Questions on the Octateuch 1.56–1.74

Why was Noah not blamed when he fell into drunkenness? The failing was one of inexperience, not of intemperance. He was the first of men to press the fruit of the vine, and since he knew neither the measure of drinking nor the manner of partaking (that one must first mix the wine with water and then drink), he suffered the stupor. And there was nothing strange in his being uncovered: even now some uncover themselves while sleeping, since sleep takes away perception; and drunkenness added to sleep makes the excuse for the uncovering more plausible.

Since the law commanding honor to father and mother had not yet been given, why is Ham judged as one who outraged his father? The creator placed the necessary laws in nature. So he condemned Cain, since nature taught him that murder is unlawful. At any rate, using guile as his accomplice, he led his brother far from their parents and killed him; and when God asked, “Where is Abel your brother?” he denied it. Plainly, knowing that what had happened was evil, he denied the deed he had dared. And when convicted by the just judge, he confessed that he had sinned beyond pardon: “My sin,” he says, “is too great to be forgiven.” Adam too, perceiving the divine presence, tried to hide, as knowing that stealing is evil. So too Ham received the charge of outraging his father, as one who had transgressed the law of nature. That nature also taught honoring parents is attested by Ham's brothers: having learned from him of their father's condition, they walked backward with great modesty and covered their father, so as not to see that from which they had been sown and sprung. Very fittingly, therefore, they reaped their father's blessing.

Why, when Ham had sinned, did his son receive the curse? After the flood ceased, all together had shared in the divine blessing. Noah therefore thought it rash to bring a curse on one who had shared in the divine blessing; for this reason he put the curse on Ham's son. And the punishment has its justice too: since Ham sinned against his father as a son, he receives the punishment through the curse on his son. Besides this, one must consider that if Ham himself had received the curse, the punishment would have passed to his whole race; but he passed the chastisement on to the youngest son. And this too one must know: the righteous man's words are a prophecy, not a curse. Since Israel, which traced its descent from Shem, was going to take possession of Palestine, and those sprung from Canaan had long inhabited it, he shapes the prophecy as a curse, foretelling what would be, and frightening those who would come later from offending against their parents. The blessing of Shem teaches us this clearly: “Blessed,” he says, “be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” He did not subject him to both brothers, but to Shem alone. And he foretold numerous offspring for Japheth, and piety for Shem; for he foretold that God would dwell in the tents of Shem. He did dwell among the patriarchs descended from Shem, and among the prophets who sprang from them; first in the tabernacle, and later in Jerusalem. But the prophecy had its exact fulfilment in the mystery of the dispensation, when God the Word himself, the only-begotten Son of God the Father, became flesh and became man, and called his temple the flesh that he took from the seed of David and Abraham; for these too traced their descent from Shem. The servitude of Canaan found its fulfilment in the Gibeonites.

Some of the teachers have said that the bitumen was lime. Those who said this did not know, as is likely, the springs in Assyria, and thought that the tower was built with lime. But I have learned precisely from those who have come from there that there are springs that gush up this substance with water, and that people work it into their buildings and lay baked brick upon it. They say that the tower too was built in this way; and eyewitnesses insisted that they broke off a part of it and established precisely that bitumen is laid under the baked bricks. Besides, they say that stone is scarce in Assyria, and that for this reason they used bricks instead of stones; and without stones how could there be lime?

Which language is older? The names show it. Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah belong to the Syriac language. The Syrians usually call red earth adamtha; Adam, then, is interpreted “the earthy” or “the one made of dust.” Cain is “acquisition”; Adam said this when praising God: “I have acquired a man through God.” Abel is “mourning,” for he was the first to be seen dead, and the first to bring mourning to his parents. And Noah is “rest.”

Where, then, did Hebrew begin? I think that it is a sacred language. Just as in the Greek temples there were certain special characters of letters, which they called hieratic, so the God of the universe gave this language through Moses: a language that is taught, not natural. Thus, while all others speak the language of the nations among which they are born (those born in Italy using that 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 language from the start, but that of those among whom they were born; then, when they become youths, they are taught the characters of the letters, and through the letters they learn the divine Scripture, written in the Hebrew language. I think the blessed David too hints at this in the eightieth psalm: “He heard a language that he did not know.” But some say that the language was called Hebrew from Eber, since he alone remained in the former language, and that the Hebrews were named from him. I, however, think that they were named Hebrews because the patriarch Abraham came from the land of the Chaldeans into Palestine, crossing the river Euphrates; for in the Syriac language one who crosses over is called ebra. If they were called Hebrews from Eber, then not only these ought to have been so called. For many nations trace their descent from Eber; to pass over all the others, from him come the Ishmaelites, the descendants of Keturah, the Idumeans, the Amalekites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and those who live in Carrhae, for they trace their descent from Nahor and Laban. Yet none of these uses the Hebrew language. Abraham himself was called so, and the divine Scripture is witness: after the capture of Lot, “someone came,” it says, “and told Abraham the crosser.” I found this word given in the Hebrew as hebrei; and hebrei put into Greek becomes Hebraios. So too in the passage where the Egyptian woman said of Joseph, “You have brought in to us a Hebrew servant to mock us,” the Hebrew has hebrei. But it is superfluous to wrangle about this; it does no harm to the doctrine of piety whichever we accept.

Some say that Pharaoh had intercourse with Sarah. What care, then, did Abraham enjoy from the God of the universe, if God overlooked his wife being made an adulteress? And why did he afflict Pharaoh and his whole house with great and terrible afflictions, if he did not wish to prevent the unlawful union? Pharaoh himself puts forward his ignorance as a defense, blames Abraham for calling his wife his sister, and shows that he took her not to outrage her but wishing to marry her: “What is this,” he says, “that you have done to me, that she is your wife? Why did you say, She is my sister, so that I took her for myself as wife? And now, see, your wife is before you; take her and be off.” And he not only said this but acted on it, and counted him worthy of every kind of care: “Pharaoh,” it says, “commanded men concerning Abraham to escort him, and his wife, and all that he had.” It is plain, then, that as soon as Sarah was seized, the ruler of the universe bound Pharaoh with sickness; the sickness dulled his desire, and the hunter, though he had the prey within his nets, did not enjoy the catch, for the sickness prevented it.

And why did Scripture keep silent here about Sarah's being kept unharmed, while in the account of Abimelech it showed this clearly? Sarah was at that time about to bear Isaac. So, in order that Abraham's seed should not be suspect, the divine Scripture showed clearly there that Abimelech did not touch her. And from both passages one must learn that nature has taught even barbarians that adultery is evil and deserves punishment. Pharaoh showed this by reproaching Abraham; and Abimelech said to the God of the universe: “Lord, will you kill a nation that is ignorant and righteous? Did he not himself say to me, She is my sister, and did she not herself say to me, He is my brother? With a pure heart and with righteousness of hands I did this.” The writer has also put down God's answer: “God said to Abimelech in sleep, I too knew that you did this with a pure heart, and I spared you, so that you should not touch her, so as not to sin against me; for this reason I did not let you touch her. Now, then, give the man back his wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you will be saved, you and all your house. But if you do not give her back, know that you will die.” The divine word teaches us that he does not let lovers of righteousness offend through ignorance. It is plain, then, that he prevented Pharaoh too from sinning, since he had taken her by the law of marriage as Abraham's sister. But since Abimelech was better than Pharaoh, as is likely, he kept Pharaoh from lawlessness by chastisement; to Abimelech he did not himself grant pardon for the injury and the offence, but waited for the injured man to ask for it; he counted him worthy of a gentle appearance, and with mild words showed him the lawless thing he had dared. “Abimelech said to Abraham, What did you have in view, that you did this thing? And Abraham said, For I said, Perhaps there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. For truly she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother.”

From whom did Melchizedek trace his descent? Since the inspired Paul says, “Without father, without mother, without genealogy,” who could know the truth? It is likely that he was from those nations that inhabited Palestine. For he was king and priest of those nations, but priest of the God of the universe: “He was,” it says, “priest of God Most High.” That is why the patriarch Abraham offered him the tithes of the spoils; and, righteous as he was and the friend of God, he received the blessing from him; for Melchizedek bore the type of the Lord's priesthood. That is why he gave Abraham bread and wine in return, as one perhaps accustomed to offer such things to the God of the universe. For the type had to be shown in this too.

How is Abraham named faithful, when he said to God, “By what shall I know that I shall inherit it?” The words “By what shall I know this” are not those of one who disbelieves, but of one who longs to learn the manner of the inheritance. Since he saw countless multitudes inhabiting Palestine, he wished to learn in what way he would take possession of that land: by the law of war or without war; with its inhabitants living, or killed, or driven out. For this reason, after the sacrifice, the God of the universe said: “Know for certain that your seed will be a sojourner in a land not its own; and they will enslave them and afflict them and humble them for four hundred years. But the nation they serve I will judge. After this they will come out here with many possessions. But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age. And in the fourth generation they will return here; for the sins of the Amorites are not yet filled up until now.” From the divine answer one can learn the manner of the question. Since he said, “By what shall I know that I shall inherit it?” he was taught how long they would sojourn, how they would suffer hardship, and what providence they would be counted worthy of: those who chose to make war on them would be punished, and his descendants would reap the fruits of their enemies' labors; and he himself, having no experience of these things, would end his life in peace. He also taught the reason for the delay, so that no one might suppose that God the Master was unable to hand over the possession of that land to them because of the number of its inhabitants. He said: “For the sins of the Amorites are not yet filled up until now.” “They have not yet,” he says, “done what deserves total destruction; and punishment must not be inflicted from foreknowledge before the sin.” That there were pious people at that time is clear from Melchizedek, from Abimelech, and from those who lived in Hebron. For they too honored the patriarch with much attention, and one can hear them crying, “You are a king from God among us. Bury your dead in our choice tombs.”

Why did he command a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old ram, and the rest to be sacrificed? These were riddles of what would happen to the race. So after the sacrifices he added: “Know for certain that your seed will be a sojourner in a land not its own,” and further, “In the fourth generation they will return here.” For this reason he commanded three of the clean four-footed animals, each three years old, to be sacrificed, to indicate the three generations that would continue in sojourning. The turtledove showed the generation that, as it were, flew away and left Egypt and encamped in the desert; for this bird loves the desert. The dove indicated the other generation, which received the promised land; for this creature is tame and loves to dwell in houses. That is why he did not divide the birds, since they hinted at release from slavery; but he divided the four-footed animals, since they signified the ill-treatment in Egypt. The birds that swooped on the divided pieces, which the patriarch drove away from the victims, foreshadowed the murderous intent of the Egyptians, which God the Master made ineffective, confirming his promises to Abraham; for just as Abraham in the type drove away the carrion birds, so the honor in which Abraham was held brought punishment on the Egyptians. The smoking furnace and the torches of fire seen about sunset showed that the victims were accepted, and foretold the appearing of the God of the universe that would take place near the end of the foretold time; for he appeared through fire both to Moses the lawgiver and afterwards to the whole people. Besides this, he was teaching that he would later prescribe that these animals be offered. Some say that God, wishing to show that his promise was sure, made the covenant according to the prevailing custom; for people used, they say, to make their oaths by dividing the victims in two. I have set down both views, so that readers may accept whichever seems truer.

Many licentious people take the patriarch Abraham's having a concubine as an occasion for lust. Each action is judged by the aim of those who do it. Let us, then, consider the matter of Hagar in this way too. If we see the patriarch enslaved to desire, let us call it a blameworthy thing. But his wife had shown the affliction of her nature, saying that the maker had created her womb barren; she had made plain her longing for children, and for this reason had begged him to have relations with Hagar, so that she might obtain a child through her. What sin, then, did Abraham commit? At that time neither nature nor any written law forbade having more than one wife; and his wife, being barren, entreated her husband to have relations with the maidservant, not so that he might be enslaved to pleasure, but so that he by nature and she by adoption might be called parents. That that divine man was superior to shameful pleasure is attested not only by this but also by what follows. When Hagar conceived, she took her pregnancy as an occasion for boasting and raged against her mistress; Sarah was indignant and cried out against the patriarch unjustly; but he, receiving her outburst very gently, handed the maidservant over to her for punishment, without even waiting for the child in the womb to be born: “See,” he says, “your maidservant is in your hands; treat her as you please.”

Why did God command him to be circumcised? Having foretold the sojourning, he devises a safeguard for piety, so that when they mingled with impious men they might not corrupt their nobility, but, looking at the sign, might keep an inextinguishable memory of the one who gave it. That this is true, the desert is witness. Having spent forty years in it, they thought circumcision superfluous, since they were separated from the nations and lived by themselves. But when at length they were being brought into the promised land, the God of the universe commanded Joshua son of Nun to circumcise them all, and so to hand over the possession of the land. For they were about to come near to foreign nations, and so they needed the seal that separated them from the alien peoples. If the Jews pride themselves on circumcision, let them learn that not only the patriarch was circumcised, but also Ishmael, the son of a slave woman, the servants born in the household, those bought with money, the Idumeans, and the descendants of Keturah. The Egyptians too learned from the Israelites to be circumcised. Circumcision, then, does not make people righteous; for all these are accused by the divine Scripture as impious. Nor, then, did circumcision justify Abraham: faith declared him righteous, and virtue made him more illustrious. Circumcision was given as a sign of faith.

The divine Scripture says that the angels ate in Abraham's tent. And the same Scripture says that Abraham saw men. If, then, one is to attend to the bare letter, men, not angels, ate; but if we unfold the meaning, they ate in the way they were seen. Just as they, and their Master with them, having an incorporeal nature, seemed to have bodies (for so they were seen), so they were seen eating; they did not take the food with mouth and stomach, for they did not have bodies, but consumed it as they willed. It is the height of folly to busy oneself with the manner of things that cannot be told.

Why was Lot not accused for having intercourse with his daughters? Since even human beings usually pardon offences committed in ignorance, no one could justly blame Lot for the intercourse; for he did not know what was being done. His drunkenness, though, has some blame mixed with pardon. In deep distress and bewilderment, as one stripped of all he had, and besides everything else of his very wife, he let his daughters offer him wine beyond his need, not knowing what was being contrived, but supposing that what was done was meant for his comfort and consolation. The daughters, however, are wholly free from blame. Having seen the four cities and all the villages burned by the rain of fire, and the inhabitants of Segor swallowed up (the name too signifies this, for Segor is interpreted “swallowing”), they supposed that the whole of human nature had utterly perished. Seeing the desolation that prevailed, and foreseeing the weakness of old age, they wished to contrive both seed for the race and some comfort for themselves. Using this reasoning, and not enslaved to desire, they took the wine as their accomplice, stole their father's perception by making him drink more, and made their father the sower.

Why did God not prevent the unlawful intercourse? He foresaw the impiety of the race. The Moabites served Chemosh, and the Ammonites Melchol. So that the Israelites would not share their impiety as kinsmen, he did not prevent the unlawful union, so that in this way at least he might make them abominable and loathsome to the Jews. The God of the universe shows this too when he ordains through Moses the lawgiver: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord, even to the tenth generation, and for ever.”

It seems very cruel that Ishmael, young as he was, should be driven from his father's house with only his mother and the skin of water. This plainly shows Abraham's virtue. When Sarah said, “Cast out the maidservant and her son,” he did not obey; but when God commanded it, he at once added the deed to the word, and that though he felt tender affection for Ishmael. For when God promised the birth of a child from Sarah, he himself said, “May this Ishmael live before you.” Yet, though he loved the child dearly, he did what the Master commanded. And he so believed the divine promises that he sent the child from the house without giving him male or female servants, gold or silver, but a few loaves, a skin of water, and his mother. For he knew that the promise of the one who had given the command was without falsehood. God had promised to make him a great nation, since he had been counted worthy of God's tending; and this he fulfilled. As soon as the child cried, longing for a drink, an angel sent from God showed a well full of drinking water. That God also gave the multitude of offspring as he had promised, what is seen bears witness: from the borders of Egypt to Babylon the desert is full of this race. Abraham, for his part, gave names to places out of piety: having planted a field at the well of the oath, he called the name of that place “Eternal God.”

If God foreknows all things, why did he test Abraham? Not so that he himself might learn what he already knew, but to teach those who did not know that he had loved the patriarch very justly. For this reason he put the man's love for God to the test for three days and as many nights. Standing between nature and faith, and pricked from both sides, the patriarch gave the victory to faith. God, having shown his piety, prevented the sacrifice; for he who forbids even the sacrifices of irrational animals, how would he have tolerated such a rite? He continually accused the Jews of this, crying out through David the prophet: “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the carved images of Canaan”; and through Ezekiel: “And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to me, and offered them to your lovers.” Then, showing the excess of the outrage, he added: “beyond all your sexual immorality.” He who accuses those who dare such things, how would he himself have tolerated receiving an only son offered by his father? But these things were a shadow of the dispensation carried out for us. For the Father offered his beloved Son for the world. Isaac was a type of the divinity, and the ram of the humanity. And the time too is equal in number: three days and three nights, both here and there …

What does “Put your hand under my thigh” mean? The patriarch Abraham was sending the chief of his servants to arrange a marriage, knowing that the race of Canaan was accursed and that his own kindred had been counted worthy of blessing. Since, then, he had received both the blessing and the promise of good things in his seed, he commanded the servant to put his hand there, where he had received the sign of faith; for having believed the divine promises, he received the seal of circumcision. He commanded him to put his hand there so that, remembering both the divine promise and circumcision, he might not spoil his master's noble lineage by a foreign marriage. One must know that the hand was put under the thigh, but the oath was taken by the God of the universe: “I make you swear,” he said, “by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not take a wife for my son Isaac from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell,” and so on. The servant's question too is very wise: fearing the oath, he asked that the terms of the marriage be made clear to him. “If,” he says, “the betrothed girl does not choose to come here, but bids the suitor go to her, do you command your son to go up to that nation?” Abraham knew that the divine call had brought him out of there, and that he had received no divine law about marriage, but that he himself, as one brought up in piety, wished to betroth his son to a wife from his kindred's household; so he forbids the former, as forbidden by divine law, and entrusts the latter to divine care. Trusting in this, the servant set out. He did not offer that prayer as an omen, as some very foolish people supposed; but since he had taken God as his helper in the betrothal, he begged that certain signs be shown him by which he might know whether the betrothal pleased God. The sign was not beauty of body, nor distinction of family, nor anything else that seems splendid, but hospitality, kindness, and gentleness of mind. “Let it be,” he says, “that the maiden to whom I say, Tip your jar that I may drink, and she says to me, Drink, sir, and I will water your camels until they have finished drinking: this one you have prepared for your servant Isaac; and by this I shall know that you have shown mercy to my master Abraham.” Since the patriarch was especially adorned with these advantages, he wished the bride too to match the character of her father-in-law, so that a difference might not produce strife and contention. That these were not omens, but indications of faith and piety, is shown first by the earnestness of the prayer, and then by his waiting for the will of God. For the divine Scripture teaches this: “The man was watching her closely and kept silent, to know whether the Lord had prospered his journey or not.” While she drew the water and offered it to the camels, he waited to see whether she would supply all of them as he had asked. When the camels had drunk, he at once offered the tokens of betrothal. And on learning her family and her kinship with his master, “the man,” it says, “was well pleased, and bowed down to the Lord, and said, Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his righteousness and his mercy toward my master. And the Lord has led me on the way to the house of my master's brother.” His whole speech proclaims the piety of his mind. And after the speech too he shows the same aim; for when the girl's parents agreed to the marriage, at once “he bowed down,” it says, “to the ground before the Lord.” What follows has the same sense: “Do not detain me,” he says, “for the Lord has prospered my way.”