins, while still in the womb, made strong movements. Suffering painful sensations from this, she asked the Lord and received the answer: “Two tribes are in your womb, and two different nations will come from your womb; one nation will become stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger” (Gen. XXV, 23). The Apostle Paul sees in this a great proof of grace: because even before they are born, before they have done anything good or bad, the lesser is chosen without any merit, and the greater is rejected (Rom. IX, 11-13). For there is no doubt that with regard to original sin they were both equal, and neither one nor the other committed any sin of their own. But at the present time, the task of the work we have undertaken does not allow us to talk about this subject in more detail, especially since we have already said a lot about this in other works. And what is said: “The older will serve the younger,” almost none of our people understood this otherwise than in the sense that the older people, the Jews, will serve the younger people, the Christians. And indeed, although this may seem to have been fulfilled on the Edomite people, descended from the elder (who was called Esau and Edom, whence the Edomites); since subsequently they were to be defeated and subjected to their power by a people descended from a smaller one, that is, the people of Israel: nevertheless, it is more quickly believed that this prophecy has something more important in mind. And what is this if not something that is clearly being fulfilled on Jews and Christians? Chapter XXXVI. About the revelation and blessing that Isaac received in the same way as his father, beloved for the merits of his father Isaac also received the same revelation that his father had received several times. About this revelation it is written this way: “There was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham; And Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines at Gerar. The Lord appeared to him and said: do not go to Egypt; live in the land that I will tell you about. Travel through this land; and I will be with you, and I will bless you: for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfill the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven; and I will give to your descendants all these lands; Through your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed. Because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept what I commanded to observe: My commandments, My statutes and My laws” (Gen. XXVI, 1-5). This patriarch had neither a second wife nor a concubine, but was content with the offspring of two twins born from the same bed. In the same way, he was afraid for the beauty of his wife when he lived among strangers, and acted like a father, calling her sister and not saying that she was his wife: because she was his neighbor in paternal and maternal blood; and she remained untouchable in the same way when the strangers learned that she was his wife. However, we should not put him above his father on the grounds that he did not know another woman except one wife. For there is no doubt that his father had more important merits of faith and obedience, so great that God said that only for the sake of his father He does the good that He does: “In your seed,” He said, “all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” Because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept what I commanded to keep: My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” And again, in another revelation: “Fear not, for I am with you; and I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of Abraham My servant” (Gen. XXVI, 24). From this we must understand how chastely Abraham acted in the fact that to shameless people who try to find support for their lewdness in the Holy Scriptures seems to be a matter of lust. Moreover, we must know that people should be compared one to another not based on any single good in them, but take into account everything in each. It may happen that in the life and morals of one person there is something in which he is superior to another, and this something is much preferable to that in which another rises above him. Therefore, in a healthy and true view, although abstinence is preferable to the marital state, a faithful person who is married is more worthy than an unfaithful person who abstains. An unfaithful person is not only less worthy of praise, but even worthy of disgust. Let's imagine that both of them are good people; and in this case, the one who is married, but most faithful and obedient to God, will undoubtedly be better than the less obedient and faithful, although abstinent. Of course, if everything else is equal among them, then who would doubt preferring someone who is abstinent to someone who is in a marital state? Chapter XXXVII. That the mysterious was foreshadowed by Esau and Jacob So Isaac's two sons, Esau and Jacob, grow up the same way. The elder's birthright passes to the younger one by voluntary condition and agreement between them: because the elder one too wanted the lentils that the younger one was preparing for food, and for it he sold his birthright to his brother with an oath. This gives us a lesson that it is not the type of food that is to blame, but immoderate greed. Meanwhile, Isaac grew old, and his eyes lost their sight from old age. He wants to bless his eldest son, and out of ignorance, instead of the eldest, who was shaggy, he blesses the younger one, who puts himself under his father’s hands, covering himself with goat skins, as if taking upon himself the sins of others. So that we do not consider this deceit of Jacob to be an insidious deceit, but see in it a deep mysterious meaning, Scripture said before that: “Esau became a man skilled in hunting, a man of the fields; and Jacob was a meek man, living in tents” (Gen. XXV, 27). Some of our people translated this as “a man without guile.” But should we translate what is called ἄπλαστος in Greek by the words “straightforward”, or “non-evil”, or “guileless” - in any case, what kind of guile is this when receiving a blessing in which there is no guile? What kind of straightforward deceit is this, what kind of cunning is this ingenuous, if not the deep mystery of truth? What is the blessing itself? Isaac says: “Behold, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that the Lord has blessed. May the Lord give you from the dew of heaven and from the fatness of the earth, and plenty of bread and wine. Let the nations serve you, and let the nations worship you; be lord over your brothers, and let your mother’s sons worship you; those who curse you are cursed; those who bless you are blessed!” (Gen. XXVII, 27–29). So, the blessing of Jacob is the glorification of Christ in all nations. It exists, it happens. Isaac is the law and the prophecy: even through the lips of the Jews, as if without their own knowledge, because they remain misunderstood, they bless Christ. The smell of the name of Christ fills the world like a field. In it this blessing is “from the dew of heaven,” that is, from the rain of divine words, “and from the fatness of the earth,” that is, from the gathering of nations. He has an abundance of bread and wine, that is, that abundance which represents bread and wine in the sacrament of His body and blood. The nations serve him. Princes worship him. He is the lord of his brother, for his people rule over the Jews. The sons of His father worship Him, that is, the sons of Abraham by faith, because He Himself is the son of Abraham according to the flesh. He who curses Him is cursed, and he who blesses Him is blessed. I say that our Christ is blessed, that is, he is truly called even through the lips of the Jews, who, although they are mistaken, still sing the psalms and prophets; and the other, whom they, in their delusion, expect, only seems to be blessed. Now the elder brother begins to ask for the promised blessing. Isaac was horrified, and upon learning that he had blessed one instead of the other, he was surprised and asked who it was. However, he does not complain that he was deceived; on the contrary, having immediately received in the depths of his soul a revelation about the great sacrament, he eliminates indignation and confirms the blessing. “Who is this,” he said, “who got the game and brought it to me, and I ate of it all, before you came, and I blessed him? he will be blessed” (Gen. XXVII, 33). If this were done not according to heavenly inspiration, but according to earthly custom, who would not expect in this case a curse from the angry one? Oh, things that were actually done, but were done prophetically; performed on earth, but according to heaven; performed by people but in a divine way! If we begin to analyze the particulars that produce such sacraments, we will have to write many books. The need to give real work moderate boundaries encourages us to rush to something else. Chapter XXXVIII. About sending Jacob to Mesopotamia to take a wife; about a vision that happened to him on the way in a dream; about four wives he had instead of the one he was looking for Jacob's parents send him to Mesopotamia to take a wife. Here are the parting words of his father: “Do not take yourself a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Mesopotamia, to the house of Bethuel, your mother’s father, and take yourself a wife from there, from the daughters of Dawan, your mother’s brother. May Almighty God bless you, may he make you fruitful and multiply you, and may there be from you many nations; and may the blessing of Abraham be given to you, to you and to your descendants with you, that you may inherit the land of your wandering, which God gave to Abraham” (Gen. XXVIII, 1–4). Here we already see that the seed of Jacob is separated from the other seed of Isaac, which came through Esau. For when it was said: “Your seed will be called in Isaac” (Gen. XXI, 12), which undoubtedly belongs to the city of God, then another seed was also highlighted, which came through the son of the slave, as well as that which was to be reborn in the sons of Keturah. But there was still doubt about the two twins of Isaac: whether it was both of them or one of them, and if one, then to whom exactly the well-known blessing extended. Now this is explained, for the father prophetically blesses Jacob and says to him: “Let there be from you a multitude of nations; and may the blessing of Abraham give you, to you, and to your descendants with you.” Having then gone to Mesopotamia, Jacob received a prophecy in a dream, about which it is written as follows: “Jacob left Beersheba, and went to Haran, and came to a certain place, and stayed there to spend the night, because the sun had set. And he took one of the stones from that place, and put it at his head, and lay down in that place. And I saw in a dream: behold, a ladder stands on the ground, and its top touches the sky; and behold, the angels of God ascend and descend on it. And behold, the Lord stands on it and says: I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your descendants. And your descendants will be like the sand of the earth; and you will spread to the sea, and to the east, and to the north, and to the noonday; and in you and in your seed all families of the earth will be blessed. And behold, I am with you; and I will keep you wherever you go; and I will return you to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you. Jacob awoke from his sleep and said: Truly the Lord is present in this place; but I didn’t know! And he was afraid and said: How terrible this place is! this is nothing other than the house of God, this is the gate of heaven. And Jacob arose early in the morning, and took the stone which he had put for his head, and set it up for a pillar; and he poured oil on the top of it. And he called the name of that place: Bethel 173 "(Gen. XXVIII, 10-19). All this has the meaning of prophecy. And Jacob poured oil on the stone, not according to the custom of idolaters, as if making the stone a god; for he did not worship this stone and did not make a sacrifice to it: but since the name of Christ is derived from “chrisma,” that is, anointing, then, undoubtedly, something was represented here, relating to the great sacrament. Our Savior himself obviously reminds us of this stone in the Gospel. Having said about Nathanael: “Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile,” He, in the same place, since Israel, who is also Jacob, saw the mentioned vision, says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, from now on you will see the heavens open and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” (John 1:47–51). Jacob came to Mesopotamia for a wife, but there he had to get four wives at once, from whom he gave birth to twelve sons and one daughter, although the Divine Scripture shows that he did not lust after any of them in an inappropriate manner. He came to take one; but when another was substituted for him in place of one, he did not abandon this one either, so that it would not seem as if he wanted to make it an object of ridicule by using it out of ignorance at night. And since no law at that time prohibited having many wives for the sake of multiplying offspring, he took the one to whom he made a promise as his future wife. When this one turned out to be barren, she gave her husband a maid in order to get sons from her; Her elder sister followed her example, although she had children, but wanted to increase her offspring. Jacob himself, as can be seen from Scripture, did not want more than one wife and married many only because of the obligation to bear children, retaining the rights of marriage; so he would not have done this if his wives, who had legal power over their husband’s body, had not so persistently demanded this from him. Thus, he fathered twelve sons and one daughter from four wives. Then he entered Egypt thanks to his son Joseph, who, having been sold by envious brothers, was taken there and became exalted there. Chapter XXXIX. Why did Jacob get the name Israel? As I noted a little higher, Jacob is also called Israel, a name that was primarily retained by the people who descended from him. This name was given to him by an angel who, on his way back from Mesopotamia, fought with him, clearly representing the image of Christ. That Jacob overcame Him, by His own will, in order to signify the sacrament, is nothing other than the suffering of Christ, during which the Jews seem to have overcome Him. Nevertheless, he asked for a blessing from the same angel, and naming him with the mentioned name was this blessing. Israel in translation means seeing God; which will be the final reward for all the saints. In addition, the same angel, when Jacob seemed to be overpowering, touched the sinew of his thigh and thus released him lame (Gen. XXXII, 24-29). So, one and the same Jacob received both blessing and lameness: blessing in the face of those who from his own people believed in Christ, and lameness in the face of the unbelievers, for the vein of the thigh signifies the largeness of the race; and there are many people in that tribe about whom it was prophetically predicted: “... they tremble in their fortifications” (Ps. XVII, 46). Chapter XL. How to understand the legend that Jacob entered Egypt with seventy-five souls, when most of those mentioned were born in subsequent times? It is said that seventy-five people entered Egypt with Jacob, including himself and his sons (Gen. 46:27). Only two women are mentioned: one is a daughter, the other is a granddaughter. But if we consider the matter carefully, then on the day or year of Jacob’s entry into Egypt, his descendants did not reach this date. Mention is made, for example, of Joseph's great-grandchildren, who could not have lived at that time; for Jacob was then one hundred and thirty years old, and his son Joseph thirty-nine. Since it is known that Joseph married in the thirtieth or even more than the thirtieth year of his life (Gen. 41:45–46), how could he, nine years later, have great-grandchildren from sons born from the same wife? So, if the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, did not even have children, and Jacob, having entered Egypt, found them less than nine years old, then how are not only their sons mentioned among those seventy-five who entered Egypt with Jacob? For there is also mention of Machir, that is, Gilead, the grandson of Manasseh, the great-grandson of Joseph. There is also one born from Ephraim, another son of Joseph, Sutalaam, the grandson of Joseph; and the son of Sutalaam himself, Edem, grandson of Ephraim, great-grandson of Joseph. All of them could in no way have lived at the time when Jacob came to Egypt and found the sons of Joseph, his grandchildren, and the grandfathers mentioned here, boys less than nine years old. But by the coming of Jacob to Egypt, when this means the migration of seventy-five souls, of course, undoubtedly, not one day or a year, but all the time that Joseph lived, who was the cause of the migration. For about Joseph himself the same Scripture says this: “And Joseph lived in Egypt, he and his father’s house; Joseph lived only one hundred and ten years. And Joseph saw Ephraim’s children until the third generation.” The mentioned great-grandson of him from Ephraim is this third. Speaking about the third generation, Scripture means son, grandson and great-grandson. It goes on to say: “Likewise the sons of Machir the son of Manasseh were born to the tribe of Joseph” (Gen. 50:22–23). And this is also the grandson of Manasseh, the great-grandson of Joseph. He is called in the plural according to the custom of Scripture: it also called one daughter of Jacob daughters. This is also characteristic of the Latin language, in which children are called sons, even if there are no more than one. So, if Joseph’s personal happiness is presented in that he was able to see his great-grandchildren, then in no way should one think that they already existed in the thirty-ninth year of the life of his great-grandfather Joseph, when his father, Jacob, came to him in Egypt. Less attentive readers are misled by the expression of Scripture: “These are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt: Jacob and his sons” (Gen. 46:8). This is said in the sense that all of them together with him were counted as seventy-five souls, and not in the sense that they were all already there when he entered Egypt. Under the parish, as I already said, of course, the entire time during which Joseph lived, who led him into Egypt. Chapter XLI. About the blessing that Jacob transferred to his son Judah So, if, having in mind the Christian people, in whose person the city of God wanders on earth, we begin to look for the flesh of Christ in the seed of Abraham, then, after excluding his sons from the concubines, Isaac appears before us; if in the seed of Isaac, then, after the removal of Esau, Jacob appears, who is also Israel; if in the seed of Israel itself, then, to the exclusion of others, Judas appears before us, for Christ is from the tribe of Judah. Let us therefore listen to how Israel prophetically blessed Judah when, dying in Egypt, he blessed his sons: “Judah! Your brothers will praise you. Your hand is on the back of your enemies; the sons of your father will worship you. The young lion Judah, my son, rises from his prey. He bowed down, lay down like a lion and like a lioness: who will raise him? The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the lawgiver from between his feet, until the Reconciler comes, and to Him is the submission of the nations. He binds his donkey's colt to the vine, and the son of his donkey to the best vine. He washes his clothes in wine and his garments in the blood of grapes. His eyes are sparkling with wine, and his teeth are white with milk” (Gen. 49:8–12). I explained this in the dispute against Faustus the Manichaean 174 and, I believe, is sufficient, as far as the prophetic meaning of the passage is clear in itself. Here the death of Christ is predicted by the word “dream”, and by the name of the lion - death not by necessity, but by power. He himself proclaims such power in the Gospel when he says: “I have power to lay it down (life), and I have power to take it up again” (John X, 18). So the lion roared, and he did what he said. What is said about the resurrection also belongs to His power: “Who will raise it up?” No one, that is, none of the people, except Himself, who said about His body: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John II, 19). The very kind of death, that is, the ascension to the cross, is expressed in one word, “rises.” And what is added: “He bowed and lay down,” the evangelist explains when he says: “And having bowed his head, he gave up his spirit” (John XIX, 30). Of course, perhaps, His tomb, in which He lay sleeping and from which none of the people raised Him, as the prophets or He himself raised others, but Himself, as if from a dream, rose. Further, His clothing, which He washes in wine, that is, cleanses from sins in His blood, is a sacrament that all the baptized know, which is why it is added: “His clothing is in the blood of the grapes” - what is this clothing of His, if not the Church? “His eyes sparkled with wine” - these are His spiritual ones, drunk with that cup of His, which the psalm sings: “My cup is overflowing” (Ps. XXII, 5); “The teeth are white from milk” - the milk that infants drink from the Apostle: they drink words that nourish them, since they are not capable of solid food (I Cor. III, 2). So, He is the One in Whom the promises of Judah were set aside, until the fulfillment of which the princes, that is, the kings of Israel, did not fail from this tribe. “And that is the desire of tongues”: this is seen more clearly in deeds than in words. Chapter XLII. About the sons of Joseph, whom Jacob blessed by the prophetic laying on of his hands As in the two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob, images of two peoples were presented - Jews and Christians (although regarding carnal origin, from the seed of Esau came not Jews, but Edomites, and from Jacob not Christian nations, but Jews: because the meaning of the image is expressed only in what was said: “The older will serve the younger”); the same thing happened with two of Joseph’s sons: the eldest served as an image of the Jews, the younger - of Christians. When Jacob blessed them, laying his right hand on the younger one, who was under the left, and laying his left hand on the older one, who was under the right one, it was hard for their father to see this, and he drew his father’s attention to this, as if wanting to correct his mistake, and showed him which of them was the eldest. But Jacob did not want to change hands, but said: “I know, my son, I know, and from him will come a nation, and he will be great; but his younger brother will be greater than he, and from his seed will come a numerous nation” (Gen. 48:19). And in this case, two well-known promises are pointed out. Is it not obvious that according to these two promises, the seed of Abraham contains both the people of Israel and the whole earth, this one according to the flesh, this one according to faith? Chapter XLIII. About the times of Moses, Joshua, the Judges, and then the kings, of which, although Saul was the first, David stands above all both in mystery and merit After the death of Jacob, as well as Joseph, during the remaining one hundred and forty-four years before the exodus from the land of Egypt, this clan increased to incredible sizes and was oppressed to such an extent that at one time newborn male babies were killed in it; for the astonished Egyptians were afraid of such excessive growth. Then Moses, secretly saved from the child killers, enters, since God is preparing great events through him, into the royal house, and, being raised and adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh (this was the common name of all the Egyptian kings), thus becomes a great man, and this race, miraculously multiplied, is freed from the cruelest and most difficult yoke of slavery, or rather, freed through it by God, who promised this to Abraham. But first Moses flees from there, because, while defending an Israelite, he killed an Egyptian and became afraid. Then, sent from above, he, by the power of the Holy Spirit, defeated the Pharaoh's magicians who resisted him. At the same time, they inflicted ten memorable plagues on the Egyptians because they did not want to let the people of God go: water turned to blood, frogs and midges, dog flies, cattle pestilence, festering wounds, hail, locusts, darkness, death of the firstborn. Finally, the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, when, defeated by so many and such plagues, they released the Israelites, but again pursued them. For the divided sea opened the way for those who were leaving, but those who were pursuing were swallowed up by the water returning to its place. After this, the people of God wander for forty years under the leadership of Moses in the desert. At this time, the Tabernacle of the Covenant was institutionalized, where God was honored with sacrifices that heralded the future. This, however, was already after the Law was given on the mountain, during terrifying phenomena; for the Divinity manifested itself most obviously by miraculous signs and voices. The latter took place shortly after the exodus from Egypt and the people's entry into the desert, fifty days after the celebration of Passover by the slaughter of a lamb. This Lamb was to such an extent an image of Christ, proclaiming that He would pass from this world to the Father through the sacrifice of suffering (for Passover in Hebrew means “transition”) that when the New Testament and our Passover opened, Christ was slain, then on the fiftieth day the Holy Spirit descended from heaven, which in the Gospel is called the “finger of God” (Luke XI, 20), to evoke in our memory the memory of this initial transformative event; for the well-known tablets of the Law, according to the Scriptures, were written “by the finger of God” (Ex. XXXI, 18). After the death of Moses, the people were ruled by Joshua, who led him into the promised land and divided the latter among the people. The wars were fought extremely happily and wonderfully by these two amazing leaders; by which God testified that these victories were given not so much according to the merits of the Jews, but because of the sins of those peoples whom they defeated. After these leaders there were judges when the people had already settled in the promised land. Thus, the first promise to Abraham about one thing, that is, about the Jewish people and the land of Canaan, has already begun to be fulfilled, but not yet about all nations and not about the whole earth. The latter was to fulfill the coming of Christ in the flesh and the faith of the Gospel, and not the exact fulfillment of the ritual prescriptions of the Old Law. A prototype of this was that it was not Moses, who received the Law on Mount Sinai, who led the people into the Promised Land, but Joshua (Joshua), whose name was changed at the command of God to be called Jesus. During the time of the judges, depending on the sins of the people and the mercy of God, wars alternated between happy and unhappy ones. We have thus reached the time of the kings. The first of these was Saul; but when he was rejected, when he fell, defeated in the war, and when his family itself was removed from the accession of its members to the kingdom, then he was succeeded by David, whose son Christ is primarily called. In the person of David, a kind of historical moment is given and in some way the beginning of the youth of the people of God: because from Abraham to David the youthful age of this people continued. It was not in vain that the Evangelist Matthew, of course, when counting generations, attributed the first section of fourteen genera to this period of time, that is, from Abraham to David (Matthew I, 17). Since a person receives the ability to give birth from adolescence, he considers the beginning of generations from Abraham, who, moreover, was appointed the father of nations when he accepted a changed name. So, before him, from Noah to Abraham, there was, as it were, a kind of adolescence of the people of God. Therefore, the first language, Hebrew, was invented at that time. For a person begins to speak in adolescence after infancy, which therefore bears such a name 175 because it does not have the ability to speak. This age usually sinks into complete oblivion, just as the first age of the human race was destroyed by a flood. Who is there who would remember his infancy? Thus, in this earthly growth of the city of God, just as the previous book embraced only the first age, so the present one embraces the other two - the second and third. At this third age, corresponding to a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old goat and a three-year-old ram (Gen. XV, 9), the yoke of the Law was imposed, an abundance of sins appeared and the beginning of the earthly kingdom arose. In the latter there was no shortage of spiritual ones, who had their mysterious prototype in the turtle dove and the dove. This solution is proposed by Jerome, basing it on the Jewish tradition that Abraham was thrown into the fire by the Chaldeans, which he did not want to worship, and was saved from it by the power of God. Contra Faust. Man. lib. XXII. cap. 36. This was taught, in particular, by Tertullian (“On the Flesh of Christ,” Chapter 6; “Against the Jews,” Chapter 9; “Against Marcion,” Book 2, Chapter 27; Book 5, Chapter 9), Justin Martyr (“Conversation with Tryphon the Jew”), Irenaeus, Eusebius in the Church. ist., book. 2, ch. 2. Contra Faust. Manich. XII. cap. 42. Of course - Latin, infancia, from in, negative particle - not and fari, to speak You might be interested in: