Questions on the Octateuch 1 part 3/17

And teaching this, the Lord said that after the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.

The punishment, then, is not an act of wrath, but the dispensation of the greatest wisdom;

For in order that the human race might hate sin, as having become the cause of death, the all-wise one, after the transgression of the commandment, brings the sentence of death.

By this he contrives hatred toward sin, while at the same time preparing beforehand for the race the remedy of salvation, which through the incarnation of the Only-begotten brought about the resurrection from the dead and immortality.

But what harshness does the pronouncement contain, 'You are earth and to earth you shall return'? 'From earth,' he says, 'I formed you, and I transformed you into a nature far better;'

'return to your former nature.'

But why does the sin seem to be small? He had given him authority over all the plants, and had forbidden the eating of one alone;

yet he, leaving aside all the others, plucked this fruit both first and alone;

for this indeed the Lord God also reproached him;

for 'who,' he says, 'told you that you were naked, unless you have eaten from that very tree which I commanded you alone not to eat, and you have eaten from it?' And the devil too made this clear through what he said to Eve:

'Is it true that God said, You shall not eat of any tree in paradise?' But if he had seen them having already eaten, he would not have supposed that they had received the commandment concerning all the trees.

Therefore the transgression is not small;

for they partook first of the very thing alone which they had been commanded not to partake of.

Why is it that, although God had said, 'In whatever day you eat of the tree you shall die the death,' he did not die immediately upon transgressing the commandment? This charge is self-contradictory;

for a little while ago, calling God harsh, you now accuse him of his love for mankind;

but one ought rather to praise, and not accuse, the goodness of God.

For he is accustomed to threaten greater things, but to bring punishments lesser than the threats;

and this one can find in many places in divine Scripture;

here, however, he named the boundary of mortality 'death';

for thus also Symmachus translated it: 'In whatever day you eat of the tree, you shall be mortal.'

For after the divine pronouncement, he awaited death, so to speak, every single day;

thus also those who have believed in the Lord Christ, even while being slaughtered, live, awaiting the resurrection and the kingdom of heaven.

What is to be understood by the 'garments of skin'? The allegorists say that the 'skins' are the mortal flesh;

but certain others have said that these were fashioned from the bark of trees.

I myself, however, accept neither of these;

for the one is over-contrived, and the other altogether fanciful.

For since divine Scripture says that the body was formed even before the soul, how is it not fanciful to say that they received mortal flesh only after the transgression of the commandment? And as for busying oneself over the question of where God got skins from, and thereby devising a novel kind of garments, this seems to me superfluous.

One must, therefore, be content with what is written, and know that nothing is impossible for the Creator of all things, and marvel at his infinite goodness, in that he cares even for those who have transgressed, and did not overlook them, naked and in need of covering.

What is the meaning of 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us'? Since the devil had said, 'You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil,' but Adam instead received the sentence of death by transgressing the commandment, the God of all said this ironically, showing the falsehood of the devil's promise;

but he prevented him from partaking of the fruit of the tree of life, not out of envy toward him of immortal life, but so as to check the course of sin;

death, therefore, is a remedy, not a punishment;

for it checks the impulse of sin;

for 'he who has died,' it says, 'has been justified from sin.'

And he ordered him to dwell opposite paradise, so that, coming to remembrance of the griefless life, he might hate sin as the procurer of the toilsome life.

If Cain was grieved because his offerings were not accepted, it is clear that he repented;

for grief belongs to those who repent.

It was not his own fault that grieved him, but his brother's success;

for this also Aquila hinted at:

'and Cain became exceedingly angry, and his countenance fell.'

'And the Lord said to Cain, Why are you angry?' What sign did God set upon Cain? The very decree of God was itself the sign, preventing him from being killed;

and also the trembling of his limbs made him conspicuous and easily known.

But this was not, at that time, a crime, since no law forbade it;

moreover, it was not even possible for the race to be increased in any other way;

so as to establish all the nations of mankind;

first, so that they might know the sameness of their nature, as having sprung from one pair;

and then also, that they might be joined together in concord, as having blossomed from a single root.

For if, even though these things were ordained by the God of all, countless murders are still dared, what would they not have done, had they supposed themselves to have sprung from different fathers? For this reason he formed one man from the earth, and from him fashioned one woman;

and from these two he filled the whole inhabited world with the race.

For this reason, then, he permitted at the beginning the intermarriage of siblings; but when the race had increased, he forbade this marriage as unlawful.

For this very reason he preserved, together with Noah and his sons, their wives also in the ark, so that their children might be joined to their female cousins.

Whom did Lamech slay? Not two, as some have supposed, nor Cain, as others have fabled, but one, and this one a youth;

for he says, 'I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt;'

that is, a man of young age.

He escaped punishment, however, on account of his confession of the sin;

and by pronouncing sentence against himself, he averted the divine sentence.

Where did the God of all transfer Enoch? One must not inquire into things passed over in silence;

but it is fitting to be content with what is written.

I myself think that the God of all did this for the encouragement of the athletes of virtue;

for since Abel, who had become the first fruit of righteousness, was cut off both prematurely and root and branch, and the hope of the resurrection did not yet encourage mankind,

the God of all transferred Enoch, who had pleased him, and separated him from the life of mortals, so that each of those who choose to live piously might reason, as being honored by this very consideration, that he who honored this man will not leave Abel without recompense, since he is indeed just, and justly governs all things.

For this reason, then, he allowed the one to be slain, but transferred the other, so that by this one's exaltation he might signify the resurrection that was to come;

for he who has not obtained the recompenses of virtue in this present life will clearly enjoy them in another life.

Why, then, when Adam had sinned, did the righteous Abel die first? He willed that the foundation of death should be made unsound;

for if Adam had died first, death would have had a strong foundation, having received as its first corpse the one who had sinned;

but since it received first the one who was slain unjustly, its foundation is unstable.

Whom did Moses call 'sons of God'? Certain senseless and utterly foolish people have supposed these to be angels, thinking perhaps that they would thereby have an excuse for their own licentiousness, if they were to lay such charges upon the angels;

but they ought to have heard the God of all saying:

'My spirit shall not remain in these men forever, because they are flesh;'

'And their days shall be a hundred and twenty years.'

And from this one may also perceive that the nature of the bodiless beings has no flesh, nor is their life bounded by a fixed span of time;

and what follows has the same sense.

For, he says, 'when the Lord God saw that the wickednesses of men had multiplied upon the earth, and that everyone diligently contrives evil in his heart all his days, God took thought that he had made man upon the earth, and God said:'

'I will wipe away the man whom I made from the face of the earth, from man to cattle, and from creeping things to the birds of heaven, because I took thought that I had made them.'

'The time of every man has come before me, for the earth has been filled with injustice because of them;'

'and behold, I will destroy them, and the earth.'

All these things show that they were men—men who had loved a lawless manner of life.

But if angels had intercourse with the daughters of men, then men were wronged by the angels;

for clearly they violated their daughters by force;

and they were wronged also by the God who made them, being themselves punished on account of angels who had played the wanton.

...that the father of falsehood should have dared such a thing.

For in many places divine Scripture has taught both that men have sinned and that the divine sentence was pronounced against men;

and it is the careless reading of divine Scripture that produces this ignorance in the many.

For after the writer had said how Seth was begotten from Adam, and Enos from Seth, he added, 'This one hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.'

But Aquila rendered this as follows:

'Then it was begun to call upon the name of the Lord.'

The passage hints that, because of his piety, this man was the first to obtain the divine appellation, and was named 'god' by his kinsmen;

whence those born from him were called 'sons of God';

just as indeed we too are called Christians from the appellation of the Master Christ.

'I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.'

'And God stood in the congregation of gods, and in the midst he will judge gods.'

He calls the rulers 'gods' in this way, as what follows makes clear: 'How long will you judge unjustly and accept the persons of sinners? Judge for the orphan and the poor; do justice for the lowly and the needy,' and so on.

And again, 'The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and has called the earth.'

referring, clearly, to these very ones who by grace have been deemed worthy of this appellation;

so too the lawgiver said, 'You shall not revile gods, and you shall not speak evil of the rulers of your people.'

Those men, then, as pious, were called 'sons of God.'

For the race of Seth had been kept separate and did not mingle with those descended from Cain, on account of the curse brought upon him by the God of all;

but after a long time had passed—for God brought on the flood more than two thousand years later—they, seeing that the daughters of Cain's kindred were fair of form, and being charmed, as is likely, by the musical instruments devised by that line (for Jubal, who flourished among them, invented the psaltery and the harp), mingled with them and corrupted their own nobility;

and they suffered the very same fate as the Israelites did, who, having mingled with the daughters of the Midianites, also shared in their impiety and received a punishment sent from God.

Thus those who traced their line from Seth, formerly, as men devoted to virtue, were called 'sons of God';

but being enticed by the beauty of the unholy women, they confounded the races that had been kept distinct, and received utter destruction as the fruit of their inheritance.

One must note this, however: that the divine word does not simply accuse them of sin, but of lawlessness pursued with diligence and zeal.

For this is what is meant by 'everyone diligently contrives evil in his heart all his days.'

For those who are troubled by the assault of sin, yet are overcome by wickedness through slackness of mind, and afterward feel pain and groan, have in some measure a certain excuse, at least in some way;

but as for those who incline altogether toward licentiousness and wickedness, and make their reason a slave of the passions, so as even to devise further forms of evil—and this not once or twice, but throughout their whole life—of what pardon are they worthy? And what punishment would not be small for those who have thus given themselves over to destruction? Whom does divine Scripture call 'giants'? Some say those who had lived many years;

but others say they were men hateful to God and opposed to God.

Those who have understood it in this way say that these men did not have bodies larger than other men.

But when I hear divine Scripture saying of Enak that he was a descendant of the giants, and of Og that his bed was of iron, nine cubits in length and four cubits in breadth, and that he alone was left of the Rephaim;

...like a cedar, and was strong as an oak; and of Goliath, that his height was four cubits and a span—I judge that there did in fact exist certain men of immense size,

God having wisely ordained even this, so that men might know that it was not from any weakness that the Creator allotted so great a measure to men;

for it would have been easy for him to make them even larger still, but cutting off vanity and preventing arrogance, he did not give men the largest bodies.

For this reason they also joined themselves to many women.

Indeed, even after the flood, up to the time of the patriarchs, men were long-lived;

but once they had filled the inhabited world, the number of their years was thereafter diminished.

Why in the world did he destroy the multitudes of men by the flood? He wished to blot out the race of Cain;

but the tribe of the pious had also become mingled with it;

therefore it too shared in the punishment.

Wishing to make a certain beginning of a new life, he preserved Noah together with his sons and their wives—Noah being both pious and righteous, having sprung from the kindred of the pious, and having hated intermingling with lawlessness.

Yet he did not do these things, as some claim, out of any anger or repentance;

for these, after all, are human passions;

but the divine nature is free of passions.

Moreover, repentance is fitting for those who learn the nature of things only after experience;

for, being ignorant of what is to come, they make their plans beforehand;

then, learning by experience that they had not planned rightly, they repent.

But God sees the things that will come to pass after many generations just as if they had already come to pass;

since, then, he foresees and foreknows, he administers all things accordingly.

Why then does he 'repent,' seeing that he administers all things according to his own foreknowledge? Therefore, in God's case 'repentance' means a change in his dispensation;

'I have repented,' he says, 'that I anointed Saul as king'—instead of saying, 'I have decided to remove this man, and to appoint another.'

So too here: 'I took thought that I had made man' means 'I have decided to destroy the race of men';

but being loving toward mankind, he preserved Noah as a seed for that nature.

And since the races of irrational animals also had been created for the use of men, these too were destroyed together with men, except for those preserved in the ark together with Noah.

For the Lord God commanded that two of every kind reckoned unclean should be preserved, but seven of the clean;

for since he was about to permit men to partake of meat, and since those nourished by him were also going to offer to him sacrifices of piety, he ordered that a greater number of the clean animals be preserved;

three pairs for the increase of the species, and the one remaining for sacrifice.

For immediately after the cessation of the punishment, Noah offered a thank-offering sacrifice to God;

'from all the clean cattle,' it says, 'and from all the clean birds'—so that it is evident that it was for this very reason that he commanded seven of each clean kind to be brought into the ark, so that Noah, in offering the one animal of each kind, might not thereby destroy the pairs.

For God said to him:

'And you shall take for yourself of all the foods that you eat, and you shall gather them to yourself, and it shall be food for you and for them.'

From the beginning, God did not ordain for men to eat meat;

For, he said, 'Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing plant that sows seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree that has in itself fruit yielding seed, shall be yours for food; and to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the birds of heaven, and to every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, which has in itself the breath of life, [I have given] every green plant for food.'

So that it is clear that both men and animals abstained from eating flesh, and had as food the fruits that grow from the earth.

How is it to be understood that 'the Lord remembered Noah'? Divine Scripture converses with human beings in a manner suited to them, and adapts its words to what they are able to hear.

Just as, then, in the case of God, 'repentance' signifies a change of dispensation;

for 'I have repented that I anointed Saul as king' means, 'I have resolved to set up another in his place'; so here too one must understand 'I considered that I made man' as meaning, 'I resolved to bring utter destruction upon them.'

So too this phrase, 'God remembered Noah,' does not hint at any prior forgetfulness, but reveals his ineffable love for mankind;

for because of his tender affection for him, he commanded that vast and immeasurable water to be swallowed up as quickly as possible.

And making manifest his indescribable goodness, he added that this was also for all the cattle, all the birds, and all the creeping things that were with him in the ark.

And it was for our sake that he deemed even these creatures worthy of his providence;

'who makes grass grow for the cattle, and green plants for the service of man.'

And again, 'Man and beast you preserve, O Lord.'

for it is for our sake that he also cares for what belongs to us.

What is meant by 'the Lord smelled a sweet savor'? He welcomed the gratitude of Noah, not taking delight in the smell of burnt fat;

for nothing has a more offensive odor than burning bones; rather, he praised the intention of the one who offered it.

For he does not have bodily parts, that we should even attribute a nose to him;

he therefore repays him with a blessing;

and since he was the seed of the human race and the root of its nature, and a second Adam, God gives him the same blessing which that first man had enjoyed as soon as he was formed;

'Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have dominion over it;'

'and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon all the wild beasts of the earth, and upon all the birds of heaven, and upon everything that moves upon the earth, and upon all the fish of the sea, which I have given into your hand.'

And the word became deed;

for all creatures fear even the mere shadow of man—the swimming creatures, the land creatures, and the winged creatures alike.

Then he gave him the law concerning the eating of flesh, commanding him to partake of meat as of vegetables.

For what reason does he forbid the partaking of blood? He taught this more clearly in the Law:

'For that which the soul is to man, blood is to the irrational animals,' he says.

Therefore, if you partake of the flesh apart from the blood, you will surely be partaking of it as of vegetables;

but if you should partake of it with the blood, you are eating a soul;

wherefore also here he said, 'Only flesh with the blood of its soul you shall not eat;'

'for indeed I will require your blood, that of your souls;'

'from the hand of every beast I will require it; from the hand of a man's brother I will require the life of man.'

Here he hints at the resurrection—not as though he would bring wild beasts before the tribunal and exact penalty from them for devouring men, but as one who will gather together and raise up the bodies that have been consumed by them;

'for in his hand are the ends of the earth;'

and it is an easy thing for him to gather our body together from every quarter;

here, then, he has revealed this in a riddling manner;

but through Ezekiel he proclaimed the resurrection more clearly.

But after the flood he generously grants more abundant food, commanding that birds, swimming creatures, and land animals alike be slaughtered and eaten;

driving out one passion by another, and curing the greater by means of the lesser;

for God, foreseeing that those who had fallen into the depths of irrationality would deify all these creatures, permitted their consumption in order to put an end to that impiety;

for it is the height of folly to worship that which is eaten.

For this very reason he calls some of the animals unclean and others clean, so that men, abhorring the former as unclean, should not deify them, and should not worship the latter, since they are eaten.

For being the first of men to press out the fruit of the vine, and ignorant not only of the proper measure of drinking but also of the manner of partaking—that one must first mix it with water and only then drink—he suffered a stupor;

and in being exposed naked he suffered nothing unprecedented;

for even now some people become uncovered while sleeping, since sleep removes their awareness;

and when drunkenness is added to sleep, it makes the excuse for his nakedness all the more plausible.

Since the Law that commands honoring father and mother had not yet been given, how is Ham judged as a smiter of his father? The Creator has implanted in nature the necessary laws.

Thus he also condemned Cain, since nature itself taught him that murder is unlawful;

for at once, employing deceit as his accomplice, he led his brother far away from their parents and killed him; and when God inquired, 'Where is Abel your brother?' he denied it;

and it is clear that he denied what he had dared to do because he knew that what had happened was evil;

but when he was convicted by the just Judge, he confessed that he had sinned beyond forgiveness;

for he says, 'My sin is greater than that I should be forgiven.'

And indeed Adam too, upon perceiving the divine visitation, tried to escape notice, as one who knew that acting secretly is evil;

so also Ham incurred the accusation of being a smiter of his father, as one who had transgressed the law of nature;

For that nature also taught men to honor their parents is testified by the brothers of Ham, who, having learned of their father's condition from him, walked backward and covered their father with great reverence, so that they might by no means see the source from which they themselves had sprung and been born;

and so it was quite fitting that they reaped their father's blessing.

Why, when Ham had sinned, did his son receive the curse? All alike, after the flood had ceased, had shared in the divine blessing;

Noah therefore considered it a bold thing to bring a curse upon one who had partaken of the divine blessing;

for this reason he placed the curse upon that man's son instead;

and this punishment also has its own justice.

for since it was as a son that he sinned against his father, he receives his punishment through the curse laid upon his own son.

In addition to this, one must also consider the following: that if Ham himself had received the curse, the punishment would have passed on to his entire line;

but he directed the discipline instead to the youngest son alone; and one should also know this, that the words of the righteous man are a prophecy, not a curse;

for since Israel, tracing its descent from Shem, was destined to receive dominion over Palestine;

and this land was of old inhabited by those who had sprung from Canaan;

he casts his prophecy in the form of a curse, foretelling what was to come, while at the same time deterring those who would come afterward from offending against their parents.

and the blessing given to Shem teaches us this clearly;

for he says, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem;'

'and Canaan shall be his servant.'

For he did not subject him to both of the brothers, but to Shem alone;

and he foretold abundant offspring for Japheth, but piety for Shem;

for he foretold that God would dwell in the tents of Shem;

and indeed he did dwell in the patriarchs who came from Shem, and in the prophets who sprang from them.

both formerly in the tabernacle, and afterward in Jerusalem

But the prophecy attained its exact fulfillment: the mystery of the dispensation.

for these also derived their lineage from Shem

but the servitude of Canaan received its fulfillment in the Gibeonites

Some of the teachers said that the asphalt was unslaked lime.

Being ignorant, as is likely, of the springs in Assyria, they supposed that the tower was built with lime.

But I have learned precisely from those who came from there, that there are springs which gush forth this substance together with water,

and that, mixing it into structures built in the water, they laid the baked brick upon it.

Thus, they say, that tower was built; and eyewitnesses of it affirmed that they also dug through a certain part, and ascertained precisely that asphalt was laid beneath the baked bricks,

in Assyria, they say, and for this reason bricks were used instead of stones.

For Adam and Cain and Abel and Noah are names peculiar to the Syrian tongue,

for it is the Syrians' custom to call the red earth 'adamtha'.

Adam, then, is interpreted either as 'earthly' or as 'made of dust', and Cain as 'possession'; and celebrating this, Adam said:

'I have gotten a man through God.'

for he was the first to be seen dead;

and he was the first to bring grief upon those who had begotten him.

Whence, then, did the Hebrew language begin? I think it to be a sacred tongue;

for just as in the Greek temples there were certain proper letter-forms which they called 'hieratic', so also through Moses the God of all gave this language, one that was taught, not natural.

Accordingly, whereas all others speak according to the tongue of the nation in which they are born—those born in Italy using the language of the Italians, those in Greece that of the Greeks, those in Persia that of the Persians, and those in Egypt that of the Egyptians—

the children of the Hebrews are not found using the Hebrew tongue from the outset, but rather that of the people among whom they were born;

then, when they become youths, they are taught the letters,

and through the letters they learn the divine Scripture, written in the Hebrew tongue.

'he heard a tongue which he did not know.'

But some say that the language was called 'Hebrew' from Eber;

for he alone remained in the former tongue, and from him they were named 'Hebrews.' But I think that they were named 'Hebrews' from the fact that the patriarch Abraham came from the land of the Chaldeans into Palestine, having crossed over the river Euphrates,

for in the Syrian tongue 'hebra' means 'crossing over';

and thus he himself was also called [this]; and the divine Scripture bears witness,

for after the captivity of Lot, someone came, it says, and reported to Abraham the crosser;

and I found this rendered in the Hebrew [text] as 'hebrei';

and 'hebrei', when rendered into Greek, becomes 'Hebraios'.

For indeed, in that passage where the Egyptian woman spoke concerning Joseph:

'You have brought in to us a Hebrew servant to mock us'—in the Hebrew [text] 'hebrei' is found.

But if they are called 'Hebrews' from Eber, then it would not be fitting for these alone to be so named;

for many nations trace their lineage from Eber,

and, to pass over all the others, from him come the Ishmaelites, and those from Keturah, and the Idumeans, and the Amalekites, and the Moabites, and the Ammonites, and those who inhabit Carrhae,

for they trace their lineage from Nahor and Laban.

but none of these uses the Hebrew tongue.

But it is superfluous to wrangle contentiously over this;

for nothing harms the doctrine of piety, whether we accept this [view] or that.

Some say that Pharaoh had union with Sarah.

What kind of care, then, did Abraham enjoy from the God of all, if He looked on while his wife was being made an adulteress? And why indeed did He afflict Pharaoh with great and grievous plagues, and all his house, unless He wished to prevent the unlawful union? And Pharaoh himself puts forward his ignorance as a defense:

and he reproaches Abraham for having called his wife his sister,

and he shows that he did not violate her, but took her wishing to marry her.

'For what is this you have done to me, that she is your wife? Why did you say, "She is my sister," so that I took her to myself as wife? And now, behold, your wife is before you—take her and go.'