Hebrews 11:17–31

Here is a man of true faith, for when the Lord asked him to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, he was willing to do so. By faith he offered up the one through whom the Lord had given him the promise of a nation of descendants. And in offering his son he worshiped the Son of God. When the Lord held him back from sacrificing Isaac, Abraham saw the Messiah in the ram that was ultimately offered as the sacrifice to God.We see, then, that the patriarch was tested by means of Isaac—not that Isaac was sacrificed but rather the one who was pointed out in Isaiah, "He shall be like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb." He was, in truth, tested by him who took away the sin of the world. That is why Abraham was held back from laying his hand on the boy. If he had sacrificed Isaac, the Jews might very well have rejected all the prophecies concerning the Savior. Undoubtedly they would have especially rejected such prophecies given by the psalmist as, "You have not wanted sacrifice and offering; for you have prepared a body for me." They would have referred all such prophecies to the son of Abraham. Thus the sacrifice was not for the sake of Isaac but of Abraham, who was tested by being called upon to make this offering. And of course, God accepted his intentions, but God prevented him from slaying Isaac. The death of Isaac would not buy freedom for the world. No, that could be accomplished only by the death of our Savior, by whose stripes we are all healed. He alone picked up the falling, healed the sick, satisfied those who were hungry and filled the poor. Above all else, he alone raised us all from the dead, and having abolished death, he has brought us from sorrow and sighing to the rest and gladness of this feast. That, dear friends, is a joy that reaches heaven!

In whose similitude but His of whom the apostle says, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all?" And on this account Isaac also himself carried to the place of sacrifice the wood on which he was to be offered up, just as the Lord Himself carried His own cross. Finally, since Isaac was not to be slain, after his father was forbidden to smite him, who was that ram by the offering of which that sacrifice was completed with typical blood? For when Abraham saw him, he was caught by the horns in a thicket. What, then, did he represent but Jesus, who, before He was offered up, was crowned with thorns by the Jews?

A familiar example is Abraham's "trial" when he was ordered to sacrifice Isaac. With the historicity or the morality of that story I am not now concerned, but with the obvious question "If God is omniscient He must have known what Abraham would do, without any experiment; why, then, this needless torture?" But as St. Augustine points out, whatever God knew, Abraham at any rate did not know that his obedience could endure such a command until the event taught him: and the obedience which he did not know that he would choose, he cannot be said to have chosen. The reality of Abraham's obedience was the act itself; and what God knew in knowing that Abraham "would obey" was Abraham's actual obedience on that mountain top at that moment. To say that God "need not have tried the experiment" is to say that because God knows, the thing known by God need not exist.

Isaac is a type of the infant Lord as son, and, in fact, Isaac was the son of Abraham as Christ is of God, victim as was the Lord. But he was not cut down like the Lord; no, Isaac only carried the wood of the sacrifice, as the Lord did his cross. He laughed mystically by way of prophesying that the Lord fills us with joy, we who have been redeemed by his blood. He did not suffer but left to the Logos, as is fitting, the first fruits of suffering. What is more, because he was not immolated, he signifies also the divinity of the Lord. For after his burial, Jesus was raised up, thus leaving suffering behind, just as Isaac had escaped the sacrifice.

And again [the Scripture] says, "God brought forth Abram, and spoke unto him, Look up now to heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them; so shall your seed be. And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him in his old age; and in the exercise of obedience, he offered him as a sacrifice to God on one of the mountains which He showed him.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac" as a victim, even though he had received this child with the promise that through him his descendants would have been named. And Abraham never doubted, not even when he was about to kill him, that through him his descendants would have been named.He decided in his mind and accepted the idea that "God is able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back," that is, so that in him he might come to know the resurrection of the dead, and in him might know the children of the spirit whom he would have had.

And he shows another thing too, by saying, that "God tempted Abraham." What then? Did not God know that the man was noble and approved? Why then did He tempt him? Not that He might Himself learn, but that He might show to others, and make his fortitude manifest to all. And here also he shows the cause of trials, that they may not suppose they suffer these things as being forsaken of God. For in their case indeed, it was necessary that they should be tried, because there were many who persecuted or plotted against them: but in Abraham's case, what need was there to devise trials for him which did not exist? Now this trial, it is evident, was by His command. The others indeed happened by His allowance, but this even by His command. If then temptations make men approved in such wise that, even where there is no occasion, God exercises His own athletes; much more ought we to bear all things nobly.

And here he said emphatically, "By faith, when he was tried, he offered up Isaac," for there was no other cause for his bringing the offering but that.

Great indeed was the faith of Abraham. For while in the case of Abel, and of Noah, and of Enoch, there was an opposition of reasonings only, and it was necessary to go beyond human reasonings; in this case it was necessary not only to go beyond human reasonings, but to manifest also something more. For what was of God seemed to be opposed to what was of God; and faith opposed faith, and command promise.

I mean this: He had said, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and I will give thee this land." "He gave him none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on." Seest thou how what was done was opposed to the promise? Again He said, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," and he believed: and again He says, Sacrifice to Me this one, who was to fill all the world from his seed. Thou seest the opposition between the commands and the promise? He enjoined things that were in contradiction to the promises, and yet not even so did the righteous man stagger, nor say he had been deceived.

He heard the opposite of the promises from Him who had made them; and yet he was not disturbed, but did them as if they had been in harmony therewith. For they were in harmony; being opposed indeed according to human calculations, but in harmony when viewed by Faith.

"By faith, Abraham offered up Isaac." By what faith? That God is able to raise him even from the dead. "being tested." God tested Abraham, not because he himself wanted to learn about Abraham (for how could He who searches our hearts be alone in this?); (Ps. 7:10) but rather, he would make it evident to us. "his only begotten." For in case anyone say that he still had a child, and was expecting the promise to be fulfilled through him, he willingly offered Isaac, for he says, he was not the only begotten; he was only begotten in terms of the promise, since he also had Ishmael.

Give me your attention, you who have approached God, who believe yourselves to be faithful. Consider diligently how the faith of the faithful is proved from these words that have been read to us. "After these things," the text says, "God tested Abraham and said to him, 'Abraham, Abraham.' And he said, 'Here I am.' " Observe each detail that has been written. For, if one knows how to dig into the depth, one will find a treasure in the details. Perhaps also the precious jewels of the mysteries lie hidden where they are not esteemed.This man was previously called Abram. Nowhere do we read that God called him by this name or said to him, "Abram, Abram." For God could not call him by a name that was to be abolished, but he calls him by this name which God gave; and not only does God call him by this name, but he also repeats it. And when he had responded, "Here I am," God says to him, "Take your dearest son Isaac, whom you love, and offer him to me. Go," the text says, "into the high land, and there you shall offer him for a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I shall show you." Why God gave him this particular name and called him Abraham, he himself has interpreted. "Because," the text says, "I have made you a father of many nations." God gave him this promise when he had his son Ishmael, but it is promised him that the promise will be fulfilled in a son who will be born of Sarah. He had kindled his soul, therefore, in love for his son not only because of posterity but also in the hope of the promises. But this son, in whom these great and marvelous promises have been made, this son, I say, on whose account his name is called Abraham, "he is ordered to offer for a holocaust to the Lord on one of the mountains." What do you say to these things, Abraham? What kind of thoughts are stirring in your heart? A word has been uttered by God that is such as to shatter and try your faith. What do you say to these things? What are you thinking? What are you reconsidering? Are you thinking, are you turning over in your heart that, if the promise has been given to me in Isaac, but I offer him for a holocaust, it remains that that promise holds no hope? Or rather do you think of those well-known words, and say that it is impossible, for him who promised, to lie; be that as it may, the promise shall remain? But I, because "I am the least," am not able to examine the thoughts of such a great patriarch nor can I know what thoughts the voice of God which had proceeded to test him stirred in him, what feeling it caused, when he was ordered to slay his only son. But since "the spirit of prophets is subject to the prophets," the apostle Paul, who, I believe, was teaching by the Spirit what feeling, what plan Abraham considered, has revealed it when he says, "By faith Abraham did not hesitate, when he offered his only son, in whom he had received the promises, thinking that God is able to raise him up even from the dead." The apostle, therefore, has reported to us the thoughts of the faithful man, that the faith in the resurrection began to be held already at that time in Isaac. Abraham, therefore, hoped for the resurrection of Isaac and believed in a future that had not yet happened. How, then, are they "sons of Abraham" who do not believe what has happened in Christ, which Abraham believed was to be in Isaac? No, rather, that I may speak more clearly, Abraham knew himself to prefigure the image of future truth; he knew the Christ was to be born from his seed, who also was to be offered as a truer victim for the whole world and was to be raised from the dead.

God promised to bring to light a vast number of Isaac's offspring like sand on the seashore, and he it was who bade Isaac become a victim. Beset by the two conflicting thoughts, then, and with nature tearing at him more harshly than any torturer, the patriarch easily overcame it all and offered the sacrifice. He brings out as well the thoughts he employed in banishing the others, "God was able to raise men even from the dead." He took issue with the thought arising in regard to the great number of offspring, believing that his son, even if slaughtered, could come back to life, God willing. "Figuratively speaking, he did receive him back," that is, by way of a symbol and type of the resurrection. Put to death by his father's zeal, he came back to life at the word of the one who prevented the slaughter. In him the type of the saving passion was also prefigured. Hence the Lord also said to the Jews, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the prospect of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

Abraham stands above all in faith. For here not only nature entered into conflict with the divine command, but also the word of God itself. For the One who said, "I will give to you and your descendants the land" (Gen. 17:8), is the same One who commands, "offer as a burnt offering" your son (Gen. 22:2). Therefore it is said that "Abraham was tested," not because God had need to test his virtue, but so that we might learn his virtue through this trial and these deeds. Note, then, that trials are so beneficial that God not only permits others to inflict them upon believers, but He Himself also tests them, in order to show them more proven.

603. – Then (v. 17) another famous example of Abraham's faith is given, inasmuch as it regards God, namely, that supreme sacrifice of his when at the Lord's command he willed to immolate his only begotten son (Gen. 22:1). In regard to this he does three things: first, what he did; secondly, that this pertains to faith (v. 17b); thirdly, what he received for this (v. 19b).

604. – He says, therefore: Abraham, when he was tested, was ready to offer Isaac by faith, as is clear from Genesis (22). But there are two questions here: first of all, to kill the innocent is against the law of nature and is, consequently, a sin, Therefore, in willing to offer him he sinned. I answer that a person who kills at the command of a superior lawfully commanding, lawfully obeys and can lawfully carry out his duty. But God has power over life and death: 'The Lord kills and makes alive' (1 Sam 2:6). But God does no injury, when He takes the life even of the innocent. Hence, by God's decree many wicked and many innocent people die every day. Therefore, it is lawful to carry out God's commands. There is question also about the statement, when he was tested. For God tests no one, since to test implies ignorance. I answer that the devil tests in order to deceive: 'Lest perhaps he that tempts should have tempted you' (1 Th. 3:5). This is clear in the temptation of Christ (Matt. 4). But a man tests in order to learn. Thus, in 1 Kg. (10:1) it is recorded that the queen of Sheba went to Solomon to try him with questions. But God does not test in that way, for He knows all things; but He tests in order that the man himself learn how strong or how weak he is: 'To afflict you and prove you, and that the things that were in your heart might be made known' (Dt. 8:2); and 2 Chr (32:31) tells of Hezekiah being tested that all things might be made known that were in his heart. Furthermore, in order that others know the one tested and take him as an example, as Abraham and Job (Sir. 44:21).

No one could allege, that he had another son, and expected the promise to be fulfilled from him, and therefore confidently offered up this one. "And" (his words are) "he offered up his only-begotten, who had received the promises." Why sayest thou "only-begotten"? What then? Of whom was Ishmael sprung? I mean "only-begotten" (he would say) so far as relates to the word of the promise. Therefore after saying, "Only-begotten," showing that he says it for this reason, he added, "of whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called," that is, "from" him. Seest thou how he admires what was done by the Patriarch? "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," and that son he brought to be sacrificed.

Afterwards, that no one may suppose he does this in despair, and in consequence of this command had cast away that Faith, but may understand that this also was truly of faith, he says that he retained that faith also, although it seem to be at variance with this. But it was not at variance. For he did not measure the power of God by human reasonings, but committed all to faith.

"to whom it was said." Thus, it is said, as to the apparent, God seems to command the opposite of what He promised. And yet Abraham did not waver. For how could Isaac be called his seed, when he was commanded to sacrifice Isaac? Nevertheless, he did not hesitate even then.

But in what sense was Isaac the only-begotten, when he also had Ishmael? Yet with regard to the promise, he was the only-begotten, for he was the seed in the proper sense: "for in Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Gen. 21:12).

605. – Then when he says, was ready to offer up his only son, he shows quite subtly that that obedience pertains to faith. For, as has been stated above, Abraham in his old age believed God promising that in Isaac he would be blessed in his seed. He also believed that God could raise the dead. Therefore, when he was commanded to kill him, there was no further hope for Sarah, who was now very old, to have a child, since Isaac was already a youth. Therefore, since he believed that God's commands must be obeyed, nothing else remained but to believe that He would revive Isaac, by whom his seed would be called. Hence, he says, his only son, namely, of Sarah, in whom, i.e., in the only son, God was to fulfill His promise, as Genesis (18:19) indicates. Or, the only son, namely, among the free children: 'Take your only begotten son, Isaac' (Gen. 22:2). He who had received the promises, of whom it was said, i.e., by reason of whom; Through Isaac shall your descendants be called, considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead. This, therefore, was the greatest proof of his faith, because the article of the resurrection is one of the most important.

And how this was, the Apostle himself has taught us, by saying, "accounting that God was able to raise Him up, even from the dead." By the same faith (he means) by which he believed that God gave what was not, and raised up the dead, by the same was he persuaded that He would also raise him up after he had been slain in sacrifice. For it was alike impossible (to human calculation, I mean) from a womb which was dead and grown old and already become useless for child-bearing to give a child, and to raise again one who had been slain. But his previous faith prepared the way for things to come.

And see; the good things came first, and the hard things afterwards, in his old age. But for you, on the contrary, (he says) the sad things are first, and the good things last. This for those who dare to say, "He has promised us the good things after death; perhaps He has deceived us." He shows that "God is able to raise up even from the dead," and if God be able to raise from the dead, without all doubt He will pay all that He has promised.

But if Abraham so many years before, believed "that God is able to raise from the dead," much more ought we to believe it. Thou seest (what I at first said) that death had not yet entered in and yet He drew them at once to the hope of the resurrection, and led them to such full assurance, that when bidden, they even slay their own sons, and readily offer up those from whom they expected to people the world.

And hence he was not afraid to say, that God was "able to raise him up, even from the dead."

"From whence also he received him in a figure," that is in idea, by the ram, he means. How? The ram having been slain, he was saved: so that by means of the ram he received him again, having slain it in his stead. But these things were types: for here it is the Son of God who is slain.

And observe, I beseech you, how great is His lovingkindness. For inasmuch as a great favor was to be given to men, He, wishing to do this, not by favor, but as a debtor, arranges that a man should first give up his own son on account of God's command, in order that He Himself might seem to be doing nothing great in giving up His own Son, since a man had done this before Him; that He might be supposed to do it not of grace, but of debt. For we wish to do this kindness also to those whom we love, others, to appear first to have received some little thing from them, and so give them all: and we boast more of the receiving than of the giving; and we do not say, We gave him this, but, We received this from him.

"From whence also" (are his words) "he received him in a figure," i.e. as in a riddle (for the ram was as it were a figure of Isaac) or, as in a type. For since the sacrifice had been completed, and Isaac slain in purpose, therefore He gave him to the Patriarch.

"considering that God was able even to raise him from the dead." Do you see how by faith Abraham did everything? For he believed that God could even raise him from the dead after he was sacrificed. "from which, figuratively speaking." And Abraham himself and Isaac himself. For it is fitting concerning the two. But see this, "figuratively." Abraham was a type of God the Father, and Isaac, of the Son of God. For since God was about to provide us with something great, the sacrifice of His Son, being very compassionate, so that we might not think that we are saved by grace alone, He made it necessary to deliver Christ. And the necessity is thus: "Just as," he says, "Abraham was willing to deliver his only-begotten for me to death, so also I," he says, "must deliver my Only-begotten to death for the sake of men." And the "figuratively," we can also understand this way, connecting it to the person of Isaac: He brought Isaac, and made him a figure and a type and an example of Christ, so that just as Isaac was sacrificed according to Abraham's intention, so also Christ was sacrificed, in truth. And thus, the "figuratively," understand; that is, he says, he brought Isaac in a figure, that is, instead of the type and the example. For he indicated the ram, and having given it instead of him, he received Isaac. But the first interpretation, as I think, is much better.

That is, "from which, figuratively speaking," it is possible to understand it this way: From where Abraham also brought Isaac in a figure. For he says, he demonstrated some overwhelming obedience, and faith that overcame even the laws of nature, he again receives the son, not as one who offered him, but with a great addition and value of his own faith. For he brought him bearing a figure and a likeness to the Son of God and God. Such things faith is able to accomplish. If, however, you take the common point in the figure from both Abraham and Isaac, that one served as a type of the Father and as a figure and likeness through the offering of the child, while Isaac served as a type of the Son, thus the aforementioned understanding is fulfilled. So great a gain, he says, faith brought to Abraham, that having offered his son, he received him back with the greatest addition. Of which addition was this? The one in the figure, both in relation to the Father and in relation to the Son to be brought forth. That is to say, He brought forth the Son for such a gain, in which the Father willed for both to be made a type of approach to be accomplished upon the Son. In the figure, God brought forth Isaac; that is, because of the faith and willingness of Abraham, although a ram was presented, and then not brought forth by Abraham, but by God Himself, who also brought forth. Thus, God accepted the sacrifice, as if bringing forth Isaac Himself through the figure and the substitution of the ram. Therefore, it is said, from where He brought him forth, as Isaac, in the parable and substitution of the ram, that is, as the purpose was fulfilled, and the willingness of his faith, therefore, God accepted the sacrifice of Abraham.

One can understand the statement "hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back" in the following sense: "Abraham received Isaac in a figurative way." For, as he says, since he showed some untold obedience and a faith that conquers even the laws of nature itself, he received his son again, not merely because he offered his son but because he offered him with great assent and his worthy faith. For Abraham received Isaac, who bore a figure and likeness to the Son of God and God himself. For such faith can set matters aright. But if you understand "in a figurative way" to apply to Abraham and Isaac, in that Abraham acted as a type of the Father and as a figure and likeness of him, while Isaac acted as a type of the Son, this interpretation would accord well with the understanding we have already stated. Abraham's faith brought him such a gain, he says, because after offering him he received him back with great addition. What sort of addition? That he would receive him again "in a figurative manner" and likeness of the action with the Father and the Son, that is, he received his son with so great profit, since both became a type of the offering with which the Father thought it good to be completed in his Son.Or one can understand it as follows. God "in a figurative way received" Isaac, that is, because of the faith and zeal of Abraham. To be sure, later a ram was offered, and even then it was not brought out of Abraham's flock but was also provided by God. Nonetheless, God received the sacrifice in this way, as if Abraham had offered Isaac himself albeit in a symbolic manner and through the substitution of the ram. Therefore he says, "He received him," namely, Isaac, "in a figurative way" and substitution of the ram, that is, the intended and fulfilled purpose of Abraham and the desire of his faith. Thus God received the sacrifice of Abraham in this manner.

He obtained it in accordance with his faith. For believing in the resurrection, he received him who had died symbolically. For the fact that he suffered nothing, although he fully expected to die, was a symbol of the one who would truly rise, inasmuch as, "having tasted death for a short time," he rose, having suffered nothing under death's power. For this was done "in a parable" instead of in symbols.

It is worthy of admiration that he, having no other son in whom he could expect the fulfillment of the promise, but having only one, nevertheless offered him as a sacrifice. Why then? Because of his great faith. For he believed that God was "able," even after his slaying, to raise him from the dead and fulfill the promise, and through him, brought back to life, to multiply his seed. But in what sense was Isaac the only-begotten, when he also had Ishmael? Yet with regard to the promise, he was the only-begotten, for he was the seed in the proper sense: "for in Isaac shall thy seed be called" (Gen. 21:12).

What does "as a foreshadowing" mean? That is, as a type, as a revelation of the mystery relating to Christ. For just as then Isaac was spared while the ram was slain, so Christ alone, being at one and the same time God and man, was offered as a sacrifice for us according to His humanity, while the Divine essence remained untouched by suffering. In general, Abraham was a type of God the Father, and Isaac of the Son of God: since God in His great love for mankind resolved to accomplish this great and reason-surpassing mystery — to give His Son for us — He also wished to bestow this not as His own gift, but as though repaying a debt, saying as it were the following: I give nothing new to human nature by offering My Son as a sacrifice for it. For Abraham "offered" his son to be slain for Me. Therefore I am repaying a debt, not giving a gift. Or "as a foreshadowing" means that in the ram Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice, that is, he substituted the ram, which was a type of Isaac — that is, the one slain was a figure representing Isaac.

606. – Then (v. 19b) he shows what he merited by faith; because, since nothing remained but to immolate him, an angel called him, and, in place of his son, he immolated a ram sticking fast by the horns. But this was a parable, i.e., a figure of Christ to come. For the ram sticking fast by the horns among the briars is the humanity which suffered, fixed to the cross. And so it is clear that the figure was not at all equal to the one prefigured. Therefore, he received him back, i.e., Isaac, for a parable, i.e., for a figure of Christ to be crucified and immolated.

"By Faith, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come" (and yet Esau was the elder; but he puts Jacob first for his excellence). Seest thou how great was his Faith? Whence did he promise to his sons so great blessings? Entirely from his having faith in God.

"By faith, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come." From where were such good things promised to his sons, if he did not believe that God would give the promises? And what is it, concerning things to come? Or concerning what is to happen to them, or concerning what is to be given to their offspring. For neither did they themselves enjoy the promise. Jacob, however, is first named because of his virtue.

"By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau." First he gave it to Jacob, then to Esau, not according to the sequence of their birth but according to the order of spiritual blessing.

How could he have promised his sons so many good things, himself living in a foreign land, if he did not believe that God would grant what was promised? What does "concerning things to come" mean? Either the good things of the age to come, for they knew about the resurrection and these blessings were understood by them, or the good things on this earth, which they themselves or their descendants were to receive. And he prefers Jacob to Esau, as virtuous, as having received the rights of the firstborn, and in all things worthy of preference.

607. – Above, the Apostle gave an example of Abraham's faith; here he gives the example of the faith of Isaac, Jacob and Joseph: and first of Isaac's faith. He says, therefore, that by faith of things to come, i.e., of things that extended into the future, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau. Or, he blessed them for things to come; or with a blessing which extended to the future. For his words had efficacy from God's power alone. Through this blessing the younger ruled the older. But this did not pertain to their persons, but to the two peoples that sprang from them: 'over Edom I will stretch out my shoe' (Ps. 107:10). For the Edomites who sprang from Esau were subject to the people of Israel. This signified that the younger people, i.e., the Gentiles, by faith were to supplant the older people, namely, the Jews: 'Many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven' (Mt. 8:11). But that blessing which concerned the coming faith of the Gentiles was made by faith, because it looked to something in the future.

"By Faith, Jacob when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph." Here we ought to set down the blessings entire, in order that both his faith and his prophesying may be made manifest. "And worshiped leaning," he says, "upon the top of his staff." Here, he means, he not only spoke, but was even so confident about the future things, as to show it also by his act. For inasmuch as another King was about to arise from Ephraim, therefore it is said, "And he bowed himself upon the top of his staff." That is, even though he was now an old man, "he bowed himself" to Joseph, showing the obeisance of the whole people which was to be directed to him. And this indeed had already taken place, when his brethren "bowed down" to him: but it was afterwards to come to pass through the ten tribes. Seest thou how he foretold the things which were to be afterwards? Seest thou how great faith they had? How they believed "concerning the things to come"?

The tree of life that was planted by God in paradise prefigured this honorable cross, for, since death came by a tree, it was necessary for life and the resurrection to be bestowed by a tree. It was Jacob who first prefigured the cross, when he adored the top of the rod of Joseph. And when he blessed Joseph's sons with his hands crossed, he most clearly described the sign of the cross. Then there was the rod of Moses which struck the sea with the form of a cross and saved Israel while causing Pharaoh to be swallowed up; his hands stretched out in the form of a cross and put Amalek to flight;78 the bitter water being made sweet by a tree, and the rock being struck and gushing forth streams of water. Further, the rod of Aaron miraculously confirmed the dignity of the priesthood, a serpent was raised in triumph upon a tree, as if dead, with the tree preserving those who with faith beheld the dead enemy, even as Christ was nailed up in flesh of sin but which had not known sin. … May we who adore this attain to the portion of Christ the crucified. Amen.

"By faith Jacob, as he was dying." — Here, he says not only this, but also therefore he encouraged those to come, as he would also demonstrate in the work itself. For he was about to rise another king from Ephraim. Therefore, he says, And he adored at the top of his staff, that is, even being old, he worships Joseph, indicating the worship of all, that which was to come to him. And this because he knew that his brothers had adored [προσεκύνησεν] him.It was about to be revealed later, through the ten tribes.

"and he adored at the top of the staff." For he signified the kingdom of Ephraim and the overthrow of the ten tribes. Therefore, he himself prefigures their adoration.

For he believed so much, he says, in what was to come, that he also adored with the staff, thinking he was seeing what was to come. For from the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, kings were to arise from the seed of Ephraim. Therefore, revealing the kingdom to his seed, he adored at the top of the staff of Manasseh. It is written in the book of Genesis thus: "And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years." (Gen. 47:28)And the days of Jacob's life were one hundred and forty-seven years. And the days of Israel drew near to die, and he called his son Joseph and said to him: "If I have found grace in your sight, put your hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and truly with me; do not bury me in Egypt, but let me lie with my fathers; carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burial place. And he said, I will do as you have said. And he said, Swear to me. And he swore to him. And Israel bowed himself upon the head of the bed." (Gen. 47:29-31) — By faith, Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning his bones. For he believed so much that they would come out of Egypt, that he also swore that his bones would be carried away. What then? So that always remembering the oaths of Joseph, they might see also the matters concerning the exodus. For who would have sworn that his bones would be carried away, if he did not strongly believe that they would go out?

Thereupon he not only spoke but he also was bold to demonstrate it to coming generations by his action. For since another king would arise from Ephraim, for this very reason he says, "and Jacob bowing in worship over the head of his staff," that is, being an old man, he bowed down to Joseph, showing the obeisance of the whole people that would take place for him. And this has already come to pass, when the brothers bowed down to him, and it was about to come to pass later through the ten tribes.

The sons of Joseph were Manasseh and Ephraim; and although Manasseh was the elder and Ephraim the younger, Jacob nevertheless blessed Ephraim with greater blessings and with a cross-wise laying on of hands, and so firmly believed that his blessings would be fulfilled and that the tribe of Ephraim would hold dominion, that he showed this by his very deed. For he bowed down to Joseph as a sign of the worship of the entire people. How then did he bow down? "Upon the top of his staff," that is, leaning on his staff because of old age. Some say he bowed down upon the top of Joseph's staff, signifying through the staff the scepter of kingship, which was to be an object of worship.

608. – Then when he says, by faith Jacob dying blessed each of the sons, he continues with Jacob's faith and mentions what he did in blessing the two sons of Joseph, as is recorded in Genesis (48), where it is stated that when Joseph was informed of his father's illness, he called his two sons whom Jacob blessed, crossing his hands. With this gesture he chose Ephraim over Manasseh as to dignity, because the royal dignity came from Ephraim, namely, Jeroboam. But this blessing was by faith, because it was revealed to him that it would be thus in the future. This blessing referred to the people who came out of them and not to their persons. Likewise, by faith he adored the top of his rod. This is recorded in Genesis (49), where it is stated that he made Joseph swear that he would bury him in the tomb of his fathers; and after the oath, he adored the top of the coffin, as our version has, or at the top of his rod, as the Septuagint says, or at the top, as is had in the Greek. And all this can stand, because he was old and carried a rod; or he took Joseph's scepter until he vowed, and after returning it he adored not the rod nor Joseph, as some wickedly thought, but God Himself. This he did, leaning on the top of his rod. He did this, moved by the consideration of Christ's power, which Joseph's power prefigured. For being the prefect in Egypt, he carried a scepter as a sign of his power: 'You that rule them with a rod of iron' (Ps. 2:9). Or if he adored the top, the sense is the same, because he adored Christ signified by that rod, just as we adore the Crucified and the Cross by reason of Christ, Who suffered on it. Hence, properly speaking, we do not adore the Cross, but Christ crucified on it.

The things also which concern Joseph are of Faith only. Joseph heard that God had made a promise to Abraham, that He had engaged His word "to thee and to thy seed will I give this land;" and though in a strange land, and not yet seeing the engagement fulfilled, but never faltered even so, but so believed as even to "speak of the Exodus, and to give commandment concerning his bones." He then not only believed himself, but led on the rest also to Faith: that having the Exodus always in mind (for he would not have "given commandment concerning his bones," unless he had been fully assured of this), they might look for their return to Canaan.

Wherefore, when some men say, "See! Even righteous men had care about their sepulchers," let us reply to them, that it was for this reason: for he knew that "the earth is the Lord's and all that therein is." He could not indeed have been ignorant of this, who lived in so great philosophy, who spent his whole life in Egypt. And yet if he had wished, it was possible for him to return, and not to mourn or vex himself. But when he had taken up his father thither, why, did he enjoin them to carry up thence his own bones also? Evidently for this reason.

Joseph would not have given directions about his remains if he had not believed the divine promises.

So greatly, he says, did he believe that the Israelites would be freed from Egypt, that he even commanded them with an oath to carry his bones with them (Gen. 50:25). And he did this not because he was concerned about a grave — being very wise, he knew that "the earth is the Lord's" (Ps. 24:1) — but to instill in the people full confidence that God's promise would in any case be fulfilled and that they would leave Egypt. And so that they would not remain in Egypt on account of the impiety there — it is so pleasing to God that even he himself did not wish to lay his bones in Egypt.

609. – Then (v. 22) he continues with the example of Joseph's faith and mentions two things which are stated in the last chapter of Genesis, where he said to his brothers (v. 24): 'God will visit you,' and commanded them to carry his bones out of that place. Hence, his faith bore on two things: first, because he believed that the promise He made would be fulfilled by the return of the children of Israel to the promised land; secondly, because he believed that Christ would be born and would rise from the dead in it, and many with him. Hence, he desired to have a part in that resurrection. He says, therefore, By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites; and this in regard to the first: and gave commandment regarding his bones, as to the second.

610. – But why did he not cause himself to be carried at once like his father. I answer that he was not able, because he did not then have the power he had at his father's death. Secondly, because he knew that the children of Israel were to suffer many afflictions after his death. Therefore, to assure them of their deliverance and return to the promised land, he willed his body to remain with them as a consolation. Hence, Moses took it with him, just as each tribe took the body of its father, as Jerome says.

"By faith, Moses when he was born, was hid three months of his parents." Dost thou see that in this case they hoped for things on the earth after their death? And many things were fulfilled after their death. This is for some who say, "After death those things were done for them, which they did not obtain while alive; nor did they believe would be after their death."

Moreover Joseph did not say, He gave not the land to me in my life-time, nor to my father, nor to my grandfather, whose excellence too ought to have been reverenced; and will He vouchsafe to these wretched people what He did not vouchsafe to them? He said nothing of all this, but by Faith he both conquered and went beyond all these things.

He has named Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, all illustrious and admirable men. Again he makes the encouragement greater, by bringing down the matter to ordinary persons. For that the admirable should feel thus, is nothing wonderful, and to appear inferior to them, is not so dreadful: but to show oneself inferior even to people without names, this is the dreadful thing. And he begins with the parents of Moses, obscure persons, who had nothing so great as their son had.

But at present we must speak of the parents of Moses. Pharaoh gave orders that all the male children should be destroyed, and none had escaped the danger. Whence did these expect to save their child? From faith. What sort of Faith? "They saw" (he says) "that he was a proper child." The very sight drew them on to Faith: thus from the beginning, yea from the very swaddling-clothes, great was the Grace that was poured out on that righteous man, this being not the work of nature. For observe, the child immediately on its birth appears fair and not disagreeable to the sight. Whose work was this? Not that of nature, but of the Grace of God, which also stirred up and strengthened that barbarian woman, the Egyptian, and took and drew her on.

And yet in truth Faith had not a sufficient foundation in their case. For what was it to believe from sight? But you (he would say) believe from facts and have many pledges of Faith. For "the receiving with joyfulness the spoiling of their goods," and other such things, were evidences of Faith and of Patience. But inasmuch as these Hebrews also had believed, and yet afterwards had become faint-hearted, he shows that the Faith of those saints of old also was long continued, as, for instance, that of Abraham, although the circumstances seemed to contend against it.

"And" (he says) "they were not afraid of the king's commandment," although that was in operation, but this their hope respecting their child was simply a kind of bare expectation. And this indeed was the act of his parents; but Moses himself what did he contribute?

For consider what confidence Seth had towards God, and Abel, and Enos, and Enoch, and Methuselah, and Noah, the first lovers of righteousness, and the first of the first-born children who are written in heaven,

Where he had listed righteous men who acted with faith, he also speaks about the parents of Moses, who were of no reputation. encouraging them, and almost saying: They were so obscure yet had faith, but you waver? For what reason did they hide him for three months, and this despite a royal decree that male children should be immediately killed? It is clear that they believed he would be saved. But what was the source of their faith? From the fact that the child was beautiful. For, he says, without divine grace, he would not have been such from the swaddling clothes.

Having enumerated the great men who accomplished their feats through faith, he speaks also of the parents of Moses, people of no renown, encouraging the fainthearted by showing that even the secondary deeds of such people are significant. Further, he brings forward even harlots, in order to shame them all the more. So then, he says, for what reason did they hide the three-month-old child, and that in defiance of the command to kill male children? How were they not afraid? Clearly, they believed that he would be saved. But why did they believe that he would be saved? Because "they saw that the child was beautiful," that is, fair, attractive in appearance, and they believed that God had loved him from his very swaddling clothes. They say that they even intended to cast him out, but when the child smiled sweetly, they kept him — so divine was everything about him.

611. – Then when he says, By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months by his parents, he continues with the fathers that were under the Law. For this period begins with Moses: 'Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice' (Sir. 24:33); 'The law was given by Moses' (Jn. 1:33). But that period is divided into three parts, namely, before the departure from Egypt, during the departure, and after the departure. Therefore, he does three things: first, he shows what happened before the departure; secondly, during the departure (v. 27); thirdly, what happened in the promised land (v. 32). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows what occurred at Moses' birth; secondly, what he did (v. 24).

612. – Here he touches on the history given in Exodus (chap. 1), namely, that the Pharaoh commanded the male children to be killed, lest they be multiplied. Secondly, it is recorded that Moses' parents, seeing that he was a comely child, hid him for three months: which the Apostle attributes to their faith. For they believed that someone would be born to free them from their slavery. Hence, from the child's comeliness they believed that some power of God was in him. For they were rude country people, who sweated, working with clay and bricks: 'A man is known by his look' (Sir. 19:26). From this we see that although faith is about invisible things, yet through certain visible signs we can rest in it. 'Confirming the word with signs that followed' (Mk 16:20). But the fact that they did this from faith and not from carnal affection is evident, because they were not afraid of the king's edict. Hence, they exposed themselves to danger, which they would not have done, unless they had believed that something great was in store for the child: 'Do not fear them that kill the body' (Mt. 10:28).

613. – But on the other hand, they later exposed him; therefore, it was not by faith that they preserved him. I answer that they exposed him, not to destroy him but to keep him from being stolen; hence, they placed him in a small basket, committing him to divine providence. For they believed that he would probably be killed, if he were found among them.

"By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh's daughter." If he had not believed in the promise of Abraham, he would have not refused to be corrupted by sin, nor would he have chosen to share ill treatment with the people of God. He considered the emulation of Christ, about whom he indeed wrote, to be more important than the wealth of the Egyptians, which he would have received, because in his expectation "he was looking ahead to the reward."

Next again an example appropriate to them, or rather greater than that. For, saith he, "by faith Moses when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward." As though he had said to them, "No one of you has left a palace, yea a splendid palace, nor such treasures; nor, when he might have been a king's son, has he despised this, as Moses did." And that he did not simply leave these things, he expressed by saying, "he refused," that is, he hated, he turned away. For when Heaven was set before him, it was superfluous to admire an Egyptian Palace.

"By faith, Moses, when he had grown up, refused." For he did this, hoping to receive greater goods than those present. And the phrase "refused" indicates that he was determined to alienate himself.

He arrived at the example most dear to them — that of Moses, which is why he dwells on it at greater length. The structure of his thought is as follows: "By faith Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter." When? "When he was come to years," that is, having already reached manhood. Evidently because he hoped to receive something greater in return. The word "refused" shows a strong hatred and inner aversion to the decrees of the king.

614. – Then (v. 24) he shows what Moses did by faith; first what he did; secondly, that what he did pertained to faith (v. 26b).

615. – Here he touches on the history recorded in Exodus (2), where it is stated that Pharaoh's daughter had him nursed by his mother and adopted him as a son. But he denied himself to be her son, not in word, but in deed; because against Pharaoh's will he killed an Egyptian who had harmed a Hebrew. Therefore, he says, by faith, when he was grown up, he denied himself to be the son of Pharaoh's daughter. With what feelings he did this he shows when he says, rather choosing to be afflicted with the people of God, than to have the pleasure of sin for a time. This indicates his marvelous virtue. For there are two things which men desire most, namely, pleasure and delight in external things; and they flee most from their opposites, namely, pain and affliction, which are opposed to the first, and poverty and abjection, which are opposed to the second. But Moses chose those two, because he preferred pain and affliction to temporal sin's pleasure, which is always associated with sin. He also chose poverty because of Christ: 'It is better to be humbled with the meek, then to divide spoils with the proud' (Pr. 16:19); 'I have chosen to be an abject in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners' (Ps. 83:11). As to the first he says, rather choosing to be afflicted with the people of God, whom Pharaoh afflicted, than to have the pleasure of sin for a time; which he would have had, if he had afflicted the children of Israel with the Egyptians. As to the second, namely, that he chose poverty, he says: esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches, i.e., for the faith of Christ, for which he endured a reproach from his brothers, as is stated in Exodus (2:14): 'Will you kill me, as you did yesterday kill the Egyptian?' This reproach was a figure that Christ would have to endure reproaches from the Jews: 'My heart has expected reproach and misery' (Ps. 68:21). But he esteemed those two things greater riches than the treasures of the Egyptians: 'The riches of salvation, wisdom and knowledge' (Is. 33:6).

"Choosing rather" (he says) "to suffer affliction with the people of God." For ye indeed suffer on your own account, but he "chose" to suffer for others; and voluntarily threw himself into so many dangers, when it was in his power both to live religiously, and to enjoy good things.

"Than" (he says) "to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season." He called unwillingness "to suffer affliction with" the rest "sin": this, he says, Moses accounted to be "sin." If then he accounted it "sin" not to be ready to "suffer affliction with" the rest, it follows that the suffering affliction must be a great good since he threw himself into it from the royal palace.

"to enjoy the momentary pleasures of sin," He called it a sin, not to collaborate or to suffer together with the people of God: not to enjoy the benefits of this sin. Whose? So that he would not be afflicted with the sufferings of the people of God.

For luxury and deceit have no memories, on account of the folly with which they are clothed; but when punishment and torture cleave to a man for one day, he is punished and tortured for a year; for punishment and torture have powerful memories. While tortured and punished, therefore, for a whole year, he remembers at last the luxury and deceit, and knows that on their account he suffers evil.

He arrived at the example most dear to them — that of Moses, which is why he dwells on it at greater length. The structure of his thought is as follows: "By faith Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter." When? "When he was come to years," that is, having already reached manhood. Evidently because he hoped to receive something greater in return. The word "refused" shows a strong hatred and inner aversion to the decrees of the king. See how he calls it sin — not to suffer together with one's brethren. This God also reproaches through the prophets: "and are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph" (Amos 6:6); and again: she did not go out to mourn for the house of her neighbor (general thought from Amos 5). And upon those who mourn in the prophet Ezekiel a mark is placed; but concerning those who endured nothing of the sort, the angels are given a command to slay them (Ezek. 9:4–6). If those who do not voluntarily suffer together with the suffering are sinning, then what must one think of those who inflict evil on others and generally commit evil? Thus he calls participation in royal luxury "the passing pleasures of sin."

He adds accordingly, "God having provided some better thing for us (for He was good), that they should not without us be made perfect. Wherefore also, having encompassing us such a cloud," holy and transparent, "of witnesses, laying aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, let us run with patience the race set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith." Since, then, he specifies one salvation in Christ of the righteous, and of us he has expressed the former unambiguously, and saying nothing less respecting Moses, adds, "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect to the recompense of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible."

And see how admirably Paul has put it. He did not say, "Esteeming heaven, and the things in heaven," "greater riches than the treasures of Egypt," but what? "The reproach of Christ." For the being reproached for the sake of Christ he accounted better than being thus at ease; and this itself by itself was reward.

But this he did, seeing some great things before him. "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt." What is, "the reproach of Christ"? It is being reproached in such ways as ye are, the reproach which Christ endured; Or that he endured for Christ's sake: for "that rock was Christ"; the being reproached as you are.

But what is "the reproach of Christ"? That because we repudiate the ways of our fathers we are reproached; that we are evil-entreated when we have run to God. It was likely that he also was reproached, when it was said to him, "Wilt thou kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday?" This is "the reproach of Christ," to be ill-treated to the end, and to the last breath: as He Himself was reproached and heard, "If Thou be the Son of God," from those for whom He was crucified, from those who were of the same race. This is "the reproach of Christ" when a man is reproached by those of his own family, or by those whom he is benefiting. For Moses also suffered these things from the man who had been benefited by him.

In these words he encouraged them, by showing that even Christ suffered these things, and Moses also, two illustrious persons. So that this is rather "the reproach of Christ" than of Moses inasmuch as He suffered these things from "His own." But neither did the one send forth lightnings, nor the Other feel any anger, but He was reviled and endured all things, whilst they "wagged their heads." Since therefore it was probable that they the readers also would hear such things, and would long for the Recompense, he says that even Christ and Moses had suffered the like. So then ease is the portion of sin; but to be reproached, of Christ. For what then dost thou wish? "The reproach of Christ," or ease?

"greater riches than the treasures of Egypt." He did not say; he considered the greater wealth of the treasures in Egypt to be the goods laid up in heaven, but rather, showing more of his virtue, he said, "the reproach of Christ," that is, to be reproached as Christ was. "Who made you ruler over us?" (Ex. 2:14) For this is what Christ also heard, "By what authority do you do these things?" (Matt. 21:23) It is the shame of being reproached for the sake of Christ. "The rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4) But he, for that rock and to give water from it (Ex. 27:1), was greatly reviled by the Jews.

"the reproach of Christ." What is the reproach of Christ? That is to say, to be reproached in such a way, showing the reproach that Christ endured. The fact that he endured it for the sake of Christ. The rock was Christ. It is also fitting that he was affected by shame. When he heard: "Do you wish to kill me as you killed the Egyptians yesterday?" (Ex. 2:11-12; Acts 7:28) this is the reproach of Christ, being subjected to evils and injuries until the very end of his spirit: just as he endured and heard insults, "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." (Matt. 27:40) For both were being reproached by their own kindred, on behalf of those whom they had benefited.

For he was looking. Do you see the faith?

What is the "abuse suffered for the Christ"? It is bearing the reproach of such things, while revealing the reproach that Christ endured. Or it can mean that Moses endured reproach because of Christ—for "the rock was Christ"—since it was likely that Moses was vilified when he heard, "You don't wish to kill me in the same way that you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?" That is the "abuse suffered for the Christ," namely, to suffer ill until one's end and last draught of breath, just as Christ himself was reviled and heard, "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." For both were reviled by their very own countrymen for whom they were doing good works.

What was a type of Christ, the similarity to the reproaches of Christ, was committed against religion by the adversaries.

He did not say: the good things stored up in heaven, but, showing his virtue and again encouraging them, he said: "the reproach of Christ." For just as Christ was later reproached by those whom He had benefited, and was finally crucified, so too was Moses treated beforehand by those who enjoyed his benefactions. For that very Hebrew whom Moses had delivered from the hand of the Egyptian, said to him the next day: "Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" (Exod. 2:14). In general, without doubt, to be subjected to reproaches or torments from one's own kinsmen and beneficiaries — this is "the reproach of Christ." And every reproach for doing good, directed against the one who does it, and in general every undeserved attack — this is "the reproach of Christ." So too the Lord was subjected to slander, called a friend of tax collectors because He ate with them for the sake of their salvation. Therefore, just as luxury is sinful, so reproach is Christ's. So do not be indignant if you suffer oppression from your countrymen, looking to the so glorious Moses and, what is even more important, to Christ Himself. And the murmuring against Moses at the rock was the reproach of Christ. For the rock is Christ (1 Cor. 10:4).

Obviously, with the eyes of faith.

616. – Then when he says, for he looked unto the reward, he shows that those actions of Moses pertained to faith in Christ. But it should be noted that some things are good and delightful to themselves, and other things sad and evil. But no one may prefer evil things for their own sake, but for an end, as a sick person chooses a bitter potion, and sad things to delightful things by reason of some greater good which he can obtain by them. And so the saints, by hope of the ultimate end of eternal happiness, chose affliction and poverty over riches and pleasures, because by them they would have been hindered from attaining the end they hoped: 'Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you,' and he continues: 'Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven' (Mt. 5:11); 'I am your protector and your reward exceedingly great' (Gen. 15:1). Therefore, he says that he did this because he looked with the eyes of faith to the reward, which he hoped therefrom. Hence, 'faith is the substance of things to be hoped for; the evidence of things that appear not', as was stated above.

"By faith he forsook Egypt not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is Invisible." What dost thou say? That he did not fear? And yet the Scripture says, that when he heard, he "was afraid," and for this cause provided for safety by flight, and stole away, and secretly withdrew himself; and afterwards he was exceedingly afraid. Observe the expressions with care: he said, "not fearing the wrath of the king," with reference to his even presenting himself again. For it would have been the part of one who was afraid, not to undertake again his championship, nor to have any hand in the matter. That he did however again undertake it, was the part of one who committed all to God: for he did not say, "He is seeking me, and is busy in the search, and I cannot bear again to engage in this matter."

So that even flight was an act of faith. Why then did he not remain (you say)? That he might not cast himself into a foreseen danger. For this finally would have been tempting God: to leap into the midst of dangers, and say, "Let us see whether God will save me." And this the devil said to Christ, "Cast Thyself down." Seest thou that it is a diabolical thing, to throw ourselves into danger without cause and for no purpose, and to try whether God will save us? For he Moses could no longer be their champion when they who were receiving benefits were so ungrateful. It would therefore have been a foolish and senseless thing to remain there. But all these things were done, because, "he endured as seeing Him who is Invisible."

If then we too always see God with our mind, if we always think in remembrance of Him, all things will appear endurable to us, all things tolerable; we shall bear them all easily, we shall be above them all. For if a person seeing one whom he loves, or rather, remembering him is roused in spirit, and elevated in thought, and bears all things easily, while he delights in the remembrance; one who has in mind Him who has vouchsafed to love us in deed, and remembers Him, when will he either feel anything painful, or dread anything fearful or dangerous? When will he be of cowardly spirit? Never.

"By faith, he left Egypt." He went out by faith, so as not to test God whether He saves. And not to test Him was by faith. For believing, he would come and bring out the people. "not fearing the wrath of the king." And yet, in the Exodus, it is said that he was afraid. But there is nothing contradictory. For he was not afraid to such an extent, but returned again. For he was afraid that he would not return to Egypt anymore. Therefore, the phrase "not fearing the wrath of the king" implies the understanding of returning again. The first time he was afraid, not of the king, but not wanting to throw himself into imminent danger. For this was a test of faith in God.

And that he was not afraid that the anger would be so great as to seek him out after he had fled. Therefore, he did not flee far, but from neighboring places. And this was a matter of faith.

"for he endured as seeing him who is invisible." He saw God, who is invisible, as if he had seen Him with physical eyes. However, he saw Him with the eyes of the mind, and he bravely endured everything, namely the hardships along with the people of God, flight, and all other things. For the sake of great patience, it is important to have God in mind.

What do you say? In the book of Exodus it is written: "Moses was afraid," because "this matter has become known" (Ex. 2:14). But understand "not fearing" here in the sense that Moses appeared again in Egypt and took upon himself the leadership over the Hebrews. For one who was afraid should not have returned at all and taken up his former task. But since he returned again, he showed that he believed in God. So then, why did he not remain in Egypt but left it, if indeed he was not afraid? Because to expose oneself to obvious danger and say: will God not save me? — this is characteristic of one who tempts God, and is a diabolical thing, just as the devil said to the Lord: "throw Yourself down" (Matt. 4:6). Or understand "not fearing the wrath of the king" in this way: that he fled, having believed that he would escape, and that the king, being angered against him, would not pursue him on his part, and even if he did pursue, he would not catch him. A sign of this is that he chose to spend his time far from his kinsmen, and hid himself. Therefore this is a matter of faith.

For, as if seeing that God was with him, he endured all things. For to have God always in mind is a matter of very great patience, as David also says: "I have set the Lord always before me" (Ps. 16:8) and so on.

617. – After describing Moses' faith in regard to what he did in Egypt, the Apostle now shows what he did in regard to what he did during the departure from Egypt. In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows what he did during the departure from Egypt; secondly, the manner of their departure (v. 28); thirdly, what was done by faith with the unbelieving people (v. 31).

618. – He says, therefore, that by faith Moses left Egypt. But, as recorded in Exodus (chap. 2), he first left Egypt after killing an Egyptian; but he left it a second time, when he led all the sons of Israel out of Egypt. But a Gloss explains about the second departure, because he continues, not fearing the anger, i.e., the indignation, of the king. For at his first departure it is recorded in Exodus (chap. 2) that he feared him: 'He that is good for nothing shall feel the king's anger' (Pr. 14:35). But at the second he did not fear him: 'The just, bold as a lion, shall be without dread' (Pr. 28:1). But it can be referred to the first.

619. – But didn't he fear then? I answer that there are two things to be considered in fear: one is that it can be blameworthy, namely, when through fear a person does what should not be done, or neglects to do what should be done. This is not the way Moses feared, because fear did not cause him to neglect helping his brothers. The other can be praiseworthy, namely, when keeping the faith a person flees from danger because of a present fear: 'When they shall persecute you in one city, flee to another' (Mt. 10:23). For if a person, while preserving his honor could avoid danger and does not, he would be foolish and tempting God which is diabolical. This is the way Jesus hid from those who would stone Him, and refused the devil's suggestion to cast Himself down. So, too, Moses, trusting in God's help, fled for a time, because he feared the king. He proves that he did this by faith, because faith is about invisible things. And he endured, i.e., awaited, the invisible God and his help as seeing him: 'Let your heart take courage and wait for the Lord' (Ps. 26:14). For Moses awaited God's help at both departures; hence, at the first one he said: 'The God of my father is my helper' (Ex. 2:22); and at the second: 'The Lord will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace' (Ex. 14:14).

But what is "the sprinkling of blood"? A lamb was slain in every household, and the blood was smeared on the door-posts, and this was a means of warding off the Egyptian destruction. If then the blood of a lamb preserved the Jews unhurt in the midst of the Egyptians, and under so great a destruction, much more will the blood of Christ save us, who have had it sprinkled not on the door-posts, but in our souls. For even now also the Destroyer is going about in this depth of night: but let us be armed with that Sacrifice. (He calls the "sprinkling" anointing.) For God has brought us out from Egypt, from darkness, from idolatry.

Although what was done, was nothing, what was achieved was great. For what was done was blood; but was achieved, was salvation, and the stopping, and preventing of destruction. The angel feared the blood; for he knew of what it was a Type; he shuddered, thinking on the Lord's death; therefore he did not touch the door-posts.

Moses said, Smear, and they smeared, and were confident. And you, having the Blood of the Lamb Himself, are ye not confident?

"By faith, he kept the Passover." For Moses said: "Mark the doorposts so that you may be saved," (Ex. 12:23) and they believed that they were to be saved. Indeed, they believed that they would be saved through the blood of the lamb, he says, and they achieved this. Therefore, how will you not believe even more that you are to be saved through the blood of Christ, and you will be saved from all who lie in wait for you? "and the sprinkling of blood." He called the sprinkling of blood the anointing of the doorposts, so that the Destroyer angel would not touch them. This was, however, a type of the blood of the Lamb of God. For through His blood we drive away the destroyer Satan.

How would he, without faith, have believed that death would be prevented by the blood of a sheep? He recognized in advance the reality in the type and had a premonition of the power of the Lord's blood.

Paul everywhere introduces the mystery in passing, as here too in the course of his exhortation he mentions the mystery of Passover. For the pouring of that blood, that is, the anointing of the doorposts, signified the pouring of the Lord's Blood, by being anointed with which we escape in the night of this life the destroyer of the firstborn among all those who are anointed. Therefore Moses, having believed at that time that the anointing with blood would save the firstborn, commanded the people to do this. Although it was the blood of a lamb, yet since it prefigured the Blood of Christ, it displayed such power. But you, being anointed with the true Blood, will you not hope to be protected by it? Of course, yes. And he kept the Passover, that is, the eating of the lamb and the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, and believed that the people, having departed from Egypt, would be saved. For the rite of that supper was adapted for the departure.

620. – Then (v. 28) he shows what he did as to the way he departed: first, he states what was done in preparing for the departure; secondly, as to the departure itself (v. 29); thirdly, as to what was done by faith in entering the promised land (v. 30).

621. – In regard to the first, he alludes to the history recorded in Exodus (12), where the Lord commanded them before the departure of the children of Israel, namely, that same night, to immolate a lamb and put its blood on both the side posts and on the upper door posts of the houses: then they were to eat the flesh roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild lettuce, and to do many other things that were to be observed. And this is called the Pasch, i.e., the eating of the lamb and the shedding of blood, these two things occurring at that passage which they were to accomplish the next day. It is called the Pasch from 'paschin' in Greek, and 'passic' in Latin, or from the word 'phrase,' which in Hebrew is the same as 'passage.' But this prefigured that Christ would pass out of this world by His passion: 'That he would pass out of this world' (Jn. 13:1). It also instructs us that by the merit of His death we have passed from earthly things to heavenly, and from hell to heaven: 'Come over to me, all ye that desire me' (Sir. 24:26). This, of course, is accomplished in virtue of Christ's blood: 'Having, therefore, a confidence in the entering into of the holies by the blood of Christ' (Heb. 10:19). But two passings occurred during that Pasch: one, in which the Lord passed, striking the Egyptians; the other in which the people passed. So, too, with the blood of Christ, Who is the lamb without blemish, the posts of the faithful should be besmeared, namely, their intellect and affections. He says, by faith he celebrated the Pasch, i.e., the eating of the lamb, and the shedding of the blood to be smeared upon the posts of their house. Why did they do this? That he who destroyed the first born of the Egyptians might not touch them: 'He killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt' (Ps. 77:51).

622. – But by whose ministry was this done? Was it done by good angels or the wicked? For it seems to have been the wicked angels: 'Which he sent by evil angels' (Ps. 77:49). I answer that it could have been both. Hence, it should be noted that the infliction of punishments is sometimes performed by good angels. For as Dionysius says in The Divine Names (ch. 4), to punish the evil is not evil, but to do evil is evil. For punishment is a work of justice, as is shown by the angel who struck the camp of the Assyrians, because he is believed to have been a good angel (Is. 57). Hence, such punishment is visited indifferently by the good and by the bad; but by the good in a manner different from the bad, because the good does not punish save by exercising divine justice upon the evil (and in Scripture such a work of the devil or of a good angel is attributed to God). But the evil angel, even though he obeys divine justice, does not do this from a love of justice; rather from the perversity of his will he afflicts the good and the bad, and preferably the good, if he is permitted, as in the case of Job. Therefore, the angel who said to Moses (Ex. 12:23): 'The Lord will pass through, striking the Egyptians' was a good angel, since he sometimes speaks in his own person. But sometimes evil spirits serve a good angel; hence, he used the services of their evil and perverse wills in the slaughter. Therefore, he says: 'Indignation and wrath and trouble, which he sent by evil angels' (Ps. 77:49). Therefore, the evil angel did not touch those who were sealed with blood, being restrained by terror and fear of God; but the good were deterred, wondering at God's power.

"By faith they crossed the Red Sea." In fact, the people who entered into it believed and crossed it as if on dry land. On the other hand, the Egyptians went into it without faith and received the reward for their crimes in the midst of it.

"By faith, they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land." Again he compares one whole people with another, lest they should say, we cannot be as the saints. "By faith" (he says) "they passed through the Red Sea, as by dry land, which the Egyptians assaying to do, were drowned." Here he leads them also to a recollection of the sufferings in Egypt.

How, "by faith"? Because they had hoped to pass through the sea, and therefore they prayed: or rather it was Moses who prayed. Seest thou that everywhere Faith goes beyond human reasonings, and weakness and lowliness? Seest thou that at the same time they both believed, and feared punishment, both in the blood on the doors, and in the Red Sea?

And he made it clear that it was really water, through those that fell into it, and were choked; that it was not a mere appearance: but as in the case of the lions those who were devoured proved the reality of the facts, and in the case of the fiery furnace, those who were burnt; so here also thou seest that the same things become to the one a cause of salvation and glory, and to the other of destruction.

So great a good is Faith. And when we fall into perplexity, then are we delivered, even though we come to death itself, even though our condition be desperate. For what else was left for them? They were unarmed, compassed about by the Egyptians and the sea; and they must either be drowned if they fled, or fall into the hands of the Egyptians. But nevertheless He saved them from impossibilities. That which was spread under the one as land, overwhelmed the others as sea. In the former case it forgot its nature: in the latter it even armed itself against them.

"By faith they passed through the Red Sea." Indeed, they believed that they would pass through, and they did pass through. Such is the power of faith, that it makes possible even those things that are impossible. "but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same." For perhaps they suspected that the sea was land, and they also tried to pass through, but their destruction showed that it was truly the sea, and not some kind of illusion. For it was divided beyond its nature for Israel, allowing them to walk on foot; however, it enclosed the Egyptians according to its nature. The purpose, however, was to lead them to believe and hope for the future, and for this reason, he stirred up all this discourse.

Lest they say: why do you put forward inimitable men? he brought the people as an example too. Imitate, he says, at least those from the crowd who believed that the water would not drown them, and so took courage, hoping in God, that they would pass "through the midst of the sea on dry ground" (Ex. 14:21–22); thus, faith makes the impossible possible. Why then do you not believe?

And no one, he says, can say that it was an illusion, that there was no water. For that it was a sea was proved by the Egyptians, who, although they attempted to enter the sea, were drowned by it, since the water suddenly rushed against them, whereas during the crossing of the Hebrews it stood as a wall. So too afterward the flame directed against the three youths showed that it was truly flame when it consumed the Babylonians, just as the lions prepared against Daniel tore apart his accusers.

623. – Then (v. 29) he shows what he did in the very passing: first, he shows this; secondly, he shows that this pertained to faith (v. 30b). He says, therefore, by faith they passed through the Red Sea, as by dry land. Two things were done there by faith: one was what the men did, namely, they committed themselves to cross over; and this was done only by faith. The other was on God's part, namely, that the waters acted as a wall for them. But this was by faith, for the working of miracles is attributed to faith: 'If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence, thither, and it shall remove' (Mt. 17:19). Then he shows that this pertains to faith, because the Egyptians attempting this, i.e., willing to try it, were swallowed up, because they did not have faith: 'You stretch forth your hand, and the earth swallowed them' (Ex. 15:12).

"By faith, the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed about for seven days." For assuredly the sound of trumpets is not able to throw down stones, though one blow for ten thousand years; but Faith can do all things.

Seest thou that in all cases it is not by natural sequence, nor yet by any law of nature that it was changed, but all is done contrary to expectation? Accordingly in this case also all is done contrary to expectation. For inasmuch as he had said again and again, that we ought to trust to the future hopes, he introduced all this argument with reason, showing that not now only, but even from the beginning all the miracles have been accomplished and achieved by means of it.

"By faith, the walls of Jericho."For they believed that the future would fall, and certainly faith directed even those things that were above nature. "By faith, Rahab the harlot." For when she had heard the men reporting, she believed and received them, although the others remained unbelieving.

"The place to the right is for others who have already pleased God, and have suffered for His name's sake; and you have yet much to accomplish before you can sit with them. But abide as you now do in your simplicity, and you will sit with them, and with all who do their deeds and bear what they have borne." "What have they borne?" said I. "Listen," said she: "scourges, prisons, great tribulations, crosses, wild beasts, for God's name's sake. On this account is assigned to them the division of sanctification on the right hand, and to every one who shall suffer for God's name: to the rest is assigned the division on the left. But both for those who sit on the right, and those who sit on the left, there are the same gifts and promises; only those sit on the right, and have some glory."

"By faith": for when God commanded, Joshua and the people did not doubt this and did not say: what is this? Can trumpet blasts destroy stones and fortresses? But they believed that it would happen, and it did (Josh. 6).

624. – Then when he says, By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, by the going round them seven days, he describes what happened when they entered the promised land. This is mentioned in Joshua (6), where it is stated that at God's command the priests for seven days should go around the first city beyond the Jordan, namely, Jericho, with the ark of the covenant, and on the seventh day the walls fell down. Here was something on the part of men, namely, that at the Lord's command they went round, believing that God's command would be fulfilled, and something on God's part, namely, the walls fell down by their going round.

625. – Morally, Jericho is interpreted moon or defect, and signifies this world. Its walls are the obstacles by which some are held fast in the world. By the trumpets, which the Levites and priests sounded, the voice of preachers is signified. By the going round for seven days is designated the course of the present time, which is completed in seven days. By this we are given to understand that all the obstacles of the world fall at the continuous sound of preaching: 'The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels and every height that exalts itself against the knowledge of God' (2 Cor. 10:4).

On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved. For when spies were sent by Joshua, the son of Nun, to Jericho, the king of the country ascertained that they had come to spy out their land, and sent men to seize them, in order that, when taken, they might be put to death. But the hospitable Rahab receiving them, concealed them on the roof of her house under some stalks of flax. And when the men sent by the king arrived and said, "There came men unto you who are to spy out our land; bring them forth, for so the king commands," she answered them, "The two men whom you seek came unto me, but quickly departed again and are gone," thus not discovering the spies to them. Then she said to the men, "I know assuredly that the Lord your God has given you this city, for the fear and dread of you have fallen on its inhabitants. When therefore you shall have taken it, keep ye me and the house of my father in safety." And they said to her, "It shall be as you have spoken to us. As soon, therefore, as you know that we are at hand, you shall gather all your family under your roof, and they shall be preserved, but all that are found outside of your dwelling shall perish." Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God. You see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman.

Indeed, through the rumors about the miracles which had happened in Egypt and the desert, she believed that they would have possessed the land of Canaan, as God had said to Abraham. The apostle also added some words about the "explorers," who "were received by her in peace," because he wanted to show that they came out of her house in purity and honesty. In fact, they had not entered that place for the sake of fornication.

Rahab, who is a type of the church, suspended the scarlet thread from her window as a sign of salvation, to show that the nations would be saved through the Lord's passion.… The house of Rahab and all those with her were saved through the scarlet sign when Jericho was destroyed and burned and its king, a type of the devil, slain. So when this world is destroyed by fire and the devil who now has dominion over the world is overthrown, no one will be preserved for eternal salvation if that one is not found inside the house of the ecclesia which is marked with the scarlet sign, that is, with the blood of Christ. Or again, as in the flood, no one escaped the drowning of the world save those who were preserved in the ark of Noah, which is a type of the church.

This episode in the Old Testament is a series of important types [sacramenta] of future spiritual events. The harlot takes into her house the two spies sent by Jesus [Joshua] to survey the land. The church, which was a sinner, receives the law and the prophets, sent to spy out the faith of men, and acknowledges that "God is in heaven above and on the earth beneath." She receives from these same spies the scarlet sign of salvation, a color which is manifestly the color of royalty when considered as a dignity, and, when looked at, the color of blood. Both these features were found in the passion—the Lord was clothed in scarlet, and blood flowed from his side. Manasseh also received scarlet as a sign. The dwellings in Egypt marked with blood were spared, and with blood the book of the covenant was sprinkled and the people sanctified. Every member of the family found outside the house was guilty—a lesson that those apart from those called are responsible for their own death.

Thus also did Rahab the harlot, while condemning herself, inasmuch as she was a Gentile, guilty of all sins, nevertheless receive the three spies, who were spying out all the land, and hid them at her home; [which three were] doubtless [a type of] the Father and the Son, together with the Holy Spirit. And when the entire city in which she lived fell to ruins at the sounding of the seven trumpets, Rahab the harlot was preserved, when all was over [in ultimis], together with all her house, through faith of the scarlet sign; as the Lord also declared to those who did not receive His advent,-the Pharisees, no doubt, nullify the sign of the scarlet thread, which meant the passover, and the redemption and exodus of the people from Egypt,-when He said, "The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of heaven before you."

"By faith, the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, having received the spies with peace." It would then be disgraceful, if you should appear more faithless even than a harlot. Yet she merely heard what the men related, and forthwith believed. Whereupon the end also followed; for when all perished, she alone was preserved. She did not say to herself, I shall be with my many friends. She did not say, Can I possibly be wiser than these judicious men who do not believe, and shall I believe? She said no such thing, but believed what had taken place, which it was likely that they would suffer.

For the sign of the scarlet thread, which the spies, sent to Jericho by Joshua, son of Nave (Nun), gave to Rahab the harlot, telling her to bind it to the window through which she let them down to escape from their enemies, also manifested the symbol of the blood of Christ, by which those who were at one time harlots and unrighteous persons out of all nations are saved, receiving remission of sins, and continuing no longer in sin.

She who was formerly a harlot receives this injunction: All who shall be found in your house shall be saved … if anyone wishes to be saved, let him come into the house of her that was a harlot. Even if anyone of this people [the Jews] wishes to be saved, let him come into this house to obtain salvation. Let him come into this house in which the blood of Christ is the sign of redemption. Let there be no mistake, let no one deceive himself: outside this house, that is outside the ecclesia, there is no salvation. If anyone does go forth, he is the cause of his own death.

Our Jesus [Joshua] sent his spies to the king of Jericho. There they are welcomed by a harlot. But this harlot who received the spies sent by Jesus did so that she might no longer be a harlot. The soul of every one of us was that harlot when we lived in the desires and lusts of the flesh. But our souls received the messengers of Jesus, the angels, whom he has sent before his face to prepare his ways. Every soul who receives them with faith, lodges them not in unworthy and inferior places but in those which are more elevated, because we do not receive Jesus from low and earthly places but as coming forth from the Father and descending from heaven.

Lawlessness of life did not prevent salvation; faith covered the wounds of sin. Now, it is worth admiring the apostle's wisdom—or, rather, we ought sing the praises of the activity of the divine Spirit in associating a foreign woman and prostitute with Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, and the other saints so as to establish the power of faith and repress the Jews' conceit. After all, six hundred thousand of them were consumed in the desert on account of lack of faith, as they gained no benefit from the way of life of the law. She on the contrary, though removed from kinship with Abraham, living outside the way of life of the law and spending most of her time in licentious behavior, through faith reaped salvation and foreshadowed in type the church. Just as she with faith gave admission to the spies, so the church did to the apostles. And as she was given the scarlet cord as a sign of salvation, so the church through the Lord's blood enjoyed the eternal goods.

Behold, as I also said above, he brings forward the most despised person in order to shame them through her as well, if they indeed prove to be worse than such a woman, and at the same time showed that the power of faith is great, if it produces such an effect even in despised people. So she too showed her faith by hiding the men who were being sought as spies. She would not have hidden them if she had not believed that the city would be taken. For she spoke thus: "I know that you will take this land; for we have heard of your deeds" (cf. Josh. 2:9–10). And she believed what she heard; but those who did not believe the miracles of God perished.

626. – Then when he says, by faith Rahab the harlot perished not with the unbelievers, he shows what was done by faith by one of the unbelievers, namely, by Rahab, as recorded in Joshua (chaps. 2 & 6). For when Joshua had sent spies to explore Jericho, they escaped with the aid of that woman who is called a harlot, i.e., an idolater. Or she was literally a harlot, with whom they stayed, not to sin but to hide. For the houses of such persons are visible especially at night. But they had come at night. Furthermore, her house was adjacent to the wall. But harlots take everyone without exception; therefore, it was easier for them to hide with her. Therefore, she was freed by faith, hence, he says, by faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient [unbelievers], because she had given friendly welcome to the spies. She did not perish with the unbelievers, who perished corporally, because the spies had sworn to free her and everyone of her father's house; which they did. But why had they turned to her? Possibly because she would be less guilty, receiving all indiscriminately. Furthermore, it was not fitting that their safety be the occasion of death for the one harboring them. But by the fact that she was freed by receiving them is designated that those who receive the preachers of the gospel are delivered from eternal death: 'He that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive the reward of a prophet' (Mt. 10:11).