CHAPTER 1

(Exodus 1:19-20)

QUESTION 1. Midwives wanting to spare the lives of the male children of Israel at birth, deceived Pharaoh by a lie, telling him that the women of the Hebrews did not give birth like the women of the Egyptians; In this connection, it is ordinarily asked whether such lies have received the sanction of divine authority, since it is written that God did good to these midwives: but did he forgive their lies, in consideration of their humanity; Or did he deem it worthy of rewarding this lie himself? This is not certain. It was one thing to save the lives of the newborn children, something else to lie to Pharaoh: by saving the lives of these children, the midwives performed a work of mercy, but in lying to Pharaoh, they acted in their interest, and for fear of punishment, action worthy perhaps of forgiveness, but not of praise. Those of whom it is said, "that there is no lie in their mouths," (Rev. 14:5)  do not, it seems to me, in this lie, an example to follow. Those who lead a life far removed from that of the saints, when they commit these sins of falsehood, go by themselves by temperament and as they grow older, especially when instead of raising their sins, hopes towards the heavenly goods, they seek exclusively the goods of the earth. But those whose life is, according to the testimony of the Apostle, all heavenly, (Cf. Phil. 3:20) must not regulate on the example of midwives their manner of speaking, when it comes to telling the truth and avoid the lie. For the rest, this question deserves to be treated with particular care, because of the. other examples that Scripture provides.

CHAPTER 2

(Exodus 2:12)

QUESTION 2. MOSES KILLS AN EGYPTIAN: BY WHAT RIGHT? — About the action of Moses, for which he killed an Egyptian to defend his brothers, I have already discussed enough in that work that I wrote against Faustus about the life of the patriarchs (Cont. Faustus liv. XXII, ch. 60, et suiv.). The question is whether the character of Moses, which impelled him to commit that sin, is worthy of praise, as, for example, the fertility of the earth is often praised for useful seeds, even if it also produces useless herbs, or is this act in itself entirely excusable? The latter does not seem acceptable, because Moses did not yet have any legitimate authority, nor received from God nor granted by human society. However, as Stephen says in the Acts of the Apostles, he thought that his brothers would understand that God was going to give them salvation through him (Cf. Acts 7:25), so that by this testimony it would seen that Moses could dare to do this already authorized by God, which the Scripture does not say in this place.

CHAPTER 3

(Exodus 3:4)

QUESTION 3. IS IT AN ANGEL OR CHRIST WHO APPEARS TO MOSES IN THE BURNING BUSH? — The Lord called him from the bush. Did the Lord call him in the form of an angel? Or is the Lord that angel who receives the name of Angel of the great council (Is. 9:6) and is interpreted to be Christ? Because a little before says the text: The angel of the Lord appeared to him in the form of a flame of fire that came out of the bush (Ex. 3:2).

(Exodus 3:8)

QUESTION 4. ON THE PROMISED LAND. —  To get them out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land that flows with milk and honey. Should we take in a spiritual sense this land that flows with milk and honey, because, according to the property of our language, so was the land that was given to the people of Israel? Or is it a way of expressing oneself to praise the fertility and softness of that land?

(Exodus 3:9)

QUESTION 5. ON THE CRY OF THE ISRAELITES. — And behold, now the cry of the sons of Israel has come to me. Not like the cry of the Sodomites, which means iniquity without fear and without shame.

(Exodus 3:22)

QUESTION 6. ON THE ORDER THAT GOD GAVE THE HEBREWS TO STRIP THE EGYPTIANS. — The Lord commanded the Hebrews through Moses to ask the Egyptians for articles of gold and silver and clothing, and then he adds: And you shall spoil the Egyptians. This cannot be taken as a mandate of something unfair. It is a mandate from God, that you do not have to judge, but you have to obey. Actually, God knows how rightly He commanded it. The servant, then, must obediently do what the Lord commands.

CHAPTER 4

(Exodus 4:10)

QUESTION 7. MOSES IS CONVINCED THAT GOD CAN SUDDENLY LOOSEN HIS TONGUE. —  Moses said to the Lord: I pray you, Lord, I am not an eloquent man either yesterday or three days ago or since you began to speak to your servant. According to this, it is understood that Moses believed that he could suddenly become an eloquent man by God's will, for he says: Not since you began to speak to your servant, as if he wanted to affirm that it could happen that who was not eloquent before yesterday or three days later, he could suddenly become one, from the moment the Lord began to speak with him.

(Exodus 4:11)

QUESTION 8. WITH THESE WORDS: "IT IS GOD WHO MADE THE DUMB, ETC. — Who has made the mute and the one who hears, the one who sees and the blind? Am I not the Lord God? Some indict God or the Old Testament Scripture above all, because God said he had made the blind and the mute. What do they say, then, of Christ the Lord, who states clearly in the Gospel: I have come so that those who do not see and those who see are blind (Jn. 9:39)?  But what man, unless he is foolish, will believe that there can exist in his fellow a bodily defect, contrary to the divine will? Moreover, no one doubts that God is just in all his wills.

(Exodus 4:12)

QUESTION 9. THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE WILL IS THE WORK OF GRACE. — The Lord says to Moses: But now go and I will open your mouth and tell you what you have to say. Here it appears with sufficient clarity that it is the work of the will and grace of God not only the instruction of his mouth, but also the very act of opening it. Well, it does not say: open your mouth and I will tell you, but God promises both: I will open and I will instruct you. In another place in a psalm it is said: Open wide your mouth and I will fill it (Ps. 80:11), here it is indicated that there is in man the will to receive what God gives to those who want it. The expression: Open wide your mouth, refers to the desire of the will; and the expression: I will fill it, to the grace of God. Here, in our text, it is said: I will open your mouth and I will instruct you.

(Exodus 4:14)

QUESTION 10. ON THE WRATH OF GOD. — The Lord, angered by fury, said, in order not to always repeat the same thing, when the Scripture speaks of God getting angry, we must warn once and for all how this can be understood, knowing that God does not do it as a man because of an irrational disturbance. But we can rightly ask why here God, angered, said about Moses' brother that he would speak to the people on behalf of Moses. It seems that, as one who distrusted, he did not give him the total authority that he was to give him, and that he wanted to do by means of two people what he could have done by means of one, if that person had faith. However, considering all these words more closely, does not mean that the Lord, angry, gave Aaron as punishment. Well, the text says: Do not you have your brother Aaron the Levite? I know he speaks well. By these words it is shown that God rebuked him rather than being afraid to appear to the people for being less apt, having as he had his brother to speak through him to the people what God wanted, since he was weak in voice and an awkward tongue; although I had to wait for everything from God. The Lord then repeats the same thing that he had promised shortly before and after being enraged. He had effectively said: I will open your mouth and instruct you. And now he says: I will open your mouth and your mouth and I will instruct you on what you have to do. But as the Lord added: He will speak for you to the people, it seems that he was granted the opening of his mouth, because Moses says that he is tongue-tied. About the weakness of the tongue the Lord did not want to grant anything to Moses. To avoid it, he granted the help of his brother, who could use the voice that was fitting to teach the people. In relation to what he says later: And put my words in his mouth shows that the Lord would give him the words he would say. Because if I only gave them to him to hear them as the people hear them, he would dictate them in his ear. A little further on he says: He will speak for you to the people and he will be your mouth. Here, too, it is understood "for the people". And by adding: He will speak for you to the people, he sufficiently indicates that Moses had the authority and Aaron the ministry. Finally, in relation to what he says: You, on the other hand, will be for him the things that are for God, perhaps we should see here a great mystery, whose representation Moses has as an intermediary between God and Aaron, and Aaron as an intermediary between Moses and the people.

(Exodus 4:20)

QUESTION 12. APPARENT CONTRADICTION. — It is said that Moses put his wife and children on a transport, to go with them to Egypt, and further (Cf. Ex. 18:1-5), that Jethro, his father-in-law, comes to meet him with the same people, after Moses drew his people from Egypt. We can ask how the truth accords with these two passages. But it must be believed that Zipporah and her children took the road back to her country, when the Angel threatened Moses or the child with death. For the feeling of many interpreters, the Angel put fear in his soul, so that the company of a woman would not be an obstacle to the mission that Moses had received from God.

(Exodus 4:24-26)

QUESTION 11. ON THE MEETING OF MOSES WITH THE ANGEL WHO COMES TO PUT HIM TO DEATH. — And it happened that on the road, next to the place where he rested, the angel appeared to him and tried to kill him. Zipporah then took a stone and circumcised his son's foreskin and fell at the feet of Moses saying, "The blood of my son's circumcision stopped," and the angel turned away from him; therefore, she said: "The blood of the circumcision ceased." In relation to these words of the Scripture, he asks himself, first, if it was Moses whom the angel wanted to kill, since it is said: The angel appeared to him and tried to kill him, and to whom do we believe that he appeared, but to the one who was in front of all the people and who led the others? Or if it was the boy he wanted to kill, and the mother saved him by circumcising him. And in this case, one would have to think that the angel wanted to kill the child because he was not circumcised, and thus the precept of circumcision would be sanctioned with the severity of the punishment. If it is the latter, we do not know of whom it was said before: He tried to kill him, because, unless it appears in what follows, it is unknown who could be said before with a certainly rare and unusual expression: he introduced himself and tried to kill him, because he had not said anything about this person before. A similar thing happens with the words of the psalm: Its foundations are on the holy mountains; the Lord loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:1-2). The psalm, in fact, begins with those words without saying anything about that one or the one whose foundations he wanted to speak of, when he said: Its foundations are on the holy mountains. But as follows: The Lord loves the gates of Zion, it is concluded that it is the foundations or the Lord or Zion. And since the easiest sense is that which refers to Zion, the foundations would be the foundations of the city. Now, as in the pronoun eius (‘its’ foundations) gender is ambiguous, because this pronoun can be masculine, feminine and neutral, and in Greek, on the other hand, in feminine it is said αὐτῆς and in masculine and neutral αὐτου, and the Greek codex has αὐτου, we are forced to admit that it is not the foundations of Zion, but the foundations of the Lord, that is, the foundations built by the Lord, of whom it is said: The Lord who builds Jerusalem. Earlier, when he said: The foundations are on the holy mountains, he had not mentioned Zion or the Lord. Here, in our text, the same thing happens: before mentioning the child, he said to himself: He was introduced and tried to kill him, so that we can know what is next. Although if someone wanted to understand that text as referring to Moses, there is no reason to deny it outright. Rather we should understand what follows, if possible, as if to say that the angel turned away from killing any of them precisely because the woman said: The blood of the child's circumcision ceased. He does not really say, "He turned away from him" for having circumcised the child, but because the blood of the circumcision ceased. Not because that the blood ran, but because it stopped with great mystery, if I'm not mistaken. [Augustine of Hippo, Questions on Exodus, PL 34, Question 11]

CHAPTER 5

(Exodus 5:1-3)

QUESTION 13.  GOD ONLY ORDERS WHAT HE WANTS US TO DO. — Why do we say to the people that God has given the order to carry him from Egypt to the land of Canaan: while it is said to Pharaoh that the Hebrews want to go three days' journey in the desert, to offer the Lord the sacrifice he commanded them? Although God knew what he would do, for he had the foresight that Pharaoh would not consent to the departure of his people, it must be persuaded that his first orders would have been accomplished if the people had been free to go. And if the events happened as the scripture goes further than the description, it is to the obstinacy of Pharaoh and his family that the responsibility comes. For God does not prescribe in a lying manner orders that he knows must be transgressed, to then exercise to the guilty the justice of his judgments.

(Exodus 5:22-23)

QUESTION 14. PRAYER OF MOSES. — When Moses said to the Lord, "Why did you afflict your people? And why did you send me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak to him in your name, for your people, you did not deliver him; These are not words inspired by disobedience or indignation; it is a question and a prayer: we see it by the answer that the Lord addressed to him. He does not reproach him for his lack of faith, but he shares with him his plans for the future.

CHAPTER 6

(Exodus 6:24-28)

QUESTION 15. GENEALOGY OF MOSES. — There is no doubt that Scripture here hides some mystery. For wishing to establish the genealogy of Moses, as the subject himself required, it begins with the eldest of Jacob, that is, with Reuben, and thence from Simeon, and finally from Levi; she does not go further, because Moses was a descendant of the latter. If she names the others, it is because they were already mentioned among the seventy-five people who made their entry into Egypt with Israel: for it was neither the first tribe nor the second, but the third, that of Levi, whom God intended for priestly ministry.

(Exodus 6:30)

QUESTION 16. MOSES APOLOGIZES FOR THE WEAKNESS OF HIS VOICE. — When Moses said, "I am in a thin voice, and how will Pharaoh listen to me?” It would seem that he alleges the weakness of his voice to apologize for not being able to be heard, not only of the multitude but even of one man. Now, it would be astonishing that his voice would have been so weak that he could not be heard (415) by one man! Perhaps, however, the etiquette of the court prevented her from approaching the king's person to speak to him. But it is said to Moses, "Behold, I have made you the god of Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet (Ex. 7:1)."

CHAPTER 7

(Exodus 7:1)

QUESTION 17. MOSES CALLED THE GOD OF PHARAOH, AND AARON THE PROPHET OF MOSES. — Noteworthy thing! God does not say to Moses, when he sends him to his people: Behold, I have made you the god of your people, and your brother shall be your prophet, but “your brother shall speak for you to the people (Ex. 4:16).” He said to him again, “He will be your mouth, and you will represent him in all that relates to God;” He does not say: You will be his God. But Moses is established the god of Pharaoh, and by analogy, Aaron, the prophet of Moses, however with respect to Pharaoh. It seems to us to follow from this that the prophets of God report the words which they hold of him, and that a prophet is nothing but the mouthpiece by which God addresses his words to men incapable or unworthy of hearing it.

(Exodus 7:3)

QUESTION 18. HARDENING OF PHARAOH'S HEART. — God repeatedly says, I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he gives, so to speak, the reason for his action: I will harden Pharaoh's heart, said he, "and I will fulfill my miracles and wonders in Egypt; It seems that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is like the indispensable condition for the multiplication or accomplishment of the wonders of God in Egypt. God knows how to use evil hearts for the instruction or usefulness of the good. And though the degree of malice in each heart, or otherwise, the inclination of each to evil, is the result of a personal vice, resulting from the free choice of the will; yet, in order that the heart may be inclined to evil in any sense, there are causes which act upon the mind; the existence of these causes does not depend on man; but they come from that hidden, assuredly very fair and wise providence by which God rules and disposes of all that He has created. Thus, that Pharaoh had a heart capable of finding in the patience of God a devotion, not good but evil, it was in him a personal vice; but as to the events which determined this heart so depraved to oppose the orders of God, for that is, strictly speaking, the hardening, since instead of yielding humbly, Pharaoh resisted with obstinacy, they were a permission of divine wisdom, which prepared for this heart a chastisement, not only deserved, but evidently full of justice, and men fearing God would find a lesson. For example, being offered a reward for the perpetration of a homicide, the miser and the one who despises fortune will be moved in a different sense; one will be inclined to commit the crime; the other to defend himself against it: the proposition of the profit to be withdrawn, however, was not in the hands of either of them. Thus, for the wicked, there are causes of action which are not in their power, but which find them already engaged in their own vices, and as a consequence of an earlier choice of will, and to follow their inclinations. However, it must be clearly seen whether these words, "I will harden," cannot mean: I will show how hard his heart is.

(Exodus 7:3)

QUESTION 19. ON THE ROLE OF AARON. — If Pharaoh says to you, Give us a miracle or a wonder, say to Aaron your brother, Take a rod and throw it before Pharaoh and his servants; and it will be a serpent. Surely, in this case, it was not necessary to resort to the ministry of the word, created in favor of Aaron by a sort of necessity, to help the infirmity of Moses: it was only a question of throwing away the rod that was to change into a serpent. Why then did Moses not accomplish this action himself, if not because this Aaronic mediation between Moses and Pharaoh contains the figure of a considerable event?

(Exodus 7:10)

QUESTION 20. ON THE ROD OF MOSES AND AARON. — Another remark. It is written about the miracle performed under Pharaoh's eyes: And Aaron cast down his rod. If the Scripture had said, He threw down the rod, there would be no matter to discuss; but as the word is put, although Moses had given it to him, it is perhaps not without reason that the text is so conceived. Would this rod have been common to both of them, so that we could look at it as belonging to one as well as to the other?

(Exodus 7:12)

QUESTION 21. CHANGE OF SNAKE RODS. — “And the rod of Aaron devoured their rods.” If the text had said, The serpent of Aaron devoured their rods, it was understood that the serpent of Aaron devoured, not imaginary serpents, but rods. For he was able to devour real rods, not in appearance without reality. But we read, The rod of Aaron devoured their rods; But if the serpent could eat the magicians' rods, the rod could not. Instead of calling the thing from the name of the object to which it has been changed, the Scripture gives it the name it had before its change, for the reason that it then returned to its first state; it was proper, moreover, to give the name which expressed its principal nature. But what do we need to think about the magicians' rods? Were they also changed into true snakes, and are they called rods just like Aaron's rod? or rather, by a prestige of magical art, did they not seem to be what they really were not? Why, then, are both called rods and serpents, without any distinction, when it is spoken of these illusions? If we admit that the magicians' rods have been changed into true serpents, a new and serious difficulty presents itself, for it must be shown that the creation of these serpents was not the work of magicians or bad angels by whom they operated their enchantments. Now, among all the corporeal elements of this world are hidden important reasons, which, by the aid of favorable time and cause, become definite species, their qualities and ends peculiar to them do not tell the angels, by whom these beings come to life, that they create animals, no more than the laborers say they create harvests, trees or any other production of the earth, because they know how to use visible causes and circumstances favorable to development. What they do in a visible way, the angels operate in an invisible way; but God alone is truly creative, he who has deposited in nature the causes and the seminal reasons. I say all this in a few words; but to make it better understood and supported by examples and a serious discussion, it would take a long treaty; the precipitation that presides over this work will serve me as an excuse.

(Exodus 7:22)

QUESTION 22. REASON FOR THE HARDENING OF PHARAOH. — "But the magicians of Egypt did the same thing with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart became hard, and, as the Lord had said, he did not listen to them.” From these words it would seem that Pharaoh's heart hardened because the Egyptian enchanters imitated Moses and Aaron; but the result will show how great was his obstinacy when the enchanters showed their impotence.

(Exodus 8:7)

QUESTION 23. HOW THE MAGICIANS COULD IMITATE MOSES AND AARON, AFTER THE SECOND PLAGUE AND THE THIRD. — "But the Egyptian enchanters did the same thing by their spells; and they brought frogs to the land of Egypt.” What place are we asking, if already this miracle was accomplished everywhere? But we must also ask how they changed the water into blood, if already in all Egypt the water had undergone this miraculous change. So we must assume that the land inhabited by the children of Israel was not struck by similar wounds: then the enchanters were able to draw water from it, which they changed into blood, or draw frogs, only to show their magic power. Nothing prevents us from admitting that they gave themselves up to these evil spells after the true miracles ceased. The reconciliation of facts, in the story of Scripture, does not indicate that they have been accomplished simultaneously.

CHAPTER 8

(Exodus 8:15)

QUESTION 24. ON THE PATIENCE OF GOD. — "And Pharaoh saw that there was a little rest, and his heart dwindled, and, as the Lord had said, he did not listen to them.” We see here that if Pharaoh fell into hardening, it was not only because the enchanters did the same thing as Moses and Aaron; but it was again because of the patience and the forbearance of God. The divine patience with regard to the heart of man is useful to some who take advantage of it to repent; useless to others, who abuse it in order to persevere against God and persevere in evil; but its uselessness does not come from its nature, but, as we have said, from the depravity of the heart. This is also what the Apostle says: "Do you not know that the patience of God invites you to repentance? But by the hardness of your heart and by your unrepentance, you are gathering up a treasure of wrath for the day of vengeance and of the manifestation of the just judgment of God, which will render to each according to his works." (Rom. 2:4-6) And elsewhere, after having said: "We are everywhere the good odor of Christ," he adds: "And with regard to those who flee, and to those who are lost." (2 Cor. 11:16) He does not say that he is the good odor of Christ for those who flee, and the bad for those who get lost: but he says that he is only the good smell. Now, those who escape, gained by the good odor of Christ, die, as we have often said, to that disposition of the soul, which must give place in them to a good will inspired by divine grace; they begin to take advantage of the judgments of God, which are the misfortune of depraved hearts. From this hymn issued from a happily transformed heart: "My soul will live and praise you; and your judgments will support me." (Ps. 118:175) He does not say: Your benefits, or Your rewards, but your judgments. It is a great deal to be able to say with sincere confidence: "Test me, Lord, wait on me; burn my kidneys and my heart.” (Ps. 25:2-3) And in the fear of seeming to ascribe to his forces anything, he hastens to add: "For your mercy is before my eyes, and I have delighted in your truth." (Ps. 24;10) He recalls the mercy of which he has been the object, and which has helped him to behave according to the truth: that "all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth." (Matt. 12:28)

(Exodus 8:19)

QUESTION 25. THE MAGICIANS CAN PRODUCE GNATS: WHY? — “The magicians said to Pharaoh: The finger of God is here.” They said this because they could not produce the gnats. In relation to this we say that, indeed, they realized that their attempts to produce the gnats had been in vain, because they had not been able to make them, even though they knew the power of their evil arts. But they did not achieve it with such arts. And then Moses appeared as more powerful in these arts, even though he did it with the finger of God, which certainly acted through Moses. The finger of God, as the Gospel very clearly says, is the Holy Spirit. In effect, an evangelist narrates the words of the Lord: “If I by the finger of God expel demons.” (Luke 11:20) Another evangelist, describing this very thing, wanted to tell us what the finger of God is, and he said: “If I, by the Spirit of God, expel the demons.” (Matt. 12:28) The magicians, in whose power the pharaoh trusted , confessed, then, that the finger of God was in Moses, who overcame them and frustrated his enchantments, but nevertheless, Pharaoh's heart then hardened in a truly extraordinary way. It is difficult to know and explain why the magicians failed in this third plague, since the plagues began since the water became blood. They could, therefore, have also failed in the first prodigy, when the rod became a serpent, and in the first plague, when the water became blood, or in the second, relative to the frogs, if the finger of God, that is, the Holy Spirit would have wanted it. Because who would be so foolish to say that the finger of God could fail with this miracle the attempts of the magicians and could not with the previous ones? Therefore, there must be a totally certain cause to explain why they were allowed to do those things up to this moment. Perhaps the Trinity is insinuated here, and, as it is true, the greatest philosophers of the Gentiles, as far as can be known from their writings, philosophized without allude to the Holy Spirit, although they did not omit to speak of the Father and the Son, a fact that even Didymus remembers in the book he wrote about the Holy Spirit.

(Exodus 8:21-23)

QUESTION 26. THE WOUNDS OF EGYPT DID NOT EXTEND TO THE LAND OF GESSEN. — “Behold, I send flies against you, and against your servants, and against your people, and against your houses, so that the houses of the Egyptians will be filled with flies, so that you may know that I am the Lord God of the whole earth. But I will make a separation between my people and your people.” What the Scripture tells us happened here, so as not to repeat it in each case, we must believe that it happened also in the previous and subsequent miracles; that is to say, that the earth inhabited by the people of God was not punished with any of those plagues. It was opportune, however, to put it here expressly, since similar prodigies began to take place to which the magicians did not even try to make them. As everywhere in the Kingdom of Pharaoh there had been gnats, and, on the other hand, there had been no gnats in the land of Gessen, there is no doubt that they tried to do something similar to the magicians and they did not succeed. Until they failed, nothing had been said about the separation of that land. But since these things began to happen, they did not even dare to do something similar and did not even try.

(Exodus 8:25)

QUESTION 27. INSULTING PERMISSION — Where the Latin codices say: “Go and immolate the Lord your God in the country,” the Greek codices say: “Come and immolate the Lord your God in the country.” Pharaoh did not want them to go where they said. He wanted them to offer sacrifices there, in Egypt. This is demonstrated by the following words of Moses, where it is said that they cannot do so because of the abominations of the Egyptians.

(Exodus 8:26)

QUESTION 28. THE SACRIFICES OF THE ABOMINABLE ISRAELITES IN THE EYES OF THE EGYPTIANS. — The words of Moses: “It cannot be so, for we will sacrifice to the Lord our God the abominations of the Egyptians,” they mean: we are to offer in sacrifice the things that the Egyptians hate and, therefore, in Egypt we cannot do it. This sense is demonstrated by the words that follow: “For if we immolated before them what the Egyptians hate, we would be stoned.” Some of our translators, who did not understand this passage, translated it like this: It cannot be like that; Shall we sacrifice to the Lord our God the abominations of the Egyptians? But in fact the Scripture has said rather that they will immolate what they abominate. Other Latin translators say this: It cannot be like that; because the abominations of the Egyptians we will not immolate them to the Lord our God. The particle of negation gives the opposite sense, because Moses said: “It cannot be like that; for we will sacrifice to the Lord our God the abominations of the Egyptians.” That's why they said they wanted to go to the desert, where the Egyptians would not see what they hated. In spite of everything, a mystical sense must be seen here, as I also said about the shepherds, which were an abomination to the Egyptians, (Cf. Gen. 46:34) and that is why the Israelites received a separate land when they went to Egypt. The sacrifices of the Israelites are also an abomination to the Egyptians, in the same way that the life of the good is for the bad.

(Exodus 8:32)

QUESTION 29. THE HARDENING OF PHARAOH'S WILL IN PRINCIPLE. — When the locust disappeared, the following was said about Pharaoh: “But also this time Pharaoh hardened his heart and did not want to let the people out.” Certainly here it is not said: "The heart of Pharaoh was hardened", but: “Pharaoh hardened his heart.” So it happened in all the plagues; for the origin of vices is in the will of man. The hearts of men move sometimes for some causes and others for different ones; in many occasions in a different way, according to their own dispositions, that come from the will.

CHAPTER 9

(Exodus 9:7)

QUESTION 30. PROGRESS OF PHARAOH'S HARDENING. — “When Pharaoh saw that no animal of the children of Israel had died, the heart of Pharaoh was hardened.” How did this hardening of Pharaoh's heart happen for reasons that would have been expected otherwise? For if the animals of the Israelites had died, then there would be a sufficient cause for their hearts to harden, despising God as if their magicians had also caused the Israelites' flocks to perish. Well, what must have been cause to fear or to believe, seeing that no animal had died from the flocks of the Hebrews, that was exactly what hardened Pharaoh's heart, that is, the hardness of his heart even reached that degree.

(Exodus 9:8-9)

QUESTION 31. ON THE ROLE OF MOSES AND AARON IN THE OPERATION OF MIRACLES. — What does God say to Aaron and to Moses: “Take a handful of ashes from the furnace and let Moses throw them into the heavens before Pharaoh and before his servants, and turn to dust in all the land of Egypt.” The foregoing prodigies were made with the rod that Aaron, not Moses, stretched over the water or hit the earth with. But now, after the portents of the pests and the death of the animals, in which neither Aaron nor Moses do anything by hand, it is said that Moses must throw ash from the furnace into the sky, ash that both must take, but that only Moses must throw, not to the earth, but to heaven, as if Aaron, who had been given to Moses to serve the people, should strike the earth or reach out to the earth or to the water, and in change, Moses, of whom it was said: It will be for you the things that are for God, (Exod. 4:16) receive the order to throw the ashes to heaven. What do those two previous portents mean in which neither Moses nor Aaron should do anything with his hand? What does this difference mean? Evidently, it means something.

(Exodus 9:16)

QUESTION 32. GOD'S PATIENCE WITH PHARAOH. — “This is why your life has been preserved: so that I may show my power in you and so that my name may be announced throughout the earth.” These words of Scripture were also adduced by the Apostle when dealing with that difficult passage, for there he also says this: “If God, willing to show his wrath and show his power, endured with great patience those who are the object of wrath, forgiving, evidently, to those whom he had foreseen would be evil and whom he calls objects prepared for perdition, and to make known the riches of his glory with the objects of mercy.” (Rom. 9:22-23) Hence the voice of those who were the object of mercy that appears in the Psalms: “My God, his mercy will help me; my God will show it to me in my enemies.” (Ps. 58:11-12) God knows how to use well of the evil ones. But do not believe in them human nature for evil, but endure them with patience, until he knows that it is convenient. And he does it, not in vain, but using them to admonish or to exercise the good. Well, may the name of God be proclaimed throughout the earth, take advantage of those who are the object of mercy. Thus, Pharaoh was preserved for his use, as the Scripture says and as he teaches what happened.

(Exodus 9:19)

QUESTION 33. ON THE HAIL. — Why did God command that Pharaoh should hurry to gather his cattle and all that he had in the field so that he would not perish struck by the hail, when he threatened to send him a great hailstorm? Actually, this warning seems to be inspired more by mercy than by anger. But this poses no problem, when God, even when angry, moderates the penalty. What really poses a problem is knowing what cattle it is now, if all the animals had died in the previous plague, (Cf. Exod. 9:6) for it is written that God distinguished the flocks of the Hebrews from those of the Egyptians, and that the former were totally preserved, while the latter were entirely destroyed. Can the question be resolved, perhaps, by saying that God had predicted that those who were in the field would die, understanding that all those who were in the field would die (Cf. Exod. 9:3) and, instead, those who were in the houses would be freed, animals that could even be collected and kept at home by those who feared that what Moses had predicted what the Lord was going to do would be true? Among these, in turn, could be in the fields that now advises to be collected in the houses so they do not perish by hail. And this is what we say above all in what the Scripture refers to: “The servants of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord, gathered their cattle in their houses.” On the other hand, those who did not pay attention to the word of the Lord, left their cattle in the field. (Exod. 9:20-21) This may have happened, since God also threatened the death of the cattle, although the Scripture has omitted it.

(Exodus 9:22)

QUESTION 34. A SECOND TIME, MOSES RAISES HIS HAND TO THE SKY. — And the Lord said to Moses: "Stretch out your hand toward heaven and hail will fall on all the land of Egypt." Moses receives again the command to extend his hand, not to the earth, but to heaven, as before, when it was the ashes.

(Exodus 9:27)

QUESTION 35. ON THE FEAR OF PHARAOH. — When Pharaoh, dismayed by the dreadful crash that accompanied the hail, confesses his iniquity and that of his people and begs Moses to pray for him, he answers, "I know that you and your servants you do not fear the Lord yet.” (Exod. 9:30) What fear did he demand, since Pharaoh's was not yet the fear of the Lord? It is easy to fear punishment; but it is not this fear of God, inspired by love, of which Jacob speaks when he says: "If the God of my father Abraham and the God feared by Isaac had not assisted me, you would have me today. He returned naked." (Gen. 3:42)

CHAPTER 10

(Exodus 10:1)

QUESTION 36. AGAIN ON THE PATIENCE OF GOD. — The Lord said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and that of his servants so that these wonders of mine may come upon them in their order." The text says: “I have hardened your heart so that these portents of mine may come upon you in their order,” as if God needed someone's malice. The text must be understood as follows: "I had patience with him and with his servants, so that I will not remove them from the midst", so that my portents may come upon them in their order. Since his bad mood became more obstinate with divine patience, instead of saying "he was patient with him," he says: I hardened his heart.

(Exodus 10:19-20)

QUESTION 37. THE SINNER ABUSES THE BENEFITS AND PATIENCE OF GOD. — “Not one locust remained in all the land of Egypt. And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart.” The Scripture recalls the favor, which certainly came from God, from making the locusts disappear, and then says that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. He certainly did it for his favor and for his patience, which gave rise to that stubbornness, while God forgave him, as do all the evil hearts of men, who harden themselves by misusing the patience of God.

(Exodus 10:21)

QUESTION 38. POWER OF MOSES. — For the third time Moses is told: “Stretch out your hand toward heaven, that the plague of darkness may come.” His brother Aaron was never told to reach out his hand to heaven. With the mandate given to Moses, in the words: Stretch out your hand over the land of Egypt and let the locusts climb on the earth, (Exod. 10:12) I think that he who can do more can do less; but it does not follow that the one who can less, can do more.

CHAPTER 11

(Exodus 11:2)

QUESTION 40. ON THE LOAN OF VASES AND CLOTHES MADE BY THE HEBREWS TO THE EGYPTIANS. — God said to Moses: “Speak secretly to the people, and let every man ask of his neighbor, and every woman of his neighbor, vases of gold and silver, and garments.” No one should take an example from here to plunder his neighbor in this way. God, who knew what each one would have to endure, sent this. And the Israelites did not commit a robbery, but they did a service to God, who had commanded it. This is like when a judge's minister kills whom he orders to kill. It is clear that if he does it spontaneously he is a murderer, even though he kills anyone who knows that he must be killed by the judge. Here is also the question of whether the Hebrews lived in an isolated place in the land of Gessen, where there were no plagues that afflicted the people of Pharaoh, how each man asks his neighbor and each woman his neighbor gold, silver and dresses, especially considering that the first time this order is given by Moses, it is said: “And each woman to her neighbor and companion of tent or tabernacle, if it can be said that way or to the one that coexists with her.” (Exod. 3:22) From this it follows that neither in the land of Gessen did only the Hebrews live, but that in it they had as their neighbors some Egyptians, who could also receive those divine favors for the sake of the Hebrews. And the Egyptians would therefore not only love these neighbors, but they would easily grant them what they asked for. In any case, God did not judge that these Egyptians were so oblivious to the insults and abuse that the people of God had to endure so that they would not be beaten by this misfortune, they who had not had to suffer those plagues because God had forgiven that land.

CHAPTER 12

(Exodus 12:10)

QUESTION 41. WHAT WAS LEFT TO BURN THE PASCHAL LAMB? — "If anything is left in the morning, you will burn it in the fire." We can ask how it was possible that there was something left over, if the town had been warned that, if a house did not have enough people to eat the lamb, neighbors would join. (Cf. Exod. 12:4) But as they were told: You will not break any bone, it is understood that the bones would remain, (Cf. Exod. 12:46) which would have to be burned.

(Exodus 12:5)

QUESTION 42. ON THE PASCHAL LAMB. — “You will take a perfect lamb, male and one year old.” This word can draw attention, as if a lamb could not be a male. And that difficulty is troubling to the one who does not know why it was translated that way. The literal translation should have been sheep, because in Greek appears the word próbaton, which in Greek has neutral gender, and everything that comes next could fit well, as if the author said: “You will take a perfect lamb, male and one year old.” In Latin it could be said masculum pecus (male animal), as they say masculature (strong incense grains), in neutral gender. But ovis masculus (male sheep) could not be said, because sheep has a female gender. In the same way it would be an absurdity to say ovis mascula (male sheep). On the other hand, if you put pecus (animal), you would also understand something else and there would be no mystery, because the Scripture, when speaking of the sheep, says next: “You will choose between the lambs and the goats.” By virtue of what has been said, it is rightly thought that Christ is prefigured in this text. For what need was there to be told to the Israelites to take the sheep or the lamb from among the lambs and the goats, if it were not prefigured that whose flesh was not only spread through the righteous, but also from the sinners? And this despite the Jews trying to interpret that you can also take a kid to celebrate Easter. And he thinks that the Scripture said that it could be taken from among the lambs or from among the goats as if he had said that it is lawful to take either a lamb from among the lambs or a goat from among the goats, in case they did not have a lamb. Once things are done, the precept appears in Christ.

(Exodus 12:14)

QUESTION 43. ON THE ETERNAL WORD. —  "On this day you will make, from race to race, a legal feast, which will last forever," or else, "an eternal feast," in Greek aiónion. These words should not be taken in the sense that there may be an eternal day between these natural days. But what is eternal is the object signified by that day; as when we say that God is eternal, it is certainly not with this word GOD, but that it means that we attribute eternity. But we must carefully investigate how the eternal Scripture usually calls a thing, lest it has so solemnly called eternal something that is not lawful for the Israelites to abandon or change of their own free will. Because one thing is what is commanded to be done, as the ark was commanded to circle around the walls of Jericho seven times, (Cf. Jos. 6:8.9) and something else when someone is ordered to observe something without establishing a term for its fulfillment, which may be every day or every month or every year solemnly or during certain intervals of many years or of some years only. So, either what Scripture calls eternal means that the Hebrews should never allow themselves to put an end to the Passover celebration; or, I repeat, we must apply this qualification not to the signs but to the things they designate.

but what is eternal is the object signified by that day; as when we say that God is eternal, it is certainly not with this word GOD, but that it means that we attribute eternity.

(Exodus 12:30)

QUESTION 44. ON THE DEATH OF THE FIRSTBORN. — “And there was a great cry in the land of Egypt, for there was no house in which there was not a dead man.” Could not there have been a house that did not have a firstborn? Since only the firstborns died, how could there be no house that did not have a dead person? Or had the presence of God providentially sought to punish the Egyptians in all the houses? Naturally, we must not believe that the Egyptians who lived in the land of Gessen have been freed from this plague, because it was a plague that affected men or animals, not the land. That is to say, the firstborns of men and animals died by a hidden and angelic punishment. Nothing had happened on earth or in heaven that afflicted those who lived there, such as when the plagues of frogs or locusts or darkness took place. As the land of Gessen was free of such plagues, God's favor undoubtedly came to those Egyptians who lived on the same land as the Hebrews. But with this plague all their first-born were punished.

(Exodus 12:35-36)

QUESTION 45. STILL ON THE LOAN MADE TO THE EGYPTIANS BY THE HEBREWS. — “The children of Israel did as Moses had commanded them and asked the Egyptians for articles of gold and silver and clothing. And the Lord caused his people to find favor with the Egyptians, who lent them things, and they stripped the Egyptians.” This had already happened before the death of the firstborn of the Egyptians. But now it is repeated as a recapitulation, because it was narrated when it happened. For how could it be that they now lend these things to the children of Israel in the midst of so much mourning for the death of their firstborn? Unless one says that this plague also did not affect the Egyptians who lived with the Hebrews in the land of Gessen.

(Exodus 12:22)

QUESTION 46. ON THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB. — What does it mean by Scripture? “You will take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood by the door and spread the lintel and the two jambs.” We can ask, indeed, what blood, which is next to the door, is treated, being that it undoubtedly refers to the blood of that lamb with whose sacrifice the Passover is celebrated. Perhaps he orders this way, even if he has omitted it, that the lamb itself is sacrificed next to the door? Or, more likely, when the sacred text bears, "in the blood that is on the threshold of the house," is it to indicate that he who must spread it on the door and the posts, will place the vase where he received the blood, near the door, to draw more easily?

CHAPTER 13

(Exodus 13:9)

QUESTION 48. ON FAITH AND WORKS. — What does the Scripture say when speaking of the Passover: “And this will be a sign on your hand?” Does it mean perhaps about your works, that is, what you must bring before your works? The Passover, because of the death of the lamb, belongs to faith in Christ and to the blood that redeemed us. This faith must be put before the works, so that it is in a certain way on the hand against those who boast in the works of the law. The Apostle speaks and deals with this subject, because he wants faith to be put before works. And this must be done in such a way that good works depend on it and are preceded by it, and not in a way that seems like faith is rewarded by the merits of good works. (Cf. Gal. 3; Heb. 11) Faith, indeed, belongs to grace; Now, if it is grace, it no longer comes from works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace. (Rom. 11:6)

(Exodus 13:17)

QUESTION 49. WE MUST REMOVE THE OBSTACLES TO GOOD. — When Pharaoh let the people out, God did not lead them into the land of the Philistines, because he was near. For God said: "Lest the people repent, when they are attacked, and return to Egypt." It is clear from this text that all those things that can be done with just reason must be done to avoid adverse things, even if it is clearly God who lends his help.

(Exodus 13:18)

QUESTION 50. WHAT DOES IT MEAN BY GENERATION? — "The children of Israel went out from the land of Egypt to the fifth generation.” Does the sacred writer want a generation to count for a century, and speak of the fifth generation, because the event he tells happens after four hundred and thirty years? Or, by generations, should we not rather hear those who follow one another from Jacob on his entry into Egypt to Moses who came out at the head of the people? For one finds Jacob in the first, Levi in the second, Caath in the third, Ambram in the fourth, and Moses in the fifth. The Latin translator calls progenies (offspring) to these lineages that the Greeks call genetas and that the Gospel calls generations, and that are counted by the successions of men, not by the number of years. (Cf. Matt. 1:17)

CHAPTER 14

(Exodus 14:13)

QUESTION 51. ON THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS: “YOU WILL NEVER SEE THE EGYPTIANS AGAIN.” — Moses said: “Trust and be steadfast and you will see the salvation that the Lord will give you on this day. For as you have seen the Egyptians today, you will never see them again.” How should we interpret these words, since the Israelites saw the Egyptians again? Perhaps because those who saw them then did not see them again afterwards, since those of the next generation also died and they all died each on the appointed day for him. Because it is clear that the descendants of the Israelites saw the descendants of the Egyptians. Or perhaps the phrase: “You will not see them like today,” you have to understand them in the sense that you will not see them as they are today, persecuting you and as your enemies and coming after you with such a large army, so that there is no problem at all some, not even about the eternal time (never again) spoken of here, because certainly, they will not look like today, even though they will see each other on the day of the resurrection?

(Exodus 14:15)

QUESTION 52. ON THE CRY OF THE HEART. — What does this word of the Lord mean to Moses: "Why do you cry to me?” Since the Scripture does not record any expression which Moses would have used, and does not say that he has prayed? Will he not make us understand that his voice remained silent, while his heart uttered a cry?

(Exodus 14:16)

QUESTION 53. ON THE ROD OF MOSES. — “And you lift your staff and extend your hand over the sea.” This is the rod with which the wonders were performed, a rod that the author now says is from Moses. Before it was said that it belonged to his brother, when his brother acted through it. (Ps. 148:7-8)

CHAPTER 15

(Exodus 15:12)

QUESTION 54. HOW DOES MOSES SAY THAT THE EARTH HAS DEVOURED THE EGYPTIANS? — You extended your right hand and swallowed the earth. It should not be surprising that the earth has been placed by water. Because all this extreme or tiny part of the world is called with the name of land, according to what the Scripture says often: God who made heaven and earth62. In the distribution of beings that makes that psalm, when he has already mentioned the beings of heaven, he says: Praise the Lord from the earth, and then praise the Lord beings who also belong to the waters63.

(Exodus 15:10)

QUESTION 55. ON THE HOLY SPIRIT. — You sent your spirit and the sea covered them. This is the fifth time that the spirit of God is mentioned, if in this issue we include the text that says: The finger of God is here. (Exod. 8:19) The first time is mentioned in the text that says: “The spirit of God hovered over the waters.” (Gen. 1:2) The second one says: “My spirit will not remain in these men, because they are flesh.” (Gen. 6:3) The third when Pharaoh says to Joseph: “Because the spirit of God is in you.” (Gen. 41:38) The fourth when the magicians of Egypt say: “The finger of God is here.” (Exod. 8:19) The fifth in this song: “You have sent your Spirit, and the sea has submerged them.” (Exod. 15:8) We remember that the Spirit of God is not mentioned only to grant benefits, but also to bring punishments. For what else did he say shortly before when he said: “And by the spirit of your wrath were the waters parted? (Exod. 15:8) So, this Spirit of God was the spirit of his wrath against the Egyptians, to whom he destroyed the separation of waters. For when they entered the waters they were buried by them, when they returned to their place. On the other hand, for the children of Israel that spirit was not the spirit of the wrath of God, because to them the separation of waters was of profit to them. From this it follows that, because of the different actions and effects, the spirit of God is called in different ways, even though it is one and the same spirit. And this spirit is also understood as the Holy Spirit in the unity of the Trinity. Therefore, I think that not another spirit, but the same is the one indicated by these words of the Apostle: “For you did not receive a spirit of slaves to return to fear again; but you received a spirit of adoption with which we cried out: Abba, Father!” (Rom. 8:15) For by that same spirit of God, that is, by the finger of God, who wrote the law on the tables of stone, they were instilled with fear. To those who still did not understand grace, so that the law would convince them of their weakness and their sins, and the law would become for them their teacher that would lead them to the grace that resides in the faith of Jesus Christ. (Cf. Gal. 3:22-26) From this spirit of adoption and of grace, that is to say, of this work of the spirit of God, through which grace and regeneration is given for eternal life, it is said: “For the spirit gives life,” when shortly before it was said: “the letter kills,” (2 Cor. 3:6) that is, the written law that only commands without the help of grace.

(Exodus 15:23-24)

QUESTION 56. ON THE NAME OF MARA. — “They arrived, then, at Mara; but they could not drink the water of Mara, because it was bitter.” If the name of that place was called "bitterness", because they could not drink the water there, since it was bitter, for Mara means "bitterness," why did they go to Mara, but because the Scripture designated by that name the place to which they arrived, which was already called that way when these things were written? Because it is evident that these things were written after those events.

(Exodus 15:25)

QUESTION 57. ON THE WOOD THAT SOFTENS THE WATERS OF MARA. — “And the Lord showed him a tree, which he threw into the water and the water became sweet.” Did the wood have this capacity or could God do this with any tree, he who performed so many wonders? The words: “And showed him,” seem to indicate that there was already that wood with which he could do that. Unless it is a place where there was no wood, so even the very fact that God showed him the tree where there was no tree, was already due to divine help. And so through the wood he made the water sweet, prefiguring the glory and grace of the cross. But in that same quality of the wood, who should be praised but the one who created it and the one who showed it to him?

CHAPTER 16

(Exodus 16:4)

QUESTION 58. ON THE TEMPTATION ON THE PART OF GOD. — But the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain down upon you loaves of heaven, and the people shall go out to gather the amount of one day every day, to tempt them to see whether they walk according to my law or not." This temptation is a test, not a seduction to sin. And it is not a test for God to know something, but to make them known to men themselves, so that they may become humbler to ask for help and to know the grace of God.

(Exodus 16:8)

QUESTION 59. WITH THESE WORDS: WHAT ARE WE? — Moses and Aaron say to the people among other things: “Because the Lord has heard your murmurings, which you direct against us. But what are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against God.” It does not follow that they claim to have as much power as God, for they said: “What are we?” They knew that the people were murmuring against God, that he was the one who had sent them and that he was acting through them. On the other hand, it is not the same issue in that sentence of Peter when he says to Ananias: “Have you dared to lie to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to men, but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4) But he does not say: "Have you dared to lie to me?" "You have not lied to me, but to God." If I had said this, then it would have been the same as before. And Peter also did not say: "Have you dared to lie to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to the Holy Spirit, but to God." If he had said this, he would have affirmed that the Holy Spirit was not God. Well, as he said: “Have you dared to lie to the Holy Spirit?” When Ananias thought he had lied to men, Peter showed that the Holy Spirit was God, adding: “You have not lied to men, but to God.”

(Exodus 16:12)

QUESTION 60. THIS IS SIGNIFIED BY THE FLESH AND BREAD THAT GOD SENDS TO HIS PEOPLE. — God sends the people through Moses: “In the evening you will eat meat and in the morning you will be filled with bread.” It is clear that bread is mentioned here not as synonymous with any food, because, otherwise, bread would also include meat, since meat is also food. Nor is bread called only that which is made of wheat, this is what we usually call bread in the proper sense, but it gives the name of bread to manna. And it is not unimportant what is said about the fact that in the afternoon they will be given meat and in the morning bread. Because a similar thing is also indicated in the case of Elijah, when a crow brought him food. (Cf. 1 Kgs 17:6) Is it perhaps symbolized in the flesh in the morning and in the afternoon bread that was delivered for our crimes and resurrected for our justification? (Rom. 4:25) He died in the afternoon, because of human weakness was buried, but in the morning he appeared to the disciples, he who had risen with power.

(Exodus 16:33-34)

QUESTION 61. THE MEASURE OF MANNA GLIDED BEFORE GOD. — "And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a vessel of gold, and put it in this vessel, full of manna, and put it before God, that it may be preserved for the future races, as God has done ordered." We can ask where Aaron could put it before God, if there was no image there or the ark of the covenant was still built. Did you say maybe in the future you will place it so that it would be understood that it would be placed before God when the ark was there? Or was it rather said before God because it is done by the offeror's own devotion, no matter where it was placed? Because where is God not? But what the author adds next: “And Aaron placed before the testimony to be preserved,” seems to confirm the first sense. For then Scripture says in anticipation what was realized in the sequel, when the tabernacle of the testimony was erected.

(Exodus 16:35)

QUESTION 62. ON THE MANNA. — “The children of Israel ate the manna for forty years, until they came to the inhabited earth. They ate the manna until they reached the territory of Phoenicia.” The Scripture indicates by means of a sequel, that is, remembering in this passage what was also realized later, that the children of Israel did not eat in the wilderness more than manna. This is what the phrase means: until the inhabited earth, that is to say, the land that is no longer desert, not because immediately they arrived at the habitable land they stopped eating the manna, but because they did not leave it before. It is indicated, then, that the manna ceased once passed the Jordan, where they ate the bread of the earth. Therefore, when they came to the habitable land, before passing the Jordan, they were able to eat only manna or manna and other food. The text, in fact, can be understood thus, since it is not said that the manna ceased until after passing the Jordan. But there is a serious problem of knowing why, in the midst of that desert shortage, they also wanted to eat meat, since they left Egypt with their abundant flocks. Unless it is said that, as in the desert there were not so many pastures and therefore it would seem that the fertility of the cattle would be less, they reserved their cattle, lest all the animals lacking, they should also lack the necessary ones for the sacrifices. Could we not, for the solution of this difficulty, find some other explanation? It is believed, with more reason, that they did not desire the meats which their flocks could have procured for them, but those which they lacked, that is to say the meat of fish, for they found none in that wilderness, wherefore God sent them rattles; most Latin translators say quails, though these birds, though not very different, are of different species. God knew what was the object of their desires and the kind of meat that could satisfy them. But the Scripture having said that they desired meat, without observing what kind of meat they claimed, we had to treat this question.

(Exodus 16:35)

QUESTION 63. WHAT IS THIS PHOENICIA OF WHICH EXODUS SPEAKS? — “They ate the manna until they reached the territory of Phoenicia.” Before he had said: Until they reached the inhabited earth. But since he had not specified what land it was, now it seems that he says it more expressly when he adds: “to the territory of Phoenicia.” But it is convenient to remember that that land was called like that then, but not now. In fact, what is called Phoenicia, region of Tyre and Sidon, is another. And it is not said that the Israelites have crossed it. Although it is possible that the Scripture may call Phoenicia land to the place where palm trees had already begun to appear after the desolation of the desert, because in Greek palm it is said that way. At the beginning of their trip they found a place where there were seventy palm trees and twelve fountains. Then they were welcomed by the immensity of the desert, where there was none of that, until they reached cultivated places. But the most likely interpretation is to think that the earth was then called that way. For the names of many lands and places, like those of rivers and cities, have been changing through the ages for very varied causes.

CHAPTER 17

(Exodus 17:5)

QUESTION 64. SUPERIORITY OF MOSES OVER AARON. — And the Lord said to Moses, "Go before the people; but take some elders of the people with you; and take in your hand the rod with which you struck the river." The text says that it was Aaron, not Moses, who struck the river with the rod. (Cf. Exod. 7:19) For Moses divided the sea with that rod, not the river. (Cf. Exod. 14:21) What does it mean then: “Take the rod with which you hit the river?” Maybe he called the river a sea? If so, look for an example of this expression. Does Moses attribute more to what Aaron did, because God commanded through Moses what Aaron had to do, and in Moses was authority and in Aaron the service? Indeed, in his first words, God told him about his brother: “He will speak for you to the people, and you will be for him the things that are for God.”

(Exodus 17:9)

QUESTION 65. ON THE ROD OF GOD. — “See that I am on the top of the mountain with the rod of God in my hand.” These words Moses tells Joshua son of Nave, by sending him to fight against Amalek. Now God's rod is called the rod that was once called Aaron's rod and then Moses' rod. In the same way that the Spirit of Elijah is called (Cf. Luke 1:17) to the one who is the spirit of God, of whom Elijah participated, so the staff could also be called that way. It is also called justice of God to which is our justice, even if it comes from God. Speaking of him, the Apostle rebukes the Jews: “ignoring the justice of God and wanting to establish their own, (Rom. 10:3) that is, as if prepared by them for themselves. Against these people he says: “What do you have that you have not received?”

CHAPTER 18

(Exodus 18:12)

QUESTION 66. WHAT DOES IT MEAN: BEFORE GOD? — “Then Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat with Moses' father-in-law in the presence of God,” or, as other codices say, before God, which in Greek corresponds to enantíon tou zeou. We can ask "where" they were in God's presence, because there was neither the tabernacle nor the ark of the covenant, which was made afterwards. And here we cannot take these words as referring to the future, as it was said about manna, which was placed in a golden container. Therefore, the expression "before God" must be taken in the sense that the act they performed was done in honor of God, because where is God not?

(Exodus 18:15-16)

QUESTION 67. ETERNITY OF THE LAW OF GOD. — Moses says to his father-in-law: “It is that the people come to me to seek a judgment from God; for when they have a trial and come to me, I dictate sentence to one another and teach them the precepts of God and his laws.” We can ask how Moses could say this if no law of God had yet been promulgated. The answer may be that the law of God is eternal and that all pious minds take it into consideration to make or command or forbid what they find in it, according to what that law prescribes with immutable truth. Is it necessary to think that Moses, although God spoke with him, used to consult God all the things that arose in the litigation of such a large crowd and that he dedicated himself all the time, from morning to night, to that task of judge? The reality is that if he did not consult the Lord, that he governed his mind, and did not wisely attend to his eternal law, he would not find a way to rule with absolute justice among the litigants.

(Exodus 18:18)

QUESTION 68. EXCELLENT ADVICE FROM JETHRO TO MOSES. — In relation to the advice that Jethro gives his son-in-law Moses not to exhaust himself in such an unacceptable way, the same as the people, dealing only with the judgments of the same, the first question that arises is to know how it is possible that God let a foreigner advise this to Moses, who was a servant of God, with whom he spoke so many such things. With this data the Scripture teaches us that we should not despise anyone, whoever the person who gives us advice according to the truth. We must also think that perhaps God wanted to admonish Moses by means of a foreigner in a matter in which arrogance could have tempted him, because Moses alone judged all the people who were waiting for him standing with all their highest judicial authority. This interpretation is suggested by the fact that Jethro advised him to choose to judge the disputes of the people to those who were free from arrogance. (Cf. Exod. 18:21) For the rest, this text clearly demonstrates the great attention that must be paid to what the Scripture says in another passage: “Son, do not get involved in multiple issues.” (Eccles. 11:10) Finally, it is convenient to meditate the words that Jethro says to Moses to advise him; for he says to him: “So now listen to me, and I will give you some advice, and God will be with you.” It seems to me that here it is indicated that a mind too attentive to human acts is empty of God in a certain way, and is filled with it further the more freely it tends to higher and eternal things.

(Exodus 18:19-21)

QUESTION 69. AGAIN ON THE ADVICE OF JETHRO TO MOSES. — Then he adds: “Be the representative of the people in the things that refer to God and you will bring his words before him; and you will teach them the precepts of God and his law, and you will make known to them the path they must follow and the works that they must do.” These words show that Moses must act like this with all the people. The text does not say: take before God the words of each one; but his words, because he had said before: “Be the representative of the people in the things that refer to God.” Then he advises him that the concrete issues that arise between them are taken care of naturally by a select and capable men, God fearing and just and enemies of arrogance, whom he must put at the head of the community, some as chiefs of a thousand, others as heads of a hundred, others as heads of fifty and others as heads of ten. In this way he took from Moses a heavy and dangerous occupation and did not tax these men, since a thousand men would have one as their leader, and under him there would be another ten and under them another twenty and under them another hundred, so that hardly any problem would arrive to each one of these leaders that it was necessary to judge him. The example of humility is also suggested here, since Moses, with whom God spoke, did not mislead or despise the advice of his father-in-law, who was a foreigner. And we can rightly ask, and I believe that is the most proven, if Jethro, though not an Israelite, has to be counted among the worshipers of the true God and religious men, like Job, who was not an Israelite either. Indeed, the ambiguous words are that he offered sacrifices to the true God in his people, when he saw his son-in-law, or that Moses himself worshiped him. As regards to adoration, although the Scripture has expressly said it, it would be an honor given to his father-in-law, as patriarchs tend to give men to honor them. On the other hand, it is not easy to know who are the grammatoeisagogeis, who come after the heads of ten, (Cf. Exod. 18:21) because that word is not used in any case to designate offices or magistracies. Some translate it by "doctors", referring to doctors of letters, those who teach one the knowledge of the same, as the Greek word literally sounds. Here, evidently, it is pointed out that the Hebrews knew the alphabet before receiving the law. But I do not know if it's worth investigating when they met him. Some claim that they knew him from the beginning of humanity and that through those primitive men he came to Noah and then to Abraham's parents and then to the people of Israel; but I do not know how you could try this.

(Exodus 19:1-3)

QUESTION 70. OF THE FIFTY DAYS ELAPSED BETWEEN PASSOVER AND THE PUBLICATION OF THE LAW. — "On the third day of the third month since the coming out of Egypt, the children of Israel came to the wilderness of Sinai; they had departed from Raphidin, and having arrived at the desert of Sinai, Israel encamped at the foot of the mountain; And Moses went up to the mountain of God, and the Lord called him out of the mountain, and said to him, This shall you speak to the children of Israel, etc.” Then, a little later, he adds: “Go down and give witness to the people and purify them today and tomorrow, and wash their clothes and be ready for the third day; for on the third day the Lord will come down to Mount Sinai before all the people.” On this day the law was promulgated, written by the finger of God on stone tablets, (Exod. 31:18) as the text says below; it is the third day of the third month since Israel left Egypt. So, from the day they celebrated the Passover, that is, since they slaughtered the lamb and ate it, which was the fourteenth day of the first month, until this month when the law is enacted, fifty days pass: seventeen days of the first month (Cf. Exod. 12:6) and the rest from day fourteen; afterwards all the thirty days of the second month, which together amount to forty-seven, and three days of the third month, which is the fiftieth day since the solemnity of the immolation of the lamb. Therefore, as in this shadow of the future, according to the feast of the immaculate lamb, the law written by the finger of God was promulgated after fifty days, so also in the truth of the New Testament, since the feast of the immaculate lamb Jesus Christ, there is fifty days, after which the Holy Spirit was given to us from the heavens. (Cf. Acts 2:2-4) That the Holy Spirit is the finger of God we already said it above, testing it with texts of the Gospel.

(Exodus 21:22)

QUESTION 80. ABORTION OF A WOMAN, FROM A BRAWL BETWEEN TWO MEN. — “If two men quarrel and wound a pregnant woman and their undeformed child is born, the guilty party will be fined according to what the husband of the wife imposes, and he will give it to him by petition.” It seems to me that these things are said because of some special meaning and not because the Scripture deals with facts of this nature. Because if the Scripture pretended that a pregnant woman, who had been beaten, should not be forced to abort, would not put two men to quarrel, since a single man could cause it if he quarreled with the woman, or even if he did not quarrel, if he did that same wanting to cause damage to the offspring of another. Well, the fact that the author did not want the unborn childbirth to belong to the homicide proves that he thought that it was not man that is carried in the mother's womb. Here the problem of the soul is usually posed, that is, if what is not formed cannot be said to be animated, and therefore, that it would not be a homicide, since it cannot be affirmed that a being that had not yet had soul.

The text continues saying: "But if the child is formed, he will give life for life." (Exod. 21:23)  What else does this last phrase mean but "he himself will die"? Because the law imposes this in the other cases mentioned with this motive: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruising,” (Exod. 21:24-25) that is, the justice of retaliation. And this law was established to show what kind of punishment should be applied. Because if it were not known by law what kind of punishment had to be applied, where would we know what punishment would remove the forgiveness to be able to say: “Forgive us our debts just as we forgive our debtors?” (Matt. 6:12) The law, in effect, reveals the debtors, so that when something is forgiven, it appears what is forgiven. For we would not forgive the debts if we did not know by law what is owed to us. Therefore, if that birth had already exists, but was still somehow animated without form, because the great problem of the soul does not have to be resolved hastily with the recklessness of an uncontested sentence, the law has not wanted it to be a homicide, because it still cannot be called a living soul that is in a body that lacks senses, if it is thus in a flesh not formed and therefore not yet endowed with senses. It is not easy to understand what is said next: “And he will pay on his request" compensation that the husband will fix for abortion, it is not easy to determine the meaning. The word axíoma, that the Greek text has, is interpreted in several ways, and the most bearable translation is still that which bears "cum postulatione," (upon his request). Perhaps the text will ask that it be given to satisfy God in that way, even if the husband or wife does not ask for it.

(Exodus 21:28)

QUESTION 81. THE BULL WHO HAS ATTACKED WITH HIS HORN AND KILLS A MAN WILL BE STONED. — "If a bull strike a man or a woman with his horn, and they die, he shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox will be innocent." It is just to kill an animal that causes harm to men. What is said here about the ox must be understood, as a part of the whole, of any animal domesticated by man that is harmful to man. But if you have to kill him, must you kill him with stones? If an animal must die, how important is the death given to it? In relation to what the text adds, saying that one should not eat his flesh, what is this but that all these things mean something that the Scripture in particular often sees?

(Exodus 21:35)

QUESTION 82. ON THE BULL THAT INJURES AND KILLS ANOTHER BULL. — “But if the ox of one hunts another's ox and causes death, they will sell the live ox and divide its price, dividing also the dead ox.” Is it only necessary to keep this rule in the case of an ox or does it have to be applied with any other animal? This must also be understood as the part in relation to the whole. But it has no application in the case of the meat of the dead animal that is not eaten.

CHAPTER 22

(Exodus 22:1)

QUESTION 83. AN ACT RESPECTING THE THEFT OF CALVES OR SHEEP. — What justification can there be for having to return five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep, if you did not mean something?

(Exodus 22:2-3)

QUESTION 84. THIEVES WHO ATTACK HOMES. — "If a thief is found breaking in, and being wounded he dies, there will be no homicide. But if the sun rises on him, the murderer will be guilty, and he will die." It is understood that there is no homicide if the night thief is killed. And there is in the case of the daytime thief. This is what the phrase means: “If the sun rises on him.” Indeed, it could be known that he had come to steal and not to kill, and that is why he should not be killed. In the old profane laws, although this one is older than them, this is the same: the robber who steals at night can be killed with impunity in whatever way. But the one who steals by day, can only be killed if he had defended himself with a weapon. Because in this case he is already something more than a thief.

(Exodus 22:9)

QUESTION 85. ON PERJURY UNVEILED BY GOD HIMSELF. — What does it mean: “Whoever is convicted by God, will restore double?” It means that God sometimes wants to discover the perjurer with a certain sign.

(Exodus 22:28)

QUESTION 86. WHAT DOES THE GODS MEAN? — “You will not curse the gods.” The problem arises of knowing who he calls gods; if it is about the princes who judge the people, as it was said of Moses that it was given to Pharaoh as a god, (Cf. Exod. 7:1) and what comes next is said by way of explanation as showing who he calls gods, when it is added: “No you will curse the prince of your people. (Exod. 22:28) The Greek text in this case says: “You will not say badly.” Or if it is rather to interpret that text according to the words of the Apostle: “For although they are called gods or in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords. (1 Cor. 8:5) By adding: as it is, the Apostle means that there are creatures really worthy of the name, but it is on this condition that what is called in Greek latreia, in Latin servitus, (servitude, worship), and that logically belongs to religion, only it owes to the only true God, who is our God. Those who receive the name of gods, if there are beings that can be called true, are forbidden to curse them, but they are not commanded to venerate them with sacrifices or with any gift of adoration.

CHAPTER 23

(Exodus 23:2)

QUESTION 87. THE BAD EXAMPLE OF THE MAJORITY DOES NOT EXCUSE SIN. — “You will not be with the majority to do evil.” Let no one, therefore, defend himself by saying that he did it with the majority, or think that is why it is not a sin.

(Exodus 23:3)

QUESTION 88. ON MERCY AND JUSTICE. — "You will not have compassion on the poor, judging him.” If he not said at the trial, a serious problem would arise. But, in any case, it would have to be understood, even if it had not been said. Earlier he had said: Do not let yourself be carried away by the crowd, by the majority, to divert the judgment.” (Exod. 23:2) Therefore, the sentence: “You will not have compassion for the poor,” it could be understood in the trial. But as those words have been added, there is no problem that this has been done. Do not be, then, that, in judging, we see that justice is in favor of the rich against the poor and we seem to work well if we favor the poor, moved by mercy, against justice. Mercy is certainly good, but it should not go against judgment. Scripture, of course, calls judgment on what is just. But so that no one thinks that because of this sentence God forbids mercy, the following will come very opportunely: “If you find the ox of your enemy or his ass lost, you will return them, (Exod. 23:4) so that you know that you have not been forbidden to practice mercy. Practice it even with your enemies, even outside of judgment. For when you return the errant ox of your enemy and restore it to him, do not feel like a judge among some men.

(Exodus 23:10-11)

QUESTION 89. ON THE REST OF THE EARTH DURING THE SEVENTH YEAR. — "You will sow your land for six years, and you will gather the fruits; but you shall break loose the seventh year, and you shall rest; and the poor of your people will have food: what they will leave, the wild beasts will eat. You will do the same for your vine and your olive plant." We can ask what the poor picked up, if the seventh year was left to rest on the earth to the point that it was not even sown, for it does not refer to the vineyard or the olive grove what is said before: “The poor of your people will eat, because from a land not sown, nothing can be collected, because the harvest cannot be born. Then he says that we must do the same with the vineyard and with the olive grove. This is why we understand what is said about the fields that are used for wheat. Or the phrase that: "You will sow your land for six years, and you will gather the fruits” you have to understand it in the sense that you will sow and gather for six years, and the seventh you will not gather, but you will "sow", although it is not expressly stated. In this case, for six years they would sow and gather, and the seventh, on the contrary, they should leave what they had sown. Because what could the poor get out of there, when the remains are left for the animals of the field, those animals that could eat those fruits, like wild boars and deer and the like? This, in any case, would not be said if it did not have some meaning. For if God does not care about oxen, (1 Cor. 9:9) referring to the commandments that God gave to men, a claim that should not be understood in the sense that God does not give food to those who neither sow nor reap or gather in the barn, (Matt. 6:26) but rather God does not care to give man a precept about how he should care for his ox, how much less does God care to give a precept about the way in which man cares for country animals, when God himself feeds them? with the goods of exuberantly productive nature, who also feeds them during the other six years when the things that are sown are collected!

(Exodus 23:19)

QUESTION 90. THE LAMB SHOULD NOT BE COOKED IN HIS MOTHER'S MILK. — I do not know how the literal meaning of the words could be found: “You will not boil the lamb in its mother's milk.” If we accept that it is forbidden to cook the lamb in milk for any reason, I must say that there is no custom of cooking it in this way. But if it is the time of breastfeeding, what Jew never observed this custom of not cooking the lamb unless he had stopped breastfeeding? And what does it mean: in your mother's milk? It gives the impression that it could be cooked without transgressing the aforementioned precept, in case it should be understood this way, if at the birth of the lamb, his mother had died and had been breast-fed by another sheep, when in reality nobody doubts that this precept obeys,  obviously, to some special meaning. But it is worth remembering that even those things that can be done and observed, are guided in that way for some reason, because they have some meaning. But either it does not occur or it does not appear clear how this precept can be observed literally.

If we understand Christ, then I think that with this prophecy it was predicted that the Jews should not kill the child, when Herod looked for him to kill him and could not find him. (Cf. Matt. 2:13-15) And so the expression boil refers to the fire of passion, to tribulation, which is why the Scripture says: “The oven proves the potter's vessels, and the righteous men, the temptation of the tribulation.” (Sirach. 27:6) The fact that the child did not suffer the passion when Herod looked for him and when it seemed that this danger threatened, was predicted with these words: You will not cook the lamb in the milk of its mother: "you will not kill Christ". It seems to be a premonitory prophecy for the good Israelites not to associate with the bad Jews, who made Christ suffer the Passion. Indeed, the tribulation of passion is like fire. That is why the Scripture says: “As gold in the crucible he tasted them and as a burnt offering, as a host they received them.” (Wis. 3:6) The Lord also confirms this sentence when he says: “I have to be baptized with a baptism that you do not know.” (Luke 12:49-50) It says so, when in another place he had said: “I have come to bring fire to the world.” And John says: “He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in the fire. (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; Cf. Jn. 1:33) And this means that he will do it with purification and with the trial of tribulation. He also meant the same fire when he was led to the passion, when he told those who were crying for him that they should cry rather for themselves. And he finished with these words: “For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" (Luke 23:31) The good ones, therefore, receive the advice not to participate with the wicked in the crucifixion of Christ, who received the name of Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. (Jn. 1:29) Therefore, you will not cook the lamb in your mother's milk. You will not apply to Christ the fire of passion on the day he was conceived. Because it is said that he also suffered then, that is, the twenty-fifth of March. From that day until the twenty-fifth of December in which his birth is placed, there are nine months, with the tenth started. The breasts of women collect milk from the day of conception.

There is, however, another easier interpretation. “You will not boil the lamb in the milk of its mother,” that is, to the one who is still a small and lactating child, individuals to whom the Apostle says: “I gave you milk, not solid food,” (1 Cor. 3:2) you will not send them to the passion too soon. It is as if it were said to Christ, who spared suffering to his disciples, who were still like children, offering himself to death for them, when he said: “Then, if you seek me, let them go.” (Jn. 18:8) And so that it would be understood that they were still weak and unfit for the passion, like lambs in their mother's milk, the evangelist goes on saying: “I did not lose any of those you gave me.” Where it appears that those who suffered then would die; for then they did not suffer what they suffered afterwards, no longer as lambs in milk, but as rams in the flock.

Perhaps it is not absurd either what others say, that the prophet ordered the good Israelites not to join the bad Jews who made the passion suffer to Christ, as a lamb in the milk of his mother, that is, in the time when he was conceived. Well, it is said that women collect milk from the moment they conceive. Now, that Christ was conceived and suffered in that month, it is demonstrated not only by the Feast of the Passover, but also by the day of his birth known in the churches. For who was born the ninth month, around the twenty-fifth day of December, was evidently conceived the first month, around the twenty-fifth of March, which was also the time of his passion in the milk of his mother, that is, in time of his mother's milk.

(Exodus 23:20-21)

QUESTION 91. ON THE ANGEL, PROTECTOR OF THE HEBREWS. — "Behold, I send my angel before you, that he may keep you in the way, that he may lead you into the land which I have prepared for you. Listen to him, and beware of not confiding in him: he will not forgive you anything; because my name is on him.” These words apply to him whose name has been changed to that of Jesus, or Joshua: it is he who brought the people into the promised land.

(Exodus 23:25-27)

QUESTION 92. ON THE TEMPORAL REWARDS. — “You shall serve the Lord your God, and I will bless your bread and your wine and your water and I will remove diseases from you. There will be no one who will not beget or be barren in your land. I will fill in the number of your days. I will send fear before you. And I will cause reason to be lost to the nations with whom you enter, etc." Although these promises can also be understood in a spiritual sense, when understood as referring to the temporal happiness of men, they are typical of the Old Testament. In him there are precepts relative to the good customs. Others mean something mysterious. But the promises are fleshly and earthy. Thus, in the seventy-second Psalm, the man of God says that his footsteps were almost lost and slipped, (Cf. Ps. 7:2) jealous for sinners, seeing the peace they enjoy. He saw that the wicked disposed abundantly of the things that, according to the Old Testament, he expected of the Lord God, whom he served for that reward. And, because of this, the impious idea that God did not care about human affairs began to infiltrate him, he says that he changed his mind, not daring to reject the authority of the saints, and he began to reflect to understand it and said: “It is a task that I have before me, until I enter the sanctuary of God and understand its end. (Ps. 72:16-17) There the prizes corresponding to the New Testament will be given, which the impious will not receive. And then the sorrows of the wicked will take place, while the righteous will be free of them.

(Exodus 23:28)

QUESTION 93. ON THE HORNETS OF WHICH THE LORD PRECEDES HIS PEOPLE IN THE PROMISED LAND. — " And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out Hivite, Canaanite, and Hittite from before you." The problem arises of knowing what is to be understood under these hornets. Because God promises this, and the book of Wisdom says that it was fulfilled when he affirms: “And he sent hornets as forerunners of his army.” (Wis. 12:8) But we do not read what happened in the time of Moses, or Joshua son of Nave, or the judges or the kings. It is therefore permissible to hear by these hornets the goads of fear which tormented the above-mentioned peoples, and forced them to retire before the children of Israel. It is God who speaks and if his speech, containing a figurative sense, is not fulfilled in the literal sense and following the property of the terms, this does not prevent us from adding faith to the story where the truth of the story appears. It is the same with what your Evangelists report: real facts lose nothing of their credibility, because Christ sometimes has a figurative language.

(Exodus 23:33)

QUESTION 94. ON THE SERVICE AND WORSHIP THAT ARE DUE TO GOD. — “If you serve their gods, they will be like a snare to you.” The Greek has here douleíses and not latreíses. From which it follows that the douleia is due to God as Lord, and latreía is due only to God as God.

CHAPTER 24

(Exodus 24:1-3)

QUESTION 95. ON THE ORDINANCES OF THE LORD. — And he said to Moses, "Go up to the Lord, you and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abiud, and the seventy elders of Israel, and they shall worship the Lord from afar, and Moses shall draw near to the Lord alone, for them they will not come near, and the born people will not go up with them. Now Moses came and told the people all the words and all the ordinances of God, and the people answered all with one voice, saying, We will do and hear all things, which the Lord has spoken." Until this passage of Scripture it is understood that justifications are the precepts given to the people to observe them. But as soon as they are indicated by the words of Scripture, whence this word "justifications" has arisen, they start from that Hebrew servant, whose ear is pierced by the door. (Cf. Exod. 21:6) Now, in all these justifications we must take into account those that can be saved by themselves to act in life and to preserve good morals. (Cf. Exod. 21:1) Because, evidently, there are mysteries in them that, rather than instructing our life, are there to mean something. The Latin translators called iustificationes to what the Greeks call dikaiómata.

(Exodus 24:3)

QUESTION 96. WITH THESE WORDS: WE WILL DO, AND WE WILL LISTEN. — It must be observed that the people respond for the second time: "We will do and listen to all that the Lord has said." The order seems to require rather that it had been said: For if we will listen is customary for: we shall understand, we must first humbly perform the word of God, in order to be led by him to the intelligence of the things we have done according to his worthy reward of the docility of which one has shown, instead of despising his laws. But it is necessary to see whether the Hebrew people did not show themselves like this son, who answered his father's orders: "I will go to the vineyard," and did not go there, (Matt. 21:30) while the Gentiles who had conceived a deep contempt for the Lord, later justified by the obedience of one, attached themselves to the justice which they did not follow before. (Rom. 9:30)

(Exodus 24:4)

QUESTION 97. ON THE ALTAR RAISED BY MOSES AT THE FOOT OF SINAI. — It should be noted that Moses erected an altar at the foot of the mountain and twelve stones for the twelve tribes of Israel. It is understood that the altar erected with twelve stones, meant that the people themselves were the altar of God, as is the temple of God. (Cf. 2 Cor. 6:16)

(Exodus 24:5)

QUESTION 98. ON THIS WORD: THE VICTIM OF SALVATION. — "And they sacrificed to God the victim of salvation." It does not say "saving sacrifices", but sacrifices of salvation, which corresponds to the Greek soteríon. Therefore, in the psalm it is said: “I will take the cup of salvation,” (Ps. 115:4) and it is not said: “the saving cup”. For all this we must pay attention, lest we pretend to point out the one whom Simeon said: “Because my eyes have seen your salvation.” (Luke 2:30) The Psalm alludes to this when it says: "Declare your salvation well from day to day." If we pay more attention to meaning, what does the expression mean: “from day to day,” but the light of light, that is, God of God, or what is the same, the only begotten Son?

(Exodus 24:6-7)

QUESTION 99. FIRST SACRIFICE OFFERED IN THE DESERT. — “Moses took half of the blood, poured it into a vessel, and the remaining part of the blood was poured out near the altar. And taking the book of the covenant he read it in the ears of the people.” It should be noted that Scripture here clearly states that Moses first offered a sacrifice since the people left Egypt. First, it had been said of his father-in-law, Jethro, although with some ambiguity, that he had offered sacrifices to God.” (Cf. Exod. 18:12) And it should be noted that the book of the covenant was read with the blood of sacrifice. We must think that in that book those justifications were written. Because the Decalogue of the law was written on stone tablets was made known later.

(Exodus 24:7)

QUESTION 100. NEW REPETITION. — And they said: "Everything the Lord has said we will do and we will listen to it." It is already the third time that the people respond in this way.

(Exodus 24:9-10)

QUESTION 101. GOD APPEARS IN A SENSIBLE FORM. — “And Moses went up with Aaron and Nadab, and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the place where the God of Israel had been.” It is obvious to the experts that God cannot be covered by any place or put his limbs in any kind of body posture, as we do that we sit, lie down, stand and take other similar positions. Because these postures are proper to bodies, and God is spirit. (Cf. Jn. 4:24) Therefore, when God manifests himself with some bodily form or with corporally expressed signs, his substance does not appear by which he is what he is. But the fact of taking visible forms depends on his omnipotence.

(Exodus 24:11)

QUESTION 102. ON THE ELECT OF ISRAEL. — “And not one of the elect of Israel was in disagreement. They appeared in God's place and ate and drank.” Who could doubt that those whom he pointed out by their names and the seventy elders are now called elect of Israel? These undoubtedly represented the elect in the people of God. Because faith does not belong to everyone, (2 Thess. 3:2) and the Lord knows those who are his. (2 Tim. 2:19) In a large house there are utensils for noble uses and others for vile uses. (Cf. 2 Tim. 2:20) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined; and whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified them; and those he justified, he also glorified them. (Rom. 8:29-30) Evidently, not one of the elect of Israel was in disagreement. But they are represented by the number four: Moses and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu, by four gospels and by the promise of the whole world, which is divided into four parts. And the seventy elders of Israel, that is, number seven multiplied by ten, which is to signify the Holy Spirit. The sapphire, meanwhile, means the heavenly life, especially because it says: Like the aspect of the sky. And who does not know that the sky is called heaven? And the shape of the side in the sapphire itself means the square or the stability or the mystery of the number four itself. The fact that they eat and drink in the place of God means the softness and satiety they will have in that realm of eternity. Effectively: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, because they will be satisfied.” (Matt. 5:6) Therefore, the Lord says that many will come, and who are more than the elect, the foreknown, the predestined, the called, the justified, the glorified, and will sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. And in another place he promises his faithful the same thing: that he will make them sit down and going from one to the other will serve them. (Luke 12:37)

(Exodus 24:13)

QUESTION 103. ON JESUS, SON OF NAVE (JOSHUA) — How is it that Jesus, the son of Nave, who is not appointed with the four characters mentioned above, suddenly appears with Moses, follows him on the mountain to receive the tables of the Law, then all of a sudden goes into obscurity, that is to say, is no longer mentioned by the sacred writer? Does it perhaps mean that the New Testament by the name of Jesus is not only hidden in the law, but sometimes manifests itself to the wise? As for the fact that he is already called Joshua (Jesus) when Scripture attests in the book of Numbers that received that name (Cf. Num. 13:17) when the Israelites are about to enter the promised land, it must be pointed out that Scripture therefore anticipates here on a later event. Because all these things were written after they were made. And so, when what is now remembered took place, he was not yet called Joshua (Jesus). On the other hand, when this was written, it is called like that.

CHAPTER 25

(Exodus 25:10)

QUESTION 104. GOLD MOULDINGS AROUND THE ARK. — “And you will put around it a gold molding that goes around. Flame molding what surrounds the four parts to a square object, as are usually square tables.” To say that it is versatilis (versatile) does not mean that it is movable, because the moldings are fixed, as I have just said are usually those of the tables, but versatilis means "that circles around", a term that corresponds to the Greek streptá. And it goes round or through channels, such as twisted columns, or by means of two wands intertwined in the manner of strings, as the necklaces are usually made in that way. Then he says: “You will make four rings of gold for her and put them on her four sides: two rings on one side and two rings on the other.” (Exod. 25:11) This means that in the four angles there are four rings, one ring in each angle. And due to the number of angles it happens that what is put on two sides is put into each of the four. For an angle is common to two sides. Otherwise it cannot be that two rings are placed on all four sides, having only four rings. Because they should be eight, if it is understood differently from the one I just explained, according to the number of angles. Indeed, the rings are placed at the corners to introduce the poles or rods, which serve for four men on the one hand and on the other transport the ark. (Cf. Exod. 25:12-13)

(Exodus 25:16)

QUESTION 105. ON THE MERCY SEAT. — It is usually asked what the mercy seat on the ark means. As it was to be of gold and to have in length and width the dimensions given for the ark, there is no doubt that it was like a golden table intended to cover the ark itself: two cherubim were on the mercy seat, looking at each other; their faces were on the side of the mercy seat, and they covered it with their wings, a subject full of mystery. Gold means wisdom, and the ark, the mystery of God. It was commanded that the law, the manna and the rod of Aaron be put in the ark. The law contains the commandments. The rod signifies the power. The manna, grace. Because without grace there is no possibility of keeping the commandments. But since the law is not perfectly fulfilled by anyone on the path to perfection, that is why the mercy seat is on top. For to do that, it is necessary that God be propitious. And that's why the mercy seat is placed on it. Because mercy is superior to judgment. (James 2:13) The two cherubim give shade with their wings to the mercy seat, that is, they honor the mercy seat covering it. Because there are the mysteries. And they look at each other, because they are in perfect agreement, for there the two testaments are represented, and their faces are directed towards the mercy seat, because they strongly recommend the mercy of God, in which hope is unique. Finally, God promised that he would speak from here to Moses, from among the cherubim, on the mercy seat. Now, if the rational creature with the abundance of knowledge, since the cherubim receive this interpretation, is meant by these two animals, that is why there are two of them, to instruct the union of love. And they cover with their wings the mercy seat, since they attribute their wings to God, not to themselves, that is, they honor God with the virtues for which they stand out. And their faces are directed only to the mercy seat, because the hope for any progress in the abundance of knowledge rests only in the mercy of God.

(Exodus 25:26)

QUESTION 106. ON THE RINGS OF THE ARK. — “The rings will be in the gestation boxes to carry the table.” These words mean that the rings would be like the boxes of the poles, that is, that the poles should be put in boxes. It has been said that they will be in the boxes as if it had been said that they will be in the place of the boxes.

CHAPTER 26

(Exodus 26:1)

QUESTION 107. ON THE TABERNACLE. — God commands that ten curtains be made for the tabernacle: this is the image of the ten commandments of the Law. The curtains, because of their magnitude, signify the easy fulfillment of the commandments. That is why the same width is recommended, when it is said: “You have widened my steps under me and my footsteps have not been weakened.” (Ps. 17:37) But as this widening is done by the grace of God, for the love of God has been poured out in our hearts, not by ourselves, but by the Holy Spirit that has been given to us, (Rom. 5:5) that is why this same number is mystically recommended here, which also refers to the Holy Spirit, by means of which the law can be fulfilled. It is said that the curtains must be twenty-eight cubits in length. (Cf. Exod. 26:2) Well, this same number, since you have to divide it by seven, means that the width of the curtains must have four cubits. Because four times seven is twenty-eight. And this is also a perfect number, because, like the six, it consists of its parts. And what the Scripture says so many times: “You will embroider some cherubim in it,” (Exod. 26:1) what else does it show in all those places but the abundance of knowledge, which means the word cherub?

(Exodus 26:7)

QUESTION 108. OF THE ELEVEN GOAT HAIR BLANKETS ETC. — “And you shall make veils of hair to cover the tabernacle; you will make eleven veils. The veils are of hair, of goat hair, and they will be eleven.” In every sin there is a transgression. Now, the transgression is indicated by the number eleven, because the number ten is transgressed, which is the law.” (Cf. Gal. 3:19) And so, eleven multiplied by seven, are seventy-seven, in whose number the Lord symbolized all the forgiveness of sins, saying: “Not only seven times, but seventy-seven times.” (Matt. 28:22) And these are the generations that there are when Luke, counting backward from the baptism of the Lord, comes to Adam and then to God. (Cf. Luke 3:23-38) The meaning of the sins in these veils serves to make them manifest through confession and be forgiven for the grace that has been given to the Church; that is, to be covered, according to what the Scripture says: “Blessed are those whose iniquities have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered for them.” (Ps. 31:1) Then the Scripture commands that these veils be covered with ram skins dyed red. Well, who does not think that the ram dyed red is Christ bloodied by the Passion? These skins also indicate the holy martyrs, through whose prayers God shows himself propitious with the sins of his people. On them, finally, they must go hyacinth-colored skins to signify eternal life with greenness as perpetual vigor.

(Exodus 26:17)

QUESTION 109. ON THE CORNERS THAT FASTENED THE COLUMNS OF THE TABERNACLE. — "At each column you will make two little corners opposite one another," that is, one on one side and the other on the other side of the column. It calls corners to what can also be called corbels, like those in the wine cellars on which the wood that supports the vats rests. The word that we have translated here by espigon, ancon in Latin, is used in this case because of the similarity with the elbow where the forearm is flexed, on which those seated at the table rest, a term that in Greek is agkón.

(Exodus 26:21)

QUESTION 110. ON THE BASE AND THE CAPITAL OF THE COLUMNS. — “The bases of the columns will be two for each board.” The Scripture seems to call bases not only to those that serve as support for the columns from the lowest part, but also to the upper bases, which we call capitals. That's why it says: “Two bases for each column on both sides.” Because what are these two parts but the superior and the inferior?

(Exodus 26:25)

QUESTION 111. OF THE EIGHT COLUMNS ERECTED BEHIND THE TABERNACLE. — The fact that the Scripture speaks of eight columns and their sixteen bases in the back of the tabernacle, according to the explanation given above, when it was previously said that they were six, (Cf. Exod. 26:22) must be understood in the sense that they turn out to be eight, adding the two angular.

(Exodus 26:33)

QUESTION 112. ON THE HOLY AND HOLY OF HOLIES. — "The veil will serve you as a median separation between the Holy and the Holy of Holies." This means that between the holy and the holy of the holies this veil must be, which is now spoken of, spread over the four columns. From the difference between the holy and the holy of the holys is spoken in the epistle to the Hebrews, (Cf. Heb. 9:1-12) because the holy of the holies is inside, behind the veil, where the ark of the covenant is found. Outside, where is the table and the candlestick and the other things that shortly before said how they should be done, is called the holy, and is not the holy of the holies. Outside is the Old Testament symbolized; within, the New, being one and the other not only expressed with works, but figuratively with meaning in the reading of the Old Testament. Therefore, in the holy there is a figure of the figure, because it is the figure of the Old Testament. In the holy of the holies there is a figure of the truth itself, because it is a figure of the New Testament. Thus the whole Old Testament in these things and celebrations, which are commanded to be observed in this way, is a figure.

(Exodus 27:1)

QUESTION 113. ON THE ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERINGS. — It is asked how God requires that the alter be three cubits high, since this measure is about the size of the man. How, then, could one serve at the altar, since elsewhere it is forbidden to establish degrees which lead to it? "In fear," says the sacred text, "you cannot see what is shameful." But there was a question of the altar, which was to be either earth or stone, and the steps of which had become one with it; while here the altar with which God ordains the construction was to be of wood; if at the hour when the Levite fulfilled his office, something was deposited on the altar and was to be removed from it, when he had finished his duties, this object certainly did not form a part of the altar. How, again, could fire be sacrificed on an altar of wood, especially when one thinks that the altar should be hollow, and the grating placed in the middle of the cavity? Could it be that in this text: "Thou shalt make horns that rise up at the four corners of the altar, and cover them with brass." (Exod. 27:2) these last words: "Thou shalt cover them with brass," do not refer only to the horns of the altar, but to all the other materials that were to enter into its construction?