'Biblical Interpretation

in the Early Church

 Sources of Early
Christian Thought
A series of new English translations of patristic
texts essential to an understanding of Christian
theology

WILLwm G. RuscH, EDITOR

The Christological Controversy

Richard A. Norris, Jr., translator/editor

The Trinitarian Controversy

William G. Rusch, translator/editor

Theological Anthropology

J. Patout Bums, translator/editor

Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church

Karifried Froehlich, translator/editor

Marriage in the Early Church

David G. Hunter, translator/editor

'Biblical Interpretation
in the Early Church
Translated and Edited by

KARLFRIED FROEHLICH
 Contents
Series Foreword vii

1. Introduction 1

Jewish Background 1

The Jewish Canon 1

Jewish Hermeneutics 3

The Rabbis 3

The Qumran Community 5

Diaspora Judaism 5

Christian Beginnings 8

Jesus 8
Paul 8

"Allegory" 8

The Hermeneutical Center 9

1 pology 9

The Second Century 10

The Gnostic Challenge 10

Marcion 10

Valentinian Exegesis 11

Ptolemy's Letter to Flora 12

The Answer: Authoritative Exegesis 12

Justin Martyr and the Apologists 13

Irenaeus's Hermeneutical Principles 13

 Tertullian 14

The Third and Fourth Centuries 15

Alexandrian Hermeneutics 15

Clement of Alexandria 15

Origen 16

Later Alexandrian Exegetes 18

Allegorical Lists 19

Antiochene Hermeneutics 19

The Polemical Scope 20

Diodore of Tarsus 21

Theodore of Mopsuestia 22

Lasting Concerns 22
 The Early West 23

North African Roots 23

Eclecticism 23

Tertullian's Common-sense Approach 23

Cyprian and the Testimonia Tradition 24

T conius the Donatist 25

Augustine's judgment on 7'conius 25

Hermeneutical Principles 26

Hermeneutical Rules 27

The Fourfold Sense of Scripture 28

H. Sifra 30

The Exegetical Rules (Middot) of Rabbi

Ishmael and Rabbi Hillel 30
III. Ptolemy 37

Letter to Flora 37

IV. Irenaeus 44

Against Heresies 44

V. Origen 48

On First Principles: Book Four 48

VI. Papyrus Michigan Inv. 3718 79

Christian Allegorizations 79

VII. Diodore of Tarsus 82

Commentary on the Psalms, Prologue 82

VIII. Diodore of Tarsus 87

Preface to the Commentary on Psalm 118 87

IX. Theodore of Mopsuestia 95

Commentary on Galatians 4:22-31 95

X. Tyconius 104

The Book of Rules, I-III 104

Bibliography 133
 Series Foreword
Christianity has always been attentive to
historical fact. Its motivation and focus have been,
and continue to be, the span of life of one historical
individual, Jesus of Nazareth, seen to be a unique
historical act of God's self-communication. The
New Testament declares that this Jesus placed
himself within the context of the history of the
people of Israel and perceived himself as the
culmination of the revelation of the God of Israel,
ushering into history a new chapter. The first
followers of this Jesus and their succeeding
generations saw themselves as part of this new
history. Far more than a collection of teachings or
a timeless philosophy, Christianity has been a
movement in, and of, history, acknowledging its
historical condition and not attempting to escape it.

Responsible scholarship now recognizes that

Christianity has always been a more complex
phenomenon than some have realized, with a
variety of worship services, theological languages,
and structures of organization. Christianity
assumed its variegated forms on the anvil of
history. There is a real sense in which history is
one of the shapers of Christianity. The view that
development has occurred within Christianity
during its history has virtually universal
acceptance. But not all historical events had an
equal influence on the development of Christianity.
The historical experience of the first several
centuries of Christianity shaped subsequent
Christianity in an extremely crucial manner. It was
in this initial phase that the critical features of the
Christian faith were set: a vocabulary was created,
options of belief and practice were accepted or
rejected. Christianity's understanding of its God
and of the person of Christ, its worship life, its
communal structure, its understanding of the human
condition, all were largely resolved in this early
period known as the time of the church fathers or
the patristic church (A.D. 100-700). Because this
is the case, both those individuals who bring a
faith commitment to Christianity and those
interested in it as a major religious and historical
phenomenon must have a special regard for what
happened to the Christian faith in these pivotal
centuries.

The purpose of this series is to allow an English-

reading public to gain firsthand insights into these
significant times for Christianity by making
available in a modern, readable English the
fundamental sources which chronicle how
Christianity and its theology attained their
normative character. Whenever possible, entire
patristic writings or sections are presented. The
varying points of view within the early church are
given their opportunity to be heard. An
introduction by the translator and editor of each
volume describes the context of the documents for
the reader.

Hopefully these several volumes will enable

their readers to gain not only a better understanding
of the early church but also an appreciation of how
Christianity of the twentieth century still reflects
the events, thoughts, and social conditions of this
earlier history.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that the

problem of doctrinal development within the
church is basic to ecumenical discussion today. If
this view is accepted, along with its corollary that
historical study is needed, then an indispensable
element of true ecumenical responsibility has to be
a more extensive knowledge of patristic literature
and thought. It is with that urgent concern, as well
as a regard for a knowledge of the history of
Christianity, that Sources of Early Christian
Thought is published.

WILLIAM G. RUSCH
I.
 Introduction
Patristic hermeneutics (from the Greek
bermeneuein, to explain, interpret) concerns itself
with the developing principles and rules for a
proper understanding of the Bible in the early
Christian church. The principles reflect the
theological framework in which the biblical
writings were interpreted by different groups and
individuals at various times; they always included
the basic conviction that God's revelation in Jesus
Christ was central to God's plan of salvation
(oikonomia), but they left room for different
readings of major themes such as Israel and the
church, eschatology, ethics, even Christology,
anthropology, and soteriology. The rules reflect the
methodology by which the language of biblical
revelation was scrutinized so that it would yield
insight into God's oikonomia and its ramifications
for the life of the community; they were often taken
over from the literary culture of the surrounding
world but were then developed into new, creative
paradigms of literary analysis. Rules and
principles are intimately related. Thus, while the
selections in this volume illustrate primarily the
development of the rules, they shed much light on
the principles also. They show, on the one hand,
how biblical language determined theology and, on
the other, how theological presuppositions shaped
the reading of the Bible. It was in the
hermeneutical circle of biblical text, tradition, and
interpretation that Christian theology as a whole
took shape.

JEWISH BACKGROUND

The Jewish Canon

From the start, Christians shared the Holy
Scriptures of the Jews. As it had been for Jesus,
Scripture for them was first and foremost the
collection of authoritative Jewish writings which
had its center in the law (tord) and the prophets
(nebi 'im) while a number of "writings" (ketubim)
or hagiographa, especially the psalter, enjoyed
authority but had varying degrees of use and
acceptance among different Jewish groups. At the
beginning of the Christian era there was no closed
and fully defined Jewish canon as yet, although the
core had been established for a long time. The
delimitation of the canon was probably connected
with the events of the Jewish revolt against Rome
in A.D. 66/73 and the subsequent loss of the center
of Jewish life in Jerusalem. We know of meetings
of rabbis in Jabne Qamnia) on the Palestinian coast
at the end of the first century where the authority of
certain books was a topic of discussion; around
A.D. 95/100 the Jewish historian Josephus made
reference to the final canon in twenty-four parts
(thirty-nine books) including tord, prophets, and
thirteen "writings." The dominant viewpoint in the
rabbinical decision was that of the Pharisaic group
which subsequently became the rallying point for
Jewish identity in the time of dispersion and
persecution.

The Pharisaic reduction of normative books

ended a very different trend in the preceding three
centuries. During the troubled times under the
Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes (176-164
B.c.) the prophetic literature found increased
attention in Jewish circles that understood their
time as the end time and their communities as the
remnant of the true Israel. From the Maccabean
period on, new apocalyptic writings appeared in
ever-growing numbers and were eagerly seized by
the common people as well as groups like the
Essenes with their sectarian communities in
Palestine and elsewhere. At the time of Jesus,
therefore, the later Pharisaic canon was by no
means standard. If one considers that for the
Sadducees scriptural authority rested in the five
books of Moses only, while the canon of the
Qumran sect or the Septuagint (the Greek Bible)
included additional books often apocalyptic in
nature, the Pharisaic canon appears as a
compromise endorsing as normative neither a
minimum nor a maximum of the available literature
in use among Jews. It does reveal a bias against
the newer apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic
literature and its use in sectarian circles, perhaps
including the Christians.
Jewish Hermeneutics
While the final delimitation of an authoritative
canon was a fairly late development, biblical
interpretation in Judaism had a long and varied
history. Jewish hermeneutics, like all hermeneutics
of sacred books, was determined by the
theological framework and the goals of the actual
community in which these Scriptures played a
normative role. Viewed from this angle, three
Jewish groups are important for a consideration of
the early Christian development: the rabbis, the
Qumran sect, and the various strands of Diaspora
Judaism.

The Rabbis
Rabbinic hermeneutics, the dominant
hermeneutics in later Judaism, had the purpose of
making Scripture available as the record of God's
revealed will for the guidance of Jewish life. It
drew on the rich oral tradition of the earlier
interpreters of the Law, that is, the scribes of the
generations after Ezra and the teachers of the
period after the Maccabean revolt (tanna'Im), a
tradition which eventually issued in the great
written collections of Mishnah, Gemara, and
Talmud in Christian times. At first the tradition of
oral law had developed parallel to the
transmission of tord, but when its authority met
with doubt, for example, among the Sadducees, the
essential unity of tord and tradition, written and
oral law, had to be demonstrated. Rabbinical
exegetes claimed that both went back to God's
revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. But the mere
claim was not enough; its validity had to be proved
from the biblical texts themselves. Thus, methods
of coordinating text, tradition, and contemporary
application developed which, while they seem
strange to modern eyes, took the challenge
seriously.

This principle of necessary coordination formed

the context for the emergence of several sets of
rabbinical rules (middot) for biblical
interpretation. Their exact history is hard to trace
because even the Mishnah in its earliest written
form is of a rela tively late date, and authentic
recollection is hard to distinguish from legendary
adaptation. The rabbinic commentary (midras) on
the biblical Book of Numbers, known as Sifra and
dating hack to the second century C.E., starts out
with a tradition (barayta') attributing a set of
thirteen middot to Rabbi Ishmael (see chapter II).
Whether the tradition can be traced to the historical
Ishmael who lived in the early second century or
represents a composite list of early rules is a
matter of debate. It is clear, however, that these
rules assumed considerable importance. Some
later authorities regarded them as part of the oral
tord given to Moses on Mount Sinai; to this day,
the thirteen middOt are recited in the daily
Morning Prayer. Their purpose is quite clear. They
are meant to facilitate the solution of legal
questions and problems of daily living. In order to
do this, they offer a method of logical deduction
from the biblical text that pays attention to certain
structural elements and rhetorical devices. The
method works by word association as the
examples make clear; one passage recalls another
because of a particular word or phrase, and the
combination yields the proof for a specific
traditional solution to a legal problem. In contrast
to Rabbi Aqiba who assumed a mysterious
revelation behind every detail of the sacred text,
Rabbi Ishmael formulated the principle: "The tore
speaks in the language of men." His rules indeed
display a sober sense of rational textual analysis.

A briefer and probably older set of seven middot

was attributed to the famous Rabbi Hillel, an older
contemporary of Jesus (ca. 20 B.C. to A.D. 15).
Legend claims that Hillel rose to fame when he
solved the question whether the Passover may he
sacrificed on a Sabbath by appealing to several of
these rules before members of the Sanhedrin. Our
text from Sifra alludes to the episode. D. Daube
has convincingly argued that all these rules reflect
the logic and methods of Hellenistic grammar and
forensic rhetoric. Legal teaching (halakd, from the
Hebrew h1k, to walk) was not, however, the only
meaning derived from the holy texts. A later
expansion of Rabbi Ishmael's rules into thirtytwo
middot under the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose
shows that the texts were also searched for more
general edifying applications (haggadd). Here, the
inclusion of such techniques as paronomasia,
gematria (i.e., the computation of the numerical
value of letters), and notrikon (the breaking up of
one word into two or more) indicates the
underlying conviction that deeper mysteries are
hidden in the very words of Scripture. On this
basis, there certainly is a case for rabbinical
allegorism.
The Qumran Community
The second form of Jewish interpretive theory is
known to us through the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
library of the Essene community of Qumran which
flourished in the post-Maccabean period and
perished at the time of the Roman wars. The
Qumran group was characterized by a strong
consciousness of end time. Rejecting the Temple
cult of Jerusalem and its priestly guardians, it
understood itself as the remnant of Israel waiting
for the final revelation of God in the age to come.
For these people, biblical interpretation had the
purpose of reading the signs of the time and
providing guidance for living in it. Its most
characteristic feature was peger exegesis (from the
Aramaic p9r, to interpret), a form of commentary
which applied biblical texts, especially from
prophetic books, to the immediate situation of the
sect and its struggles. The authoritative key to the
mystery (raz) hidden in the text was in the hands of
their leader, the "Teacher of Righteousness," whom
they regarded, like Moses and Ezra, as one of the
inspired mediators of God's revelation. Thus,
while the application of tord was still the goal of
the hermeneutical endeavor, it was the tord of the
end time which the group was seeking. With this
eschatological preoccupation the center of
Scripture was moving away from the tord to the
prophets and to the revelational authority of the
Teacher of Righteousness.

Diaspora Judaism
A third form of Jewish hermeneutics was
prominent among Jews of the Diaspora, especially
the active Jewish community in Alexandrian Egypt.
It is exemplified by the prolific exegetical work of
Philo (ca. 20 B.C. to A.D. 50), an older
contemporary of Jesus like Hillel, whose writings
survived due, in large measure, to later Christian
sympathies. In the cultured atmosphere of the
Hellenistic capital with its schools and their
interest in ancient texts, Jews were able not only to
live by their traditional norms but to make the Law
attractive to the Greek religious mind. It was in
Egypt that bold apologists for the Jewish cause
claimed nothing less than the dependence of the
Greek sages on the older wisdom of Moses and the
prophets.

The Jewish canon of Alexandria was the

Septuagint, which in its core of tors, prophets, and
psalms coincided with the later Pharisaic canon
but included among the hagiographa books such as
Judith, Tobit, I and 2 Esdras, and Ecclesiasticus.
Protestants today regard these books as
"Apocrypha," while Roman Catholics retain them
as deuterocanonical because the canon of the Latin
Vulgate was following the Septuagint. Among the
defenders of this Greek translation, the rabbinical
understanding of the written and oral law as
revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai was
defined more precisely by a Hellenistic concept of
inspiration which assumed direct divine influence
upon the writing of the sacred texts ranging from a
writer's ecstasy to verbal dictation (cf. Philo, On
the Special Laws 1.65; IV.49). From such
inspiration Hellenistic scholarship derived the
notion of a deeper truth, an intended spiritual sense
(hyponoia) of the human words that the interpreter
has to uncover by means of "allegory," allowing
the text to say something else from what the words
seem to suggest. Thus, the texts of the ancient poets
such as Homer and Hesiod, who were regarded as
God-inspired, were scrutinized for the deeper
cosmological or ethical truth contained in them
under the veil of the mythical narrative. In fact, the
claim of divine inspiration gave these venerable
texts an oracular quality which allowed their
retention as normative for the present generation
and stimulated much creative imagination not only
in the production of new, deliberately allegorical
poetry but also in the interpretation of old texts.

In this climate Jewish apologetics promoted the

legend that the Greek translation of their ancient
holy books was the work of seventy or seventy-
two inspired elders endorsed by the Alexandrian
Jewish community in the third century B.C. (Letter
of Aristeas, ca. 130 B.C.). Philo quoted an even
more dramatic ver sion: Though working in total
isolation, each one in his cell, the elders emerged
with the same choice of words and phrases "as if a
teacher was dictating to each of them invisibly"
(Life of Moses 11 .37). For centuries the authority
of the inspired Septuagint outweighed the authority
of the Hebrew text among Jews of the Diaspora
and Christians who told the miraculous story of its
origin in ever more colorful detail. Even Augustine
of Hippo at first resisted Jerome's effort to
translate the Latin Bible from the "Hebrew truth,"
being convinced that the Septuagint's divine origin
made it superior and more suitable for Christian
use than the Hebrew Bible (Epistle 28.2; 71.4; On
Christian Doctrine II.xv.22; City of God XVIII.43).

Philo was familiar with halakic and haggadic

traditions deriving from the scribes and the rabbis
and was far from wanting to discourage literal
adherence to the Torah (On the Migration of
Abraham 89-94). But in the tradition of
Alexandrian Jewish apologetics he also found the
philosophical truths of Stoic ethics and Platonic
cosmology behind the "impossibilities,"
"impieties," and "absurdities" of the biblical
stories. By carefully searching the inspired text for
clues such as contradictions, peculiar expressions,
etymologies, mysterious numbers, and so forth, the
exegete could unravel the real teaching God
intended to convey, a teaching that Philo thought
coincided with the best of the philosophical
tradition of his time. In his multipartite commentary
on Genesis and Exodus texts, Philo unfolded a
wealth of critical insight and imaginative
allegorization. For him, the two creation accounts
in Genesis 1 and 2 spoke of two different human
natures, the heavenly (Gen. 1:27) and the material
(Gen. 2:7). God planting a garden in Eden meant
his implanting terrestrial virtue in the human race.
The river going out from Eden denoted goodness,
its four heads the cardinal virtues: Pison stands for
prudence, Gihon for courage, Tigris for
temperance, Euphrates for justice. What the story
of Abraham and Sarah explained was the relation
of mind and virtue. Like his Jewish and Greek
predecessors, Philo used a Platonic
anthropological dichotomy as the model for his
hermeneutical principle: the literal meaning of the
sacred text is its body, the deeper spiritual and
philosophical understanding is its soul.
 CHRISTIAN BEGINNINGS

Jesus
The earliest Christian sources reflect the use of
all three types ofJewish hermeneutics. According
to the evangelists, the words of Jesus himself
contain evidence that he used rabbinical rules like
those of Hillel and Ishmael (e.g., Matt. 6:26; Mark
2:25-28; John 7:23; 10:34-36). The evangelists
also portray his scriptural interpretation as closely
resembling the authoritative eschatological peser
of the Qumran community; this is evident in the
antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount ("You have
heard that it was said ... but I say unto you"), but
also in the summary of his first sermon at Nazareth:
"Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your
hearing" (Luke 4:21). Moreover, there are traces of
deliberate allegory in his parables even though
these may have been enhanced by the evangelists
and may have followed Jewish precedent (e.g.,
Matt. 13:3-9; 13:18-23; Mark 4:3-20; Matt. 13:
24-30; 13:37-43; cf. Judg. 9:7-15).

Paul

'Allegory"
In his famous exegesis of the story of Abraham,
Sarah, and Hagar (Genesis 16 and 21), Paul uses
the participle "allegoroumena" (Gal. 4:24; from the
Greek allegorein, to speak allegorically), showing
his indebtedness to the terminology of Hellenistic
rhetoric at this point. It seems that his use of the
term and the method (cf. 1 Cor. 9:9-10) encouraged
later allegorizers, especially after other writings
such as the Epistle to the Hebrews or the Epistle of
Barnabas promoted a more systematic polemical
allegorization of the Law. Paul's scriptural
interpretation reveals also familiarity with the
rabbinical middot (e.g., qal wdhomer: Rom. 5:15-
21; 2 Cor. 3:7-18; gezera sdwa: Rom. 4:1-12;
keldl uperdt: Rom. 13:8-10; cf. Longenecker, pp.
117-18) and with the logic of peier exegesis. This
last point is of particular importance.
The Hermeneutical Center
Paul, of course, did not share the hermeneutical
principles of the Qumran sect but, as so many Jews
of his time, he shared the conviction of living in the
time of God's final revelation. This revelation had
come to him personally as a new understanding of
the role of Jesus and of his own mission in God's
plan for the end time (Gal. 1:12-16). For him, as
for the members of the Qumran sect, the
hermeneutical center of Scripture was moving from
the tors to the prophetic message. The fulfillment
of messianic prophecy in the coming, death, and
resurrection of Jesus made the Jewish Scriptures
the book of the Christians, the essential key to their
understanding of the events which had taken place
among the disciples of the first generation (1 Cor.
15:3-4). A new reading of God's history with his
people was emerging which contrasted with the
old reading like Spirit and Letter, even life and
death (2 Cor. 3:6ff.).
77pology
The hermeneutical principle for Paul had
changed, and with it the rules were changing also.
In several places he tells his readers that what was
written was written "for our sakes" (1 Cor. 9:9;
10:11; Rom. 4:24; 15:4). At first glance, these
applications may simply reflect procedures of the
haggadic Midrash. In 1 Cor. 10:1-11 Paul draws
on midrashic traditions connected with Exod.
17:5-6; Num. 21:16-17; Deut. 32:1-,7. But his new
hermeneutical principle gives the interpretation a
new framework comparable to that of the Qumran
peser. In this context Paul used the language of
"type" (typos: I Cor. 10:6; Rom. 5:14; typikos: 1
Cor. 10:11) which had served to denote a pattern
or example elsewhere. Recognizing such "types" in
Jewish Scriptures was part of the spiritual insight
Christians received with their baptismal
instruction for Paul: they were able to recognize
the "spiritual" rock from which saving water flows
and to identify the "spiritual" food and drink in the
wilderness with Christian realities. Thus Paul's
allegorization, like that of other early Christian
writers, took the form of an eschatological
typology; the events of Jewish history were read as
prefiguring the events of the end time which had
begun in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Later New
Testament authors completed this logic. Christian
baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 is treated as the "antitype"
of Noah's rescue from the flood while Heb. 9:23-
24 tied the same language to a Hellenistic-Platonic
hermeneutics of copy and original, shadow and
reality, even though its biblical basis is
acknowledged (cf. Heb. 8:5 and Exod. 25:9, 40).
The mixed language of allegorical typology which
reads God's plan of salvation from the accounts of
Israel's history, and of typological allegory which
locates this salvation in the realm of truth beyond
history became characteristic of Christian exegesis
in the second century.

Paul's mission to the Gentiles prepared the way

for this development. For hermeneutics as for other
areas of inquiry, this mission was a decisive step.
Emerging as a community independent of Judaism,
Christians of many backgrounds now started to
appropriate the Jewish Scriptures as their own,
being taught to read them as a hidden witness to
God's new covenant with humankind in the Lord
Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God. At the same
time, the witness to the Word's appearance in
history (cf. John 1:14) was taking shape in a new
hod), of writings connected with the eyewitness
generation of the apostles. To a faith centered in
the person of the Logos-Savior, the prophetic
witness of the old Scriptures and the apostolic
witness of the new writings belonged together.
 THE SECOND CENTURY

The Gnostic Challenge

Marcion
During the early decades of the second century
the interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures
remained the central hermeneutical task. This holds
true even in the case of Marcion, whose
polemically reduced Christian canon was probably
the signal leading to the formation of an
authoritative collection of apostolic writings
among other Christians of the second century.
Marcion, a reform-minded, conservative layman
from Pontus who worked in the Roman
congregation but later left it to start a rapidly
expanding counterchurch (A.D.144), came to the
con elusion that he had to reject the Jewish
Scriptures as the work of a wrathful, vicious, evil
God who was opposed to the God of love
proclaimed by Jesus and revealed to Paul.
Suspicious of the harmonizing tendency of allegory
and its typological application, he declared that
only "the Apostle," a polemically arranged corpus
of ten Pauline Epistles, and "the Gospel," which
meant the Gospel of Luke purged of Jewish
contamination, were acceptable for Christian use.

Marcion and his hermeneutical principles were

condemned, and the Jewish Scriptures in their
Christian understanding were retained as the
inspired prophetic witness to the truth of the
Christian faith. They had proved to be a most
effective apologetic and missionary tool. At the
end of the controversy stood a normative Christian
canon in two parts. But the decision against
Marcion also had a disturbing consequence. By
making the Jewish Scriptures resolutely a Christian
book: the "Old Testament," which had only one
legitimate continuation: the New Testament," the
emerging Christian movement defined itself once
more in sharpest antithesis to the Jewish
community. In fact, the tighter the grip of Christians
on the Jewish Scriptures, the deeper the
estrangement from the community of living Jews.
For the patristic tradition after the triumph of
Christianity, the Jews became the "people of
witness" for God's wrath on unbelievers.
Valentinian Exegesis
The appropriation of the Jewish Scriptures in a
Christian framework was also a main interest of
Christian Gnostics to whom Christian exegesis in
general owes a considerable debt. Of course, not
all Gnostics were alike. One group, the Valentin-
ians, seems to have been the first to produce
commentaries on early Christian writings,
especially the Gospel of John and the Pauline
corpus; Origen's Commentary on the Fourth Gospel
refutes the Gnostic Heracleon point by point. E.
Pagels has suggested that the purpose of
Valentinian exegesis was the coordination of
Gnostic cosmology and soteriology with a
hermeneutical grid extracted mainly from Paul's
epistles. Valentinian public teaching was not meant
for fleshly, "hylic" people who are lost or for
"pneumatics" who grasp the spiritual full ness
(pleroma), but for a middle group, the "psychics,"
who might still be saved being led from a simple
literal exposition of the holy texts to the more
esoteric instruction on ethical and spiritual truth.
Ptolemy's Letter to Flora
The Letter of Ptolemy to Flora (see chapter 111)
which has been preserved for us by being
incorporated into an antiheretical treatise of the
church father Epiphanius (Panarion, i.e., Medicine
Chest, 33.iii-vii) comes from the Valentinian
school. It exemplifies a sophisticated Gnostic
appropriation of the Old Testament by a community
which had every intention of being Christian.
Ptolemy continued Valentinus's work in Rome; if
he can be identified with the martyr Ptolemy of
Justin's Apology 11.2, Flora may have been the
wife of his denouncer. The letter's teaching
concerning the Law is meant to precede the
initiation into the higher mysteries of the First
Principle and its emanations (vii.8-9). It amounts
to a rational critique which eliminates large
sections of the Torah from Christian consideration
and encourages the allegorical interpretation of
others, taking its clue from the words of Jesus.
Two secondary levels, the accommodations of
Moses and the additions of the Elders (deuterosis;
cf. Apostolic Constitutions, 1.6.3; 11.5.6), must be
distinguished from the Law of God which,
according to Jesus' words, falls into three parts
itself: One part the Savior fulfilled, one part he
abrogated, and one part he left to symbolical
interpretation (vi. 1-4). The polemical front against
mainline Christians as well as Marcionites is
evident when the author attributes the Law of God
neither to the highest God nor to the devil but to an
intermediate power, the Demiurge, who is
portrayed as a God of justice (iii.2-3; vii.3f.). Thus
the Old Testament is retained but is assigned an
inferior place to the higher revelation within a
framework that derives its norms from the "words
of the Savior" but follows the principles of a
Gnostic view of reality.

The Answer. Authoritative Exegesis

Valentinianism was one of the major heresies
attacked by Irenaeus of Lyon in the five books of
his anti-Gnostic treatise, com monly known under
the title Against Heresies (ca. 180). Irenaeus's
polemic, like that of the apologists before him,
centered on one point: Two testaments do not
reveal two gods; rather, the one God who is the
creator of All revealed himself in the successive
history of both testaments as part of his overall
plan of salvation for humankind. The coming of
Christ, the Son and Logos of God, in the fullness of
time removed the veil from that which could hardly
be recognized as prediction and prefiguration
before.
Justin Martyr and the Apologists
In his treatise, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca.
160), Justin Martyr had made this point primarily
against Jewish critics. His apologetic method was
based on proof from prophecy. Drawing on real or
supposed messianic prophecies from the Jewish
tradition, he argued that Jesus clearly was the
expected Messiah who fulfilled all the predictions
of the Jewish Scriptures literally or typically.
Justin's writings are a mine of information on
standard Christian typology of the second century.
Building upon the gospel tradition and other early
Christian literature, he found all the major features
of his christological creed predicted or prefigured
in the details of the Old Testament text: Christ's
virgin birth; his healing ministry, suffering, death,
and resurrection; Christian baptism; the church.
Types of the cross were of particular interest:
Justin found them not only in the figure of Moses
praying in the battle against Amalek (Exod. 17:10-
11) or in the horns of the wild ox (Deut. 33:17) but
in every stick, wood, tree mentioned in the Bible
(Dialogue 86; 90-91). The immense range of such
types is also illustrated by other contemporary
writings such as the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 135)
or Melito of Sardis's Paschal Homily (later second
century) which exploited the analogies of the
exodus story with Christ's death and resurrection.

Irenaeus 's Hermeneutical

Principles
Irenaeus clearly joins this standard argumentation
in our selection from Against Heresies IV. 26 (see
chapter IV). The Old Testament texts themselves
speak of hidden truth that must be unlocked. Jews
are reading them but do not have the explana tion.
Christians possess the key in the coming of Christ
which unlocks all the mysteries of God's
oikonomia from beginning to end. The early
Christian sense of the apocalyptic situation widens
here into the vision of a universal biblical history:
Christ came "in the last times," but he came for the
sake of all generations. Biblical typology points
not only to his first advent but to the time of the
church and to his second advent as well (IV.22;
IV.33.1). The same argument refutes the Gnostics.
If the Jews have no key, the Gnostics fabricate
their own. Irenaeus first criticizes their
hermeneutical principle: they cut up the beautiful
mosaic of God's revealed economy and reassemble
the pieces into their own myths (1.8.1; 1.9.4).
Their hermeneutical rules are no better: Gnostics
see deep problems where there are none,
explaining the clear and obvious by the dark and
obscure (11. 10). Scriptures need a Christian key,
but this key must be handled by reliable
interpreters. Neither the rabbis nor the Gnostic
teachers fill this role. Irenaeus finds the proper
authority in the presbyters who have their office
through succession in an unbroken line of
episcopal ordination from the apostles and their
disciples, and whose life and doctrine exhibit the
"charism of truth" (IV.26.2; I.10.1-2). Sound
scriptural interpretation is the function of a church
which must have not only tradition but the right
tradition. Only such interpretation can be called
true gnosis (IV.33.8).
Tertullian
R. M. Grant has called Irenaeus the "father of
authoritative exegesis." Irenaeus, however, was not
alone in calling for a hermeneutics of authority.
The issue was posed even more sharply in
Tertullian's treatise, The Prescription (i.e., the
demurral) of Heretics (ca. 200). According to
Tertullian, arguing with Gnostics about scriptural
interpretation is useless. Even an agreed canon and
common exegetical methods do not guarantee
unambiguous results for there is always room for
heretical intentions to dictate the agenda. Thus, the
true battlefield is not interpretation but the very
right to use Scriptures at all. Apostolic Scriptures
belong to the apostolic church. The Gnostics with
their claim to secret traditions have no right to use
them, for only the public succession of teaching in
the apostolically founded churches can be the
measure of apostolicity and therefore of correct
interpretation. "Correct" for Tertullian meant
congruent with the Rule of Faith, the church's
simple creed. Indeed, more is not necessary. "To
know nothing against the Rule of Faith means to
have all science" (Prescription 14). We meet here
a profound suspicion toward a professional
exegesis which made the unending search for truth
a methodological principle. The Gnostics used
Matt. 7:7 as their warrant: "Seek, and you will
find." For Christians, Tertullian maintains, the
search has ended; the true faith has been found and
must only he defended against its erosion by illicit
curiosity. For both Irenaeus and Tertullian, illicit
curiosity is the true danger of a Gnostic
hermeneutics of inquiry.
 THE THIRD AND FOURTH
CENTURIES

Alexandrian Hermeneutics
The protest of the late-second-century fathers,
however, could not stem the tide of the times.
Professional, scientific hermeneutics was the wave
of the future. The patristic scene in the third and
fourth centuries followed the pace set by Christian
schools in the centers of Hellenistic culture. One of
the oldest school traditions developed in
Alexandria. Eusebius speaks of a catechetical
school with a succession of famous teachers,
beginning with Pantaenus (late second century),
Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (Church
History V.10; VI.6ff.). The impact of these
theologians on subsequent Christian history cannot
be doubted.
Clement of Alexandria
For Clement, who died before 215, the
interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures as a
Christian book was only part of a broader
hermeneutical challenge. For him, all truth
everywhere was identical with Christianity, the
final revelation of the Logos of God. But it had to
be wrested from the texts by hard work. `All
theologians, barbarians and Greeks, hid the
beginnings of things and delivered the truth in
enigmas and symbols, allego ries and metaphors
and similar figures" (Stromata V.21.4). The same
was true of the inspired Septuagint and the early
Christian writings: "Almost the whole of Scripture
is expressed in enigmas" (Stromata VI. 124.5-6). It
was the task of the interpreter who had received
the deeper knowledge (gnosis) imparted by Christ
to his apostles after the resurrection, to open up the
symbolic truth of biblical language to those
capable of understanding. Following Philo,
Clement freely allegorized the Old Testament. His
hermeneutical principle in identifying true meaning
was an eclectic mixture of Hellenistic cosmology,
soteriology, and morality, combined with the
conviction that in the Logos-Christ all
adumbrations of truth had found their goal. Thus
the words of Jesus and the New Testament writings
that Clement used along with other early Christian
books did not need much allegorical treatment;
their mysteries, pointing to the church and to the
life to come, were readily understood by the true
Gnostic. Irenaeus and Tertullian probably would
have regarded Clement as one of their Gnostic
antagonists. In his emphasis on the church, its
creed, and its ethics for simple as well as for
advanced believers, however, Clement
distinguished himself from speculative Gnosticism.
Origen
In Origen (ca. 185-253/54) we encounter one of
the great minds and probably the most influential
theologian of the early Christian era. Many of his
writings are lost due to a later condemnation by the
emperor Justinian I in 543. Nevertheless, modern
scholarship has been able to piece together large
portions of his staggering literary output. Most of it
is concerned with biblical interpretation. Origen
laid a solid foundation by careful work on the
biblical text including its textual history. His
Hexapla, a comparative text of the Old Testament
written in six parallel columns, was still admired
by Jerome in Caesarea in the fifth century before it
perished during the storms of the Arab conquest.
Jerome classified Origen's exegetical writings in
three categories: scholia, that is, short explanatory
glosses; commentaries; homilies (Patrologia Latina
25, 585-86). Most books of the Bible are dealt
with in one form or another. Origen also authored
the first technical treatise on Christian
hermeneutical theory (see chapter V). It forms
Book IV of his systematic treatise On First
Principles and was written between 220 and 230.
Much of the original Greek text is preserved in the
Philoca- lia, an anthology culled from his writings
by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus
around A.D. 358. For the later sections, however,
we have to rely on hypothetical reconstruction
using Rufinus's Latin translation (ca. 400) and
fragments quoted by Jerome. The new translation
in this volume follows in general the
reconstruction by Gorgemanns and Karpp.

The treatise had an apologetic purpose. Origen

regarded the Christian Bible as intended by God
for the benefit of all serious readers everywhere.
Thus, his treatment started out by proving the
Scriptures' divine inspiration. The missionary
success of the Christian movement, the astonishing
fulfillment of prophecy, and the personal
experience of every reader with the sacred text
provided the evidence. But inspired Scriptures
must have a spiritual purpose. Against naive
literalists and Marcionites, Origen argued that a
simplistic or anthropomorphic understanding was
an insult to the divine character of the writings; it
exposed God to ridicule. When he finally
developed his own theory of biblical interpretation
he was careful to start from within. Texts such as
Prov. 22:20-21 and The Shepherd of Hermas,
Vision 11.4.3, he argued, suggest a threefold sense
of Scripture in analogy to the tripartite
anthropology of the philosophers and of Paul: just
as human beings consist of body, soul, and spirit,
so Scripture edifies by a literal, a moral, and a
spiritual sense (11.4). All biblical texts have a
spiritual sense; not all have a literal sense as well,
even though the large majority do (111.4-5).
Origen understood this spiritual sense to refer to
the fate of human souls who have their true home in
the Platonic realm of "intelligibles," the world of
spiritual realities, compared with which the
physical world is but a shadow or a material
deformation. Thus the letter of the Old Testament
stories about Israel and the nations as well as many
words of Jesus or Paul must be read as "really"
speaking about human souls and their ascent
(III.6ff.). Origen found the invitation to formulate
rules consonant with these principles in the
"stumbling blocks" which the divine author placed
before the reader: logical difficulties,
impossibilities, apparent untruths, fictitious
historical events (111.9). Origen encountered them
everywhere, in the narratives as well as in the
legal prescriptions, even in the New Testament
(111. 1-3). Problems of this kind pointed to the
need for a deeper understanding which the
interpreter must reach by giving careful attention to
context, wording, and parallels. And yet, no
scrutiny could ever exhaust the depth of wisdom
contained in Scripture (1I1.14). For Scripture is a
means to an end, a guide for the soul on its way
upward. In this sense, the place of Origen's
hermeneutics at the end of his systematic theology
is an accurate expression of his underlying
principle: Biblical hermeneutics presents the
method for anagoge, the ascent of the soul, which
is at the heart of his soteriology.
Later Alexandrian Exegetes
Origen's biblical writings had an immense impact
on later theology. While his own commentaries did
not strictly follow the theory of a threefold sense,
his understanding of anagoge as the movement
upward from the bodily level to a spiritual sense
gave a firm rationale to Christian allegorization.
Searching the biblical texts for clues to their higher
spiritual meaning became the normative task of the
Christian exegete, and with this task came the
appropriation of the full arsenal of Hellenistic
allegorical techniques: the philological study of
words and phrases, etymology, numerology,
figuration, natural symbolism, etc. One may
deplore the "loss of spontaneity" U. Danielou)
which this new emphasis entailed. Nevertheless,
Origen paved the road for Christian hermeneutics
as a professional and scientific enterprise fully in
tune with the scholarly standards of his time. This
was no small achievement. His successors built
upon the foundations which he had laid: Eusebius
of Caesarea who expressly denied that Moses and
the prophets spoke for their own time at all;
Didymus the Blind (313-98) whose prolific
exegetical work in the Origenistic tradition has in
recent decades become better known through the
papyrus find in Toura in Egypt; and Gregory of
Nyssa (ca. 335-94), whose Life of Moses presents
an example of an anagogical or mystical reading of
biblical texts in its purest form.
Allegorical Lists
The curious list of allegorical equivalents found
in the Greek Papyrus Inv. 3718 of the University of
Michigan (see chapter VI) fits into the stream of
the Alexandrian tradition. Experts have dated the
fragments in the seventh century A.D. on
paleographical grounds. The contents, however,
reflect longstanding school tradition. Lists of this
kind may have been in the hands of preachers or
teachers. The choice of texts (Gospels and
Proverbs) is puzzling. However, Justin Martyr
already allegorized parables of Jesus and extracted
christological types from Wisdom books.
Moreover, the listing of allegorical equivalents
was probably part of the early school tradition of
Homeric interpretation. Metrodoros of Lampsakos
and the school of Anaxagoras in the fifth century
B.C. apparently allegorized Homer's gods and
heros in this way: Zeus = Mind; Athena = Art;
Agamemnon = Ether; Achilleus = Sun; Helena =
Earth, etc. Similar allegorical keys appear in
Philo's works and even in the interpretations of
Jesus' parables (Matt. 13:18-23, 37-39). The
Michigan Papyrus together with parts of the
Pseudo-Athanasian Questions on the New
Testament (in Patrologia Graeca 28, 711-15)
provides proof that such lists also existed as a
literary genre.

Antiochene Hermeneutics
It was precisely against this form of universal
mechanical allegory that the rival school of
Antioch reacted. The Antiochene church had
played an important role in early Christian history
and could boast an influential school tradition. The
school's early phase was connected with the name
of the text critic Lucian (late third century), the
admired teacher of Arius and his friends. Its
golden age came with the exegete Diodore of
Tarsus who died before 394 and the generation of
his pupils, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John
Chrysostom, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Under
constant suspicion because of its connection with
the Nestorian heresy, the school's remnant later
moved east to Edessa and finally to Nisibis in
Persia outside the borders of the empire where
exegetical work flourished long into the centuries
of Muslim domination (Paul of Nisibis, Babai the
Great, Isho'dad of Merv).
The Polemical Scope
There can be little doubt that the hermeneutical
theories of the Antiochene school were aimed at
the excesses of Alexandrian spiritualism. Careful
textual criticism, philological and historical
studies, and the cultivation of classical rhetoric
had been the hallmark of the pagan schools in the
city. Christian exegetes followed in the same path.
Modern biblical scholars have sometimes praised
the sober attention given to the literal sense by the
Antiochene exegetes as a model for today.
Alexandrian allegorism, it is claimed, regarded the
text of the Bible as a mere springboard for
uncontrolled speculation while the Antiochene
interpretation took the historical substance
seriously and thus was closer to early Christian
typology. Indeed, for many Christian scholars
typology remains a legitimate hermeneutical
device while allegory is classified as an
illegitimate distortion. This picture conforms
closely to the polemical vision of the Antiochene
exegetes themselves. It must be pointed out,
however, that the sharp antithesis is a construct.
Origen, as we saw, did not deny the historical
referent of most texts, and the Antiochene
theologians admitted a higher sense of Scriptures
which they called thebria, a term used by Plato but
now turned into a weapon against Alexandrian
allegorism. Diodore wrote a treatise, now lost, On
the Difference Between Thebria andAlle- goria,
and numerous Antiochene texts spell out the
polemic. Yet, at close inspection both allegory and
thebria speak about the same anagogical dynamic
Origen so eloquently described: the biblical text
leads the reader upward into spiritual truths that
are not immediately obvious and that provide a
fuller understanding of God's economy of
salvation.

The difference between Alexandria and Antioch

seems to reflect more the methodological
emphases and priorities of the schools than
soteriological principles. In Antioch, the Hellenis
tic rhetorical tradition, and therefore the rational
analysis of biblical language, was stressed more
than the philosophical tradition and its analysis of
spiritual reality. Moreover, in Alexandria, history
was subordinated to a higher meaning; the
historical referent of the literal level took second
place to the spiritual teaching intended by the
divine author. In Antioch, the higher theoria
remained subject to the foundational historia, the
faithful (or sometimes even fictional) account of
events; deeper truth for the guidance of the soul
took second place to the scholarly interest in
reconstructing human history and understanding the
human language of the inspired writers.
Diodore of Tarsus
Both Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of
Mopsuestia wrote commentaries on the Book of
Psalms. Despite some lingering doubts, it seems
likely that large portions of Diodore's work are
preserved in an eleventh-century manuscript under
the name of Anastasius of Nicaea. Both the
Prologue to the Psalter and the Preface to Psalm
118 (Psalm 119 of the Masoretic text) contain
important hermeneutical reflections (see chapters
VII and VIII). The Antiochene polemic against
allegorism is expressed here in almost classical
formulations. In the eyes of Diodore, allegory was
foolishness; it introduced silly fables in the place
of the text. Allegorizers abolish history and make
one thing mean another. Diodore also explains the
Antiochene theoria: It is a higher sense, an
anagogy, but it adds its spiritual vision to the plain,
literal meaning without abrogating history. Thus, it
strikes a balance between pagan Hellenistic
allegory and unChristian Jewish literalism.
Theoria is not identical with a simplistic typology
of promise and fulfillment either. In fact, the
terminology of type and antitype is missing in
Diodore. Rather, the psalms adapt themselves to
all kinds of conditions and times. They are truly
prophetic, conforming first to their original
historical setting but then in an even deeper sense
to subsequent situations down to the final
resurrection of the dead. While Diodore insists
upon the factuality of the original setting and
scrutinizes the text for clues to its reconstruction,
he also understands Scripture as speaking on a
deeper level. The Psalms teach ethics and
doctrine; they refute those who deny providence
and lend words to the prayers of the afflicted.
Their conceptual content may indeed be lifted up
into higher anagogy but such theoria must be left to
those endowed with a "fuller charisma." In short:
history is not opposed to theoria.
Theodore of Mopsuestia
One major difficulty for the Antiochene polemic
was Paul's use of the term allegoroumena in Gal.
4:24 in connection with the story of Sarah and
Hagar. It seemed to endorse the Alexandrian
practice. Diodore discussed the instance briefly in
both texts. We have also a detailed exposition in
Theodore's Commentary on Galatians (see chapter
IX) which, like all of his Pauline commentaries, is
preserved in a somewhat rough Latin version of the
fifth century. The main argument is that by
"allegory" Paul meant the Antiochene theoria. Paul
knew the Hellenistic term but not the Hellenistic
application which would treat the texts like dreams
in the night; he gave history priority over all other
considerations. His method was to use the actual
events behind the historical narrative and to apply
them rhetorically to his own situation. For this
purpose he even could add features of his own
invention such as the "persecution" of Isaac by
Ishmael. But his method was based on a
comparison which could not point out similarities
if the events compared were not real.

Lasting Concerns
Despite Theodore's ingenious effort to dissociate
theoria from allegory, the difference is not as clear
as one might wish. To rescue the bistoria of the
biblical story, especially a foundational text like
the creation account, from dissolution into
uncontrolled speculation may be a laudable
intention. But the Alexandrian insistence on a
rational critique of anthropomorphic and mythical
language as pointing to more than mere history is
equally valid. The fact remains that in
acknowledging the divine author of Scripture both
sides sought deeper meaning and hidden treasures
of revelation in the sacred text. The difference lay
in the scope of this revelation. The anagogy of
Alexan drian allegoria led the soul into a realm of
true knowledge where the vision of intelligible
truth would crown the road to salvation. The
anagogy of Antiochene theoria, while conveying
glimpses of the one God of All, led humans into a
truly moral life which would continue into eternity
as an existence free of sin.
 THE EARLY WEST

North African Roots

Eclecticism
The Latin writers of the fourth century did not
take sides in the hermeneutical dispute between
Alexandria and Antioch. Latin hermeneutics went
its own way and remained rather conservative. In
fact, the new direction initiated by Origen in the
third century found a positive echo in the West only
a century later. By that time, in the middle of the
fourth century, a considerable eclecticism
dominated the scene. The writings of both schools
started circulating in Latin translations and exerted
their influence (initially Philo, Clement of
Alexandria, and Origen; later Theodore, John
Chrysostom, and others). Soon exegetical
handbooks in both traditions were available.
Alexandrian allegorism was advocated in the
Treatise on Mysteries by Hilary of Poitiers (ca.
315-67), the first exposition of Origenistic
hermeneutics by a Western writer, and Eucherius of
Lyon's Formulae Spiritalis!ntelligentiae(ca. 450).
Antiochene hermeneutics colored much of Jerome's
exegetical work. Its emphases were kept alive by
such manuals as Junilius Africanus's Latin version
of a school text on biblical rhetoric written by Paul
of Nisibis (ca. 542) or by the Introduction to the
Holy Scriptures from the pen of a monk, Hadrian,
in the fifth century. Cassiodorus the senator (ca.
485-580) mentions these together with 'Irconius
and Augustine as standard literature in biblical
hermeneutics (Institutiones I.10).

Tertullian's Common-sense
Approach
Augustine's magisterial treatise on biblical
hermeneutics, On Christian Doctrine (396/97;
finished in 427), did not hint at a controversy over
allegorism. In a way it reflected the interests of
both sides. It stressed, on the one hand, the
spiritual goal of building up the dual love of God
and neighbor; but it also insisted upon the full use
of grammatical, historical. and linguistic
knowledge in the service of biblical interpretation.
Even Augustine's own figurative exegesis,
however, did not clear up the chaos of Christian
hermeneutical terminology. Early on he borrowed
heavily from a rhetorical tradition in which Cicero
occupied a place of honor. The first Latin Christian
writer, Tertullian, had been a legally trained
rhetorician thoroughly familiar with Cicero's
methods of persuasion, which he employed with
great skill. The same Tertullian, however, hesitated
to apply the rules of rhetorical figuration to the
analysis of biblical texts. Even the prophets, he
cautioned, said many things without allegory or
figure; not everything in the Bible comes as image,
shadow, or parable (On the Resurrection 19-2 1).
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian used allegory to illumine
the typical sense of the Old Testament. drawing on
the themes of the early Christian tradition, but he
exercised even greater restraint. The biblical text
had first of all a natural meaning which normally
culminated in a moral message. Even the dietary
and ritual laws of the Old Testament did not hide
deep secrets but were given to promote self-
control and curb idolatry among the Jews (Against
Marcion I1.18.2-3). The background of this
commonsense hermeneutics was Tertullian's
struggle against Jews, Marcionites, and Gnostics.
It was a sign of heresy to find allegories, parables,
and enigmas everywhere (Scorpiace 11.4). The
answer to such speculative interpretations was not
to be found in new hernieneutical rules but in strict
adherence to the Rule of Faith.
Cyprian and the Testimonia
Tradition
The reluctance to engage in speculative
allegorization, the preference given to traditional
typology, and an eclectic use of hermeneutical
rules remained characteristic of the Western
development. This was true especially of North
Africa where pastoral and catechetical concerns
rather than the teachings of schools determined
theological emphases. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage
during the persecutions of 250-58, may illustrate
the point. His writings were steeped in the
language of the Bible which he knew in an African
Latin version. For him, it is not so much the divine
Logos but the Spirit that speaks in the Scriptures,
welding together the books of the Old and New
Testament into a single revelation of God's plan of
salvation. Cyprian's thinking still moved in the
framework of the types, figures, and images which
were so characteristic of early Christian
apologetics. Among his works we find the best-
known examples of testimonia books, a literary
genre in which Old Testament verses and passages
are arranged under topical headings to prove or
illustrate main tenets of the Christian faith. Biblical
scholars have debated the possibility of very early
Christian testimonia sources for a long time.
Despite the discovery of a leaf with messianic
texts at Qumran (4Q Test.), however, attempts at
identifying a testimonia book behind the Old
Testament quotations in the New Testament (J.
Rendel Harris) have not led to satisfactory results.
Recent scholars (C.H. Dodd; J. Danielou) stress
the dynamic growth of the testimonia tradition in
all its forms of transmission, oral and written. In
North Africa, part of the earlier testimonia
tradition probably was shaped by anti-Jewish
polemics as several treatises Against the Jeu's
reveal (Tertullian; Pseudo-Cyprian), another part
by the catechetical interest in messianic proof
texts. Cyprian apparently organized these traditions
and expanded them. His Testimonia ad Quirinum
group them in three categories: Against the Jews,
messianic prophecies, Christian virtues. Another
treatise of the same genre, Ad Fortunatum,
represents his personal selection of biblical texts
suited for the encouragement of Christians at a time
of impending persecution.
Tyconius the Donatist

Augustine ''Judgment on 7j conius

The North African situation of a century later is
reflected in Tyconius's Book of Rules (ca. 380),
the first hermeneutical treatise written in the Latin
West (see chapter X). Although he remained
attached to the schismatic Donatist church
throughout his life, Tyconius commanded
considerable respect among his contemporaries as
a theologian and exegete. His Commentary on the
Revelation of John, known today in fragmentary
form only, dominated the Western interpretation of
this biblical book for centuries with its shift from a
traditional millennarian reading (Tertullian,
Hippolytus, Victorinus of Pettau) to a
moralsymbolic understanding with broad
implications for all times. It seems that Augustine
shared the general respect (cf. Retractations I1.18;
Epistle 249 to Restitutus); his eschatology,
ecclesiology, soteriology, and hermeneutics
probably were more deeply influenced by
Tyconius than one might notice at first glance. In
his manual, On Christian Doctrine, Augustine
included something like a critical book review of
Tyconius's Book of Rules (III.xxx- xxxvi.42-56).
He quoted the Prologue but disagreed with the
claim that these rules would solve "all obscurities"
in the Law; he then proceeded to a detailed
summary of each of the seven rules themselves.
The second and the third rules, according to
Augustine, were wrongly labeled; the second
should have been called "On the true and the mixed
Body of the Lord," and the third was not a "rule"
clarifying obscurities but a theological treatise on
the topics Augustine himself had discussed in The
Spirit and the Letter. Apart from these minor points
and a warning about the Donatist point of view,
however, Augustine's endorsement was complete
and enthusiastic. A critical edition of Tyconius's
Latin text has been available since 1884, but all
too often Augustine's review serves as a substitute
for a close study of the Book of Rules itself. Due to
limitations of space, our translation presents the
first three Rules only. We have added new section
numbers which are not found in the editions.
Hermeneutical Principles
Tyconius stood squarely in the tradition of North
African hermeneutics. He shared its store of
testimonia, its emphasis on the unity of Old and
New Testament history, and its interest in applying
the biblical message to the contemporary situation.
For him, as for Cyprian, Scripture was first and
foremost prophecy, not only of Christ's first advent,
but of his continuous coming in his body and at his
final advent. In fact, Scripture "describes nothing
else but the church." Tyconius's hermeneutics,
therefore, starts with the principle that all exegesis
has an ecclesiological goal: The Bible illustrates
and interprets the struggles of the contemporary
church. Scholars are not agreed on whether he
combined this interest with an imminent
expectation of the end of the world or was thinking
more generally of the "true" church, exemplified by
the Donatists of the late fourth century, expecting in
the midst of persecution some kind of public
vindication against the "false" church, the majority,
which is always the body of the devil. His
thoroughly symbolic interpretation of the
Apocalypse ofJohn would point in the latter
direction. But even if his own use of apocalyptic
language implied an expectation of the impending
end, his hermeneutical concentration on the
situation of the church militant between the ages
was the feature that appealed to Augustine and the
generations after him.
Hermeneutical Rules
Tyconius's Rules approach the task by giving
careful attention to the peculiarities of biblical
language. The texts themselves offer the clue to
their ecclesiological meaning. Tyconius starts with
the observation that the wording of biblical
passages often shows rhetorical patterns which
point to several subjects governing a single
sentence or to a transition from one subject to
another in the same verse. Reason alone, that is,
grammatical and logical analysis, must discern
these subtle shifts and apply them to the intended
distinctions between the Lord and the Body, the
whole body and a part, or evil and good parts
within the same body. Rule three unfolds the last
point by a sophisticated rehearsal of the Pauline
dialectic of law and promise, discussing all the
pertinent texts: Abraham's seed which received the
promise was twofold already in Isaac and Ishmael,
Jacob and Esau; the true church is always two
people in one because its members, the true heirs,
grasp the promise of righteousness by their faith
precisely under the threat of the Law. In the one
body composed of the children of Abraham the
Law holds sway over the carnal part, the children
of the devil, from whom the true church must
depart, revealing the false brethren in their real
identity. This vision of history as the battleground
of the true and the false church found its lasting
expression in Augustine's two cities characterized
by the two loves of God and the world. Augustine's
hermeneutics was a commentary on this Tyconian
theme: The goal of all biblical interpretation must
be the double love of God and neighbor, the
ordering of the Christian life toward our heavenly
home (On Christian Doctrine I. xxxv-xxxvi. 39-
40).
The Fourfold Sense of Scripture
Western hermeneutics in the Augustinian tradition
finally crystallized its rules into the standard form
of a fourfold sense of Scripture-literal, allegorical,
tropological (moral), and anagogical. Augustine
himself had worked with a different list for the Old
Testament, based on the Greek technical terms of a
rhetorical analysis of language: history, aetiology,
analogy, and allegory (On the Usefulness of Belief
III.5-9). But the technical focus on language
analysis was not enough; the fourfold sense needed
to express a hermeneutical principle. The standard
form appeared first in a passage of John Cassian's
Conferences XIV.8 (ca. 420) which also
introduced the standard example of Jerusalem:
literally, Jerusalem means the city of the Jews;
allegorically, the church (Ps. 46:4-5);
tropologically, the soul (Ps. 147:1-2, 12);
anagogically, our heavenly home (Gal. 4:26).
Cassian's explanation, which drew heavily on
Origen's hermeneutical theory, made it plain that
the fourfold sense was never a mechanical set of
rules which professional exegetes would have to
apply to every passage of Scripture. Rather, in the
framework of the Western hermeneutical focus on
the life of the church, they offered an ingenious
synthesis of all the main strands of patristic
hermeneutics to be handed down to the Latin
Middle Ages. The attention to be given to the
literal sense preserved the grammatical and
historical emphases of the Antiochene school; the
allegorical sense expressed the typological
understanding of the Old Testament and its rich
early Christian tradition; the tropological sense
allowed for the interests of Jewish and Christian
moralists from the rabbis and Philo to Tertullian
and Chry sostom; the anagogical sense kept alive
the central concern of Alexandrian exegesis for a
spiritual reading of Scriptures.

The translations in this volume have been made

from the best critical editions of the Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin texts as listed in the first part of
the bibliography. Whenever possible, biblical
quotations have been identified and adapted from
standard modern translations; they have been
newly translated, however, when the patristic
source followed the Septuagint or an Old Latin
version. The reader will notice that almost
everywhere the numbering of the Psalms follows
that of the Septuagint, which is one count off from
that of the Hebrew Bible after Psalm 9. Thus, a
verse quoted as Ps. 46:4 in this volume would be
Ps. 47:4 in most English Bibles.
II.
 sifra
THE EXEGETICAL RULES
(MIDDOT) OF
RABBI ISHMAEL AND
RABBI HILLEL
A Tradition of Rabbi Ishmael

Rabbi Ishmael said: The tord is expounded by

thirteen rules:

1. Light and heavy [qal u'dp5mer; conclusion

from the less important to the more important
and vice versa);

2. Equal ordinance [gezerd sawd; verbal

analogy];

3. Building a family [binpan ab; generalization]

 from one passage;

4. Building a family from two passages;

5. General and specific [kelal uperatj; specific

and general;

6. General and specific, and again general. In

this case one can only conclude something
which agrees with the specific;

7. General which needs the specific, and

specific which needs the general;

8. Anything contained in a general statement and

singled out in order to make a specific point is
not singled out in order to make this point for
its own sake alone, but for the general
statement in its entirety;

9. Anything contained in a general statement and

singled out in order to impose a new
requirement still in line with the subject matter
 of the general statement is singled out in order
to ease (the burden), not to make it heavier;

10. Anything contained in a general statement

and singled out in order to impose a new
requirement not in line with the subject matter
of the general statement is singled out either to
ease (the burden) or to make it heavier;

11. With regard to anything contained in a

general statement and singled out in order to
establish a norm for a new subject, one must
not apply it back to the general statement
unless Scripture explicitly places it there;

12. Something learned from the context

[me`inyano], and something learned from that
which follows;

13. In the same way, two passages which

contradict each other until a third comes and
adjudicates between them.
 1. Light and heavy. How (does this rule work)?
"And the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but
spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven
days?" [Num. 12:14]. (Using the rule of) light and
heavy: In the case of the deity, (it should be)
fourteen days. It is sufficient, however, for the
result of an inference to be equivalent to the law
from which the inference is drawn: "So Miriam
was shut up outside the camp seven days and then
was brought in again" [ibid.].

2. Equal ordinance. How (does this rule work)?

Scripture says with reference to the paid keeper: "
(An oath by the Lord shall be between them both to
see whether) he has not put his hand to his
neighbor's property" [Exod. 22:81. As a man
clears the heirs of liability in the case of a paid
keeper about whom it is said: "He has not put his
hand (to his neighbor's property)," he shall also
clear the heirs of liability in the case of an unpaid
keeper about whom it is said: "He has not put his
hand (to his neighbor's property)."
 3. Building a family from one passage. How
(does this rule work)? What is applicable to the
bed (of an unclean person) is not applicable to his
seat and vice versa. But the two, bed and seat, are
equal in one respect: they are both conveniences
on which humans are meant to rest. A male with a
(gonorrheal) discharge makes them unclean through
(lying or sitting on them with) his larger part so
that they render people unclean if they are touched
or carried, and through clothing. Thus, the same
rule applies to everything made for human rest
alone: A male with a discharge will make it
unclean by his larger part so that it renders people
unclean if they touch or carry it, and through
clothing. An exception is the wagon seat because it
is also designed for a different kind of carrying.

4. Building a family from two passages. How

(does this rule work)? The provision about the
lamps [Lev. 24:1-4] is not applicable to the
passage about putting the unclean out of the camp
[Num. 5:1-41 and vice versa. But they have in
common the word "Command!" It is valid (in both
cases) for the immediate situation as well as for all
time to come [because of Lev. 24:21.

5. General and specific. How (does this rule

work)? "If a man delivers to his neighbor an ass or
an ox or a sheep": this is the specific; "or any beast
to keep": this is the general [Exod. 22:10].
Specific and general. The general appears as an
addition to the specific.

6. General and specific, and again general. How

(does this rule work)? "And spend your money for
whatever you desire": this is the general; "oxen, or
sheep, or wine, or strong drink": this is the
specific; "Whatever your appetite craves": this is
the general again [Deut. 14:261. In the case of
general and specific and again general one may
derive only what agrees with the specific. That is
to say: If the specific is clearly defined as a
product of the fruits of the earth, then I (the Lord)
can only accept that which is a product of the fruits
of the earth.

7. General which needs the specific, and specific

u'hich needs the general. How (does this rule
work)? "Consecrate to me all the firstborn" (Exod.
13:2]. One could think that this is to be understood
to include the female. Therefore, it states (in v.
12]: "all the firstborn that are male." If male, one
could think this applies even if a female has left the
womb before him. Therefore it states: "(firstborn
males) opening the womb." If it speaks of males
opening the womb, one could think this applies
even if another fetus extracted by caesarean section
preceded him. Therefore it says: "firstborn" This is
a case of general which needs the specific and
specific which needs the general.

8. Anything contained in a general statement and

singled out in order to make a specificpoint is not
singled out in order to make this point for its own
sake alone, but for the general statement in its
entirety. How (does this rule work)? "But the
person who eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the
Lord's peace offering while an uncleanness is upon
him, that person shall be cut off" ILev. 7:20]. Now
peace offerings are included in the general
category of all sacrifices. As it is written: "This is
the law of the burnt offering, of the cereal offering,
of the sin offering, of the guilt offering, of the
consecration, and of the peace offerings" ILev.
7:371. When, however, something is deduced from
the general in order to make a specific point, it is
not deduced in order to make this point just for its
own sake but in order to teach something about the
general in its entirety. Thus, peace offerings are
specially mentioned among sacrifices whose
sanctity is the sanctity of the altar. Therefore, I (the
Lord) only accept all those things whose sanctity is
the sanctity of the altar. An exception are the
offerings for the repair of the Temple.

9. Anything contained in a general statement and

singled out in order to impose a new requirement
still in line with the subject matter of the general
statement is singled out in order to ease (the
burden), not to make it heavier. How (does this
rule work)? "But when there is in the skin of one's
body a boil that has healed" [Lev. 13:181. It is also
written: "Or when the body has a burn on its skin"
[v. 241. But are not the boil and the burn included
in the general category of all leprous sores? (Our
rule states that) if they have been singled out from
the general category in order to impose a new
requirement which is still in line with its subject
matter, they have been singled out in order to ease
(the burden), not to make it heavier. Thus, these
two have been singled out in order to ease the
burden of such (victims) so that they are not judged
according to the rules concerning wild growth of
flesh but are judged to need only one more week
(of isolation).

10. Anything contained in a general statement and

singled out in order to impose a new requirement
not in line with the subject matter of the general
statement is singled out either to ease (the burden)
or to make it heavier. How (does this rule work)?
"When a man or a woman has a sore on the head or
the chin" [Lev. 13:291. But are not head and chin
included in the general category of skin and flesh?
(Our rule states that) if they have been singled out
in order to impose a new requirement not in line
(with the general statement), they have been
singled out either to ease (the burden) or to make it
heavier. Thus, these two have been singled out in
order to ease the burden for such (victims)
inasmuch as they are not judged by the rules
concerning white hair [Lev. 13:10,20,251, but also
to make it heavier for them inasmuch as they are
judged by the rules concerning yellow hair [Lev.
13:30-371.

11. With regard to anything contained in a general

statement and singled out in order to establish a
norm for a new subject, one must not apply it back
to the general statement unless Scripture explicitly
places it there. How (does this rule work)? "He
shall kill the lamb in the place where they kill the
sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy
place" [Lev. 14:13]. There is no need to continue
by saying: "For the guilt offering, like the sin
offering, belongs to the priest" [ibid.]. Since,
however, the guilt offering is singled out in order
to establish a norm for new subject matter, namely,
(the smearing of blood) on the thumb of the right
hand and the big toe of the right foot and the right
earlobe, one could assume that it does not require
a sprinkling of blood on the altar. Therefore the
text reads: "For the guilt offering like the sin
offering belongs to the priest." Note that Scripture
explicitly applies it back to the general statement
in order to make clear that, just as the sin offering
requires a sprinkling on the altar, so the guilt
offering requires a sprinkling on the altar also.

12. Something learned from the context. How

(does this rule work)? "If a man's hair has fallen
from his head he is bald but he is clean" [Lev.
13:40[. One could think he is free from all
uncleanness. Therefore it says: "But if there is on
the bald head behind or on the bald forehead a
reddish-white diseased spot" [Lev. 13:421. The
thing learned from the context is that he is not free
from every uncleanness but only from that of
scurfs.

Something learned from that which follows. How

(does this rule work)? "When I put a leprous
disease in a house in the land of your possession"
[Lev. 14:34]. The ordinary sense is: (By a fungous
infection) a house which contains stones, timber,
and plaster is made unclean. One could think that
(such an infection) also renders unclean a house
which contains no stones, timber, and plaster.
Therefore it says "He shall break down the house,
its stones, its timber, and all its plaster" [v. 35].
The thing learned from that which follows is that a
house is not made unclean unless it contains stones,
timber, and plaster.

13. Two passages which contradict each other

until a third comes and adjudicates between them.
How (does this rule work)? One passage reads:
"And the Lord came down on Mount Sinai, to the
top of the mountain" [Exod. 19:20). But another
passage reads: "Out of heaven he let you hear his
voice that he might discipline you" [Deut. 4:36].
The third passage decides: "(You have seen for
yourselves) that I have talked with you from
heaven" [Exod. 20:221. It teaches that the Holy
One, blessed be He, bowed the heaven of the
highest heaven down to Mount Sinai and spoke to
them. David says this in the book of Psalms: "And
he bowed the heavens and came down, and
darkness was under his feet" [Ps. 18:10[.
(A Tradition of Rabbi Hillel)

Hillel the Elder expounded seven rules before the

Elders of Bathira:

1. Light and heavy [qal wdhomer]

2. Equal ordinance [gezerd saved]

 3. Building a family [binyan ab]

4. Two passages [sene ketubimI

5. General and specific [keldl uperat]

6. Deduction from another passage [kayd$e' bd

bemagom 'al,,er]

7. Something learned from the context [ddbar

halldmed me 'inyan6]

One passage reads: "And when Moses went into

the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord" [Num.
7:89]. But another passage reads: "And Moses was
not able to enter the tent of meeting" [Exod. 40:35].
The decision is made by the words: "because the
cloud abode upon it" [ibid.]. Learn from this,
therefore, that every time the cloud was there
Moses did not enter. When the cloud moved away,
he entered and spoke with Him. Rabbi Jose the
Galilean said: "Behold, it is written: And the
priests could not stand to minister because of the
cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of
the Lord [ I Kings 8: 11]. This text teaches that
permission to injure was given to the angels. A
Scripture verse says this also: I will cover you
with my hand until I have passed by [Exod.
33:221. It teaches that permission to injure was
given to the angels. And another Scripture verse
says it also: Therefore I swore in my anger that
they should not enter my rest [Ps. 95: l 1 ]. When
my anger subsides they will enter my rest."
III.
 "Ptolemy
LETTER TO FLORA
(Epiphanius, Panarion 33)

(III, 1) My fair sister Flora, few people before

our time have understood the law ordained through
Moses due to their lack of accurate knowledge
concerning the one who ordained it as well as its
precepts. I believe this will be clear to you as well
once you have been instructed concerning the
contradictory opinions people hold about it. (2)
For some say that it was laid down as law by God
the Father. Others, however, leaning in the
opposite direction, insist that it was ordained by
the adversary, the destructive devil, to whom they
also attribute the creation of the world, affirming
that he is the father and maker of this universe. (3)
Both sides are completely wrong. They disagree
with each other and have missed, each in its own
way, the truth of the matter at hand. (4) Plainly, the
law was not ordained by the perfect God and
Father. It is secondary, not only being imperfect
and in need of completion by someone else, but
also containing precepts which are not in harmony
with the nature and intention of such a God. (5) On
the other hand, attributing a law which prohibits
injustice to the injustice of the adversary is the
mistake of people who do not heed the words of
the Savior. "A house or a city divided against itself
cannot stand," explained our Savior [Matt. 12:251.
(6) Furthermore, the apostle states that the creation
of the world is the Savior's work: "All things were
made through him, and without him nothing was
made" [John 1:3j; thus he demolished in advance
the unfounded wisdom of those falsifiers and
declared that the world is the work of a God who
is just and hates evil, not of a God who destroys.
Those false teachings are shared only by
thoughtless people who do not take into account the
providence of the creator, people whose sight is
impaired in regard not only to the eye of the soul
but even the eve of the body [cf. Matt. 13:13-15].

(7) From my above remarks it will be clear to

you how these people have missed the truth, each
of the two sides in its own way. One side does not
know the God of justice, the other does not know
the Father of All who was revealed by the only one
who came and knew him [cf. John 1:18; Matt.
1]:271. (8) It remains for us who have been
deemed worthy of the knowledge of both of these
to explain to you and describe in detail the law
itself, its nature, and the one who ordained it, the
lawgiver. We shall draw the proofs of our
statements from the words of our Savior, which
alone can lead us without stumbling to the
comprehension of that which is.

(IV, 1) Now the first thing to be learned is that the

entire law encompassed by Moses' Pentateuch was
not laid down by a single lawgiver, I mean God
alone, but there are also some precepts in it which
were ordained by human beings. The words of the
Savior teach us that it is divided in three parts: (2)
There is God himself and his legislation; then there
is Moses, not in the sense that God legislated
through Moses but that Moses himself, starting
from his own reflections, acted as lawgiver in
some instances; and there are finally the elders of
the people who, as we find, first introduced some
of the precepts on their own. (3) You may learn
immediately how the truth of this can be proved by
considering the words of the Savior. (4)
Somewhere in a discussion with people who
debated with him about which kind of divorce the
law allowed, the Savior said to them: "Because of
your hardness of heart Moses allowed a man to
divorce his wife; but this was not so from the
beginning" [Matt. 19:8]. For God, so it is written,
joined these two into one couple, "and what God
has joined together let no one put asunder," he said
[Matt. 19:6]. (5) Here he explains that there is a
law of God which prohibits the divorce of a wife
from her husband; but there is another law, a law
of Moses, which allows this bond between two
people to be divorced on account of hardness of
heart. Consequently, Moses is legislating contrary
to God, since separating a couple is contrary to not
separating a couple. (6) If, however, we proceed
to examine Moses' intention in formulating such a
law, we find that he did not act of his own will but
was forced by necessity on account of the
weakness of the people to whom the law was
addressed. (7) Since some of them became
disgusted with their wives, they were unable to
follow through with God's intention that they
should not be allowed to dismiss their wives, and
they ran the risk of turning even more toward
injustice and thus toward their destruction. (8)
Therefore Moses, wanting to put an end to this
disgust which had left them in danger of perishing,
in view of the circumstances replaced a greater
evil by a lesser one, so to speak, and gave them the
divorce law on his own, as a kind of second law.
(9) He thought that, if they could not keep God's
law, they might at least keep this one and not turn
toward deeds of injustice and evil from which
their utter destruction would follow. (10) This was
really the intention according to which we find
Moses to have introduced legislation contrary to
God. At any rate, it remains indisputable that
Moses' law is different from the law of God as we
have demonstrated here, even though our
demonstration was based on only one example.
(11) Furthermore, the Savior makes it plain that
there are also some traditions of the elders
interwoven with the law. These are his words:
"For God commanded: Honor your father and your
mother that it may go well with you." (12) "You,
however, have said," he continues addressing the
elders: "The support you should have received
from me has been given to God; and thus you have
made void the law of God for the sake of your
tradition," that is, the tradition of the elders. (13)
"Isaiah spoke about this when he said: This people
honors me with their lips but their heart is far from
me; in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines
the precepts of men" [Matt. 15:6 - 9; Isa. 29:131.
(14) From all of this it is clearly evident that the
entire law of which we have been speaking falls
into three parts: We find in it the legislation of
Moses, the legislation of the elders, and the
legislation of God himself. Now this very division
of the whole law which we have just laid out
brings to light the truth which is in it.

(V, 1) To take things further, the one part which is

the law of God himself is again divided into three
kinds: First, the pure legislation not entangled with
evil; this is called law in the primary sense. The
Savior did not come to abolish it but to complete it
[Matt. 5:17], for the law he completed was not
alien to him but needed completion because it did
not possess perfection. Second, the legislation
entangled with the inferior and with injustice; this
is the part which the Savior abolished because it
was incongruous with his nature. (2) The third kind
is the typological and symbolical legislation
ordained in the image of spiritual and higher
things; this is the part which the Savior transferred
from the realm of sense perception and appearance
to the realm of the spiritual and the invisible. (3)
Now God's law in its pure form, unentangled with
the inferior, is the Decalogue, those ten words
arranged in two tablets to prohibit things one must
not do and to enjoin things one must do. Although
they present the legislation in a pure form they
needed completion by the Savior since they did not
possess perfection. (4) The law entangled with
injustice is the one which inflicts vengeance and
retribution on those who have first committed an
injustice. It commands tearing out an eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth, and avenging murder with
murder [Exod. 21:23 - 24; Matt. 5:38]. Now the
second person to commit an injustice does no less
injustice than the first; the difference lies in the
sequence, but the action is the same. (5)
Otherwise, this commandment was indeed just, and
it still is, inasmuch as it was ordained as a
modification of the pure law because of the
weakness of those for whom the law was given. It
is, however, incongruous with the nature and
goodness of the Father of All. (6) Under the
circumstances, the commandment was perhaps
appropriate; worse than that, it was necessary. For
the God who, in saying: "You shall not kill" [Exod.
20:131, does not want even a single murder to be
committed, issues a second law and decides on
two murders when he commands that the murderer
be killed also [cf. Exod. 21:12; Matt. 5:21]. He
who had forbidden even the one murder did not
notice that he was trapped by necessity. (7)
Therefore the Son, coming from him, abolished this
part of the law while admitting that it was indeed
of God. He counts it as belonging to the old
dispensation together with other such passages; he
quotes as one of them: "God commanded: He who
speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die"
[Exod. 21:17; Matt. 15:4].

(8) Finally, there is the typological part, the one

ordained in the image of spiritual and higher
things. I am speaking of the part containing
legislation about sacrifices, circumcision, the
Sabbath, fasting, the Passover, unleavened bread,
and the like. (9) All of these were images and
symbols, and as such they underwent a
transformation when the truth was made manifest.
In terms of outward appearance and external
performance they were abolished, but in terms of
spiritual significance they were lifted up. The
words remained, the contents were changed. (10)
For the Savior too commanded us to offer up
sacrifices, not by means of irrational animals or
gifts of incense as had been the case before, but
through gifts of spiritual praise, glorification, and
thanksgiving, and through sharing and charity
toward our neighbors. (11) He also desires that we
be circumcised, not in terms of the bodily foreskin
but in terms of the spiritual heart. (12) He wants us
to keep the Sabbath, for he wishes us to rest from
doing evil. He desires us to fast, although he does
not want us to engage in physical but in spiritual
fasting in which we practice abstinence from all
evil. (13) Nevertheless, even among our people the
external practice of fasting is being observed; its
reasonable exercise can bring some benefit to the
soul if it is done not in order to imitate others, nor
out of habit, nor out of regard for the special day,
as if a particular day was set aside for it. (14) At
the same time, it can serve as a reminder of the true
fast so that in the external practice those who are
still unable to keep the true fast may have a
reminder of it. (15) Similarly, the apostle Paul
makes clear that the Passover and the unleavened
bread were images when he says: "Christ our
passover has been sacrificed," and then continues:
"in order that you may be unleavened, having no
part in the leaven"-by leaven he means here evil-
"hut may he a new sweet lump" [ I Cor. 5:7).

(VI,1) Thus even the part which is generally

admitted to he God's law falls into three
categories: first, the one completed by the Savior,
for the commandments, "you shall not kill, you
shall not commit adultery, you shall not swear
falsely," are included in his prohibition of anger,
lust, and swearing [Matt. 5:21 - 37]. (2) The
second category is the one which is totally
abolished. For the commandment, "an eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth," entangled as it is with
injustice and in itself leading to injustice, was
abolished by the Savior through its opposite; (3)
opposites cancel each other: "For I say to you: do
not in any way resist the one who is evil; but if
anyone strikes you, turn to him the other cheek
also" [Matt. 5:39]. (4) Finally, there is the category
of that which has been transferred and changed
from the physical to the spiritual, the symbolic
legislation ordained in the image of higher things.
(5) For images and symbols pointing to things
beyond themselves were valid as long as the truth
had not come. Now that the truth is here, however,
one must do the works of the truth, not the works of
an image. (6) His disciples made this clear, as did
the apostle Paul. The latter pointed to the category
of images, as we mentioned already, by speaking
of the Passover for us and of the unleavened bread.
He pointed to the category of the law entangled
with injustice by saving: "He abolished the law of
commandments and ordinances" [Eph. 2:15]. He
pointed, finally, to the category not entangled with
anything inferior by stating: "So the law is holy,
and the commandment is holy and just and good"
[Rom. 7:12].

(VII, 1) As far as I have been able in a few brief

words, I think I have sufficiently demonstrated to
you the presence of legislation introduced by
human authors, as well as the threefold division of
the very law of God. (2) It now remains for us to
define who this God is who ordained the law.
Even this, I think, has been demonstrated to you, if
you have listened carefully, by what has already
been said. (3) For if the law was not ordained by
the perfect God himself, as we have shown, and
certainly not by the devil-this must not even be
said out loud-then the one who ordained the law is
still another one beside them. (4) He is the creator
(demiourgos) and maker of this whole world and
of all that is in it. Being different from the essence
of the other two and standing in the middle
between them he may rightly be given the name,
"the Middle." (5) Now, given the fact that the
perfect God is good by his very nature-he actually
is good, for our Savior declared that one only is
the good God, his own Father whom he revealed
[Matt. 19:171-and the one with the nature of the
adversary is bad and evil and characterized by
injustice, he who stands in the middle between
them and is neither good nor in any way evil or
unjust, may be termed "just" in a sense proper only
to him since he is the arbitrator of a justice
according to his own standards. (6) This God will
be inferior to the perfect God and lower than his
justice. He is begotten, not unbegotten, for one only
is the unbegotten Father from whom all things are [
1 Cor. 8:6] because in its proper way everything
depends on him. But this God is superior to, and
mightier than, the adversary. He is of an essence
and nature different from the essence of either of
these. (7) The essence of the adversary is
corruption and darkness; he is material and
multiform. The essence of the unbegotten Father of
All, on the other hand, is incorruption and the self-
existent, simple, singly formed light [cf. James
1:17]. The essence of the creator (demiourgos),
however, produced a twofold power, yet he
himself is the image of the greater God. (8) For the
present, do not be troubled because you want to
learn how, out of one single principle of everything
which we confess and believe to be simple, out of
a principle which is unbegotten, incorruptible, and
good, these other natures came to be, the nature of
corruption and of the Middle, natures constituted
by a different essence, when it is in the nature of
the good to beget and bring forth that which is
similar to it and of the same essence. (9) For if
God grants it, you will receive in proper order
instruction concerning the principle and the
generation of these as well, when you are deemed
worthy of the apostolic tradition, which we also
have received by succession along with the
requirement to prove all our statements through the
teaching of our Savior.
 (10) I am not tired, my sister Flora, having told
you these things in a few words. I had to be
concise in what I wrote here, but at the same time
sufficient light was shed on the topic under
discussion. This will be of enormous benefit to you
in your next steps if, having received fertile seeds
like a fair and good soil, you show forth the fruit
which grows from them [cf. Matt. 13:231.
IV.
 Irenaeus
AGAINST HERESIES
(IV.26.1) Therefore, anyone who reads the
Scriptures attentively will find in them the word
concerning Christ and the prefiguration of the new
calling. For Christ is "the treasure hidden in a
field" [Matt. 13:44], that is, in the Scriptures
which are in the world, for "the field is the world"
[Matt. 13:381; he was hidden, for he was signified
by types and parabolic expressions which on the
human level could not be understood before the
consummation of that which was prophesied had
been reached, namely, the coming of Christ. For
this reason the prophet Daniel was told: "Block up
these words and seal the hook until the time of
consummation, until many learn and knowledge
achieves fullness. For at the time when the
dispersion will reach its end, they shall understand
all these things" [Dan. 12:4,9-10]. Jeremiah also
says: "In the last days they shall understand these
things" Der. 23:20]. Every prophecy is enigmatic
and ambiguous for human minds before it is
fulfilled. But when the time has arrived and the
prediction has come true, then prophecies find
their clear and unambiguous interpretation. This is
the reason that the law resembles a fable when it is
read by Jews at the present time; for they do not
have the explanation of it all, namely, the coming
of the Son of God as man. But when it is read by
Christians, it is indeed a treasure hidden in the
field but revealed and explained by the cross of
Christ. It enriches human understanding, shows
forth the wisdom of God, reveals God's
dispensations concerning the human race,
prefigures the kingdom of Christ, and proclaims the
inheritance of holy Jerusalem in advance. It
announces that a person who loves God will
progress even to the point of seeing God and
hearing his word, and by listening to this word
shall be glorified to such a degree that others will
not be able to look upon his glorious face. Daniel
expressed it in these words: "Those who
understand will shine like the brightness of the
firmament and from among the multitude of the
righteous like the stars for ever and ever" [Dan.
12:31. Thus, a person who reads the Scriptures in
the manner we have indicated-indeed, the Lord
used this kind of discourse with his disciples after
his resurrection from the dead, demonstrating to
them from the Scriptures that "Christ had to suffer
and to enter into his glory, and that remission of
sins must be preached in his name throughout all
the world" [Luke 24:46-47]-such a person will be
a perfect disciple, "like a householder who brings
forth from his store things new and old" [Matt.
13:52].

(2) Therefore, one must listen carefully to the

presbyters in the church, the ones who have
received their succession from the apostles, as we
have shown, and who have obtained, together with
the succession of the episcopacy, the sure charism
of truth according to the good pleasure of the
Father. Others, however, who draw back from the
original succession and assemble wherever they
please, must be looked upon with suspicion; they
should be regarded as heretics pursuing perverse
ideas, or as schismatics, puffed up and self-
pleasing, or again as hypocrites acting as they do
for the sake of profit and vainglory.

All of these have strayed from the truth. Now, the

heretics who are carrying foreign fire, that is,
foreign doctrines, to the altar of God will be
consumed by fire from heaven as were Nadab and
Abiud [Lev. 10:2]; those who rise up against the
truth and counsel others against the church of God
will stay in hell, swallowed up by the depth of the
earth as was the clan of Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram [Num.16:31-32]; those who split and tear
apart the unity of the church will receive from God
the same punishment as Jeroboam [ 1 Kings 14:
10-11 ].
 (3) But regarding those who are presbyters in the
eyes of many yet serve their own passions and fail
to give the fear of God first place in their hearts;
who are puffed up with the pride of hold ing the
first place; who do evil in secret and say, "no one
sees us" [Dan. 13:20 = Susannah]: they will be
convicted by the Word himself who does not judge
according to appearance and has no regard for the
face, but looks into the heart. And they will hear
these words which come from the prophet Daniel:
"0 you seed of Canaan and not of Judah! Beauty
has seduced you and love has perverted your heart.
You who have grown old in evil days, now your
sins which you have committed for a long time by
rendering unjust judgments have come out; you
condemned the innocent and freed the guilty
although the Lord commands: The innocent and the
just you shall not put to death" [Dan. 13:56, 52-53
= Susannah]. The Lord himself said of them: "But
if that wicked servant says in his heart: My master
delays his coming, and starts beating servants and
maids, eating, drinking, and getting drunk, the
master of that servant will come on a day he does
not know and at an hour he does not anticipate and
will cut him in pieces and appoint him his share
with the unbelievers" [Matt. 24:48-51].

(4) One must, therefore, stay away from people of

this kind altogether. One must cling, as we have
said, to those who guard the succession of the
apostles and, in concert with the order of the
preshyterate, offer sound preaching and
irreproachable conduct as an example and for the
correction of others. In this way Moses, who was
entrusted with such an eminent position of
leadership, cleared himself before God by relying
on his good conscience: "I have not coveted," he
said, "what I received from any of these men, nor
have I done evil to any of them" (Num. 16:151. In
the same way, Samuel, who judged the people for
so many years and exercised leadership over Israel
without a trace of pride, cleared himself at the end
and said: "I have lived before you from my youth
to this day. Answer me before the Lord and before
his anointed: Whose ox or ass have I taken? Whom
have I defrauded or whom have I oppressed? Or if
I have taken a bribe from anyone's hand, even a
shoe, speak out against me and I will restore it to
you" And when the people answered: You have not
defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anything
from anyone's hand," he called the Lord to witness,
saying: "The Lord is witness, and his anointed is
witness this day that you have not found anything in
my hands. And they said: He is witness" [ 1 Sam.
12:2-51. In the same way, the apostle Paul wrote to
the Corinthians displaying his good conscience:
"For we are not like so many others who are
adultering the word of God, but with sincerity, as
coming from God, we speak before God in Christ.
We have wronged no one, we have cheated no one"
[2 Cor. 2:17; 7:21.

The church nourishes presbyters of this kind. The

prophet says of them: "I will establish your princes
in peace and your bishops in righteousness" [Isa.
60:17]. To them the Lord's word applies: "Who
then is the faithful steward, good and wise, whom
the Lord has set over his household, to give them
their food at the proper time? Blessed is that
servant whom the Lord when he comes will find so
doing" [Matt. 24:45-46]. Paul teaches us where we
may find such servants: "God has appointed in the
church first apostles, second prophets, third
teachers" [ 1 Cor. 12:28]. Thus, where God's
charisms have their place, there the truth must be
learned from those in whom all these signs are
clearly present: the church's succession deriving
from the apostles; a sound and irreproachable
conduct; and an unadulterated, uncorrupted
proclamation. For they guard our faith in the one
God who created all things. They increase the love
toward the Son of God who accomplished such
marvelous dispensations for our sake. And they
interpret the Scriptures for us without danger,
uttering no blasphemies against God, or
dishonoring the patriarchs, or despising the
prophets.
V.
 (9rigen
ON FIRST PRINCIPLES: BOOK
FOUR
(Philocalia, Title)

The divinely inspired character of Holy Scripture

and how it ought to be read and understood;
further, the reason for the obscurity in it and for
statements in some passages which are impossible
and meaningless according to the literal sense.

I.

(I, 1) In our investigation of such weighty matters

we are not content with common notions and the
evidence of things one can see. Rather, from
Scriptures that we believe to be divine, the so-
called Old as well as the New Testament, we
adduce testimonies as witnesses to that which we
consider a convincing proof of our statements.
Since we also attempt to confirm our faith by
reason and since we have not yet discussed the
divinity of the Scriptures, let us comment briefly
on this topic, spelling out for this purpose the
reasons which move us to speak of those writings
as divine. First of all, even before we use the text
and the content of these writings themselves, we
must treat of Moses, the lawgiver of the Hebrews,
and of Jesus Christ, the originator of the saving
teachings of Christianity.

Despite the fact that there have been many

legislators among Greeks and barbarians, and that
numerous teachers have advo cated doctrines
laying claim to the truth, we have not come across
any lawgiver who has been able to inspire zeal for
the acceptance of his words among other nations.
And while those who profess to be concerned with
truth in their philosophy have introduced a whole
arsenal of arguments as part of their alleged
rational demonstration, none of them has been able
to excite different nations, or even significant
portions of a single nation, for that which he
considers to be the truth. Yet, had this been
possible, the legislators would gladly have
extended to the entire human race the validity of
the laws they regarded as good. The teachers, for
their part, would have loved to disseminate all
over the world what they imagined to be the truth.
But since they could not persuade people speaking
other languages and belonging to so many other
nations to observe their laws and accept their
teachings, they did not even dare to make a start in
this direction; they concluded, not unreasonably,
that it would be impossible for them to succeed in
any such endeavor. Yet the entire inhabited world
of Greek and barbarian nations is teeming with
thousands of people who are eager to follow us,
who abandon their traditional laws and their
presumed deities for the observance of the law of
Moses and for the instruction offered in the words
of Jesus Christ. This is happening despite the fact
that the followers of the law of Moses encounter
the hatred of idol worshipers, and those who
accept the word of Jesus Christ even risk the
sentence of death in addition to that hatred.

(I, 2) We must keep before our eyes what is

happening: in spite of constant anti-Christian
machinations which cause some confessors of
Christianity to lose their lives and others to lose
their possessions, it has been possible for the word
to be preached throughout the inhabited world even
in the absence of an abundant supply of teachers,
and Greeks and barbarians, wise and unwise, have
adopted the religion proclaimed by Jesus. When
we consider this situation we will not hesitate to
call the achievement superhuman. Now, Jesus
himself taught with all authority and persuasive
power that the word would take hold. There is
good reason, therefore, to regard also other
utterances of his as divine predictions, for
example: "You will be dragged before kings and
governors for my sake to bear testimony before
them and the nations" [Matt. 10:18[, and: "On that
day many will say to me: Lord, Lord, did we not
eat in your name and drink in your name and cast
out demons in your name? Then I will declare to
them: Depart from me, you evildoers, I never knew
you" [Matt. 7:22; Luke 13:26-271. At the time. it
might have seemed as if the one who uttered these
words spoke in vain, that is. as if his words would
not come true. Now, however, with the fulfillment
of that which he had announced with such great
authority, we have a clear indication that God has
truly become man and has passed on to humans his
teachings of salvation.

(1, 3) And what about the prophecy that "men

called princes from Judah and rulers from his loins
will be lacking when he comes for whom it has
been reserved-obviously the kingdom!-and when
the expectation of the nations is present" [Gen. 49:
101? From history and from our observation today
it is clearly evident that no kings have ruled over
the Jews ever since the times of Jesus. In fact, all
the institutions in which the Jews took pride have
been destroyed; things like the temple, the altar for
the sacrifices, the cultic celebrations, and the
garments of the high priest. Yes, (Hosea's)
prophecy has been fulfilled: "For many days the
sons of Israel will sit there without king and
without ruler, without sacrifice, without altar,
without priesthood, without oracular gear" [Hos.
3:4[.

We use this latter text also against those who are

embarrassed over the words of Jacob to Joseph in
the Genesis text and argue that an ethnarch from the
tribe ofJudah is still ruling the people and will not
lack progeny until the advent of the Messiah of
which they are dreaming. For if "the sons of Israel
will sit there for many days without king and
without ruler, without sacrifice, without altar,
without priesthood, without oracular gear," and if
from the time the temple was razed to the ground
there has been no sacrifice, no altar, and no
priesthood, then it is plain that "a prince from
Judah and a ruler from his loins" has in fact been
lacking. But when the prophecy says: "A prince
from Judah and a ruler from his loins will not be
lacking until the coming of that which has been
reserved for him," it is evident that he has come
who possesses "that which has been reserved," he
who is the expectation of the nations. Evidence of
this last point is also presented by the host of
Gentiles who have come to faith in God through
Christ.

(1, 4) Furthermore, a prophetic statement in the

Song of Deuteronomy reveals the future election of
foolish nations as a result of the sins of the former
people of God, an election which has been effected
through none other but Jesus. It reads: "They have
stirred me to jealousy with that which is not God;
they have provoked me with their idols. Therefore,
I will stir them to jealousy with that which is no
people; I will provoke them with a foolish nation"
]Deus. 32:21 ]. It is easy enough to see how the
Hebrews who, as it says here, have stirred God to
jealousy "with that which is not God" and
provoked him with their idols have in turn been
provoked to jealousy "with that which is no
people," with a "foolish nation" elected by God
through the advent of Christ and his disciples. We
Gentiles only need to "consider our calling: not
many were wise according to worldly standards,
not many were powerful, not many were of noble
birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to
shame the wise, and God chose what is lowly and
despised, even things that are not, to bring to
nothing things that formerly were, so that Israel
according to the flesh"-the apostle simply calls it
flesh-"might not boast in the presence of God" [ 1
Cor. 1:26-29].

(1, 5) But what about the prophecies concerning

Christ which we find in the Psalms? One of the
poems is addressed "to the Beloved"; his tongue is
called "the pen of a ready scribe, fairer in beauty
than the sons of men." for "grace is poured out
upon his lips" [Ps. 45:1-2, LXXJ. An indication of
the "grace poured out upon his lips" is the fact that,
despite the brief duration of his teaching-he taught
for about one year and a few monthsthe inhabited
world now is filled with his teaching and with the
religion he brought. For "in his days righteousness
has risen and an abundance of peace" which will
last to the consummation, the "taking away of the
moon," as the psalmist calls it; and "he continues to
have dominion from sea to sea, and from the rivers
to the ends of the earth" [Ps. 72:7-8, LXX]. Indeed,
a sign has been given to the house of David; for
"the virgin has conceived in her womb and has
horn a son, and his name is Immanuel which
means: God with us" [isa. 7:13-14]. The sign has
been fulfilled just as the words of the same prophet
announced it: "God is with us! Know it, you
nations, and admit your defeat; you who are strong,
admit your defeat!" [Isa. 8:8-9]; indeed, we
Gentiles who have been won over by the grace of
his word have been defeated, have been
conquered! Even the place of his birth was
predicted by Micah: "And you Bethlehem of the
land of Judah are by no means the least among the
leaders of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel" [Matt. 2:6;
cf. Micah 5:2]. Moreover, the seventy weeks
which were to elapse before the coming of the
messianic ruler, according to Daniel [Dan. 4:25],
have reached their end. There has arrived, in the
words of job, the one "who has subdued the great
sea-monster" [Job 3:8]; he has given his true
disciples authority "to tread upon serpents and
scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy"
without their being hurt in any way [Luke 10:19].
We must consider only how the apostles, sent out
by Jesus to announce the gospel, traveled all over
the world, and we will realize both that this bold
project surpassed human measure and that Christ's
command was divine. Indeed, when we examine
how people listening to the new teachings and the
unfamiliar words were thwarted in their desire to
plot against the apostles by a divine power
protecting them and came to believe them, we will
not doubt that the apostles did perform miracles
because "God bore witness to their words by signs
and wonders and various miracles" [Heb. 2:4].

(1, 6) In demonstrating the divinity of Jesus in

this somewhat summary fashion by using prophetic
pronouncements about him, we also offer proof
that the Scriptures which prophesy about him are
inspired and that those writings that announce his
coming and his teaching speak with full power and
authority; this is the reason they have won over the
elect from among the nations. It must be admitted,
however, that the divine quality of the prophetic
statements and the spiritual character of the law of
Moses came to light only with the coming of Jesus.
Before Christ's advent it was hardly possible to
present clear evidence that the old writings were
inspired. But the coming of Jesus opened the eyes
of readers who might have been skeptical about the
divinity of the law and the prophets to the fact that
these writings were indeed composed with the
help of divine grace. Everyone who approaches
the prophetic words attentively and diligently will
experience a trace of divine enthusiasm in the very
act of reading; the experience will convince him
that what we believe to be God's words are not
human writings. The light present in the law of
Moses but previously hidden under a veil has
begun to shine forth with the advent of Christ. The
veil has been removed, and the good things whose
shadow the letter displayed have gradually been
raised to the status of knowledge [cf. 2 Cor. 3:13-
16; Heb. 10:1 ].

(1, ?) At this point it would be too much of a task

to review the age-old prophecies about every
future event so that the skeptic, impressed by their
divine quality, might leave behind all hesitation
and uncertainty and open his soul fully to the
words of God. It should not come as a surprise,
however, that the superhuman quality of scriptural
thoughts does not readily appear to the unskilled
reader in each and every passage. Even among the
works of providence, a providence which extends
over the entire universe, some manifest their
providential character very clearly, while others
conceal it so much that they seem to leave room for
a rejection of faith in the God who governs all with
such marvelous skill and power. Things on earth
do not manifest the artful operation of the
provident God as clearly as sun, moon, and stars;
the occurrences in the human sphere demonstrate it
less cogently than a consideration of the souls and
bodies of animals. Any interested observer can
easily discover the "what for" and "why" when he
investigates the instincts, mental images, and
natural conditions of animals and the makeup of
their bodies. But just as providence is not
defrauded by that which we do not know, at least
not in the eyes of those who accept it as a given
reality, so the divinity of Scripture which extends
to all its parts loses nothing by the fact that in our
weakness we cannot discern at every turn of the
letter the hidden splendor of doctrines concealed
in the lowly and contemptible literal phrase. "For
we have here a treasure in earthen vessels so that
the abundance of God's power may shine forth"
and may not be regarded as coming from us who
are human beings 12 Cor. 4:71. If the sterile
methods of demonstration which are prominent in
the books of human authors had prevailed over
human minds, there would be good reason to
suspect our faith of being based on human wisdom,
not on the wisdom of God. But now it is obvious to
anyone who does not close his eyes that the word
and its proclamation have proved their might
among so many people "not in plausible words of
wisdom but in the manifestation of the spirit and of
power" 12 Cor. 2:4]. Therefore, since a heavenly
or rather a superheavenly power drives us to
worship him alone who created us, let us strive to
"leave behind the basic teaching about Christ," that
is, the elementary instruction; let us go on to
perfection [Heb. 5:12; 6:1 ] so that the wisdom
spoken among the perfect may be spoken among us
also. For the apostle who had found wisdom
promised to proclaim wisdom among the perfect, a
wisdom different from the wisdom of this age and
of its rulers, an age which is doomed to pass away
[I Cor. 2:61. We will bear the distinct imprint of
this wisdom "according to the revelation of the
mystery which was kept in silence for eternal ages
but is now disclosed through the prophetic writings
and the appearance of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. To him be glory into all ages. Amen" (Rom.
16:25-27].

II.

(II, 1) Having explained briefly that the divine

writings are inspired, we must now turn to the
discussion of the manner in which they must be
read and understood. For innumerable errors have
arisen because so many people have failed to find
the right path which must govern the exploration of
the holy hooks.

On the one hand, those advocates of circumcision

whose hearts were hardened and who had no
understanding refused to believe in our Savior. It
was their intention to follow the letter of the
prophecies which spoke of him, but they did not
see him physically "proclaiming release to the
captives" [Isa. 61:1 ], or "building the city" [Ps.
46:4-5, LXX] which they take to be the actual city
of God, or "cutting off the chariots from Ephraim
and the war horse from Jerusalem" [Zech. 9:10], or
"eating butter and honey and, before knowing and
giving preference to evil, choosing the good" [Isa.
7:15-16]. They also thought that the prophecy was
referring to the four-footed animal called a wolf
when it said that "the wolf shall graze with the
lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid
and the little calf, and steer and lion shall feed
together led by a little child, and ox and bear shall
go to pasture together, and the lion shall eat straw
like the ox" [Isa. 11:6-7]. Failing to see any of this
happening in a physical sense at the advent of the
one whom we believe to be the Christ, they did not
accept our Lord Jesus but crucified him as one
who had claimed to be the Messiah against the
law.
 On the other hand, when the advocates of heresies
were reading passages like: "A fire is kindled in
my anger" ]Jer. 15:141; "1 am a jealous God
visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to
the third and fourth generation" [Exod. 20:5]; "1
repent that I have anointed Saul king" [ 1 Sam.
15:10]; "1 am a God who makes peace and who
creates evil" [Isa. 45:7]; or: "There is no evil in
the city which the Lord has not done" [Amos 3:6];
"evil has come down from the Lord upon the gates
of Jerusalem" [Micah 1: 121; "an evil spirit from
God suffocated Saul" [ 1 Sam. 18:10], and a host
of similar texts, they did not dare to doubt that such
Scriptures were the writings of God; but they
attributed them to the creator-god (demiourgos)
whom the Jews worship. Since this creator-god is
imperfect and not good, they reasoned that the
Savior had come proclaiming a more perfect God
who, as they maintain, is not the creator-god, and
of whom they hold various opinions. Once they
forsook the creator who is the unbegotten and only
God, they became lost in the fictions of their own
minds and fashioned their own mythical theories
about how they thought the visible creation and
certain invisible realities of which their soul had
formed an image had come into existence.

In contrast to this speculation, even the simplest

minds among those proud to belong to the church
have never assumed the existence of any god
greater than the creator-god. This, of course, is a
sound attitude on their part. But they do attribute to
him features which they would not attribute even to
the most cruel and unjust human being.

(II, 2) The reason for the false opinions, the

impious attitudes, and the amateurish talk about
God on the part of those groups just mentioned
seems to be no other than that Scripture is not
understood in its spiritual sense but is interpreted
according to the mere letter. All those, therefore,
who are convinced that the holy books are not the
writings of human authors but were composed and
have come down to us as a result of the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father of All
through Jesus Christ, and who adhere to the rule of
the celestial church of Christ resting on the
succession of the apostles, must he taught what I
take to be the correct method of interpretation.

Now, everyone who embraces the word, even the

dullest of all, is convinced that there are certain
mystical arrangements (oikonomiai) which the
divine writings reveal to us. The prudent and
unpretentious, however, admit that they do not
know what these mysteries comprise. If, for
example, someone raises questions about Lot's
sexual relations with his daughters, about
Abraham's two wives, about the two sisters
married to Jacob, or about the two maidservants
who had children by him, they will simply reply
that there are mysteries here which our mind
cannot fathom. Yet when they read about the
construction of the tabernacle, convinced that the
scriptural account has typical significance, they try
to find the reality which corresponds to every
detail mentioned in that story. They are quite
correct in their conviction that the tabernacle is the
"type" of something. But they sometimes get lost in
their attempt to apply the word to this or that
specific reality of which the tabernacle is a type
without violating the dignity of Scripture. They
assert that every narrative which on the surface
seems to concern marriages, childbirths, wars, or
other events which the multitude would accept as
historical, does present types. But when we ask:
types of what? then, partly because of insufficient
skill, partly because of undue haste, but sometimes
even in spite of all the skill and patience of the
interpreter, those questions about the meaning of
each detail remain largely unanswered since it is
so extremely difficult for human minds to identify
the specific realities intended.

(II, 3) What should we say about the prophecies

which we all know are full of enigmatic and dark
expressions [cf. Prov. 1:6]? Even the precise sense
of the Gospels as a reflection of the "mind of
Christ" requires the grace granted to the apostle
who said: "But we have the mind of Christ that we
might understand the gracious gifts bestowed on us
by God, and we impart it in words not taught by
human wisdom but by the Spirit" [ 1 Cor. 2:16, 12-
13]. And who can read the revelations granted to
John without being amazed at the hidden depth of
the ineffable mysteries, a depth apparent even to
the person who does not understand what the text
says? Which expert in the art of careful textual
analysis would find the letters of the apostles clear
and easy to understand, when even here
innumerable instances afford nothing more than a
fleeting glimpse, a view as through a tiny hole, of a
host of most sublime thoughts.

Since this is the situation and since so many

people go astray, it is quite dangerous to assert that
the reader easily catches the meaning of texts
which require the key of knowledge. This key is in
the hand of the lawyers, the Savior says. If anyone
is unwilling to admit that before the advent of
Christ the truth was in the hands of the lawyers, let
him explain to us how our Lord Jesus Christ can
say that the key of knowledge is in their hands, in
the hands of people who, according to our
skeptics, do not have books containing the
ineffable and perfect mysteries of knowledge. This
is what the text says: "Woe to you lawyers, for you
have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not
enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were
entering" [Luke 11:52].

(II, 4) Indeed, it seems to us that the correct

method of approaching the Scriptures and grasping
their sense is the following, taking it from the texts
themselves. In the Proverbs of Solomon we find
this kind of directive concerning divine doctrines
in Scripture: "And you, write down those things
threefold in your counsel and wisdom that you may
reply with words of truth to those who ask you"
[Prov. 22:20-2 1]. This means, one should inscribe
on one's soul the intentions of the holy literature in
a threefold manner; the simpler person might be
edified by the flesh of Scripture, as it were (flesh
is our designation for the obvious understanding),
the somewhat more advanced by its soul, as it
were; but the person who is perfect and
approaches the apostle's description: "Among the
perfect we impart wisdom although it is not a
wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age who
are doomed to pass away; but we impart a secret
and hidden wisdom of God which God decreed
before the ages for our glorification" [ 1 Cor. 2:6-
71, by the spiritual law which contains "a shadow
of the good things to come" [Heb. 10:1 [. For just
as the human being consists of body, soul, and
spirit, so does Scripture which God has arranged
to be given for the salvation of humankind.

We also apply this exegesis to a story in the

Shepherd (of Hermas), a book despised by some.
Hermas is ordered to write two books and then to
announce to the elders of the church what he has
learned from the Spirit. The text reads as follows:
"You shall write two books, and you shall give one
to Clement and one to Grapte. And Grapte shall
admonish the widows and orphans; but Clement
shall send it to the cities outside. You, however,
shall announce it to the elders of the church"
[Hermas, Vision 11.4.31. Now Grapte, the woman
who admonishes the widows and orphans, stands
for the mere letter exhorting those whose souls are
children and who are still unable to address God
as Father-this is the reason they are called orphans.
She also admonishes those who no longer live with
an illegitimate husband but are still widows
because they have not yet become worthy of the
bridegroom. Clement, who already stands outside
the letter, is told to transmit the message to the
"cities outside"; we may interpret these as souls
who have left the realm of bodily concerns and
base thoughts. Hermas himself, the disciple of the
Spirit, is ordered to announce the message to "the
elders" of the church of God as a whole, to men
who have turned gray with insight; he is to address
them no longer through the written letter but
through living words.
 (II, 5) But since some scriptural passages have no
bodily sense at all, as we shall show in the
following section, there are cases where one must
seek only for the soul and the spirit of the passage,
so to speak. Perhaps this is why the stone jars
which are reported to be set up for the purification
of the Jews hold "two or three measures each," as
we read in the Gospel of John (John 2:61. The
expression hints at those whom the apostle calls
"Jews inwardly" [Rom. 2:291; they are purified
through the word of the Scriptures which
sometimes hold two measuresthe psychic sense, if
I may say so, and the pneumatic sensesometimes
three; for, in addition to the two just mentioned,
certain texts also possess a bodily sense which
may be edifying. The mention of six jars makes
good sense; the reference is to those who are being
purified in the world which was created in six
days, a perfect number.

(II, 6) The large number of Christians whose faith

is genuine but somewhat simple testifies that one
can draw profit even from the first understanding;
it is indeed helpful to an extent. On the other hand,
Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians
provides an illustration of the kind of interpretation
which leads up to the soul, as it were: "It is
written," he says, "you shall not muzzle an ox when
it is treading out the grain"; and he adds as an
interpretation of this law: "Is it for oxen that God
is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our
sake? It was written for our sake because the
plowman should plow in hope and the thresher
thresh in hope of a share in the crop" J I Cor. 9:9-
10]. Most current interpretations which suit the
multitude and edify those unable to listen to higher
truths have something of the same character.

Spiritual exegesis, however, is reserved for the

one who can identify the heavenly realities, whose
copy and shadow the "Jews according to the flesh"
were worshiping, and who can recognize the good
things to come of which the law displays but a
shadow [Heb. 8:5; 10:1]. In one word, the
apostolic challenge is this: We must seek in
everything "the secret and hidden wisdom of God,
which God decreed before the ages for the
glorification of the righteous and which none of the
rulers of this age understood" [ I Cor. 2:7-81. The
same apostle says elsewhere, after quoting certain
passages from Exodus and Numbers: "These things
happened to them as a type, but they were written
down for our sake, upon whom the end of the ages
has come" [ 1 Cor. 10:111. He even provides clues
to the realities of which those events were types
when he says: "For they drank from the spiritual
rock which followed them, and the rock was
Christ" [ 1 Cor. 10:41. And when he outlines the
details of the tabernacle in another letter, he
quotes: "Make everything according to the pattern
which was shown to you on the mountain" [Heb.
8:5; Exod. 25:40). On the other hand, in the Epistle
to the Galatians he is in a way chiding those who
think they are reading the law, but who do not
understand it. His verdict is that those who do not
understand the law are those who think there are no
allegories in the biblical texts. "Tell me," he says,
"you who desire to be under a law, do you not hear
the law? For it is written that Abraham had two
sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But
the son of the slave woman was born according to
the flesh, the son of the free woman through the
promise. Now this is an allegory; these women are
two covenants," and so on [Gal. 4:21-241. One
must pay close attention to every turn of the phrase
here. Paul says: "you who desire to be under a
law," not "you who are under the law"; and: "do
you not hear the law?", hearing being judged by
understanding and knowing. In the Epistle to the
Colossians he summarizes the hidden agenda of the
entire legislation in a few words by saying:
"Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in
questions of food and drink or with regard to a
festival or a new moon or a sabbath with their
partial character. These are only shadows of what
is to come" [Col. 2:16-17]. Furthermore, speaking
of those who practice circumcision, he writes in
the Epistle to the Hebrews: "They worship a copy
and shadow of the heavenly things" [Heb. 8:51.

It is likely, therefore, that those who accept the

apostle once and for all as a man of God (theios
aner) will not be in doubt about the five books
attributed to Moses. But they want to know
whether the rest of the historical narrative also
happened as a type. At this point, one must pay
close attention to a quotation in the Epistle to the
Romans which comes from the third book of
Kings: "I have kept for myself seven thousand men
who have not bowed the knee to Baal" [Rom. 11:5;
1 Kings 19:18]. Paul understood this as a reference
to those who are Israelites by God's election, since
not only the Gentiles but also some of God's own
nation profited by the coming of Christ.

(1I, 7) With this situation in mind we must outline

the charac teristics of a proper understanding of the
Scriptures as we see them. First, we must point out
that the goal (skopos) of the Spirit who, under
God's providence, enlightened the prophets and
apostles, those servants of the truth, through the
Word which was with God in the beginning [John
1:1-2J, was concerned primarily with the ineffable
mysteries surrounding the fate of humans; by
humans here I mean souls making use of bodies.
His purpose was that, by carefully searching the
plain texts and taking seriously the depth of their
meaning, every teachable person would have a part
in all the teachings of his counsel. But if the topic
of the discussion is souls who cannot achieve
perfection apart from the rich and profound truth
about God, then the teachings concerning God
himself must necessarily take first place, as must
those concerning his onlybegotten Son. We must
ask what his nature is; in what sense he is the Son
of God; for what reasons he descended as far
down as the level of human flesh and completely
assumed humanity; what his work is, and for whom
and when it is exercised. By the same necessity
something about other rational beings akin to us,
both those who are more divine and those who
have fallen from the state of blessedness, and
something about the causes of their fall had to be
included in the words of divine instruction.
Something also had to be said about the difference
between souls, the origin of these differences, the
nature of the world, and the reason for its
existence. Furthermore, we need to be instructed
about the origin of so much terrible evil on earth,
and whether it is found not only on earth but
elsewhere as well.

(II, 8) While these and similar topics were the

primary concern of the Spirit enlightening the souls
of the holy servants of truth, he had a second goal
for the benefit of those who cannot carry the
workload which the discovery of such matters
requires. This goal was to hide his teachings about
the abovementioned issues in texts which on the
surface seemed to offer a plain narrative account
of events such as the creation of the sensible
world, the fashioning of man, and of the successive
generations from the first parents to a multiplicity
of human beings; the same holds true for other
historical narratives which record the deeds of
righteous people and of the mistakes they
sometimes made because they were human beings,
but also the wicked deeds, the licentious acts, and
the greedy behavior of lawless and godless
people. Most astonishing of all, even the stories of
wars, of victors and vanquished, can disclose
some ineffable (mysteries) to those who know how
to examine such accounts with care. And still more
marvelous: through a written code of law the true
laws are being announced prophetically; and all of
this is written down in proper order with a power
truly befitting the wisdom of God. The intent was
that the external cover of spiritual things, namely,
the bodily element of the Scriptures, should not be
rendered unprofitable for so many people; but
rather, that it should be capable of improving the
multitude according to their capacity.

(II, 9) But if the usefulness of the legal

prescriptions as well as the logical coherence and
the smooth flow of the historical narrative were
automatically evident everywhere, we would not
believe that it is possible to find some other sense
in the Scriptures besides the obvious one. For this
reason the Word of God has arranged the insertion
of certain offensive features, of stumbling blocks
and impossibilities amid the law and historical
narrative. He wanted to avoid that, being totally
carried away by the plain text and its unspoiled
charm, we either would disregard its teachings
altogether because we did not find any lessons
worthy of God, or would refuse to move beyond
the letter and not learn anything more divine.

One must also he aware of another feature. Since

the (Spirit's) primary goal was to present the
logical system of spiritual realities by means of
events that happened and things that were to he
done, the Word used actual historical events
wherever they could he accommodated to these
mystical (meanings), hiding the deeper sense from
the multitude. But where the recorded actions of a
specific person did not fit the account of the inner
coherence of intelligible realities in terms of the
deeper mystical meaning, Scripture has woven into
the historical narrative some feature which did not
happen; sometimes the event is an impossibility;
sometimes, though possible, it actually did not
happen. Sometimes only a few phrases which are
not true in the bodily sense are inserted, sometimes
more. We must assume an analogous situation in
regard to the law. Frequently one can find
commandments which are useful in themselves and
appropriate for the time of legislation. Sometimes,
however, their usefulness is not self-evident. At
other times, even impossible things are
commanded; such instances challenge the more
skillful and inquisitive to devote themselves to a
painstaking examination of the text and become
seriously convinced that a sense worthy of God
needs to be sought in these commandments.

But the Spirit made such arrangements not only

with regard to the period before the advent of
Christ; being the same Spirit and coming from the
one God, he acted similarly when dealing with the
Gospels and apostles. Even they did not present
the historical narrative completely free of
additions which did not actually happen; nor did
they always transmit the legal prescriptions and the
commandments in such a way that they seem
reasonable in themselves.

III.

(III, 1) To be specific: What intelligent person

can believe that there was a first day, then a second
and third day, evening, and morning, without the
sun, the moon, and the stars; and the first day-if this
is the right term-even without a heaven [Gen. 1:5-
6]? Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a
human farmer, God planted a garden to the east in
Eden and created in it a visible, physical tree of
life from which anyone tasting its fruit with bodily
teeth would receive life; and that one would have a
part in good and evil by eating the fruit picked
from the appropriate tree [Gen. 2:8 - 9]? When
God is depicted walking in the garden in the
evening and Adam hiding behind the tree, I think no
one will doubt that these details point figuratively
to some mysteries by means of a historical
narrative which seems to have happened but did
not happen in a bodily sense. By the same token,
when Cain "went out from the face of the Lord"
[Gen. 4:16], it is quite clear to the insightful that
this expression stimulates the careful reader to
inquire what the face of God is and what it means
for someone to go out from it. What more needs to
be said? Those who are not totally dull can collect
innumerable examples of this kind, where
something is presented as having happened but did
not happen in terms of the literal meaning of the
text.

Even the Gospels are full of passages of this

kind, such as the devil leading Jesus up to a high
mountain in order to show him from there all the
kingdoms of the world and their glory [Matt. 4:81.
Now who but the most superficial reader of a story
like this would not laugh at those who think that the
kingdoms of the Persians, the Scythians, the
Indians, and the Parthians as well as the way their
rulers receive glory from their subjects can be seen
with the eye of the flesh which requires elevation
in order to perceive things located down below?
The thorough investigator can find enough similar
instances to convince himself that stories which
happened according to the letter are interspersed
with other events which did not actually occur.

(III, 2) When we come to the legislation of

Moses, if one attempts to observe it as it stands,
many laws speak nonsense and others command the
impossible. It makes no sense to forbid the eating
of vultures [Lev. 11:4]; even during the worst
famines the lack of food has never forced anyone
yet to resort to eating this animal. Or, there is the
command to cut off uncircumcised children of eight
days from their people; it really should be their
fathers or foster parents who ought to be killed if
any literal law at all had to be given for this case.
Yet Scripture actually says: "Any uncircumcised
male who is not circumcised on the eighth day
shall be cut off from his people" [Gen. 17:4].

If you wish to see impossible things being

commanded in the law, let me point out that the
goatstag (tragelaphos) is an example of an animal
which cannot exist; yet Moses decrees to sacrifice
it as a clean animal [Deut. 14:5]. Moreover, the
griffin is not reported ever to have fallen into
human hands; yet the lawgiver forbids eating it
[Deut. 14:12; Lev. 11:3]. Also, concerning the
much-discussed Sabbath (rest), if one is
scrupulous about the commandment, "sit down
every one of you in your homes; let no one of you
leave his place on the seventh day" [Exod. 16:29],
one will find it impossible to observe literally; no
creature can remain seated for a whole day and not
move from a sitting position. Therefore, the people
of the circumcision and all who maintain that
nothing beyond the literal reading of the text has
been revealed never bother to ask questions about
certain matters such as the goatstag, the griffin, and
the vulture. But about other things they chatter with
sophistical ingenuity, adducing silly traditions;
concerning the Sabbath, for example, they say that
each person's "place" measures two thousand
cubits. Others, the Samaritan Dositheos among
them, reject this interpretation and believe that one
must remain until evening in the very position in
which one has been caught by the Sabbath day. Just
as impossible is the command not to carry a burden
on the Sabbath [Jer. 17:22]. Concerning this matter
the teachers of the Jews have engaged in an
interminable argument, claiming that one kind of
footwear is a burden but another kind is not; the
sandal with hobnails is, but the sandal without
hobnails is not; a load carried on one shoulder is a
burden, but a load carried on both shoulders is not.

(III, 3) When we come to the Gospel and look for

parallels, what could be more unreasonable than
the command which simple minds think the Savior
gave to his apostles: "Salute no one on the road"
[Luke 10:4]? The saying about the right cheek
being struck [Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29] is also most
unlikely, for anyone who strikes would strike the
left cheek with the right hand unless he happened to
suffer from an unnatural condition. Moreover, it is
impossible to accept the Gospel notion of plucking
out the right eye if it causes offense [Matt. 5:29].
For even if we grant that someone might be
offended by seeing, why is only the right eye at
fault when both eyes see? Who, accusing himself
of looking lustfully at a woman [Matt. 5:28],
would attribute the fault to the right eye alone and
have a good reason to pluck it out? In fact, even the
apostle decrees (an impossibility) when he says:
"Was anyone already circumcised at the time of his
call? Let him not undo the marks of his
circumcision" [ 1 Cor. 7:18]. First, anyone who
pays attention will notice that this saying has no
connection with the subject under discussion. In the
context where the apostle is laying down rules
about marriage and celibacy the remark strikes one
as being thrown in at random. Second, who would
speak of wrongdoing if a person would undergo an
operation to have the marks of circumcision
removed, if possible, when circumcision is a
disgrace in the opinion of the multitude?

(111, 4) We mention all these examples in order

to show that the purpose of the divine power
offering us the holy Scriptures is not only that we
understand what the plain text presents to us, for,
taken literally, it is sometimes not only untrue but
even unreasonable and impossible. We wanted to
show also that some extraneous matter has been
woven into the historical narrative of actual events
and into the code of laws which are useful in their
literal sense. No one, however, should suspect us
of generalizing and saying that because a particular
story did not happen, no story actually happened;
or that, because a particular law is unreasonable or
impossible in its plain reading, no law should he
observed literally; or that the scriptural stories
about the Savior are untrue in terms of the physical
reality; or that none of the laws and commandments
which he gave ought to be obeyed. On the contrary,
it must be emphasized that the factual truth of the
historical narrative is presented to us quite clearly
in certain texts; for example that Abraham was
buried in the double cave at Hebron as were Isaac
and Jacob and one wife of each [Gen. 23:19; 25:9-
10; 49:29-32; 50:13]; that Shechem was given as a
portion to Joseph [Josh. 24:32; Gen. 48:22]; that
Jerusalem is the capital of Judea, and Solomon
built there a temple of the Lord [I Kings 6], and a
host of other instances. In fact, instances which are
true in terms of the historical narrative far
outnumber the purely spiritual texts which have
been woven in. Who would not admit that the
commandment, "honor your father and your mother
that it may be well with you" [Exod. 20:12], is
useful without any anagogy and ought to be kept,
when even the apostle Paul refers to it verbatim
[Eph. 6:2-3]? What more needs to be said about
the others: "You shall not kill; you shall not commit
adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear
false witness" [Exod. 20:13-161? Furthermore, we
find commandments in the Gospels about which we
do not even question whether or not they should be
observed literally, for example: "But I say to you,
everyone who is angry with his brother," and so on
[Matt. 5:221, and. "But I say to you, do not swear
at all" [Matt. 5:34]. Likewise, the word of the
apostle must be kept literally: "Admonish the idle,
encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be
patient with them all" [I Thess. 5:141, even though
each of these exhortations, without being set aside
in its literal meaning, may also preserve certain
"depths of the wisdom of God" [Rom. 11:331 for
the more ambitious.

(III, 5) The conscientious interpreter, however,

will be in a quandary in certain cases; he will be
unable to decide without painstaking examination
whether a particular incident claimed to he
historical actually happened as the text reads, or
whether the letter of a particular law should be
obeyed or not. The conscientious reader who
observes the Savior's command, "Search the
Scriptures!" [John 5:391 must therefore carefully
examine where the literal sense is true and where
it is impossible. He must search out as far as he
can the sense of those passages which are
impossible according to the plain text, a sense
scattered throughout Scripture, beginning his
examination with expressions resembling each
other. It will be clear to him that a serious effort
must be made to comprehend the sense of a text as
a whole when the textual sequence taken literally
is impossible, yet its primary sense is not
impossible but true. In such cases he must provide
the connection on the level of intelligible reality
between a statement impossible in its literal sense
and those statements which are not only possible
but true according to the historical narrative,
allegorizing the latter along with the texts which
did not happen according to the letter. For with
regard to divine Scripture as a whole we are of the
opinion that all of it has a spiritual sense, but not
all of it has a bodily sense. In fact, in many cases
the bodily sense proves to be impossible. This is
the reason so much diligence must be applied by
the person approaching the divine books reverently
as divine writings. To me, this mode of
understanding seems to be the correct one.

(III, 6) The biblical accounts state that on earth

God elected a nation which is given a variety of
names. As a whole, this nation is called Israel; it is
also called Jacob. When it was divided at the time
of Jeroboam son of Nabat, the ten tribes reportedly
under his rule took the name of Israel, while the
two others together with Levi, ruled by kings of
Davidic descent, took the name of Judah. The
entire area settled by the members of this nation
and given to them by God is called Judea. Its chief
city is Jerusalem, obviously the mother city
(metropolis) of several others whose names one
finds scattered in many places here and there but
combined into a single list in the (book of) Joshua
the son of Nun [Joshua 13-211. Against this
background, the apostle states somewhere, raising
our discursive insight to a higher level: "Consider
Israel according to the flesh" [ 1 Cor. 10:18]; he
implies that there may be also an Israel according
to the spirit. Elsewhere he says: "For it is not the
children of the flesh who are the children of God,
and not all who are descended from Israel are
Israel" [Rom. 9:8, 6]; and: "The one is not a real
Jew who is a Jew outwardly, nor is true
circumcision something external and physical. He
is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real
circumcision is a matter of the heart; in the spirit,
not in the letter" [Rom. 2:28-29]. Now, if the
criterion for the Jew is found in something inward,
we must understand that just as there is a race of
the Jews in the flesh, there is also a nation of the
Jews inwardly, the soul having acquired this noble
lineage through certain ineffable words. Moreover,
many prophecies speak of Israel and Judah,
predicting what will happen to them. Now, do
these great scriptural promises to them, unassuming
as their text may be and lacking any display of the
majesty and dignity of a promise from God, not
require mystical anagogy? Certainly, if these
promises refer to intelligible realities expressed
through sensible realities, the recipients of the
promises are not bodily either.

(III, 7) But let us not spend time on the discussion

of the "Jew inwardly" and the inner Israelite. What
has been said is sufficient for those whose mind is
not dull. Returning to our topic, we remind
ourselves that Jacob was the father of the twelve
patriarchs; they were the fathers of the clan
leaders, and these in turn became the fathers of the
successive generations of Israelites. Thus, the
bodily Israelites trace their origin back to the clan
leaders, the clan leaders to the patriarchs, and the
patriarchs to Jacob and his predecessors. Now, is
it not true also that the intelligible Israelites, of
whom the bodily Israelites are the type, derived
from clans, and the clans derived from tribes, and
the tribes from a single individual whose birth was
not a bodily one but one of a higher order? He was
born of Isaac who in turn descended from
Abraham, and all go back to Adam who is Christ,
as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:45]. For every
lineage ranking below the God of All traces its
origin to Christ. After the God and Father of All,
he is the father of every soul just as Adam is the
father of all human beings. If Paul could also
interpret Eve anagogically as the church (Eph.
5:31-32?], it is not astonishing, although in the
primary sense everyone is born of the church, that
there are apostasies from the church since Cain
was born of Eve and all succeeding generations go
back to Eve.

(III, 8) If that which we hear about Israel and its

tribes an¢ clans is startling, we cannot understand
the Savior's word, "I was sent only to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel" [Matt. 15:241, in the
manner of the Ebionites; they are poor in mental
capacity, deriving their name from their poor
intelligenceamong the Hebrews, ebi6n is the word
for a poor man. We do not suppose that Christ
came primarily for the fleshly Israelites. For "not
the children of the flesh are the children of God"
[Rom. 9:81. Moreover, about Jerusalem the
apostle teaches something like the following: "The
Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother" [Gal.
4:26], and in another epistle: "But you have come
to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in
festal gatherings, and to the assembly of the first-
born who are enrolled in heaven" [Heb. 12:22-
231. Now if there is an Israel in the world of souls
and a city of Jerusalem in heaven, it follows that
the cities of Israel, and consequently all Judea,
have as their mother city (metropolis) the
Jerusalem which is in heaven. Therefore, if we
listen to Paul as one speaking for God and
proclaiming wisdom, everything that is prophesied
and said about Jerusalem must be understood as
scriptural teaching about the heavenly city and its
whole region, comprising the cities of the holy
land. Perhaps the Savior points us to those cities
anagogically when he mentions his giving authority
over ten or five cities to those of whose
stewardship over their pounds he approves [Luke
19:17-19].

(III, 9) Now if the prophecies concerning Judea

and Jerusa lem, Israel, Judah, and Jacob suggest
mysteries of this kind when they are not taken in a
fleshly sense, it would follow that the same is true
of the prophecies concerning Egypt and the
Egyptians, Babylon and the Babylonians, Tyre and
the Tyreans, Sidon and the Sidonians, as well as
all the other nations; they refer not only to the
bodily Egyptians, Babylonians, Tyreans, and
Sidonians. If there are Israelites in the realm of
intelligibles, it follows that there are also
intelligible Egyptians and Babylonians. What
Ezekiel says about Pharaoh, king of Egypt [Ezekiel
29-32], does not really fit a person who ruled or
was to rule over Egypt, as careful observers will
notice. Likewise, his prophecy about the prince of
Tyre cannot be taken to refer to a particular
individual who was to rule over Tyre [Ezekiel
281. And how can one understand the things that
are said about Nebuchadnezzar in many places,
especially in Isaiah, to refer to that particular
individual? The historical Nebuchadnezzar did not
fall from heaven; he was not the morning star,
neither did he rise in the morning over the earth
[Isa. 14:121. Furthermore, when Ezekiel says of
Egypt that it will be laid waste for forty years so
that no human foot shall be found in it, and that it
will be torn by war so terribly that the blood will
flow knee-deep throughout the land [Ezekiel
29:10-12, 30-32], no intelligent person will
understand this to refer to the land of Egypt
bordering on the Ethiopians whose bodies are
blackened by the sun.

(Rufinus) Instead, we must consider whether

these passages cannot be understood in a more
appropriate way. Just as there is a heavenly
Jerusalem and Judea and no doubt a nation called
Israel living in it, so it is possible that there are
certain regions nearby called Egypt, Babylon,
1j're, or Sidon, and that their rulers and the souls
perhaps living there are called Egyptians,
Babylonians, Tyreans, and Sidonians. Among these
souls some ,.,nd of captivity seems to have
developed in accordance with the kind of life they
lead there: they have come down, it says, from
Judea to Babylon or to Egypt from better and
higher places or have been dispersed among some
other nations.

(Philocalia) (III, 10) We can perhaps say this:

Those who die the common death here on earth and
are judged to deserve placement in the so-called
Hades are classified according to their deeds
down here and are then assigned different places in
proportion to their sins. In the same way, those
who die up there, if I may say so, descend into this
(world as their) Hades and are judged to deserve
varying abodes, better or worse, all over the
region of this earth, with parents of one kind or
another. Thus, an Israelite sometimes may fall
among the Scythians, and an Egyptian may move
over into Judea. But the Savior came to gather the
lost sheep of the house of Israel [Matt. 15:241, and
since many Israelites did not follow his teaching,
the members of the (Gentile) nations are now
called as well.

(Jerome) We have just compared the souls which

descend from this world into the underworld to
those souls who died, as it were, when they came
down from a higher region to our habitations. Now
we must examine very carefully whether the same
can be said about the origin of individual souls.
The souls born here have either come up to a
higher world from the underworld and have taken a
human body out of a renewed desire for
improvement, or they have descended to us from
better places. In the same way, other souls
occupying the regions above in the firmament
either have progressed from our habitations to
better ones or have fallen from higher places as far
down as the firmament, but their sins were not so
great that they were thrown into the lower regions
which we inhabit.
 (Rufinus) The consequence seems to be that the
prophecies pronounced over individual nations
most likely refer to souls and their various
celestial abodes. But we must also scrutinize and
closely examine the historical accounts of events
which befell the people of Israel, Jerusalem, or
Judea, when one nation or another made war on
them. In a great many instances it is not certain that
they happened in a bodily sense. Therefore, we
must ask how these events might be more
appropriately applied to those nations of souls
who either were dwelling in that heaven which is
said to pass away, or must be assumed to dwell
there even now.

(III, 11) But if someone asks us for self-evident,

unambiguous proofs of these truths from the sacred
Scriptures; our answer must be that the Holy Spirit
decided to hide them more thoroughly and bury
them more deeply in stories which seem to present
historical accounts of actual events. These stories
tell of people descending into Egypt and being held
captive in Babylon, some being greatly humiliated
in those regions and being forced into the service
of slavemasters; they tell of others who rose to
such fame and honor in the very places of their
captivity that they achieved positions of power and
rulership and were placed in charge of nations to
govern them.

(Philocalia) All of this truth, we think, is hidden

in the historical accounts. For "the kingdom of
heaven is like treasure hidden in a field which the
finder covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells
all that he has and buys that field" [Matt. 13:441.
Let us consider whether this whole field
overgrown with all kinds of plants is not the
visible aspect of Scripture, that which lies on the
surface and is readily accessible; its rich contents,
however, which are not visible to all, are buried
under the visible vegetation, as it were; they are
the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge
[Col. 2:31 which the Spirit through the prophet
Isaiah calls "dark, invisible, and hidden." To find
them, we need the God who alone can "break in
pieces the doors of bronze" that hide them and can
"cut asunder the bars of iron fastened to the doors"
[Isa. 45:2-3]. Then all the truths hidden in Genesis
can be discovered: What is said there about the
various kinds of souls, authentic seeds, as it were,
either close to Israel or far off; or about the
descent of seventy souls into Egypt where they
became as numerous as the stars of heaven [Gen.
46:26-27; Deut. 10:22]. But since not all of their
descendants are the "light of the world" [Matt.
5:14], for "not all who are descended from Israel
are Israel" [Rom. 9:6], there has grown a posterity
from those seventy "as the innumerable grains of
sand by the seashore " [Heb. 1 1:12].

(Rufinus) (III, 12) We may look upon God's

providence as having permitted this descent of the
holy fathers into Egypt, that is, into this world, for
the enlightenment of others and the instruction of
the human race; through them other souls should be
enlightened and helped. They were the first to be
entrusted with the oracles of God [Rom. 3:21
because Israel is the only nation that is said to "see
God"; this is what the name Israel means in
translation. It follows that other stories must be
adapted and interpreted accordingly: Egypt being
struck by ten plagues so that it allows the people of
God to depart; certain events befalling the people
in the wilderness; the tabernacle being built and
the robe of the high priest being woven with the
contributions of the entire people; details being
mentioned about the vessels of the temple cult
since they really contain the shadow and type of
heavenly things, as Scripture puts it: Paul clearly
says of them that "they serve as a shadow and
image of heavenly things" [Heb. 8:51. Likewise,
this same law spells out the rules and regulations
by which the people must live in the holy land.
There are threats against those who transgress the
law. Furthermore, various kinds of ablutions are
prescribed for those who need purification; the
assumption is that they defile themselves time and
again, and the prescription is meant to bring them
finally to that one purification after which a person
can no longer defile himself.

Furthermore, a census is taken of the people

although not all are counted [Numbers 1]. The
child souls have not yet reached the age to be
counted according to the divine command. Neither
are those souls counted who cannot become the
head of another but are themselves subjected to
others as their head; Scripture calls them "women"
They are not included in the figures of that census
which God commands; only those are counted who
are called "men." This is intended to show that
women souls cannot be counted separately but are
included with those called "men." The census
extends first of all to those ready to go forth to war
for Israel. This means the ones who are able to
fight against those hostile forces and enemies
whom the Father subjects to the Son sitting at his
right hand that he may destroy every rule and every
power ] 1 Cor. 15:24, 27]. Through the number of
these men, his warriors, who, "serving as God's
soldiers do not get entangled in worldly pursuits"
12 Tim. 2:4], he will overturn the kingdoms of the
adversary. They are to carry the shields of faith
and to hurl the darts of wisdom; on them as their
helmet gleams the hope of salvation, and the
breastplate of love protects a bosom filled with
God. To me this seems to be the kind of soldiers
represented by those men who are ordered in the
divine books to be counted according to God's
command, and this the kind of warfare for which
they prepare.

But much more exalted and perfect than these are

the ones of whom it is said that even the hairs of
their head are numbered (Matt. 10:301. On the
other hand, those who were punished for their sins
and whose bodies fell in the wilderness seem to
symbolize the souls which made considerable
progress but for various reasons were unable to
reach the goal of perfection: they murmured,
worshiped idols, and committed fornication, as
Scripture says, or did abominable things which the
mind should not be allowed even to conceive [cf. 1
Cor. 10:1 ff.1.

To me, even a detail like the following does not

seem devoid of all mystery: Certain Israelites,
owners of large herds of cattle and other animals,
go ahead and snatch up beforehand a tract of land
well suited for pasture and as grazing ground for
their cattle; it was the first territory the right hand
of the Israelite army had defended [Num. 32:1ff.].
They ask Moses for this land and live a separate
existence on the other side of the Jordan River, cut
off from the possession of the holy land. Taken as a
symbol of heavenly realities, this Jordan can be
seen as watering and inundating thirsty souls and
senses next to it.

Even the following instance will not seem

superfluous: Moses hears from God all the things
which are written down in the laws of Leviticus;
but in Deuteronomy the people become hearers of
Moses and learn from him what they could not hear
from God. Therefore, as a "second law," it is
called Deuteronomy [Deut. 5:1ff.]. For a number of
readers this will mean that at the cessation of the
first law given by Moses, a second body of law
seems to have emerged which Moses transmitted
personally to Joshua, his successor. Joshua is
generally believed to represent a type of our
Savior whose second law, that is, the precepts of
the Gospel, brings everything to perfection.

(III, 13) We must examine, however, whether

perhaps this instance is not rather an indication of
something else. Just as in Deuteronomy the body of
law is set down more clearly and openly than in its
first written form, so the advent of the Savior
which he lived out in lowliness, taking upon
himself the form of a servant [Phil. 2:71, may point
forward to his more splendid and glorious second
advent when he will come in the glory of his
Father; in this advent the type of Deuteronomy will
find its fulfillment, when all the saints will live by
the laws of that eternal gospel in the kingdom of
heaven. And just as in his present coming he
fulfilled the law which displays a shadow of the
good things to come [Heb. 10:1], so the shadow of
this coming will find its fulfillment and perfection
in that glorious (second) advent. For the prophet
said about him: "The breath of our face is Christ
the Lord of whom we said: Under his shadow we
shall live among the nations" [Lam. 4:201; this
will occur at the time when he will transfer all the
saints in a more worthy manner from the temporal
gospel to the "eternal gospel" according to the
designation used by John in his Revelation [Rev.
14:6].

(Jerome) We may even want to extend our inquiry

to the passion of our Lord and Savior. It may be
daring and audacious to seek his passion in
heaven. But if there are "spiritual hosts of
wickedness in the heavenly places" [Eph. 6:121
and we are not ashamed to confess the cross of the
Lord as bringing destruction upon those powers
which he destroyed by his passion, why should we
be afraid to assume something similar at the
consummation of the ages in the higher regions so
that nations of all regions will be saved by his
passion?

(Rufinus) (III, 14) In considering all of this,

however, it should be sufficient for us to conform
our understanding to the rule of piety and to think
of the words of the Holy Spirit without expecting
the brilliance of a well-composed speech
reflecting a rhetoric devised by human frailty. As it
is written: "All the glory of the king is within" [Ps.
44:14, LXX], and the treasure of divine meanings
remains enshrined in the frail vessel of the humble
letter. Should someone be more curious and seek
an explanation of specific details, let him come
and listen with us to Paul as he scrutinizes the
depths of divine wisdom and knowledge with the
help of the Holy Spirit who "searches even the
depths of God"; still unable to reach the goal and
to arrive at innermost knowledge, if I may say so,
he cries out in desperation and utter amazement: "0
the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge
of God!" [Rom. 11:33]. One can gather from his
own words how deeply he despaired of perfect
com prehension: "How unsearchable are his
judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" Paul did
not say that it is difficult to search out the
judgments of God but that it is impossible; he did
not say that God's ways are difficult to fathom but
that they cannot be fathomed at all. One may move
ahead in one's search and make progress by an
ever more intense effort. One may have the
assistance of the grace of God enlightening one's
mind. Still, one cannot arrive at the perfect goal,
reaching that which is sought. No created mind has
the ability to comprehend completely. But as our
mind discovers some small part of the goal it
seeks, it notices other problems which call out for
investigation; and when it comes to terms with
them, it sees many more problems arising from
them which must be explored. This is why one of
the wisest, Solomon, contemplating the nature of
things by wisdom, had to confess: "I said: I will
become wise. But wisdom itself was far from me,
farther than it had been; who will find out its
profound depth?" [Eccles. 7:23-241. There is also
Isaiah who knows that the beginning of things
cannot be grasped by mortal nature, not even by
natures who, though they are more divine than
human beings, are nevertheless themselves made
or created. Knowing that none of them can grasp
either beginning or end, he issues the challenge:
"Tell us the former things, what they were, and we
shall know that you are gods; announce the last
things, what they are; then we will see that you are
gods!" [Isa. 41:22-231.

Concerning this topic, a Hebrew scholar taught

me the following tradition: Since no one except the
Lord Jesus Christ alone and the Holy Spirit can
comprehend the beginning and the end of all things,
therefore Isaiah, he said, made the point through
the image of his vision that there are just two
seraphim: with two wings they cover the face of
God, with two they cover his feet, and with two
they fly, each calling out to the other and saying:
"Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth; the whole earth is
full of your glory" [Isa. 6:2-31. Now, since these
two seraphim alone hold their wings over the face
of God and over his feet, we must dare to state that
neither the hosts of holy angels, nor the holy
thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers can
fully know the beginning of all things and the ends
of the universe. Still, we must understand that these
holy spirits and powers which we have listed are
indeed very close to the beginnings and attain a
measure of knowledge which others are unable to
reach. Yet however much these powers may have
learned through the revelation of the Son of God
and of the Holy Spirit-indeed they are able to
know a great deal, the higher powers even far
more than the lower ones-it is still impossible for
them to comprehend everything, since it is written:
"Most of God's works remain in secret" (Sir.
16:21].

One would wish, therefore, that everyone might

do whatever is in his power always to strain
forward to that which lies ahead, forgetting what
lies behind (Phil. 3:131. Everyone should strive
for better deeds as well as purer insight and
understanding through Jesus Christ our Savior, to
whom belongs glory forever.

(111, 15) Therefore, everyone who cares about

truth should be not much concerned about names
and words, since individual nations have their
different linguistic usage. One should pay more
attention to the meaning than to the words by which
meaning is expressed, especially in such weighty
and difficult matters. This applies, for instance,
when the question is asked whether there is a
substance in which neither color, nor shape, nor
touch, nor size can be distinguished, a substance
perceptible only to the mind which everyone calls
as he pleases. The Greeks call it asomaton, that is,
incorporeal, but holy Scripture uses the term
invisible. The Apostle declares that God is
invisible since he calls Christ "the image of the
invisible God" [Col. 1:15]. But he also says that
through Christ "all things were created, visible and
invisible" [Col. 1:16]; this amounts to an
affirmation that even among creatures there are
some substances which, by the property of their
own nature, are invisible. But although they are not
themselves corporeal, they use bodies despite their
superiority over the corporeal substance. When it
comes to the substance of that Trinity, however,
which is the first principle and cause of everything,
since from it and through it and in it are all things
[cf. Rom. 11:36], one must believe that it is neither
a body nor in a body but wholly incorporeal.

What we have said here briefly, by way of

digression but fol lowing the logic of the subject
matter, may in itself suffice to show that there are
realities whose meaning cannot be properly
expressed by any words of human language; it is
affirmed by a simpler act of intellectual
comprehension rather than by any properties words
may have. This truth must also determine our
understanding of the divine writings. What they say
should not he judged by the lowliness of the verbal
expression but by the divinity of the Holy Spirit
who inspired their composition.
VI.
 "Papyrus Michigan
Inv. 3718
CHRISTIAN ALLEGORIZATIONS

(Matt. 19:24) It is easier for a camel to go through

the eye of a needle than for a rich man (to enter)
the kingdom of heaven.

The camel is Judas;

the needle's eye, salvation;

the rich man, the devil.

(Matt. 13:33) The kingdom of heaven is like

leaven which a woman took and hid in three
measures of meal.
 The leaven is the Spirit;

the woman, Mary;

the meal, the body;

..... Christ;

the three measures, the tomb.

From John

(John 2:1) On the third day there was a marriage at

Cana in Galilee.

The day is Christ;

the third, faith;

the wedding, the calling of the

Gentiles;

Cana, the church.

From Luke

(Luke 3:8) God is able to raise up children for

Abraham even from these stones.

The stones are the Gentiles;

the children, the apostles;

Abraham, Christ.

From Proverbs

(Prov. 13:14) The law of the wise is a fountain of

life.

The law is the proclamation;

the wise man, Paul;

the fountain of life, Christ.

From the Wisdom of Sirach [?]

(Prov. 14:1) Wise women built their houses.

The wise women are the

churches;

the houses, the holy fathers.

(Prov. 10:1) A wise son makes a glad father, but a

foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.

The wise son is Paul;

the father, the Savior;

the foolish, Judas;

the mother, the church.

(Prov. 14:16) A wise man is cautious and turns

away from evil.

The wise man (is) Paul;

After his conversion, he fled the

 ....

(Prov. 15:21) A man of understanding walks aright.

The man of understanding is Paul;

the right one, Christ.

(Prov. 16:2) All the works of the humble man are

manifest before God, but the wicked perish on the
evil day.

The humble man is Paul;

the wicked, the Jews.

(Prow. 15:7) The lips of the wise are devoted to

perception.

The lips are the prophets;

the wise, the apostles;

perception, Christ.
(Prov. 14:7) The weapons of knowledge are wise
lips.

The weapons are the apostles;

the lips, Christ;

wise, the gospels.

From Proverbs

(Prov. 15:2) The tongue of wise men understands

beautiful things.

The tongue is Peter;

the wise men, the apostles;

Peter understands beautiful things,

for he said: You are the Son of
God.
(Prov. IS: 7) The lips of the wise are devoted to
perception.

The lips are the prophets;

the wise, the apostles;

perception, Christ.

(Prov. 16:22) The fountain of life is

understanding...

(Prov. 16:13) Righteous lips are pleasing to the

king.

The king is Christ;

the righteous lips, the apostles.

(Prov. 16:26) A man troubles himself in his labors

and drives out his perdition.
 The man is Christ;

the labors, the afflictions which

he underwent;

the perdition, sin.

(Prov. 16:32) He who controls his anger is better

(than he who takes a city)... .
VII.
 Diodore of Tarsus
COMMENTARY ON THE
PSALMS,
PROLOGUE
According to the blessed Paul, "all Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in
righteousness" 12 Tim. 3:161. Indeed, Scripture
teaches what is useful, exposes what is sinful,
corrects what is deficient, and thus it completes the
perfect human being; for Paul adds: "that the man
of God may be complete, equipped for every good
work" [v. 17). Certainly, one would not he
mistaken in concluding that all this praise of holy
Scripture is also applicable to the book of holy
psalms. This book teaches righteousness in a gentle
and suitable manner to those who are willing to
learn; it reproves kindly and without harshness
those who are too presumptuous; it corrects
whatever regrettable mistakes we make unwittingly
or even deliberately.

This understanding, however, does not impress

itself upon us in the same way when we are just
chanting the psalms as when we find ourselves in
those very same situations which suggest to us our
need for the psalms. Of course, those who need
only the psalms of thanksgiving because life has
been exceedingly kind to them are very fortunate.
But we are human, and it is impossible for us not
to experience difficulties and encounter the forces
of necessity rising both from without and from
within ourselves. Thus, when our souls find in the
psalms the most ready formulation of the concerns
they wish to bring before God, they recognize them
as a wonderfully appropriate remedy. For the Holy
Spirit anticipated all kinds of human situa tions,
setting forth through the most blessed David the
proper words for our sufferings through which the
afflicted may find healing. Thus, whatever we treat
lightly when merely chanting the psalms and grasp
only superficially at first, we come to understand
and own when we encounter the forces of necessity
and affliction. In an almost natural fashion the very
wound in us attracts the proper remedy, and the
remedy adapts itself in turn, expressing the
corresponding sentiment.

Therefore, I thought it might be proper for me to

offer a concise exposition of the subjects of this
very necessary part of Scripture, I mean the
psalms, as I myself have received it: an exposition
of the arguments as they fit the psalms individually,
and an explanation of their plain text. In this way,
the brothers should find no occasion to be carried
away by the words when they chant, or to have
their minds occupied with other things because
they do not understand the meaning. Rather,
grasping the logical coherence of the words, they
should be able to "sing intelligently" as it is
written [Ps. 44:8b, LXXj, from the depth of their
mind, not from shallow sentiments or just with the
tip of their tongues.

Now the subject matter of the psalter in general is

divided into two categories: ethical and doctrinal.
In addition, the ethical category has the following
subdivisions: Some of the psalms correct the moral
behavior of the individual, others of the Jewish
people only, still others of all human beings in
general. Our detailed commentary will specify to
which group each psalm belongs..It also will point
out two subcategories within the doctrinal subject
matter. Some psalms argue against the idea that all
beings are self-moved, others against the claim that
not all beings are subject to divine providence.
Now the advocate of the opinion that they are self-
moved automatically assumes that they are not
subject to divine providence either. But the skeptic
who denies that they are subject to divine
providence does not necessarily imply that they are
also self-moved. He may, in fact, confess a creator
of the universe under whatever name he gives him;
but he will either strip him of providence
altogether or restrict his providence to celestial
phenomena. Against such opinions, the psalms
present their proofs that all being has one and the
same God and creator, that his providence extends
even to the smallest things, and that nothing which
owes him its existence escapes his continuing
providence. It is not true that God was concerned
only about his power to create small and
insignificant things but cared little about exercising
providence over his weakest creatures; or that,
because of the absolute preeminence of his own
worth, he relinquished his concern for things
whose creator he did not disdain to be. In
following our detailed commentary, the reader will
certainly recognize this category of psalms.

Still another subject appears in the psalms: the

Babylonian captivity. Here again we have a
subdivision, or rather, several subdivisions. Some
of these psalms seem to be spoken by people
facing deportation, others by people already in
captivity, others by people hoping to return, still
others by people who have returned. There are
also other psalms describing past events in which,
for the benefit of later generations, the prophet
recalls what happened in Egypt and in the desert.
There are even Maccabean psalms, some spoken in
the person of specific individuals such as Onias
and leaders like him; others in the collective
person of all Israelites enduring the sufferings of
that time. There are still other psalms which fit
Jeremiah and Ezekiel specifically. Even these,
however, belong to the predictive genre. For some
of them reveal misfortunes which were going to
come upon the nation on account of its numerous
sins; some announce the incredible wonders which
were to follow upon such misfortunes. There is a
great variety in their composition corresponding to
the variety of those future events, for the Holy
Spirit was providing a remedy in advance for
those who suffered.

But we do not want to bore our readers who wish

to get to the detailed commentary on individual
psalms by keeping them busy with this great
variety of subjects. Therefore, let us stop here and
move on to the texts themselves. We only want to
remind the brothers of one more preliminary point,
though they know it already: The entire prophetic
genre is subject to the threefold division into
future, present, and past. For even Moses' account
of the events concerning Adam and of the very
early times from the beginning on is prophecy. By
the same token, the disclosure of hidden things in
the present is equally prophetic; an example is
Peter's knowledge of the theft of Ananias and
Sapphira [Acts 5:1-11 ]. Most prominent,
however, is the prophecy predicting future events,
sometimes many generations in advance. Thus, the
prophets predicted the coming of Christ, and the
apostles the acceptance of the Christian faith by the
Gentiles and its rejection by the Jews.

Let us begin now, following the order of items in

the Book of Psalms itself, not the order of events
which they reflect. For the psalms are not arranged
in chronological order but in the order of their
discovery. Numerous psalms will provide
evidence of this, most strikingly a comparison of
the inscription of Psalm 3, "A Psalm of David
when he fled from the face of his son Absalom,"
with the inscription of Psalm 143, "A song against
Goliath." Who does not know that the Goliath
episode occurred much earlier than the events
concerning Absalom? The psalms suffered much
displacement because the book was accidentally
lost during the Babylonian captivity. Afterwards,
about the time of Ezra, it was rediscovered, though
not the whole book at once but piecemeal-one,
two, or perhaps three psalms at a time. These were
then reassembled in the order in which they were
found, not as they were arranged originally. Hence,
even the inscriptions are mostly incorrect; more
often than not, the collectors tried to guess the
context of the psalms they found but did not treat
them according to a scholarly method.

Nevertheless, with the help of God, we shall

attempt an explanation even of these errors as far
as this is possible. We will not shrink from the
truth but will expound it according to the historical
substance (historia) and the plain literal sense
(lexis). At the same time, we will not disparage
anagogy and the higher theoria. For history is not
opposed to theoria. On the contrary, it proves to be
the foundation and the basis of the higher senses.
One thing is to be watched, however: theoria must
never be understood as doing away with the
underlying sense; it would then be no longer
theoria but allegory. For wherever anything else is
said apart from the foundational sense, we have not
theoria but allegory. Even the apostle did not
discard history at any point although he could
introduce theoria and call it allegory [cf. Gal.
4:28). He was not ignorant of the term but was
teaching us that, if the term "allegory" is judged by
its conceptual content, it must be taken in the sense
of theoria, not violating in any way the nature of
the historical substance. But those who pretend to
"improve" Scripture and who are wise in their
own conceit have introduced allegory because they
are careless about the historical substance, or they
simply abuse it. They follow not the apostle's
intention but their own vain imagination, forcing
the reader to take one thing for another. Thus they
read "demon" for abyss, "devil" for dragon, and
soon. I stop here so that I will not be compelled to
talk foolishly myself in order to refute foolishness.

While repudiating this (kind of interpretation)

once and for all, we are not prevented from
"theorizing" responsibly and from lifting the
conceptual content into higher anagogy. We may
compare, for example, Cain and Abel to the Jewish
synagogue and the church; we may attempt to show
that like Cain's sacrifice the Jewish synagogue was
rejected, while the offerings of the church are
being well received as was Abel's offering at that
time; we may interpret the unblemished sacrificial
lamb required by the law as the Lord. This method
neither sets aside history nor repudiates theoria.
Rather, as a realistic, middle-ofthe-road approach
which takes into account both history and theoria,
it frees us, on the one hand, from a Hellenism
which says one thing for another and introduces
foreign subject matter; on the other hand, it does
not yield to Judaism and choke us by forcing us to
treat the literal reading of the text as the only one
worthy of attention and honor, while not allowing
the exploration of a higher sense beyond the letter
also. In summary, this is what the person
approaching the interpretation of the divine psalms
ought to know.
VIII.
 Diodore of Tarsus
PREFACE TO THE
COMMENTARY
ON PSALM 118
In any approach to holy Scripture, the literal
reading of the text reveals some truths while the
discovery of other truths requires the application
of theoria. Now, given the vast difference between
historia and theoria, allegory and figuration (tro-
pologia) or parable (parabole), the interpreter
must classify and determine each figurative
expression with care and precision so that the
reader can see what is history and what is theoria,
and draw his conclusions accordingly.

Above all, one must keep in mind one point

which I have stated very clearly in my prologue to
the psalter: Holy Scripture knows the term
"allegory" but not its application. Even the blessed
Paul uses the term: "This is said by way of
allegory, for they are two covenants" [Gal. 4:251.
But his use of the word and his application is
different from that of the Greeks.

The Greeks speak of allegory when something is

understood in one way but said in another. Since
one or two examples must be mentioned for the
sake of clarity, let me give an example. The Greeks
say that Zeus, changing himself into a bull, seized
Europa and carried her across the sea to foreign
places. This story is not understood as it reads but
is taken to mean that Europa was carried across the
sea having boarded a ship with a bull as
figurehead. A real bull could not possibly swim
such a distance across the ocean. This is allegory.
Or another example: Zeus called Hera his sister
and his wife. The plain text implies that Zeus had
intercourse with his sister Hera so that the same
person was both his wife and his sister. This is
what the letter suggests; but the Greeks allegorize
it to mean that, when ether, a fiery element, mingles
with air, it produces a certain mixture which
influences events on earth. Now, since air adjoins
ether, the text calls these elements brother and
sister because of their vicinity, but husband and
wife because of their mixture. Of such kind are the
allegories of the Greeks. The above examples
should suffice lest, with all this allegory, I as an
interpreter fall into foolishness myself as I
mentioned earlier.

Holy Scripture does not speak of allegory in this

way. In what way then does it speak? Let me
explain briefly. Scripture does not repudiate in any
way the underlying prior history but "theorizes,"
that is, it develops a higher vision (theoria) of
other but similar events in addition, without
abrogating history. As a test case, let us consider
the very text of the apostle quoted above. This will
be the most effective demonstration of our
affirmation that the apostle means this theoria when
he speaks of allegory. Based on the historical
account of Isaac and Ishmael and their mothers, I
mean Sarah and Hagar, Paul develops the higher
theoria in the following way: He understands
Hagar as Mount Sinai but Isaac's mother as the free
Jerusalem, the future mother of all believers. The
fact that the apostle "theorizes" in this way does
not mean that he repudiates the historical account.
For who could persuade him to say that the story of
Hagar and Sarah was untrue? With the historical
account as his firm foundation, he develops his
theoria on top of it; he understands the underlying
facts as events on a higher level. It is this
developed theoria which the apostle calls allegory.
As we said, he is aware of the term "allegory" but
does not at all accept its application. I have
expressed this conviction in my prologue to the
psalter already, but for the sake of clarity it bears
repetition here.

Figuration (tropologia) is present when, in

describing an event, the prophet turns words with
an obvious meaning into an expanded illustration
of what he is saying. The figurative expression is
then clarified by the continuation of the text. For
instance, David says of the people: "You (God)
removed a vine from Egypt" [Ps. 79:9, LXXI; then,
having identified the people with the vine and
leaving no doubt by adding, "you drove away the
nations and transplanted it," he continues
describing the people as if he were speaking of a
vine. He mentions that the vine grew and unfolded
its shoots [vv. 10-121; he asks: "Why have you
broken down its hedge so that all who pass by on
their way pick its fruits?" [v. 13] and then adds: "A
wild boar from the thicket has laid it waste" [v.
14]. Now it is quite clear that this is a covert
allusion to Antiochus Epiphanes who brought great
harm upon the Maccabees, yet at the same time the
prophet continues his figure; speaking of the
people as a vine, he calls Antiochus a wild boar
who tramples down the vine. Isaiah also uses this
figure of the people, calling them a vineyard and
saying: "My friend had a vineyard on the hillside
on fertile ground. I surrounded it with a wall and
fenced it in," and so on [Isa. 5:1-2]. At the very
end, clarifying the figurative character of the
account, or rather of his prophecy, he adds: "For
the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of
Israel, and the man of Judah is his beloved
plantation. I waited for him to execute judgment but
he acted lawlessly; instead of righteousness there
was an outcry" [v. 7]. This is figuration
(tropologia).

A parabolic expression (parabole) is easy to

recognize when it follows upon an introductory
"like" or "as." To give some examples: "Like water
I am poured out and all my hones are scattered"
[Ps. 21:15, LXXJ; or "I have become to them like a
dead abomination" [Ps. 37:2, LXX, varia lectioI.
There are many instances which follow this
pattern. Often, however, Scripture speaks
parabolically even without this introduction. It
says, for instance: "You have made my arm a
brazen bow" [Ps. 17:35, LXX) instead of "like a
brazen bow"; or: "And when Abraham looked up
with his eyes, he saw three men" [Gen. 18:2]
instead of "something resembling three men" In
these cases, Scripture formulates parables by way
of ellipsis, omitting the word "like." Frequently,
Scripture also calls a narrative or a teaching
"parable," for instance, when we read: "I will
open my mouth in a parable, I will utter problems
from the beginning" [Ps. 77:2, LXX]. Here the
author's teaching, or at least the narrative. is called
a parable. Actually, the parable itself may
sometimes be called a "problem." Thus, it is even
possible to speak of a problem as an "enigma":
Samson proposed such a "problem" to the
Philistines, or rather to the Palestinians-the
Philistines are in fact the Palestinians-by saying:
"Out of the eater came forth food and out of the
strong one came forth sweetness" L)udg. 14:141.
He would have defeated the Palestinians had he
not been betrayed, being unable to resist his lust
for women, so that his sophisticated problem
ended up being foolishness. This is the language of
parable and problem, sometimes introduced by
"like" or "as," sometimes not.

One would probably classify much of the

material in the hooks of Moses as enigmas
(ainigmata) rather than allegories. When the author
writes: "The serpent said to the woman"; "the
woman said to the serpent"; "God said to the
serpent," we have enigmas. Not that there was no
serpent; indeed there was a serpent, but the devil
acted through it. Moses speaks of the serpent as the
visible animal but under this cover hints at the
devil in a hidden way. If this was allegory, only the
word "serpent" should he there as we explained
earlier. The truth is that there was both a reality
and an enigma. The reality was the serpent but,
since a serpent is by nature irrational and yet was
speaking, it is obvious that it spoke empowered by
the devil. (Christ), who has the authority to reveal
mysteries and enigmas, points this out in the
gospels when he says of the devil: "He was a
murderer from the beginning and has not stood in
the truth . . . , for he is a liar and the father of it"
(John 8:441. This phrase, "and the father of it," is-
very apt, for the devil was the first one to lie as
well as the one who begot lying. Therefore Christ
adds, "and the father of it," instead of saying, "the
lie in person" Now the Lord was able to clarify
enigmas; the prophets and apostles could only
report realities. Therefore, both Moses and the
Apostle Paul said "serpent" The latter puts it this
way: "I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by its
guile, so your minds may be corrupted" 12 Cor.
11:3]; here he also hints at the devil by mentioning
the serpent. The serpent is not a rational animal for
him but points enigmatically to the devil acting
through it. Scheming is not the action of an
irrational animal but of a rational being. Our brief
remarks here must suffice on the topic of these
figurative expressions. We have mentioned only a
few points among many, leaving room for
industrious scholars to make further points on the
basis of similar examples.

In contrast, history (historia) is the pure account

of an actual event of the past. It is authentic if it is
not interwoven with the speaker's reflections,
extraneous episodes, characterizations or fictitious
speeches as is, for example, the story of job. A
plain, clear, and concise historical account does
not weary the reader with reflections of the author
and long characterizations.

Let this be enough on this mode of expression.

But since, by the grace of God, 1 intend to interpret
the 118th psalm, I had to discuss in detail the
above-mentioned modes of expression, as this
psalm contains many of them. Therefore, I had to
give my readers a clear statement about them in the
preface already in order to alert them to the fact
that some parts of the psalms are meant to be taken
literally while others are figurative expressions,
parables, or enigmas. What is emphatically not
present is allegory. Of course, some interpreters
have fancied that it is. They brush aside any
historical understanding, introduce foolish fables
of their own making in place of the text, and burden
their readers' ears, leaving their minds devoid of
pious thoughts. If they said that, being an utterance
of God, this psalm accompanies generations of
human beings, conforming itself to events both
actual and on a higher plane, their interpretation
would be quite correct. I am attempting to say
something like this: In predicting future events, the
prophets adapted their words both to the time in
which they were speaking and to later times. Their
words sounded hyperbolic in their contemporary
setting but were entirely fitting and consistent at the
time when the prophecies were fulfilled. For the
sake of clarity there is nothing wrong with
stressing this point more than once.

Historically, Psalm 29 was spoken by Hezekiah

at the occasion of his deliverance from an illness
and from the threat of war with the Assyrians [2
Kings 19-20]. These are his words after he was
delivered from those ills: "I will extol you, 0 Lord,
for you have protected me and have not let my foes
rejoice over me. 0 Lord, my God, I cried to you
and you have healed me. 0 Lord, you have brought
up my soul from Hades, you have rescued me from
those who go down to the pit" [Ps.29: 1-3, LXX].
Now these words did fit Hezekiah when he was
delivered from his ills; but they also fit all human
beings when they obtain the promised resurrection.
For at that moment it will be timely for everyone to
say to God what Hezekiah said: "I will extol you, 0
Lord, for you have protected me and have not let
my foes rejoice over me." In Hezekiah's case, the
foes were the Assyrians and those who rejoiced
over his illness; the primary foes of all human
beings are physical sufferings, death itself, and the
devil, the whole range of experiences connected
with mortality. Again, when the psalm continues:
"O Lord, my God, I cried to you and you have
healed me; Lord, you have brought up my soul from
Hades," Hezekiah seems to have used hyperbole to
describe his own situation; he was not actually
rescued from Hades but from circumstances
comparable to Hades on account of his very
serious illness. But what sounded hyperbolical at
that time, "you have brought up my soul from
Hades," will fit his situation much more precisely
when he rises from the dead. The same applies to
the following verse: "You have rescued me from
those who go down to the pit." It is quite clear that
by the pit the author means death, but when he first
uttered these words, they were used
hyperbolically. When he actually rises from the
dead, the former hyperbole will come true; the
events themselves will have moved in the direction
of the formerly hyperbolic expression. One will
find more or less all utterances of the saints to be
of this kind when one observes how they are made
to fit the events of their own time but are also
adapted to the events of the future. For this is the
grace of the Spirit who gives eternal and
imperishable gifts to human beings; I am speaking
of the divine words which are capable of being
adapted to every moment in time, down to the final
perfection of human beings.

In the same way, Psalm 84 was pronounced in the

person of those Israelites who had returned from
Babylon. It says: "Lord, you were favorable to
your land, you have brought back the captivity of
Jacob; you forgave your people their iniquity," and
so on [Ps. 84:1-2, LXXI. These words were
certainly fitting at the time of Israel's return; but
they will he even more suitable at the resurrection
when, freed from our mortality, we shall be
liberated from all sins even more truly. Now if one
understands Psalm 118 in this way, namely, as
fitting (the circumstances) of those who first
uttered it as well as those who come after them,
one is entirely correct. But this is not a case of
allegory; rather, it is a statement adaptable to many
situations according to the grace of him who gives
it power. This great, rich, and beautiful psalm was
pronounced in the person of the saints in Babylon
who were longing to return to Jerusalem on
account of the divine laws and the holy mysteries
celebrated there, and who were emboldened to
make such petitions by their pious lives. A man
caught up in sin cannot pray for all his wishes
except perhaps for deliverance from his ills; his
conscience does not allow him to pray for greater
gifts because it means sufficient grace for him if he
is set free from his present ills. Therefore, the
prayer of great and more saintly people is
supported by lives accompanied by virtue. It is
their virtues which allow them to make their
request boldly.

Now, if this is the subject of the psalm and

someone says that Psalm 118 fits all saints
everywhere and that one should always pray to
God for the general resurrection, as the exiles in
Babylon prayed for their return to Jerusalem, this
is no violation of propriety. Being so rich and
lavish, the psalm adapted itself readily to the
exiles in Babylon for their request and prayer, but
it adapts itself even more precisely to those who
fervently long for the general resurrection. Now
the understanding of such a theoria must be left to
those endowed with a fuller charism. For the
purpose of our exposition, let us concentrate on the
historical prayer of the saints, the prayer about
Jerusalem. But if anyone should doubt that there
were saints in that captivity, he is totally mistaken.
Yes, there were many saints; some of them were
famous, others turned to the Lord humble and
unknown, suffering no harm by being unknown to
the world. Paul says about them: "Many went about
in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-
treated," and adds: "of whom the world was not
worthy" (Heb. 11:37-381. He has added this
clause so that no one may wonder why they were
not known. There was no harm in being unknown,
but the world proved unworthy of knowing such
saints. There were, however, famous people also-I
mean in Babylon-outstanding in piety and virtue,
men such as Daniel and the three youths, Ezekiel,
Zerubbabel, Jesus son of Jozadak, Ezra, and others
like them. But this psalm is on the lips of all saints
in captivity or on the way home. They all teach us
that it is the practice of virtue and piety above all
which has the strength and power to render our
prayers effective before God. Thus, David the
prophet begins the psalm with these words:
"Blessed are those who are blameless in their
way," and so on [Ps. 118: 1, LXX].
IX.
 `TI eodore of Mopsuestia
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS
4:22-31
It is written that Abraham had two
sons, one by a slave woman and
one by a free woman. But the son
of the slave woman was born
according to the flesh, the son of
the free woman by virtue of a
promise. [Gal. 4:22-231

Paul pointed out earlier that the law can have

nothing in common with the promises because the
law demands the hearer's obedience, while the
promise proves the giver's generosity. He was
eager, however, to establish the principle of grace
firmly throughout. Therefore, he mentioned faith
and the promises in one breath with those benefits
we hope to obtain. Over against all this he placed
the law, which seems to offer righteousness almost
as an automatic result when it promises to offer
these benefits to those who fulfill the law's
demands first. But it defrauds many-virtually all, to
be more precise-because those who strive to fulfill
the law find it impossible to do so. Paul therefore
stresses very much that the righteousness coming
through grace is better than the righteousness
coming from the law; God offers it in his
generosity and no one is excluded because of his
natural infirmity. He now repeats the same point,
which he had already made in the preceding
section, using a comparison from the Abraham
story-that Abraham had two sons, one of them born
following the course of nature, the other through
grace. "For it is written that Abraham had two
sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free
woman. But the son of the slave woman was born
according to the flesh" [Gal. 4:22]. This means he
was born in the natural order. Paul uses the term,
"according to the flesh," since all flesh takes part
in a birth according to nature. Ishmael also was
born in the natural order of the flesh both with
regard to Abraham and with regard to Hagar. On
the other hand, the son of the free woman was born
according to the promise, that is, according to
grace, for all promises are normally made by
grace. If one follows the order of nature, Isaac
cannot be said to have been born at all because
Sarah was unable to give birth for two reasons:
she suffered from sterility, and she was too old for
childbirth. Even Abraham was of a quite advanced
age. But Isaac was born against all hope and
against the order of nature by virtue of the power
and generosity of the giver of the promise alone.
Thus, having rehearsed the Abraham story as one
reads it in the divine Scriptures and at the same
time wishing to make clear why he is using it, Paul
adds: "This is said by way of allegory" [v. 241.

There are people who take great pains to twist

the senses of the divine Scriptures and make
everything written therein serve their own ends.
They dream up some silly fables in their own
heads and give their folly the name of allegory.
They (mis)use the apostle's term as a blank
authorization to abolish all meanings of divine
Scripture. They make it a point to use the same
expression as the apostle, "by way of allegory," but
fail to understand the great difference between that
which they say and what the apostle says here. For
the apostle neither does away with history nor
elaborates on events that happened long ago.
Rather, he states the events just as they happened
and then applies the historical account of what
occurred there to his own understanding. For
instance, he says at one point: "She corresponds to
the present Jerusalem" [v. 25], and at another: "Just
as at that time he who was born according to the
flesh persecuted him who was born according to
the Spirit" [v. 29]. Paul gives history priority over
all other considerations. Otherwise, he would not
say that Hagar "corresponds to the present
Jerusalem," thus acknowledging that Jerusalem
does exist now. He also would not use the term
"just as" if he was referring to a person he thought
did not exist. For in saying "just as" he pointed to a
similarity; but similarity cannot be established if
the elements involved do not exist. In addition, he
says "at that time." He apparently considered the
temporal interval about which he was speaking to
be uncertain; but the very distinction of times
would be superfluous if nothing at all had
happened. Now this is the apostle's way of
speaking. Those people, however, turn it all into
the contrary, as if the entire historical account of
divine Scripture differed in no way from dreams in
the night. When they start expounding divine
Scripture "spiritually""spiritual interpretation" is
the name they like to give to their folly-they claim
that Adam is not Adam, paradise is not paradise,
the serpent not the serpent. I should like to tell
them this: If they make history serve their own
ends, they will have no history left. But if this is
what they do, let them tell us how they can answer
questions such as these: Who was created the first
human being? How did his disobedience come
about? How was our death sentence introduced?
Now, if they have gleaned their answers from the
Scriptures, then their so-called allegory is
unmasked as being foolishness, for it proves
superfluous throughout. But if their assertion is
true, if the biblical writings do not preserve the
narrative of actual events but point to something
else, something profound which requires special
understanding-something "spiritual" as they would
like to say, which they have discovered because
they are so spiritual themselves, then what is the
source of their knowledge? Whatever name they
may give to their interpretation, have they been
taught by divine Scripture in their speaking? Also,
I shall not even mention that, if they are correct, not
even the reason for the events surrounding Christ's
coming will be clear. The apostle says that Christ
canceled Adam's disobedience and annulled the
death sentence. What were those events in the
distant past to which he refers, and where did they
take place, if the historical account relating them
does not signify real events but something else, as
those people maintain? What room is left for the
apostle's words, "but I fear lest, as the serpent
seduced Eve" [2 Cor. 11:31, if there was no
serpent, no Eve, nor any seduction elsewhere
involving Adam? In many instances the apostle
clearly uses the historical account of the ancient
writers as the truth and nothing but the truth. In our
passage, he attempts to prove his assertion from
actual events as well as from their writ ten record,
which the Jews acknowledged as factual account.
This certainly was his intention from the start. But
what is his point? He wishes to show that the
events surrounding Christ's coming are greater than
anything contained in the law, and that the
righteousness to which we have access must he
considered as far more glorious than that which
comes through the law.

Therefore, Paul points out that there are two

covenants, one through Moses, the other through
Christ. He calls the covenant in Christ the
resurrection promised to all of us by Christ after he
had been the first to rise from the dead. We have
documented this point more fully in our
commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was
the purpose of Moses' legislation that those to
whom the law was given should live under it and
thus obtain the righteousness which comes through
it. This was the reason the people had to leave
Egypt and settle in a remote area; shielded from
any mingling with other nations, they were to be
able to observe the law they were given with
appropriate care. Similarly, it was the purpose and
goal of Christ's coming to abolish death and to
raise up all people of all times for a new existence
in an immortal nature, no longer being able to sin
in any way on account of the abiding presence of
the Spirit's grace in them, a grace which will
preserve us too from all sin. This is the true and
perfect justification. Paul called both of them
"covenants" for good reason because the very point
which the law taught was also enjoined by the
operation of grace, namely, the love of God and
neighbor. Of course, the law also demanded the
observance of its precepts, insisting and teaching
that one must not sin in any way. But the operation
of grace fulfills this teaching through the
resurrection and through immortality which will he
ours through the Spirit; then, guided by him, we
will indeed be completely incapable of sinning.

To be sure, justification is a reality under the law

as well as in Christ. But under the law it is
obtained by the person who can secure it with a
great deal of effort and sweat. Now this is
extremely hard, in fact impossible, if the standard
of strict implementation of every command is
applied. For it is impossible for a human being
here on earth to live entirely without sin. Such a
state is acquired by grace alone. We will be able
to sin no longer only when we obtain the
justification coming from Christ, apart from all our
effort.

Paul speaks of Hagar and Sarah. One of them

gave birth according to the order of nature; the
other, though unable to give birth, bore Isaac by
grace. Among their sons, the one born according to
grace turned out to receive much more honor. Paul
mentions the two women in order to demonstrate
by their comparison that even now the justification
coming from Christ is far better than the other,
because it is acquired by grace. Appropriately, he
takes the woman giving birth in the natural order to
mean justification through the law, the woman
giving birth against hope justification by grace. For
a conduct regulated by law is appropriate for those
living in the present age; but those who are raised
up and have put on incorruption do not need
circumcision, the offering of sacrifices, or the
observance of special days. There is, of course, a
natural order, the short time span allotted to those
who are horn into this life, in which a conduct
regulated by law seems to have its place. But grace
leads to that birth which causes all who rise again
to be born into the life to come; in that birth
Christ's justification is most fully implemented.
Thus, Paul considered the woman giving birth in
the natural order as a representation of justification
according to the law because, if the law has a
place at all, it controls those horn into this life, that
is, born according to the sequence of nature. On the
other hand, the woman giving birth by grace
represented for him justification according to
Christ, because justification is most truly
implemented among those who have been raised
once and for all and expect their second birth
through grace against all hope. Here we have the
reason for the phrase, "this is said by way of
allegory." Paul used the term "allegory" as a
comparison, juxtaposing events of the past and
present.

Therefore, he adds: "For they are two covenants,

one from Mount Sinai bearing children for slavery,
which is Hagar" Iv. 241. "For they are": Paul here
returns to the preceding phrase, "this is said by
way of allegory," so that one must read: "What is
expressed by way of allegory are the two
covenants." He wants to say that by way of
allegory one can liken the two covenants to those
two women. Hagar and Sarah, with Hagar
representing the order of the precepts of the law,
for the law was given on Mount Sinai. Her
children are born for slavery because those who
live under the law experience precepts and law as
the imposition of an order of slavery: They are
punished mercilessly if they have sinned; they are
praised if they observe the law in all details. It is
an arduous task requiring a great deal of effort. To
be kept under the law in this manner is appropriate
for slaves but not for the free-born. Pointing out
that this comparison with Hagar is not foreign to
the Old Testament, Paul adds: "Now Hagar is
Mount Sinai in Arabia; but she corresponds to the
present Jerusalem which is in slavery with her
children" [v. 251.

In former times, Arabia was not only the territory

known by this name today but comprised the whole
desert and the inhabited borderland around it,
including a significant portion of Egypt. The
dwelling place of the Israelites at the time of their
sojourn in Egypt fell within the borders of that
Arabia. The name of their area reflects this, as we
learn from divine Scripture: "They dwelt in the
land of Goshen in Arabia" [cf. Gen. 47:1; 45:10;
46:34). Since Hagar was from there, Paul wished
to make the point that Mount Sinai belonged to
Arabia. In this way Hagar is a fitting simile for the
old covenant because it was given on Mount Sinai,
a place associated with the nation from which
Hagar also came.

Now, when Paul says, "She corresponds to the

present Jerusalem," he is speaking of Hagar (as the
subject) so that the meaning is: Hagar is the
equivalent of the Jerusalem which is present with
us, that is, Jerusalem regarded from the vantage
point of this life. This present Jerusalem offers us
an order in which the laws of the old covenant are
in force, in anticipation of the expected future
which we also hope to share in the coming age. It
is this old order which Hagar represents in
contrast to Sarah. For when Paul says, "she is in
slavery with her children," he is not speaking of
Hagar but of the covenant given on Sinai. He wants
to explain his words, "one from Mount Sinai
bearing children for slavery." Her children, he
says, are those living in slavery. In fact, he puts it
very well by saying that she herself "is in slavery
with her children." For we can certainly recognize
the kind of covenant we have here, if we consider
those to whom it was given. It is not perceived in
its substance; it is a covenant in slavery when
those who live by it experience it as slavery.

The advocates of allegory should take a good

look at the phrase, "she corresponds to the present
Jerusalem." Obviously, the Jerusalem which the
author connects here with Hagar is not a fiction
serving his own ends. Rather, Paul wants to make
clear that both Jerusalems are equivalents since by
signification they are one and the same. In speaking
of the first covenant, the blessed Paul speaks of the
second also: "But that Jerusalem which is above is
free, and she is the mother of us all" Iv. 261. When
using the phrase, "the Jerusalem above," the
apostle is not piling up dreams like those who
believe everything must be allegorized. He uses it
because he reserves the term "second covenant"
for the resurrection which is still expected even by
those who have been raised up and hope for
permission to remain in heaven, completely free
from all sin. In contrast, he speaks here of "the
Jerusalem which is above," thereby designating
our residence in heaven inasmuch as we will
dwell there living with Christ but still conducting
ourselves with all diligence. He calls this celestial
abode "the Jerusalem above" because theJews
dwelling in the area ofJerusalem believed they
were dwelling with God; it was here that they
eagerly rendered to God the worship they owed
him, convinced that this place was agreeable to
him because sacrifices, burnt offerings, or other
ceremonies prescribed in the law could not be
offered anywhere else.
 "That Jerusalem which is above is free, and she
is the mother of us all" lv. 261. Paul means: When
we will have attained the resurrection and see
before us that glorious second birth which will
allow us to dwell in heaven, we will regard this as
ourJeru- salem where we will all at once enjoy the
fullest freedom, freed from any need to fulfill legal
precepts or other such obligations. We will dwell
there with great confidence because we will no
longer be subject to sin. And now Paul introduces
a scriptural testimony: "For it is written: Rejoice,
0 barren one, that dost not bear; break forth and cry
out thou who art not in travail; for many are the
children of the desolate, more than of her who has
a husband" [v. 27, quoting Isa. 54:1]. He does not
quote this verse as a prophetic utterance about the
resurrection. Rather, he uses it as a testimony
because it contains the word "barren," for he
understands Sarah and her barrenness as pointing
to the order of the second covenant. He means to
say: All these blessings will come to us against
hope. For we who are dead will rise again; even
our number will be much larger than theirs. Joined
in this second covenant, we will be far more
numerous. Those who are under the law as their
covenant are one nation. But we who will attain
the covenant of the resurrection are children. all of
us.

Therefore, Paul adds: "But we, brethren, like

Isaac, are children of the promise" [v. 28]. "Like
Isaac" means: Our existence will he like that of
Isaac, not according to nature but according to
grace. For as Isaac was born against all hope, so
the resurrection is a gift of grace, not a result of
nature. Paul proves the difference of the covenants
from the contents of divine Scripture,
demonstrating that the results of grace are much
better than the results of nature. Armed with this
logic, he even refers to present events: "But just as
at that time he who was born according to the flesh
persecuted him who was born according to the
spirit, so also it is now" [v. 29]. In speaking of
those living in Christ, Paul does not only use
words like "faith" or "promise," but also "spirit."
In fact, he uses this word very frequently as one
can readily observe, for example, in Romans. For
it is by participation in the spirit that we expect to
receive the enjoyment of our future blessings. In a
similar manner he uses the word "flesh" in
speaking of those who live under the law, for the
law can be useful in terms of this present life;
"flesh" is his word for something transient and
easy to dissolve, when he is not simply describing
our (human) nature. We have documented this
usage at many points in our interpretation of the
Pauline epistles; our full exegesis here proves it
again, at least to those who are willing to study the
text very carefully. Hagar was cast out. She was
the one giving birth according to the natural order
and served as a type of the old covenant, because
she could represent the order of those born
naturally into this present life. We spoke about this
earlier. "But just as at that time he who was born in
the natural order persecuted him who was born
through the promise, so it is now"; the defenders of
the law try to drive out anything that has to do with
grace. Paul said aptly, "according to the spirit,"
when he wanted to designate Isaac who was born
according to the promise. By using the similitude
of his person he wanted to place us on the opposite
side (of the flesh) because we are truly called by
the name of the Spirit on account of our beliefs. At
this point I should like to ask my dear allegorists
whether divine Scripture contains a record of
Ishmael persecuting Isaac, thus signifying that there
were some circumcised Jews who, at some point
in very recent times, might have tried to bring back
under the law those Galatians who had come to
believe in Christ. Who can duly deride this
(nonsense)? If nothing else, the allegorists should
at least recognize that the apostle used the
historical account in his narrative as a record of
actual events written down as such, in order to
confirm what he had said previously. Here,
however, he wanted to present history in this
particular image for the sake of comparison.
Therefore, we see him in this instance even
inventing external events which happened to his
figures.

He adds somewhat inconsistently but with a

grand gesture: But what does Scripture say? Cast
out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the
slave woman shall not be heir with the son of the
free woman" Iv. 301. Paul means: Their effort does
not help them, just as it did not help Hagar at that
time. For present and future have nothing in
common, and legal precepts have no place in
ordering our conduct in which we try to implement
the pattern of the resurrection. Why then do they try
so hard to bring those who believe in Christ under
the custody of the law? He concludes by
recapitulating, as it were, all his previous
explanations: "Therefore, brethren, we are not
children of the slave woman but of the free
woman" Iv. 31 ]. And once this is said, he adds an
exhortation: "Stand fast in the freedom for which
Christ has set us free, and do not submit again to
the yoke of slavery" [Gal. 5:1 ].
X.
 Tyconius
THE BOOK OF RULES, I-III
(Prologue) I thought it necessary before anything
else which occurred to me to write a brief book of
rules providing something like keys and windows
to the secrets of the law. For there are certain
mystical rules which govern the depth of the entire
law and hide the treasures of truth from the sight of
some people. If the logic of these rules is accepted
without prejudice as we set it down here, every
closed door will be opened and light will he shed
on every obscurity. Guided, as it were, by these
rules in paths of light, a person walking through the
immense forest of prophecy may well be defended
from error.

These rules are as follows:

1. Of the Lord and His Body

 II. Of the Lord's Bipartite Body

III. Of Promises and the Law

IV. Of Species and Genus

V. Of Times

VI. Of Recapitulation

VII. Of the Devil and His Body

I. Of the Lord and His Body

(1) Reason alone discerns whether Scripture is

speaking of the Lord or his Body, that is, the
church. It suggests the appropriate referent by
convincing argument or by the sheer power of the
truth which forces itself on the reader. In other
instances, Scripture seems to speak of one person
only, but the fact that this person functions in
different ways indicates a double mean ing. Thus,
Isaiah says: "He bears our sins and suffers pain for
us; he was wounded for our offenses, and God
abandoned him for our sins," and so on [Isa. 53:4-
51. This is a passage which the confession of the
whole church applies to the Lord. But Isaiah
continues, speaking of the same one: "And God
wants to cleanse him from the stroke and to relieve
his soul from pain, to let him see the light and to
fashion him in wisdom" [vv. 10-1 1 ]. Does God
want to let him see the light whom he abandoned
for our sins, and fashion him in wisdom who is
already the light and the wisdom of God? Does this
continuation not rather apply to his Body? This
example shows that one can discern by reason
alone the point at which the text makes the
transition from the head to the body.

(2) Daniel calls the Lord "the stone hewn from

the mountain" which struck the body of the
kingdoms of this world and "ground it to dust." But
when "the stone became a mountain and filled the
whole earth," he is speaking of the Lord's Body
[Dan. 2:34-35]. The Lord does not fill the world
only by his power but not by the fullness of his
Body, as some maintain. Such a statement is an
insult to the kingdom of God and the invincible
inheritance of Christ. It is painful for me even to
mention it. Indeed, some claim that the mountain
filling the earth is the fact that the Christian may
now present his offering everywhere, while
formerly sacrifice was allowed only on Mount
Zion. If this were the case, it would be unnecessary
to say that the stone grew into a mountain and
began to fill the world by its growth. For our Lord
Christ "had this glory before the world was made"
[John 17:51, and since in him God's Son became
man, he received "all power in heaven and on
earth" [Phil. 2:11], not gradually like the stone, but
all at once. The stone, however, became a large
mountain by a process of growth and in growing
covered the whole earth. If Christ filled the whole
earth just by his power and not by his Body, there
would be no point in comparing him to a stone, for
power is something intangible but a stone is a
tangible body. Moreover, that growth occurs in the
body and not in the head is demonstrated not only
by reason but is also confirmed by apostolic
authority. "We grow up in all things," says the
apostle, "into him who is the head, Christ, from
whom the whole body, fashioned and knit together
through every joint of the system in the measure of
each and every part, derives its increase to the
building up of itself" [Eph. 4:15-16]. And also: "
(Such a one) is not united to the head from whom
the whole body, supplied and built up with joints
and ligaments, attains a growth that is from God"
[Col. 2:19). What grows, therefore, is not the head.
The head is the same from the very beginning.
Instead, the body grows from the head.

(3) But let us return to our theme. The following

passage concerns the Lord and his Body, but the
correct referent must be discerned by reason: "To
his angels he has given command about you, that
they guard you in all your ways. Upon their hands
they shall bear you up lest you dash your foot
against a stone. You shall tread upon the asp and
the viper; you shall trample down the lion and the
dragon. Because he hopes in me, I will deliver
him; I will protect him, for he knows my name. He
will call upon me, and I will answer him; I am
with him in distress. I will deliver him and glorify
him. I will make full for him the length of days and
will show him my salvation" [Ps. 90:11-16, LXX].
Tell me, did God show his salvation to the one
whom he commanded angels to serve? Did he not
rather show it to his Body?

Another instance: "Like a bridegroom he

crowned me with a mitre; like a bride he adorned
me with adornment" [Isa. 61:10]. The text speaks
of one body of two sexes, the groom's and the
bride's. Reason discerns what applies to the Lord
and what applies to the church. The same Lord
says in the Book of Revelation: "I am the
bridegroom and the bride" [Rev. 22:17], and also:
"They went out to meet the bridegroom and the
bride" [Matt. 25:1]. Once more, Isaiah makes clear
which part reason must attribute to the head and
which to the body: "Thus says the Lord to the
Christ, my Lord, whose right hand I grasped so that
nations might listen to him" [Isa. 45:1]. This
statement is followed by another which applies to
the Body only: "And I will give you hidden
treasures, invisible treasures I will open up for you
that you may know that I am the Lord, the God of
Israel, who calls you by your name for the sake of
Jacob, my son, and of Israel, my chosen one" [Isa.
45:3]. Having made covenants with the fathers in
order that he might be known, God opens invisible
treasures to the Body of Christ, treasures which
"eye has not seen or ear heard, nor have they
entered into the heart of man" (1 Cor. 2:91. "Of
man"-this, of course, is said of a hardened man
who is not in the Body of Christ. To the church
"God revealed them through his Spirit" [v. 10].
Nevertheless, the use of reason sometimes helps to
perceive these treasures more easily even though
this perception occurs through the grace of God as
well.
 (4) In other cases such reasoning is less
successful because the text can be applied
correctly to both, either the Lord or his Body. In
such instances the proper meaning can be
perceived only by an even greater grace from God.
Thus, we read in the gospel: "From now on you
will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of
the power and coming on the clouds of heaven"
(Matt. 24:64). But Scripture states elsewhere that
he will be seen coming on the clouds of heaven
only on the last day: "All the nations of the earth
will mourn, and then they will see the Son of Man
coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 24:301.
Indeed, two things must happen: first, the advent of
the Body, that is, the church, which is continually
coming in one and the same invisible glory; then
the advent of the head, that is, the Lord, in manifest
glory. If the text had read: "Now you will see him
coming," it would refer only to the advent of the
Body; if it had read: "You will see him coming," it
would refer only to the advent of the head. But it
actually reads: "From now on you will see him
coming," for he comes continually in his Body,
through a birth and through the glory of sufferings
like his. Since those who are reborn are made
members of Christ, and these members constitute
the Body, it is Christ himself who is coming. Birth
means coming as when Scripture says: "He
enlightens every man who comes into this world"
(John 1:9]; or: "One generation passes and another
comes" [Eccles. 1:41; or: 'As you have heard that
Antichrist is coming" (1 John 2:18]. And
concerning this latter body: "For if he who comes
preaches another Jesus" [2 Cor. 11:41. Therefore,
when the Lord was asked for a sign of his coming,
he began to speak of that coming which can be
imitated in signs and wonders by the opposing
body. "Take heed," he said, "that no one leads you
astray; for many will come in my name" [Matt.
24:4-51, that is, in the name of my Body. At the last
coming of the Lord, however, that is, at the advent
of the final consummation and open manifestation
of his coming in its entirety, there will be no
deceiver, as some people think. But this matter
will be more fully discussed in its proper place
later.

(5) Therefore, our wish to apply the mention of

one person to the whole Body, to interpret, for
example, the Son of Man as the church, implies no
absurdity. After all, the church, that is, the children
of God gathered into one Body, is called "son of
God," or "one man," or even "God," as in the
words of the apostle: "above all that is called God,
or that is worshiped" 12 Thess. 2:4]. Here, "that is
called God," means the church, and "that is
worshiped," means the highest God. The apostle
continues: "so that he takes his seat in the temple of
God pretending to be God" [v. 5], that is, to be the
church. It is like saying: "He takes his seat in the
temple of God pretending to be the temple of God,"
or: "He takes his seat in God pretending to be
God" The apostle wants to veil this understanding
by using synonyms. Daniel says the following
about a king of the end time: "In God will his place
be glorified" [cf. Dan. 11:38], that is, made
famous. This king will secretly establish something
like a church in the place of the church, in the holy
place; an "abomination of devastation" [Matt.
24:15] in God, that is, in the church.

(6) The Lord himself calls the whole people

"bride" and "sister" [Song of Sol. 5:11. The
apostle calls it a "holy virgin" but terms the
opposing body "the man of sin" [2 Cor. 1 1:2; 2
Thess. 2:31. David calls the whole church "the
anointed": "He showed mercy to his anointed,
David and his seed forever" [Ps. 17:51, LXX1,
and the apostle Paul calls the Body of Christ
"Christ" when he says: "For just as the body is one
but has many members, and all the members of the
body, though many, are one body, so also is Christ"
[ I Cor. 12:121, that is, Christ's Body which is the
church. And also: "1 rejoice in the sufferings I bear
for your sake and complete what is lacking from
the afflictions of Christ" [Col. 1:241, that is, of the
church. There was certainly nothing lacking from
the sufferings of Christ; rather, "it is enough for the
disciple to be like his master" [Matt. 10:251. Thus,
we will take the coming of Christ to mean what
each passage suggests. Likewise, we recognize that
in the Book of Exodus all sons of God are one son,
and all firstborn of Egypt are one firstborn, for
God says: "So you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says
the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son. Hence I tell
you: Let my people go that it may serve me. But
you refuse to let it go. Therefore, behold I kill your
firstborn son" [Exod. 4:22-231. Also, David calls
the vineyard of the Lord one son when he says:
"hrn again, 0 God of hosts! Look down from
heaven and see; visit your vineyard and perfect
what your right hand has planted, what you have
confirmed as a son for yourself" [Ps. 79:15-16,
LXX1.

(7) The apostle gives the name "Son of God" to

one who is merely mingled with the Son of God:
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an
apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he
promised beforehand through his prophets in the
holy Scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son who
was born to him of the seed of David according to
the flesh, who was the predestined Son of God in
power according to the spirit of holiness by the
resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus
Christ" [Rom. 1:1-4]. If the text simply read: "the
gospel concerning his Son, by the resurrection
from the dead," it would refer to one son only. But
it reads: "the gospel concerning his Son, by the
resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus
Christ." The phrase, "who was made Son of God
by the resurrection of Christ," is explained more
fully by the preceding words: "concerning his Son
who was born to him of the seed of David
according to the flesh, who was the predestined
Son of God." For our Lord, being himself God and
coequal with the Father, is not "the predestined
Son of God," gaining his sonship through his birth.
Rather, he is the one to whom God said at his
baptism, as Luke tells us: "You are my Son, today I
have begotten you" [cf. Luke 3:22]. The one "born
of the seed of David" is mingled with the
"principal spirit" [Ps. 50:14, LXX] and was made
"Son of God by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ," that means, when in Christ the seed of
David rises up. He is not that other one of whom
David said: "Thus says the Lord to my Lord" [Ps.
109:1, LXX]. The two were made one flesh. "The
word was made flesh" [John 1:14], and the flesh
was made God, for "we are born not of blood but
of God" [v. 131. The apostle writes: "The two
shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery; I
mean it in reference to Christ and the Church"
[Eph. 5:31-32]. God promised Abraham one seed;
as many as would be mingled with Christ, there
would be one person in Christ as the apostle
himself says: "You are all one (unus) in Christ
Jesus. But if you are one in Christ Jesus, you are
Abraham's seed and heirs according to the
promise" [Gal. 3:28-29]. Now there is a difference
between "you are one" (unum) and "you are one
person" (unus). When one person is mingled with
another in (an act of) will, they are one, as the
Lord says: "I and the Father are one (unum)" [John
10:30]. When they are also mingled in body,
however, and are joined into one flesh, the two are
one person (unus).

(8) In its head, therefore, the Body is the Son of

God, and in his Body God is the Son of Man who
comes daily through a birth and "grows into God's
holy temple" [Eph. 2:21]. Now the temple itself is
bipartite. Its second part, though built of large
stones, suffers destruction; in it, "not one stone will
be left upon the other" [Matt. 24:21. We must
beware of its continual coming until the church
departs from its midst.

11. Of the Lord's Bipartite Body

(1) The rule about the bipartite body of the Lord

is of the utmost necessity. We must investigate it all
the more carefully and must keep it constantly
before our eyes when reading Scripture. Now just
as reason alone perceives the transition from the
head to the body, as I pointed out above, so it is
with the transitions from one part of the body to
another, from right to left or from left to right, as
the title of our present chapter indicates.

(2) When the Lord says to one body: "Invisible

treasures I will open up for you that you may know
that I am the Lord, and I will adopt you," and then
continues: "But you did not recognize me, that I am
God and there is no God beside me, and you did
not know me" [Isa. 45:3-4], do the two statements,
though they are addressed to one body, actually
refer to the same entity: "Invisible treasures I will
open up for you that you may recognize that I am
God, for the sake of my servant Jacob," and: "But
you did not recognize me"? Did Jacob not receive
what God had promised? Do the two verbs even
refer to the same action: "You did not recognize
me," and "You did not know me"? "You did not
know" can only be said to someone who now does
know, but "you did not recognize" is addressed to
someone who, though he should have recognized
(God) and seems to belong to the same body,
"draws near to God with his lips only, while his
heart is far from him" [Isa. 29:131. To such a
person God can say: "But you did not recognize
me."

(3) Here is another instance: "I will lead the

blind on a journey they do not know; they shall
walk in paths they do not know, and I will turn
darkness into light for them and will make the
crooked straight. What I have said, I will do for
them, and I will not forsake them. But they turned
back" [Isa. 42:16-171. Did the very ones of whom
he said, "I will not forsake them," all turn back?
Was it not just part of them?

(4) Again, the Lord says to Jacob: "Fear not, for I

am with you; from the East I will bring back your
seed, and from the West I will gather you. I will
say to the North: Bring back! and to the South: Do
not withhold! Bring back my sons from a distant
land and my daughters from the ends of the earth,
everyone over whom my name has been
pronounced! For in my glory I created (this seed),
formed and made him; but I brought forth a blind
people; their eyes are blind, and their ears are
deaf" [Isa. 43:5-81. Are the very people whom he
created for his glory also blind and deaf?

Or: "Your forefathers and their princes did evil to

me; your princes defiled my sanctuary so that I left
Jacob to perish and Israel to be cursed. Now, hear
me, my son Jacob; Israel whom I have chosen!"
[Isa. 43:27-44:11. God makes it clear that he "left
to perish and to be cursed" only the Jacob and the
Israel whom he had not chosen.

(5) Or: "I formed you as my son; you are mine, 0

Israel, do not forget me! For behold, I have taken
away your iniquities like a cloud and your sins like
a storm cloud. Return to me, and I will redeem
you!" [Isa. 44:21-22]. Does he say "return to me"
to the same person whose sins he took away, to the
one whom he assures: "you are mine," and whom
he reminds not to forget him? Are anyone's sins
taken away before he returns?

Or: "I know that you will surely be rejected. For

the sake of my name I will show you my excellence
and will cause my magnificence to rise over you"
[Isa. 48:8-91. Is he showing his excellence and
displaying his magnificence to the reprobate?

(6) Or: "Not an elder, nor an angel, but the Lord

himself saved them, because he loved them and
forgave them; he himself redeemed them and
adopted them and exalted them throughout all the
days of this age. But they were rebellious and
grieved his holy spirit" [Isa. 63:9-101. When were
those "whom he exalted throughout all the days of
this age" rebellious? When did they "grieve his
holy spirit"?

(7) Consider another instance in which God

openly promises to one body both enduring
strength and destruction. First he says: "Jerusalem
is a rich city, tents that will not be moved; the pegs
of your tent will never be pulled up, nor will its
ropes he severed"; but then he continues: "Your
ropes are severed because the mast of your ship
was not strong; your sails hang idly, and the ship
will not raise anchor until it is left to perish" [Isa.
33:20, 23[.

(8) Again, that the Body of Christ is bipartite is

shown in this brief sentence: "I am dark and
beautiful" [Song of Sol. 1:5]. I cannot think for a
moment that the church "without spot or wrinkle"
[Eph. 5:27], whom the Lord "cleansed for himself
by his blood" [Titus 2:14], should be dark
anywhere except on her left side by which "the
name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles"
[Rom. 2:24]. Otherwise she is entirely beautiful,
as the author himself says later: "You are all
beautiful, my most beloved, and there is no
blemish in you" (Song of Sol. 4:7]. Our text gives
an explanation of why she is both dark and
beautiful: "like the tent of Kedar, like the leather
tent of Solomon" [Song of Sol. 1:5]. It shows us
two tents, the king's and the slave's; yet both are
Abraham's offspring, for Kedar is the son of
Ishmael. Elsewhere, the church bemoans her long
sojourn with this same Kedar, that is, with the
slave from Abraham: "Woe is me that my
wandering has been made long; I have dwelt amid
the tents of Kedar, my soul has wandered much. I
kept peace with those who hate peace; when I
spoke to them, they made war on me" [Ps. 119:5-7,
LXXI. Nevertheless, we cannot say that the tent of
Kedar is outside the church. Our text speaks of the
tent of Kedar and of Solomon, and therefore it says
both: "I am dark" and "I am beautiful." But the
church herself is not dark because of those who
belong outside.

(9) In the same mysterious fashion the Lord

mentions seven angels in the Book of Revelation,
pointing to a sevenfold church [Rev. 1:20-3:22];
sometimes its members are saints and keepers of
the commandments, sometimes they are guilty of
numerous sins and need to repent. In the Gospel, he
attributes various kinds of merit to one body of
stewards, saying first: "Blessed is that servant
whom his master, when he comes, shall find so
doing," but continuing about the same person: "but
when that wicked servant ..." and adding: "The
Lord will divide him in two parts" [Matt. 24:48,
51 [. I ask, will the Lord divide or cut him up as a
whole? Note the final statement: "He will give him
a part"-not the whole!-"with the hypocrites" [v.
511. Thus, in the one person, the text points to a
(bipartite) body.

(10) Therefore, all the statements throughout

Scripture in which God announces that Israel will
perish deservedly or that his inheritance will be
cursed must be understood in terms of this mystery.
The apostle makes ample use of this mode of
expression, especially in Romans; statements about
a whole body must be understood to apply to a part
only: "What does God say to Israel? All the day
long I stretched out my hands to a contradictory
people" [Rom. 10:21]. In order to make it clear
that he is speaking of a part only, he continues: "I
say then, has God rejected his inheritance? By no
means! For I also am an Israelite of the seed of
Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not
rejected his people whom he foreknew" [Rom.
11:1-2]. And having set forth the correct
understanding of this statement, he uses the same
mode of expression to show us that the one body is
both good and evil: "As regards the gospel, they
are enemies for your sake; but as regards election,
they are beloved for the sake of the fathers" [Rom.
11:28]. Are the beloved the same as the enemies?
Can both terms apply to Caiaphas? Thus, the Lord
testifies in all of Scripture that the one body of
Abraham's seed is growing and flourishing, but
also perishing in all (its various parts).
111. Of Promises and the Law

(1) Divine authority tells us that no one has ever

been able to achieve justification by works of the
law. The same authority asserts in the strongest
terms that there have always been people who kept
the law and were justified.

It is written: "Whatever the law says, it is

speaking to those who are under the law, so that
every mouth may be stopped and the whole world
may become subject to God. For by the law no
flesh shall be justified in his sight" [Rom. 3:19-
20]; and: "Sin shall have no dominion over you,
since you are not under the law" [Rom. 6:14]; and:
"We also believe in Christ, that we may be
justified by faith and not by the works of the law,
for by the works of the law no flesh will be
justified" [Gal. 3:16]; and: "For if a law had been
given that could bestow life, righteousness would
certainly be by the law. But Scripture confined all
things under sin, that by the faith of Jesus Christ the
promise might be given to those who believe"
[Gal. 3:21-23]. Now someone might say: From
Christ's time onward, the law does not justify; it
did, however, justify in its own time. But this
argument is contradicted by the authority of the
apostle Peter who, when his colleagues were
trying to force the Gentiles under the yoke of the
law, said: "Why do you test the Lord by trying to
impose on the neck of the disciples a yoke which
neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"
[Acts 15:10]. The apostle Paul states: "While we
were in the flesh, the sinful passions which come
through the law were at work in our members to
bear fruit for death" [Rom. 7:5]. Yet, contrary to
this, the same apostle also writes: "As regards the
righteousness of the law, (I was) leading a
blameless life" [Phil. 3:61. And if the authority of
such a great apostle were lacking, how could one
criticize the testimony of the Lord who said (of
Nathanael): "Behold, a true Israelite in whom there
is no guile" [John 1:47]? And even if the Lord had
not seen fit to furnish this testimony, who would be
so impious, so inflated by senseless pride as to
assert that Moses, the prophets, and all the saints
(of old) did not fulfill the law or were not
justified? Scripture itself says of Zechariah and his
wife: "They were both righteous in God's sight,
walking in all his commandments and justifications
blameless" [Luke 1:61; and our Lord did not come
"to call the righteous, but sinners" [Matt. 9:131.

(2) But how could a law justify from sin when it

was given for the purpose of multiplying sin as it is
written: "The law came in, so that sin might be
multiplied" [Rom. 5:201? There is one thing we
must know and keep in mind: To this very day, the
seed of Abraham has never been entirely cut off
from Isaac; I am speaking not of the carnal, but of
the spiritual seed of Abraham which does not come
from the law but from promise. The other seed is
indeed carnal; it comes from the law, "from Mount
Sinai which is Hagar, bearing children for slavery"
[Gal. 4:24]; "the son of the slave woman was born
carnally, the son of the free woman by virtue of the
promise" [v. 23]. The apostle even states that there
is no seed of Abraham but the one which comes
from faith: "So you see, that those who are from
faith are the children of Abraham" [Gal. 3:7]; and:
"But you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of the
promise" [Gal. 4:281.

(3) Thus, the seed of Abraham comes not from the

law but from the promise and has remained
uninterrupted from Isaac on. But if it is a fact that
Abraham's seed existed before the law and is that
seed which comes from faith, then it is also a fact
that it never came from the law. It cannot come
both from the law and from faith, for law and faith
are quite different. The law is not a law of faith but
of works, as Scripture says: "The law does not rest
on faith; rather, he who does these things shall live
by them" [Gal. 3:121. Therefore, Abraham always
had children by faith, but never by the law. "For
not through the law but through the righteousness of
faith was the promise given to Abraham or his
seed, that he should be heir of the world. For if
they are heirs who are heirs through the law, faith
is made empty and the promise void; for the law
works wrath" [Rom. 4:13-151. Therefore, if faith
and the promise to Abraham cannot be abolished at
all, the promise has been in force continu ously
from its inception. Even the giving of the law did
not hinder children being born to Abraham by faith
according to the promise. The apostle states that
the law, given 430 years later, neither impeded nor
annulled the promise [Gal. 3:17]: "For if (the
inheritance) is from the law, it is no longer from
the promise. But God gave it to Abraham by
promise" [v. 18]; and later: "Is then the law
contrary to the promise? By no means!" [v. 21 ].
We see that the law does not touch the promise.
Rather than impinging upon one another, each of
the two preserves its own order. For just as the
law never hindered faith, so faith never destroyed
the law. We read: "Do we therefore through faith
destroy the law? By no means! Rather we establish
the law" [Rom. 3:3 1], that is, we strengthen it, for
the two strengthen each other.

(4) Thus, children of Abraham do not come from

the law but from faith through the promise. But in
taking seriously the denial of their justification by
the works of the law, we must ask how they were
justified once they were placed under the law and
were observing it. We must ask further why, after
the promise of faith which cannot be annulled, the
law was given at all, a law not based on faith, a
law whose works do not justify anyone. For "all
who rely on the works of the law are under a
curse, since it is written: Cursed is everyone who
does not abide by all things written in the book of
the law to do them" [Gal. 3:10]. The apostle
anticipates this question. While asserting
uncompromisingly that there have always been
children of Abraham by God's grace through faith,
not through the law of deeds, he makes this
objection to himself: "Why then the law of deeds?"
[Gal. 3:19]. That is to say: If there are children by
virtue of faith, why was the law of deeds given,
when the promise was sufficient to produce
children of Abraham and to nourish them in faith,
since "he who is righteous lives by faith"? Even
before posing the question, "why then the law of
deeds?", he stated that those who cannot be
justified by virtue of the law will live in that other
manner: "By the law no one is justified before
God, but he who is righteous lives by faith" [Gal.
3:11]. He points out that the prophet said "He who
is righteous lives by faith," precisely because it
should he made clear how those unable to fulfill
the law might live.

(5) The meaning of the phrase, "he who is

righteous lives by faith," is less clear. For a
righteous person, placed under the law, can only
live if he performs the works of the law, indeed all
its works, otherwise he would be cursed. God
gave the law. He said: "You shall not covet." But
immediately "sin, finding an opportunity, wrought
every kind of covetousness by means of the
commandment" [Rom. 7:7-8], for "the sinful
passions which come through the law" Iv. 5] are
inevitably at work in the members of anyone under
the law. The law was given "so that sin might
abound" [Rom. 5:20], because "the power of sin is
the law" [ 1 Cor. 15:561. Now anyone sold under
sin does not do the good that he wants, but the very
evil he does not want. According to his inner self
he consents to the law, but is overpowered by
another law in his members [Rom. 7:14-231.
Dragged along captive, he can never be freed
except by grace alone, through faith. But there is
one kind of weapon which can check the violence
of sin; failure to heed it is a great crime of
faithlessness; to seek and identify it, on the other
hand, is the sign of a marvelous faith. A mind
realizing that humans cannot possibly fulfill the
law which stands ready to take revenge, and yet
failing to understand that there is a life-giving
remedy, is nothing less than perverse and
blasphemous. It simply is not possible that a good
God, knowing that the law cannot be fulfilled,
should provide no other access to life and close off
all roads to life for human beings whom he created
for life. Faith cannot bear or admit this thought;
instead, when it is beset by the weakness of the
flesh and the power of sin, it gives God the glory.
Knowing that the Lord is good and just, and that he
does not close the depths of his mercy against the
works of his hands, faith realizes that there is a
way to life and sees a remedy enabling us to fulfill
the law. In the words "you shall not covet," God
did not reveal how this might be done successfully.
He simply said sternly and tersely: "You shall not
covet," leaving the rest to be discovered by faith. If
he had commanded that we ask him for the result,
he would have destroyed both the law and faith.
For why would God even give the law if he had
already promised to fulfill the law in each and
every person? And what would he leave to faith, if
his promise of assistance already preceded it? God
gave the law as an agent of death for the good of
faith; those who love life should see life by faith,
and the righteous should live by faith, believing
that they cannot do the work of the law by virtue of
their own strength but only by virtue of God's gift.
The law cannot be fulfilled by the flesh; it punishes
everything that is left undone.

(6) How then can a human being hope to fulfill

the law and escape death except by God's rich
mercy, which only faith can discover? "The flesh
does not submit to the law of God, indeed it
cannot; for those who are in the flesh cannot please
God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the
spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.
But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he
does not belong to him" [Rom. 8:7-91. Paul makes
the point that the Spirit of God and of Christ is the
same. He points out also that the one who has the
Spirit of God is not in the flesh. But if God's Spirit
and Christ's Spirit is one and the same, then the
prophets and saints who had God's Spirit also had
the Spirit of Christ. Since they had the Spirit of
God, they were not in the flesh. Since they were
not in the flesh, they fulfilled the law, for the flesh
is at enmity with God and does not submit to his
law. Therefore, anyone who flees to God receives
God's Spirit, and once the Spirit is received, the
flesh is put to death. Once the flesh is put to death,
one can fulfill the law as a spiritual person, freed
from the law, for "the law is not laid down for the
righteous" [ 1 Tim. 1:91, and: "If you are led by
God's Spirit, you are not under the law" [Gal.
5:181.

(7) It is therefore quite clear that our forefathers,

who had God's Spirit, were not under the law. As
long as one is in the flesh, that is, without God's
Spirit, the law is in command. But by surrendering
to grace, one dies to the law; now the Spirit fulfills
the law in one's person while the flesh, unable to
submit to the law of God, is dead. What went on
before is still going on now. The commandment
prohibiting covetousness has not ceased to be
valid because we are no longer under the law, nor
has it been made more severe. But we seek refuge
through faith in the revealed grace; being taught by
the Lord to ask for our doing of the law as a gift of
his mercy, we pray: "Your will be done," and
"deliver us from evil" [Matt. 6:10, 13]. The fathers
acted by this same faith, though it was the fear of
death that compelled them to seek a grace not yet
revealed; through the agency of the law, they saw
death threatening them with its sword drawn.
 (8) The law was given "until the time, when the
seed to whom the promise was made would come"
[Gal. 3:191 and proclaim the good news of faith.
Before this time, however, it was the law that
drove people toward faith; for faith as the search
for God's grace cannot be expressed without the
law, because sin would have no power. But once
the law was given, "the passions which come
through the law were at work in our members"
[Rom. 7:5], forcing us into sin and driving us
necessarily toward faith, which would cry out for
God's grace to help us endure. We were kept in
prison, while the law threatened death and
surrounded us with an insurmountable wall
wherever we turned. Grace was the one and only
door in this wall. Faith was the guard in charge of
this door, so that no one could escape from the
prison unless faith opened the door. Failure to
knock at this door meant dying within the walls of
the law. We suffered under the law as under a tutor
who drove us to be eager for faith, and thus drove
us to Christ. The apostle says that the law was
given that it should confine us by its custody
toward the faith which was to be revealed as faith
in Christ, who is "the end of the law" [Rom. 10:4];
he is the one by whom all who have sought the
grace of God by faith have found their life: "Before
faith came. we were kept under the law, confined
unto that faith which was to be revealed. Thus, the
law was our tutor in Christ that we might be
justified by faith" [Gal. 3:23-24].

(9) 1 said that the law demonstrated the need for

faith. But someone might object: If the law was
given to benefit faith, why did its giving not
coincide with the beginning of Abraham's seed, if
it was constantly present? Indeed, it was there all
the time. Faith was continuously present, giving
birth to the children of Abraham, and so was the
law, in the ability to discern good and evil. But
once the promise of children had been given to
Abraham, and his seed according to the flesh was
growing in numbers, his seed from faith had to
grow also. Now this expansion could not occur
without the help of an expanded law, so that an
ever greater multitude would be led almost by
necessity to a faith not yet revealed, as I pointed
out above.. Thus, it was an act of God's
providence for the increase and guidance of the
seed of Abraham, that the severity and fear of the
law drove many to faith and strengthened the seed
until faith was revealed. "The law came in, so that
sin might be multiplied. But where sin was
multiplied, grace abounded yet more" [Rom. 5:20].
Paul did not say: "grace was given," but: "grace
abounded yet more." For through Christ it had been
given from the beginning to those who sought
refuge from the vexations and the domination of the
law. Grace was already abundant through the
expansion of the law, but it abounded yet more
when it was revealed to all flesh in Christ. He
came to "restore things in heaven and things on
earth" [Eph. 1:10] and announced faith as the
"good tidings to those nearby and those far off"
[Eph. 2:17], that is, both to the sinners of Israel
and to the Gentiles. Those Israelites who were
righteous by virtue of faith had already been called
to the same faith. For the Spirit, the faith, and the
grace given by Christ have always been the same.
By his coming, Christ bestowed the fullness of
these gifts upon the whole race, having removed
the veil of the law. The difference between their
earlier and their later bestowal was one of degree,
not of kind. By other means there never was a seed
of Abraham.

(10)Justification apart from these gifts did not

make anyone a child of Abraham. A man cannot be
called a son of Abraham if he is justified by virtue
of the law, not by virtue of faith like Abraham.
Indeed, the apostle teaches that the church passed
from one image of grace and spirit into the very
same, when he writes: "But we all with unveiled
faces, reflecting as in a mirror the glory of God,
are being changed into the same image from glory
to glory" [2 Cor. 3:181. He implies that there was
glory even before the Lord's passion and denies
that such glory could be extracted, that is,
expressed, brought forth, or effected from the law.
Thus, glory was obviously coming from faith.
"Where then is the boasting?" he asks. "It is
excluded. By what law? By the law of works? No,
but by the law of faith" [Rom. 3:27]. "For what
does scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it
was reckoned to him as righteousness" [Rom. 4:3].
We have passed into glory from the same glory,
which did not come from the law. Had it been
based on works, it would have been glory, but not
glory given to God [cf. v. 21.

(11) To repeat: It is impossible to have any glory

without the grace of God. There is only one glory,
and it has always been of one kind. No human
being has ever triumphed for whom God has not
won the victory. This is not sQ under the law;
there, the one who fulfills it is the victor. But under
faith it is God who renders our adversary
powerless, so that "he who glories should glory in
the Lord" [ 1 Cor. 1:31 ]. For since the victory is
not ours, it is not achieved by works but by faith,
and there is nothing of ourselves in which to glory.
We have nothing that we have not received [cf. 1
Cor. 4:7]. If we exist, we have our existence from
God, so that the greatness of power may be God's
and not ours. All our work is faith, and it is as
great as God working with us. Solomon glories in
the knowledge that continence does not come from
a human source but is a gift of God: "Knowing that
I could not be continent unless God granted itand
this itself is wisdom, to know whose gift it is-I
went to the Lord and besought him" [Wild. of Sol.
8:21]. We must accept the judgment of Solomon
that all the justified exist by the grace of God, not
by virtue of works. They know that the doing of the
law in which they can glory must be requested
from God. The apostle, however, clarifies why no
flesh should glory before God; the wicked, of
course, because they do not know God, and the
righteous because they are not their own work but
God's. He writes: "God chose what is useless and
discarded, even things that are not, to bring to
nothing things that are, so that no flesh might glory
before God. From him you are in Christ Jesus, who
has become for us the wisdom from God, our
righteousness, holiness, and redemption; therefore,
as it is written: Let him who glories, glory in the
Lord" [1 Cor. 1:28-31]; and: "By grace you have
been saved through faith, and this is not your doing,
it is the gift of God; not because of works, lest
anyone should boast. For we are his handiwork,
created in Christ" [Eph. 2:8-101.

(12) Therefore, no flesh can ever be justified by

virtue of the law, that is, by works, so that any
righteous person may have his glory from God.
There is another reason why no one should boast
before God. God works with his own in such a
way that there is always something for him to
forgive; for "no one is free from defilement, though
his life were only one day long" [Job 14:4-5?].
David pleads: "Enter not into judgment with your
servant, for before you no man living is justified"
IN. 142:2, LXX]. And Solomon prays at the
dedication of the Temple: "For there is no one who
does not sin" [1 Kings 8:46]. Also: "Against you
alone have I sinned" [Ps. 50:6, LXXI, and: "Who
can boast to have a pure heart, or who can boast to
be clean from sin?" [Prov. 20:9]. To speak of a
pure heart, that is, of freedom from evil thoughts, is
not enough; it must be added that no one should
boast to be clean from sin! Every victory is granted
by God's sheer mercy, not by virtue of works, as it
is written: "He crowns you with mercy and
compassion" [Ps. 102:4, LXX]. The mother of the
(Maccabean) martyrs said to her son: "In that
mercy, may I receive you again with your brothers"
[2 Macc. 7:29]. The righteous perfect the will of
God through their prayer and effort by which they
strive and desire to serve God.

(13) The law leaves no room for good and better;

if it could justify, all the righteous would have
shared one merit because it demands equal
observance of all its precepts. If one did less, the
curse would become effective. But if the righteous
showed unequal merit, each person receiving as
much of the merciful God's grace as his faith told
him he had been given, they were transformed
"from glory into glory, as through the Spirit of the
Lord" 12 Cor. 3:18], that is, from one state into
more of the same state. After Christ, the gift of faith
was the same in kind as the Holy Spirit, since
every prophet and righteous one always lived by
the same Spirit. They could not live otherwise but
by the Spirit of faith. For all who were under the
law were killed because "the letter kills but the
Spirit makes alive" [2 Cot 3:6]. And yet the Lord
said of the same Spirit: "If I do not go away, he
will not come" [John 16:7], though he had already
given this very Spirit to his apostles. The apostle
expresses the fact that the same Spirit was with the
ancient generations in these words: "Because we
have the same Spirit of faith, as it is written: I
believed, and so I spoke" [2 Cor. 4:131. He
implies that the one who said, "I believed, and so I
spoke," had this same Spirit of faith, and he
confirms it by adding: "We too believe, and so we
also speak" By saying "we too" he makes clear that
the ancient generations believed through the same
Spirit of faith. Thus it is obvious that the righteous
have always had their gifts not by virtue of the law
but through the Spirit of faith.

(14) Whatever comes through the Lord is a whole

whose every part is from the same author. Think of
a young boy. He has nothing less than a man, but he
is not yet a man; full bodily stature comes to him
by the growth not of new members but of the ones
that are already there. Still, the person who has
reached perfection is the same one who was a
small boy. In the full and proper sense, the Holy
Spirit "was not yet" before the Lord's passion
[John 7:391. But he existed in those who had faith
through him being present so that, sealed by him,
the victor and perfector of all things, they might
reach perfection. Clearly the righteous people
whom Christ met already possessed the Holy
Spirit-men and women like Simeon and Nathanael,
Zechariah and Elizabeth, and the widow Anna, the
daughter of Phanuel.
 (15) Therefore, the promise is independent of the
law, and since it is something so different, the two
cannot be mixed; for any condition weakens the
promise. At this point I am forced to say things
which I cannot hear without the burn of deep pain.
Some people who are ignorant about the firmness
of the promise and about the transgression brought
on by the law maintain that God promised
Abraham all the nations, but did so without
prejudice to their free will-under the condition that
they would keep the law. Now it may be useful for
their own salvation to expose the dangers which
the inexperience of certain people breeds. But if
our topic is the omnipotent God, we must exercise
restraint in what we say so that we do not mention
what ought to be passed over in silence and allow
unworthy things to be heard from our lips. I speak,
therefore, with some trembling and leave to each
side the consideration of its own dangers.

(16) God obviously knew beforehand whether

those whom he promised to Abraham would exist
of their own free will or not. There are two
options: Either they would; in this case, the
question is settled. Or they would not; in this case,
the God who gave the promise did not keep his
word. If it was God's decision to give the
promised (nations) if and when they were willing,
God certainly would have said so in order to
prevent games from being played on his servant
Abraham, who believed that "what God has
promised, he is able also to do" [Rom. 4:21 [.
God's promise does not allow any condition; else
the promise would not be firm, nor would faith
retain its integrity. For how could God's promise
or Abraham's faith remain stable if that which was
promised and believed depended upon the choice
of the promised ones? God would have been
promising something that was not his, and
Abraham would have believed incautiously. How
then was it possible that the promise turned into
nothing less than an obligation very soon, when
God said: "In you all the nations of the earth shall
be blessed because you have listened to my voice
and have not withheld your own beloved son from
me" [Gen. 22:18, 161? Now some people find it
easy to taunt Abraham's merit with the calumny of
free choice on the basis of these texts; so God
confirmed his debt to Abraham once more after
Abraham's death, promising his son what he was
going to do on Abraham's account. These are his
words: "I will he with you and will bless you; for
to you and your seed I will give this land, and I
will fulfill the oath which I swore to your father
Abraham. I will multiply your seed like the stars of
heaven and will give all the nations of the earth to
you and your seed, because your father Abraham
listened to my voice" (Gen. 26:3-51. Thus the debt
to Abraham was confirmed, for Abraham could not
lose after his death through someone's free choice
what he had merited while he was alive.

(17) But the nations were not willing to believe.

What could Abraham do being owed this debt?
How was he to collect the debt owed to his faith
and trial? He was certain of it, since God was his
debtor. If God had said to him: "I will give what I
promised and deliver on my oath if the nations are
willing," Abraham would not have believed but
taken a chance. If there must be a condition, it can
apply to the laborer only but not to the wages. The
laborer may or may not be willing to accept
payment, but this does not go for the wages. All the
nations were given to Abraham as wages of faith.
God said: "Your wages are great" [Gen. 15:11.
God did not make his promise on the condition that
they would exist; nor did he make it because they
were going to exist. If it was God's good pleasure
to save all nations, it was not on account of
Abraham's faith at all; they were God's possession
not only before Abraham's faith, but before the
foundation of the world. Rather, God sought a
faithful person to whom he wished to give that
from which would come what he had determined
would exist anyway. Thus, Abraham did not merit
the existence of those future nations, whom God
had elected and foreknown to become conformed
to the image of his Son [Rom. 8:29), as such;
rather, he merited their existence through him.
Scripture testifies in Genesis that God promised
all nations to Abraham on the basis of his
foreknowledge: "Surely Abraham shall and will
become a great and numerous nation, and all the
nations of the earth shall be blessed in him." For
God "knew that Abraham charged his sons and his
household after him, and they were going to
observe the ways of the Lord, exercising
righteousness and judgment, so that the Lord might
bring upon Abraham all that he had told him" [Gen.
18:18-191.

(18) But we also encounter conditions, for

instance: "If you listen to me and are willing" [Isa.
1:19[. Where is God's foreknowledge, where is his
firm promise in such conditions? The apostle said
that the promise was given by virtue of faith, not of
the law, precisely in order that it might stand firm.
"The law," he said, "works wrath, for where there
is no law neither is there transgression. Therefore,
the promise was by virtue of faith, that it might be
firm for all the seed according to grace" [Rom.
4:15-161. "That the promise might be firm" is
correct, for with a condition attached to it the
promise would not be firm. It is rather foolish and
arrogant to believe that something addressed to the
bipartite body applies to the whole body. God
could not say, "if you hear me," to those who he
knew would hear, when he had known even before
he made them that they would remain in the image
of God; he could not say this to the very seed
which was promised. The condition, that is, the
law, was given for the impious and sinners only
[cf. 1 Tim. 1:9[, so that they might either flee to
grace or receive punishment more justly if they
robbed grace of its effect. Why should the law
apply to the righteous for whom it was not made,
who fulfill the law without the law because God is
gracious, who serve God freely and live according
to the image of God and Christ? They are good by
their own volition. The person under the law may
not be an open murderer for fear of death, but he is
not merciful; he does not bear the image of God.
He does not like the law, but he fears its revenge.
He cannot fulfill what he thinks he ought to do if he
does it out of necessity rather than by his own
decision. He has no choice but to fall back on his
own will, which means that he will receive the
sure reward of the one who has not fused his soul
with the will of God. What God wills is not to his
liking. In fact, someone who is good only out of
necessity has an evil will. The law curbs the deed,
not the will. Someone who would embrace evil if
there were no penalty for it is not in tune with God.
Complaining that one cannot do one's own will is
not equivalent to doing God's will. The fear of
being cruel does not make one merciful; such a
person is under the law, is a slave. He does not
detest stealing but only fears punishment. But he
must do his stealing persuaded and convinced,
because he is a carnal being under the power of sin
and does not have the Spirit of God. On the other
hand, he who loves what is good bears the image
of God and lives by faith in the Lord; in him the
heir is no longer the son of the slave woman,
receiving the law in fear. Rather, like Isaac, he is
the son of the free woman, the one who "has not
received a spirit of slavery so as to be again in
fear, but a spirit of adoption as sons crying Abba,
Father" [Rom. 8:151. He who loves God is not
fearful like a slave. It is written: "There is no fear
in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because
fear brings punishment; he who fears is not
consummated in love" [ I John 4:181. Servile fear
is coupled with hatred of discipline; but a son's
fear goes together with the honor of the father.

(19) To live in fear because of the law is one

thing, but to honor God out of veneration for his
awesome majesty is another. People who do the
latter resemble their Father who is in heaven;
reminded by him and taught, they love the good and
hate evil. They do not shun evil out of fear; they do
not do good out of necessity. They are without a
law; they are free; they are the promised ones. "If
you hear me" is not addressed to them. Those to
whom it is, may choose not to hear. Can the phrase
apply to one of whom God foreknew before the
world began that he would hear? True, even the
righteous "whom God foreknew" (Rom. 8:201 live
under this law. They also are addressed by these
words, "if you hear me," but for a different reason;
not because they may choose not to hear, but so that
they may always be solicitous for their salvation,
since they do not know their end. Indeed, no one is
certain of belonging to the number of the
foreknown; even the apostle is concerned "lest I
myself be rejected" (I Cor. 9:271. For the
righteous, therefore, that law does not work wrath,
but it exercises their faith. It is by faith that they
must constantly seek God's grace while they are
laboring, so that what God foresaw in them might
be perfected, and they might be destined for life by
their own free choice. In any other sense it is
impossible that the one who God foresaw,
promised, and even swore would hear, should not
hear.

(20) In the Gospel the Lord explains to which

part the law properly applies even though it is
given to the one body. He says to the apostles: "If
you know these things, blessed are you if you do
them. I do not speak of you all; I know whom I
have chosen" (John 13:17-181. What admirable
brevity! He points out the one body, and at the
same time divides it. If he had said: "I do not speak
of you," or: "I do not speak of all," he would not
point out the one body. But by saying, "I do not
speak of you all," he makes it clear that, even
though he is not speaking of them all, he is
speaking nonetheless of them. It is as if someone
said: "I am not speaking of your whole person."
Two bodies are mingled as if they were one, and
the one body is praised or rebuked in common.
This is like God's words addressed to Moses in
Exodus, after some Israelites had gone out to
collect manna against the Sabbath prohibition:
"How long do you refuse to obey my law?" lExod.
16:281; in fact, Moses himself had always obeyed.

(21) But what shall we say of a law that seems

openly opposed to the promise? In Isaiah, we read:
"If you had hearkened to me, 0 Israel, your number
would be like the sand of the sea" (Isa. 48:18-19].
Here, Israel is rebuked for not having become like
the sand through its own fault. The inference must
be that, if it will always fail to hearken, it will
always remain small in number. Now where is the
firmness of the promises? The problem is our wish
to understand before we believe; we want to
subjugate faith to reason. If we firmly believe that
things come to pass entirely as God has sworn,
then faith will give a reason which reason would
find faithless to question. We will then understand
that there is more firmness to the promise than
infirmity, as we tend to think. For the statement. "if
you had hearkened to me, 0 Israel," is a reminder
of God's righteousness and a confirmation of his
promises; no one should dare to think that not by
their free choice but by God's disposition some are
destined for death and others for life. God said to
the generation then living: "If you had hearkened to
me," in order to leave no doubt after the giving of
the promise that they would be like sand; he did
foresee others who would listen. When anything
was said about this matter before the time of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham was not yet
like the sand of the sea. This is easy to prove.
First, because God promised this large number in
Christ only: "Not to seeds, referring to many, but
referring to one: `and to your seed,' which is
Christ" [Gal. 3:16]. Second, because he promised
all nations, and this promise could not be fulfilled
before Christ. If the number of the children of
Israel really was like the sand of the sea even
before the Lord's coming, it included the false
brethren who are not children of Abraham; for not
all who are from Abraham are children of
Abraham, and not all who are from Israel are
Israel. When the apostle "wished to be accursed"
for the sake of Israel, "who possessed the adoption
as sons and the covenants" [Rom. 9:3-41, he made
it very clear that he did not mean those (false)
children of Abraham; rather, because of his love
for them out of fleshly necessity, he deplored the
fact that they did not belong to that number; he did
not imply that God's promise had failed: "It is not
as though the word of God had failed. For not all
who are descended from Israel are Israel, neither
are they all children because they are the seed of
Abraham; but in Isaac shall your seed be named.
This means that it is not the children of the flesh
who are the chil dren of God, but the children of
the promise are reckoned as the seed" [Rom. 9:6-
8].

(22) In the multitude of ancient Israel, therefore,

the only seed of Abraham were those who, like
Isaac, were children of faith and of promise. Paul
gives a further example: "Though the number of the
children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a
remnant shall be saved" [Rom. 9:271, that is, a
small part. And: "If the Lord of hosts had not left
us a seed, we would be like Sodom" [Rom. 9:291.
This remnant was the seed of Abraham, so that not
all of Judea would be like Sodom. Again, Paul
claims that God never abandoned his inheritance;
rather, the situation has always been what it was at
the time of the Lord's coming, when only part of
Israel was saved; he writes: "What is the answer?
'I have kept for myself seven thousand men who
have not bowed their knees to Baal.' Even so now,
a remnant has been saved, according to the election
of grace" [Rom. 11:4-51. By saying, "even so now,
at the present time," he points out that it had always
been this way in Israel: a remnant, that is, a small
number, was saved.

(23) If, however, neither faith nor reason make a

persuasive case, there are still the words
addressed to him who was promised: "If you had
hearkened to me, 0 Israel, your number would be
like the sand of the sea" [Isa. 48:18-191. The same
Jacob who had been chosen even before he was
born was later rejected through his own free
choice, as Hosea says: "The judgment of the Lord
is upon Judah that he will punish Jacob for his
conduct and repay him for his pursuits. For in the
womb he cheated his brother, and by his labors he
stood up to God and stood up to the angel and
became powerful" [Hos. 12:2-4]. Now if it is true
that God's beloved reached fullness in Jacob, then
the one who "by his labors stood up to God" and
the "cheater" are not one and the same, but two in
one body. What we have here is a figure of the
twofold seed of Abraham, that is, of the two
peoples struggling in the one womb of Mother
Church. One of them is beloved according to the
election by God's foreknowledge, the other wicked
by the election of his own will. Jacob and Esau
exist in one body from one seed. The clear fact that
two were generated demonstrates that there are
two peoples.

(24) Lest someone think, however, that the

separation of the two peoples is so clear, it was
arranged for both to exist in one body, in Jacob,
who was called both "beloved" and "cheater of his
brother." Therefore, the two express the quantity,
not the quality of the separation. One further point
is made: The two who are separated will be
present in one before there is a division. Isaac
said: "Your brother came with cunning and took
your blessing" [Gen. 27:35]. Now this may be a
mystical expression by which (the author) briefly
hints at the two in one body. But is it not contrary
to reason that the cunning one should receive the
blessing meant for his neighbor, when even
Scripture says: "He who does not swear to his
neighbor with cunning will receive a blessing from
the Lord" [Ps. 23:4-5, LXXI? In fact, Jacob, that is,
the church, never came and took the blessing
without the accompaniment of cunning, that is, of
false brethren. But even if innocence and cunning
come to take the blessing together, this does not
mean that they are blessed together; for only "he
who can take it, takes" [Matt. 19:12]. One seed
only, because of the quality of its soil, grows up.

(25) If the text does not say: "In the womb he

cheated Esau," but: (he cheated) "his brother," this
does not contradict the fact that he cheated a
wicked brother. Esau is the symbol and the
designation for the wicked everywhere, while
Jacob stands for both because the bad part
pretends to be Jacob; thus the two appear under
one name. But the good part cannot pretend to be
Esau. Therefore, the latter is the name for wicked
people only, while the former is bipartite.
Moreover, by his free choice Jacob does not
include all the good seed, nor Esau all the had; but
both kinds come from both of them. Abraham's
seed was twofold; this is the point. One of his sons
was born of a slave woman figuratively in order to
show that slaves, too, would come from Abraham.
This son went away with his mother. But after he
was gone, the one who received the law "on Mount
Sinai, which is Hagar, bringing forth children for
slavery" [Gal. 4:241, was found even in the seed
of the other, coming from the free woman, from
Israel. There, in the same people, children of the
promise like Isaac, saints, and believers were
generated in large numbers from the free woman.
Thus, even when the figurative Ishmael and Esau
were separated from the believers, still the whole
(process) resulted in one people later on. From the
beginning both covenants, that of Hagar and that of
Isaac, lay hidden and still lie hidden in it, even
though for a time one appeared under the name of
the other, because the old covenant did not stop
generating when the new one was revealed.
Scripture does not say: "Hagar who bore children
in her old age," but: "which is Hagar, bearing
children for slavery."

(26) Both, however, must "grow together until the

harvest" [Matt. 13:301. In the past, the new
covenant revealed in Christ lay hidden under the
proclamation of the old covenant-(the new
covenant of) grace which would generate children
of the promise, like Isaac, from the free woman. In
the same way, now that the new covenant prevails,
there is no lack of children of slavery born of
Hagar, as Christ's appearance as judge will reveal.
The apostle confirms this picture: The struggle of
the brothers continues even now, the same struggle
which went on between them in the past: "You
brethren, like Isaac, are children of the promise.
But just as at that time he who was born according
to the flesh persecuted the spiritual one, so it is
now also," and he adds the necessary conclusion:
"What does scripture say? Cast out the slave
woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman
shall not be heir with the son of the free woman"
[Gal. 4:28-291. The wording here is not without
significance: "Just as he persecuted, so it is now
also." "He persecuted" is the apostle's
interpretation. For Scripture says: "Ishmael was
playing with Isaac" (Gen. 21:91. The false
brethren who were preaching circumcision to the
Galatians did not attack them openly. Did they not
rather attack playfully, that is, without the signs of
open persecution? Paul calls the "playing" Ishmael
a persecutor. He does the same with those who are
striving to separate the children of God from Christ
and to make them children of their mother Hagar by
appealing as if to the common welfare, namely, the
discipline of the law.
 (27) The only reason the children of the devil slip
in "to spy upon our liberty" [Gal. 2:4], pretend to
be brothers, and play in our paradise like children
of God, is their desire to glory in the suppression
of the freedom of the children of God. "They incur
the judgment, whoever they are" [Gal. 5:10); they
persecute every saint, they kill the prophets [cf.
Matt. 23:371, they "always resist the Holy Spirit"
[Acts 7:51 ]. As "enemies of the cross of Christ"
[Phil. 3:181, "denying Christ in the flesh" [1 John
4:31 while hating his members, they are "the body
of sin, the son of perdition" revealing the "mystery
of iniquity" [2 Thess. 2:3, 71. They are the ones
whose coming is "according to the working of
Satan with all power and signs and false miracles"
[v. 91, "spiritual forces of wickedness on high"
[Eph. 6:12]. Christ the Lord, whom they persecute
in the flesh, will "slay them with the breath of his
mouth and will destroy them by the manifestation
of his coming" [2 Thess. 2:8). For now is the time
in which these things should be set out openly, not
in riddles, the time when that departure which is
the revelation of the man of sin is imminent, the
time when Lot leaves Sodom.
 `Bibliography
PRIMARY SOURCES

Sifra. Sifra: Der ulteste Midrasch zu Levitikus,

edited by M. Friedmann, Schriften der
Gesellschaft zur Forderung des Judentums.
Breslau: M. and H. Marcus, 1915.

Ptolemy. Ptolemee: Lettre u Flora, 2d ed., edited

by G. Quispel, Sources chretiennes, no. 24. Paris:
Editions du Cerf, 1967.

lrenaeus. Irenee de Lyon. Contre [es Heresies,

Livre IV Tome II: Texte et traduction, edited by
A. Rousseau, Sources chretiennes, no. 100. Paris:
Editions du Cerf, 1965.

Origen. Origene, Traite des principes. Tome III

(livres !!! et IV), edited by H. Crouzel and M.
Simonetti, Sources chretiennes, no. 268. Paris:
 Editions du Cerf, 1980.

Origen. Origenes Vier Bucher von den Prinzipien,

edited by H. Giirgemanns and H. Karpp, Texte
zur Forschung, Band 24. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976.

Papyrus Michigan 3718. A. Henrichs and E. M.

Husselman, eds., "Christian Allegorizations (Pap.
Mich. Inv. 3718)," Zeitschrift ftlr Papyrologie and
Epigraphik (Bonn) 3 (1968): 175-89.

Diodore of Tarsus. Diodori Tarsensis Commentarii

in Psalmos. I. Commentary in Psalmos I - L,
edited by J.-M. Olivier, Corpus Christianorum,
Series Graeca, VI. Turnholti: 1'pographi Brepols
Editores Pontificii, 1980.

Diodore of Tarsus. Maries, L., ed., "Extraits du

commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les
Psaumes: Preface du commentaire- Prologue du
Psaume CXVIII," Recbercbes de Science
religieuse (Paris) 9 (1919): 79-101.
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul. Latin
Version with Greek Fragments, vol. 1, edited by
H. B. Swete, 1880. Reprint. Cambridge: At the
University Press, 1969.

Tyconius. The Book of Rules of 7),conius, edited

by F. C. Burkitt, Texts and Studies, vol. III, no. 1,
edited by]. A. Robinson. Cambridge: At the
University Press, 1894.

SECONDARY WORKS

The Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 1: From

the Beginnings to Jerome, edited by P.R. Ackroyd
and C. F. Evans. New York and Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Campenhausen, H. Frhr. von. The Formation of the

Christian Bible, translated by J. A. Baker.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.
Danielou, J. From .Shadow to Reality: Studies in
the Biblical 75pology of the Fathers, translated
by W. Hibbard. Westminster, Md.: Newman
Press, 1961.

. A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the

Council of Nicaea, translated by J. A. Baker (and
D. Smith). Philadelphia: The Westminster Preas.

Vol. 1: The Theology ofJewisb

Christianity, (1964) 1977

Vol. 2: Gospel Message and

Hellenistic Culture, 1973

Vol. 3: The Origins of Latin

Christianity, 1977

Dauhe, D. "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and

Hellenistic Rhetoric," Hebreu' Union College
Annual (Cincinnati) XXII (1949): 239-64.

Goppelt, L. Typos. The Typological Interpretation

 of the Old Testament in the New, translated by D.
H. Madvig. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. lierdmans,
1982.

Grant, R. M. The Letter and the Spirit. New York:

Macmillan Co., 1957.

A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible.

New edition, with update on modern use by D.
Tracy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Greer. R. A. Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and

Theologian. Westminster, Md.: Faith Press, 1961.

Hanson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event: A Study of

the Sources and Significance of Origen 's
Interpretation of Scripture. Richmond: John Knox
Press, 1959.

Longenecker, R. N. Biblical Exegesis in the

Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids. Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1975.
De Lubac, H. The Sources of Revelation,
translated by Luke O'Neill. New York: Herder &
Herder, 1968.

,Mielziner, M. Introduction to the Talmud. With a

new bibliography, 1925-67, by A. Guttmann.
New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1969.

O'Malley, T. P. Tertullian and the Bible. Language-

Imagery -Exegesis. Latinitas Christianorum
Primaeva 21. Nijmegen and Utrecht: Dekker &
Van de Vegt, 1967.

Pagels, E. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of

the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1975.

Toblin, T. 1i. The Creation of Man: Philo and the

History of Interpretation. The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly Monograph Series 14. Washington,
D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1983.
Trigg, J. W. Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in
the Third-Century Church. Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1983.

Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. Christian Antioch. A Study

of Early Christian Thought in the East. New York
and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1982.