GENESIS CHAPTER 6

(Gen. 6:4). THE SONS OF GOD WENT IN TO THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN, AND THEY BROUGHT FORTH CHILDREN. — They also often ask how angels could have sex with the daughters of men, of whom the giants are said to have been born, although some manuscripts, not only Latin but also Greek, read not of the angels, but of the sons of God. To solve this question some have claimed that they were just men, and so it could also be said of them that they were angels. Scripture, for example, says about John, who was a man: Behold, I send my angel before you to prepare your way. (Mt. 11:10; Mk. 3:1) But the problem is knowing how giants were born through sex of men, or how they could be joined with women, if they were not men, but angels. With regard to the giants, that is to say, very large and very strong men, I think that there is nothing strange in that they could have been born of men, because even after the flood they existed; as a matter of fact, in our own day there have also been some individual humans incredibly large, not only men but also women. It is therefore more credible that righteous men, called angels, or sons of God, (Cf. Gen. 6:2) moved by lust, sinned with women, instead of angels, who could not commit that sin because they lack bodies; although certain demons have been evil with women, so many things are said and by so many people, that it is not easy to decide on an opinion on this question. [Question 3]

(Gen. 6:15). THE CAPACITY OF NOAH’S ARK. —  It is also asked how, with its dimensions as described, the Ark of Noah could contain all the animals that entered it, and their food. This question was resolved by Origen (Hom. 2 in Gen.) by means of geometrical cubits; for he argued that Scripture does not say without reason that Moses was adorned with all the wisdom of the Egyptians, (Act 7:22) who had in great esteem in geometry. The geometrical cubit, according to Origen, is equal to six of our cubits. Now, taking this great measure as the basis of our calculation, there is no problem in admitting that the ark was of sufficient capacity to contain all this. [Question 4]

HOW COULD AN ARK OF SUCH CONSIDERABLE DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE SPACE OF A CENTURY BY FOUR MEN, THAT IS TO SAY, BY NOAH AND HIS THREE SONS. — But if they could not have built it alone, it is not difficult to believe that they could have employed other workers. Those workers, who, having received the wages of their labor, did not care whether Noah made the ark with some reasonable or foolish motive. So, therefore, they did not enter the Ark since they did not share what Noah had believed. [Question 5]

(Gen 6:16). WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURE MEAN ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARK: AND THE DOOR OF THE ARK YOU SHALL MAKE ON THE SIDE; WITH LOWER, SECOND, AND THIRD STORIES SHALL YOU MAKE IT? — The lower floor was not to receive two and three rooms. Using this distinction, God wanted to make it clear that the entire Ark had to have a lower part. Then, above, a floor, which he calls a second rooms; Higher up finally, another floor, or a third vault. So in the first dwelling, I mean, in the lower part, the Ark had a first vault; In the second dwelling, which was above the first, it was also vaulted; So was she again and a third time in the third dwelling, which rose above the second. [Question 6]

(Gen 6:19-21). ABOUT THE EATING OF ANIMALS THAT ENTERED INTO THE ARK. — God said that animals shall not only live on the Ark, but still feed in the Ark, so God ordered Noah to take all kinds of food for him and all the animals that had to accompany him. There arises the question of how he could feed the lions or eagles, which often eat meat, and whether Noah brought in the Ark other animals besides those listed there to serve as food to the others; or if he introduced some other things besides meat that seems more acceptable, that would also serve as suitable for such animal food, or whether this measure was taken by him as a man of foresight or by divine inspiration. [Question 7]

GENESIS CHAPTER 7

(Gen 7:8-14). UNEQUAL NUMBER OF CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS. — In relation to what is written: And of clean flying creatures and of unclean flying creatures, and of clean cattle and of unclean cattle, and of all things that creep upon the earth, undoubtedly clean and unclean, though not expressed in the Scripture, entered two by twos in with Noah into the Ark, male and female (Gen. 7:9). Why is it that he first distinguished two of each species from the unclean, and now he says that two of each species, the same of the clean animals and unclean animals. The answer is, because it has nothing to do with quantity, but with the sex of animals: in all pure or unclean species, there is male and female. [Question 8]

(Gen 7:15). WHAT DOES SPIRIT OF LIFE MEAN? — It should be noted that the phrase: wherein is spirit of life, refers not only to men, but also to animals. Some authors want to see here an allusion to the Holy Spirit for what is said elsewhere: And God breathed into his face the spirit of life (Gen 2:7). However, some manuscripts bear with more accuracy: "a breath of life." [Question 9]

(Gen. 7:20). FROM THE RISE OF WATER ABOVE THE MOUNTAINS DURING THE DELUGE. — There is a difficulty regarding the height of the mountains, recalling the legend of the Olympus. (Cf. LUCANUS, Phars. 2, 271-273; cf. anche De civ. Dei 15, 27; De Gen. ad l. imp. 14, 44; De Gen. c. Man. 1, 15, 24.) It is written that the water exceeded fifteen cubits of the summit of the highest mountain. But if the earth has been able to invade the space of this tranquil region, inaccessible to winds and storms, why could not the water, rising, have reached this point? [Question 10]

(Gen. 7:22-24). IT IS WRITTEN, "THE WATER ROSE ABOVE THE EARTH FOR A HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS." — In relation to the phrase: And the waters prevailed on the earth a hundred and fifty days, it is wondered if it grew until that day or if it remained during all those days in the height that it acquired, because other translators seem rather to say the latter. Aquila, for example, says: “reached”; Symmachus: “they excelled”, the waters, is understood. [Question 11]

GENESIS CHAPTER 8

(Gen. 8:1-3). ON SEVERAL PECULIARITIES RELATING TO THE END OF THE FLOOD. —  Concerning what is written: that after a hundred and fifty days the wind came upon the earth, and the waters ceased, and the fountains of the abyss and the floodgates of the heavens were closed, and the rain of heaven ceased; These things took place after a hundred and fifty days, or all those things that began to happen after forty days of rain are recalled as a recapitulation, so that only one hundred and fifty days belonged to the fact that water grew during those days; or because it came from the fountains of the abyss, when it ceased also to rain, or because it remained in its height, while the wind did not dry it. On the other hand, the other things that are said there did not all take place after one hundred and fifty days, but the author recalls all those things that began to be realized from the moment in which the forty days ended. [Augustine of Hippo, Question on Genesis, PL 34, Question 12]

(Gen 8:6-9). ON THE RAVEN COMING OUT OF THE ARK. — It is written that a raven was let loose, and did not return; and then a dove was sent out, and returned, not finding or setting foot. This gives rise to the following question: Has the raven died, or has it been able to live in any way? If he could rest on the earth, so could the dove. This is what makes some people guess that the raven eagerly had been able to attach itself to some corpse, while the dove would have naturally not wanted to attach to a corpse. [Question 13]

(Gen 8:9). ON THE DOVE. — We can also ask why the dove found no place to settle if the summits of the mountains had already appeared, as is clear from the order in which things are told. (Cf. Gen 8:5) And the previous question seems to be resolved by saying that the author, as a recapitulation, later narrated the things that had happened before, or rather because the earth had not yet dried up. [Augustine of Hippo, Question on Genesis, PL 34, Question 14]

(Gen 8:21-22). CHARACTER OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT. — Why does the Lord say: I will not any more curse the earth, because of the works of men, because the imagination of man is purposefully bent upon evil things from his youth, I will not therefore any more smite all living flesh as I have done, and after that, why does God bring back the benefits which the generosity of his love gratifies unworthy men? Is this a figure of thanks which signal the New Testament (Cf. Mt 5:38), and past revenges the image of the Old Testament? In other words, would vengeance be the type of severity of the law, and the goodness of the sweetness of grace? [Augustine of Hippo, Question on Genesis, PL 34, Question 15]

GENESIS CHAPTER 9

(Gen 9:4-6). WHAT DOES IT MEAN: AND I WILL REQUIRE THE LIFE OF MAN AT THE HAND OF HIS BROTHER? — Will he refer to every man, the brother of every man according to kinship, by whom we all come from one? [Question 16]

(Gen. 9:24-27). CURSE OF CANAAN. —We may wonder why Cham, who sinned by offending his father, did not receive the curse in himself, but in his son Canaan. And the answer would be that this fact is in some way a prophecy concerning the Canaanites, who were expelled from the land of Canaan and defeated, gave way to the Israelites, coming from the lineage of Shem. [Question 17]

GENESIS CHAPTER 10

(Gen. 10:8-9). NEMBROTH FIRST OF THE GIANTS AFTER THE FLOOD. — One may wonder why it is said about Nebroth: he was the first to be a giant upon the earth, since Scripture says that there had been giants before.  Could it be a question of the restoration of a new human race, from the midst of which Nembroth appeared to be the first as a giant on Earth? [Question 18]

(Gen. 10:25). CONFUSION OF LANGUAGES AND DIVISION OF PEOPLES. — What does it mean: And Heber had two sons; The name of one was Phaleg, because in his days the earth was divided? Does it not mean that during the life of Phaleg the confusion of languages was the source of the division of peoples? [Question 19]

GENESIS CHAPTER 11

(Gen 11:1). AND IN ALL THE EARTH THERE WAS A SINGLE LANGUAGE. — How can this be understood, when it was soon said that the sons of Noah or the sons of his sons were scattered abroad by the land according to their tribes and according to their nations and according to their tongues? (Cf. Gen 10:5,20,31) It may be necessary to understand that the author then mentions, as a recapitulation, what existed previously. But there is a certain obscurity in the fact that the author has used this kind of expression, as if continuing the account of what happened next. [Question 20]

 (Gen 11:2-4). TOWER OF BABEL. — Come, let us build to ourselves a city and tower, whose top shall be to heaven. If these men thought that they could do this, they showed a stupid audacity and impiety. And since God took vengeance on them for this cause, confusion of their languages, it is not absurd to believe that they actually thought it. [Question 21]

(Gen. 11:5-7). TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE NATURE. — Come, and let us go down there and confound their tongue, that they may not understand each the voice of his neighbor. Is this to be understood in the sense that God told the angels? Or should we understand it rather according to what is read at the beginning of Genesis: Let us make man in our own image and likeness? (Gen 1:26) As the text continues in the singular: And the Lord scattered them thence over the face of all the earth, (Gen 11:9) when it was said: Let us make man in our image (Gen 1:27), he did not continue in the plural: "they did", but in the singular: God did ". [uestion 22]

(Gen. 11:10-13). LIFE SPAN OF MEN BEFORE THE FLOOD. — In relation to what the Scripture says: And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Canaan. Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Canaan, four hundred years, or, as the Greek says: three hundred years, the question arises as to how God said to Noah: And the years of life of them a hundred and twenty years (Gen 6:3), for Arphaxad was not yet born when God said that, nor was he in the ark with his fathers. How, then, are we to understand the aforementioned one hundred and twenty years of human life, since there is a man who lived more than four hundred? The passage must be interpreted as meaning that twenty years before the beginning of the construction of the ark, a building that lasted for a hundred years, God said this to Noah, pre-announcing to him already that he would send the flood and that he did not predict the time of human life of men that were to be born after the flood, but the time of the human life of men that he would annihilate with the flood. [Question 23]

(Gen. 11:14-21). ORIGIN OF THE NAME OF THE HEBREWS. — Why is it said that Shem was the father of all the sons of Heber, since Heber appears in the fifth generation from Shem, the son of Noah? (Cf. Gen 10:22-24) Is it because the Hebrews are said to have received his name from him? Through him, indeed, the line of generations passes to Abraham. But we can rightly ask what is more likely: that the Hebrews were named for Heber as a variant of Hebrews, or that they were for Abraham's sake, as a variant of Abrahews. [Question 24]

(Gen 11:30-32). WHEN WAS ABRAHAM ESTABLISHED IN THE LAND OF CANAAN? — How is it that the Scripture says that Terah, the father of Abram, fathered Abram at the age of seventy and then remained with all his people in Harran and lived two hundred and five years in Harran and died, and that the Lord commanded Abram to come out of Harran, (Cf. Gen. 12:1-4) and he went out, Abraham being seventy-five years old? The answer would be that the Scripture says as a recapitulation that the Lord spoke while Terah was still alive, Abram left Harran, according to the command of the Lord, at the age of seventy-five years, when his father was one hundred and forty-five, if the years of his father's life were two hundred and five, so it is written that the years of Terah's life were two hundred and five in Harran, because he lived all his years there. The question, therefore, is solved by way of recapitulation; for it would remain unresolved if we consider that after the death of Terah the Lord commanded Abram to leave Harran because he could not be only seventy-five years old when his father died, who begat him at seventy, so Abram would be a hundred and thirty years old, after the death of his father, if all that he lived were two hundred and five. In summary, if one takes into account this type of recapitulation that Scripture uses, many problems that otherwise appear mysterious are solved, as we have said above with respect to other questions that we have also solved by appealing to it (recapitulation). However, there are others who solve the problem differently, saying that Abram's years of life are calculated from the moment he was released from the fire of the Chaldeans, in which he was cast out for not worshiping it (the fire) according to their superstition. And although the Scripture does not say that he was freed from that fire, we recall it from Jewish tradition. The problem may be solved as follows: The text that says: When Terah was seventy-five years old he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran, (Gen. 11:26) it does not mean, of course, that he begat all three at the age of seventy; the Scripture recalls the year from which he began to have children. But it may be that Abram was later begotten, and because of his excellency, which is frequently advanced in Scripture, he was mentioned earlier, just as the prophet first mentioned the younger one: I loved Jacob and hated Esau (Mal. 1:2-3). And in the book of Chronicles, Juda is mentioned first, in spite of occupying the fourth place in the order of birth, because it is he who gives the name to the Jewish stock because his tribe was the royal tribe (Cf. 1 Chron. 4:1). In short, to solve the difficult questions there are certainly different solutions. It is necessary to take into account, of course, Stephen's account (Cf. Acts 7:2-3) on this subject, to see which of these expositions agrees more. And this, of course, compels us not to think, as Genesis (Cf. Gen. 12:1) seems to indicate, that God commanded Abram to leave his family and his father's house after the death of Terah, but to understand that, being in Mesopotamia before living in Harran, God spoke to him during that journey, once he had obviously left the land of the Chaldeans. But what Stephen says: Then Abram, coming out of the land of the Chaldeans, dwelt in Harran, and then after his father was dead, he removed him into this land (Acts 7:4); he presents no small difficulties to this explanation, which is based in a kind of recapitulation. For it seems that he received the commandment of the Lord, who had spoken to him on the journey from Mesopotamia, after he had come out of the land of the Chaldeans and when he went to Harran, and that after his father's death he truly obeyed this command, when it is said: And he dwelt in Harran. And then, when his father died, he removed him into this land. Therefore, it continues the problem of how it may be true that he was seventy-five when he left Harran, as is clearly stated in the text of Genesis. Perhaps the words of Stephen: Then Abram came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Harran, not to be understood thus: He went forth, after the Lord had spoken to him, for he was already in Mesopotamia, as was said before, when he heard that from the Lord. But Stephen, with that rule of recapitulation, wanted to unite both things and say at the same time where he had come from and where he dwelt, when he added: Then Abram left the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Harran. God spoke to him at the middle, that is, between the departure from the land of the Chaldeans and their settlement in Harran. Afterwards, however, Stephen adds: And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him into this land; it is to be noted that he did not say: And after his father's death he left Harran, but: Then God set him in this land, so that he was put in the land of Canaan after dwelling in Harran. He did not leave after the death of his father, but was placed in the land of Canaan after the death of his father, so that the order of the words are: Dwell in Harran, and then put him in this land after the death of his father. So it must be understood that Abram was put or placed in the land of Canaan when he received that offspring, whose whole descendants would reign there, according to the promise that God made, to give to him the land as an inheritance. For there was born of Abram himself, Ishmael, the son of Hagar. There also were born the children of Ketura, to whom the inheritance of that land would not belong. Esau was also born of Isaac, (Cf. Gen. 25:25; 29:32-35; 30:5) who was also deprived of that inheritance. But all the sons who were born to Jacob, son of Isaac, that is, all his offspring belonged to that inheritance. Therefore, if one correctly understands the fact that Abram was put and placed in that land because he lived until Jacob's birth, the problem is solved through a recapitulation, although other solutions cannot be rejected either. [Question 25]

GENESIS CHAPTER 12

(Gen. 12:8-14). WHY DID ABRAHAM HIDE THAT SARAH WAS HIS SISTER FROM THE EGYPTIANS? — And it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see you, that they say, It is his wife. It happened that as soon as Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. How can we understand the fact that Abram, when he came to Egypt, wanted to hide that Sarah was his wife, according to all that is written on this subject? Is it appropriate for such a holy man or should we think of a certain lack of faith, as some have addressed? I already dealt with this subject in the work Against Faustus. And the elder Jerome (Quest. Hebr. in Gen. 20:22) expounded more broadly than I; why it is not necessary, that even if Sarah spent some days in the house of the king of Egypt, it must be admitted that she committed a carnal sin with him. Indeed, it was customary for kings to have intercourse with wives from time to time in their palaces. But no one approached the king if they had not washed and perfumed their body with great care. Well, while these preparations were taking place Pharaoh was punished by God, (Cf. Gen. 12:17-20) so he returned her restored to her husband. The wife whom Abraham had entrusted to God by concealing that she was his wife, but without lying, said that she was his sister so that he could, as much as a man could do, entrust to God what he could not avoid, so that, if she herself only entrusted to God the things she could avoid, she did not give the impression that she did not believe in God, but rather tempted God. [Question 26]

GENESIS CHAPTER 13

(Gen 13:10). WHAT PARADISE WAS. — The fact that the land of Sodom and Gomorrah before being destroyed is compared to the paradise of God, because it was watered, and to the land of Egypt, which bathes in the Nile, sufficiently demonstrates, I think, how it is to be understood; it was, that paradise that God planted, which he put Adam (Cf. Gen 2:8). I do not see in fact that God's paradise was something else. And certainly, if the fruit trees of paradise were to be, according to the opinion of some, considered as virtues of the soul, it would not be said of this land that it was "like the Paradise of God", since there would not have been in reality of earthly paradise, planted with real trees. [Question 27]

(Gen 13:14-15). EXTENT OF THE PROMISE MADE TO ABRAHAM. —  Lift up your eyes, and look from the place wherein you now are, to the north and to the south, to the east and to the west. All the land which you see, I will give to you, and to your seed forever. Here is the question of how God's promise to Abram and his offspring is understood to give him as much land as he could look with his eyes toward the four key points. For how much land can your body's eyes encompass in your vision? But the problem disappears if we realize that this was not promised only, since God did not say: I will give you as much land as you see, but: I will give you the land which you see. For as there was also land after all, evidently it was given above all that which was seen. In addition, we must pay attention to what follows. For in order that Abram himself did not think that only the land which he could see or behold about him was promised to him, God said to him, "Arise and walk the earth far and wide, for I will give it to you," (Gen. 13:17) because if he stood in one place he could not see with his eyes alone. With these words is indicated the land that the first people of Israel received, who were descendants of Abram according to the flesh, not the offspring that is more widespread according to faith. In order that he would not forget, he was told that it would be like the sand of the sea (Cf. Gen. 13:16), evidently using hyperbole, but offspring so great that no one could count it. [Question 28]

GENESIS CHAPTER 14

(Gen. 14:13). WHY WAS THE NICKNAME “ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER" GIVEN TO ABRAHAM? — He announced to Abram on the other side of the river. It is a nickname that the Greek copies indicate quite clearly; but for what motive? The reason he was called this seems to have been the fact that he came from Mesopotamia, crossing the Euphrates River, and set up his residence in Canaan. It was called "the one on the other side of the river" in the region from which it came. That's why Joshua the son of Nun says to the Israelites: What? Will you serve the gods of your fathers that are across the river? (Jos 24:15) [Question 29]

GENESIS CHAPTER 15

(Gen. 15:12). ON THE TROUBLE OF ABRAHAM. — The text of the Scripture reads: And about sunset a trance fell upon Abram, and, behold a great dark terror fell upon him. It is a question to be addressed, because there are some who claim that the soul of the wise man is distant to these frights.  We can ask ourselves if it is true what counts A. Gellius in his books of the Attic Nights (A. Ulo Gellio, Noct. Att. 19, 1.). He was a philosopher who had lost his calm, found himself in a ship during a great storm at sea, and was rebuked by a dissolute young man, who insulted him, after having passed the danger, by the fact that the aforementioned philosopher would have lost his calm so soon-while he had neither feared nor faded. The philosopher replied that the young man had not lost his calm precisely because he had nothing to fear for his perverted soul, for he was not even worthy of fearing anything. The others, worried that they had been with him on the ship, and awaiting a reply, presented them with a book of the stoic Epictetus, in which it was said that it had not pleased the Stoics to assert that no such disturbance affects the soul of the wise man, as if nothing similar were found in their feelings. For they say that there is a disturbance when reason yields to such sensations. When it does not yield, there is no need to be called a disturbance. But we must take into account how A. Gellius says this and discuss the question with caution. [Question 30]

GENESIS CHAPTER 17

(Gen. 17:8). HOW GOD CALLS ETERNAL WHAT WILL LAST ONLY A TIME? — And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land wherein you wandered, even all the land of Canaan for an eternal possession. The question is why he said "eternal", when it was given to the Israelites for a time: whether it was called "eternal" with respect to this world, so that from Greek αἰών, which also means saeculum (in English "world"), there was said αἰώνιον as though you could say saeculare in Latin (in English, "worldly"); or whether we are forced from this to understand something pertaining to a spiritual promise, so that it was called eternal because something eternal is signified by it; or whether it rather belongs to an expression of the Scriptures, so that these call eternal a thing whose end is not determined or which is not done without necessity to be done continually as far as lies in the care or power of the doer, as when Horace says, "He who does not know how to be content with little shall be eternally a slave" (Ep. 1, 10, 41).  A person cannot eternally be a slave when their life itself, during which they are a slave, cannot be eternal. I would not use this evidence if it did not pertain to an expression. Naturally, those people are for us authorities concerning words, not concerning facts or opinions. Now if the Scriptures are defended concerning peculiar expressions, which are called idioms, how much more will they be defended concerning those that they share with other languages? [Question 31]

(Gen. 17:15-16). ON THE KINGS OF ABRAHAM. — Why does God say to Abraham, speaking of his son: And the kings of the nations shall come from him. It is that since it did not have its origin according to the kingdoms of the earth, it must be understood according to the Church, or because it also happened literally because of Esau. [Question 32]

GENESIS CHAPTER 18

(Gen. 18:1-3). APPEARANCE OF THE THREE ANGELS TO ABRAHAM. — And having seen them he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and did obeisance to the ground. And he said, Lord, if indeed I have found grace in your sight, pass not by your servant. We can ask why, when there were three who appeared to him, he called him Lord in the singular, saying, Lord, if I have found grace in your sight. Is it perhaps because he believed that one of them was the Lord and the other angels? Or rather, perceiving the Lord in the angels, he chose to speak to the Lord rather than to the angels, because when there remained one with Abraham, the other two are sent to Sodom and Lot speaks to them as if he were speaking to the Lord? [Question 33]

(Gen. 18:4-8). ON THE MEAL SERVED TO THE ANGELS BY ABRAHAM. — Let water now be brought, and let them wash your feet, and do refresh under the tree. And I will bring bread. If Abraham took them for angels, how could he invite them to this hospitality? For food is a need for our mortal flesh, but not for the immortal nature of the angels. [Question 34]

(Gen. 18:11). HOW ABRAHAM MIRACULOUSLY HAD A CHILD OF SARAH. — And Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in days, and the custom of women ceased with Sarah. The age of elderly people is less that those who are old, although the name of old people is also given to people who are simply advanced in age. Now, if it is true, as some doctors assert, that an elderly husband cannot have the children of an elderly woman, even if she is still experiencing what usually happens to women, We can understand Abraham's astonishment at the promise of a son Cf. Gen. 17:17), and the reflection of the Apostle (Cf. Rom 4:19), who sees it as a miracle, since he says that the body of Abraham was already dead. It must not be imagined, however, that the body of Abraham was dead, to such an extent that he could not have had the children of a young woman; But it was so in the sense that it could not have been of a woman advanced in age.  If he had children of Céthura, it is because he took still young.  Doctors say that a man whose generative vigor has fallen cannot have children with an elderly woman, even if the woman still has menstruation; but you can have them with a young woman. And, on the other hand, an elderly woman, although she still has menstruation, cannot have children with an elderly man, may have in a union with a young man. Therefore, that act of Abraham was a miracle, because, according to what we have said, the body of that man was already dead, and the woman was of an age so advanced that she no longer had menstruation. Now, if anyone would insist on interpreting literally what the Apostle says that "Abraham's body was already dead", and, in saying, dead he understood it in the sense that he no longer had a soul, but was a corpse, he would be sadly wrong. Therefore, the question is solved as we say. On the other hand, we are rightly struck by the fact that the Apostle speaks of a dead body and says that it was a miracle that he had descendants, being as Abraham was a middle-aged man, according to what men lived then, and then, afterwards, he had children with Céthura. [Question 35]

(Gen. 18:12-13). WHY GOD TAKES SARAH'S LAUGHTER. AND NOT THAT OF ABRAHAM? — And the Lord said to Abraham, Why is it that Sarah has laughed in herself, saying, Shall I then truly bear? I am grown old.  Some wonder why the Lord only rebuked Sarah, while Abraham also laughed. The reason is that Abraham's laughter was one of admiration and joy. Sarah's, however, was originated by doubt, and God, who knows the hearts of men, could distinguish one laugh from another. (Cf. Prov. 24:12.) [Question 36]

(Gen 18:14-15).  AT WHAT SIGN DID ABRAHAM AND SARAH RECOGNIZE THE ANGELS? — But Sarah denied, saying, I did not laugh, for she was afraid.  How could they think it was God who spoke if Sarah dared to deny that she had laughed, as if God could ignore it? Maybe Sarah thought they were men; Abraham, on the other hand, believed that he (the angel) was God. But he too, in carrying out those charitable actions of which I have spoken before, which could only be necessary for the fragile flesh, must have thought at first that they were men. But perhaps you will say that Abraham believed that it was God who spoke through certain visible and perceptible signs of divine majesty, as the Scripture testifies which were often seen in men of God. But there is still the problem of knowing, if that is the case, how they knew afterwards that they were angels. And the answer is that perhaps they knew it when they went to heaven in their presence. [Question 37]

(Gen. 18:16-19). GOD PROMISES TO REWARD THE OBEDIENCE OF THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM. — For I know that he will order his sons, and his house after him, and they will keep the ways of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham all things whatever he has spoken to him. Here the Lord promises to Abraham not only rewards, but also the obedience of righteousness on the part of his children, so that the rewards promised will also come true. [Question 38]

(Gen. 18:20-21). GOD, SPEAKING TO MANKIND, LOWERS HIMSELF TO THEIR LANGUAGE. — I will therefore go down and see, if they completely correspond with the cry which comes to me, and if not, that I may know. By taking these words as expression, not a doubt about what will happen, but of anger and threat, poses no problem at all; for God in the Scripture speaks to men in the manner of men; and men, who really could understand this mystery, knew how to understand the wrath of God without any disturbance in God. In fact, we too often speak in this way, threatening: "Let's see if I do not do this" or "let's see if I will not do it", and "if I cannot or will not know how to do it"; That is, I will try this to see if I cannot; Which, as it is said in a threatening tone, not because the thing is ignored, it appears that the person is affected by the anger. But God cannot be disturbed. It is therefore a human expression and a human way of speaking and that is consistent with human weakness, and God adapts his way of speaking to ours. [Question 39]

(Gen. 18:32). DOES GOD FORGIVE WHEREVER HE FINDS TEN RIGHTEOUS? — The question often arises as to whether what God said about Sodom, namely, that he would not punish that place if there were only ten righteous ones, is to be understood only of that city, or, more generally, of any place, so that God would forgive any place where only ten righteous ones would be found. I think that in this matter we are not forced to accept that the text has to be interpreted as a general law. But, as far as Sodom is concerned, God was able to keep this manner of expression, because he knew that it contained not even ten righteous. And his response was to make Abraham see that it was impossible to find that number, so great was their iniquity. For God had no need to forgive those wicked men so as not to punish the righteous with them, for he could give the wicked worthy punishments, excluding the righteous. But as I have said, to bring out the wickedness of that multitude, he said: If I find ten righteous men there, I will spare the whole city. As if to say, "I cannot punish the righteous with the wicked, but without forgiving the wicked; for, when the righteous are liberated and separated from there, I can give to the wicked their due; And yet, if those righteous ones are found there, I forgive them ", knowing that even that number was not there. A similar thing is found in Jeremiah (5:1), when he says, "Go through the streets of Jerusalem, and look and search in their places, and see: if you find one who practices righteousness and seeks faithfulness, I will forgive their sins, I will forgive others. In this way he exaggerates and proves that not one could even be found there. [Question 40]

GENESIS CHAPTER 19

(Gen. 19:1). ON THE APPARITION OF THE ANGELS TO LOT. — The fact that Lot presents himself before the angels and adores them prostrating himself seems to indicate that he thought they were angels. But when he invites them to replenish their strength, which is necessary for mortals, he seems to indicate that he thought they were men. So the question is solved in the same way as it was resolved in regard to those three who came to the encounter of Abraham, that is to say, that it would appear by some signs that had been sent by God, but so that they were believed to be men. This is what the Scripture says in the Epistle to the Hebrews (13:2), when it speaks of the virtue of hospitality: By it some unknowingly received the angels in their house. [Question 41]

(Gen. 19:8). CONDUCT OF LOT TO THE SODOMITES. — Lot says to the Sodomites, " But I have two daughters, who have not known a man. I will bring them out to you, and use them as it may please you, only do not injury to these men. He wished, in giving up his daughters, to obtain in return that his guests should not suffer such an outrage on the part of the Sodomites. In this respect, the question arises as to whether a change of dishonest acts or any sin can be admitted, so that we do one bad thing so that another does not do a greater evil; or rather this should be attributed to fear, and not to clear thinking, that Lot said that. And truly this was dangerous exchange. Now, if it is attributed to a human disturbance and to a mind impressed by such great wickedness, it is not to be followed as an example. [Question 42]

(Gen. 19:9-11). BLINDNESS OF THE SODOMITES — And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness. The Seventy use the word aorasia, which properly means, if it can be said so, an invisibility that does not entail a total loss of vision, but only obscures what is not necessary to see. For this reason, it would cause us peculiarity that they might faint for the door, had they been punished with such blindness as to prevent them from seeing. In this case, troubled by their calamity, they would have stopped looking for the door. With this same aorasía was also punishment for those who looked for Elisha (Cf. 2Kings 6:18). And this same blindness also had those who, walking with the Lord, (Cf. Lk. 24:16) after his resurrection, did not recognize him on the road, although there is no mention of this word, but the same thing. [Question 43]

(Gen. 19:16-19). ON THE WORDS THAT FEAR INSPIRES IN LOT. —  And Lot said unto them, Lord, since thy servant has found favor with thee, and thou hast pointed out thy righteousness toward me, and preserved my life; Consider, I pray you, that I cannot escape on the mountain, that evils will perhaps reach me, and that I shall die. He did not even confide in God, whom he recognized in the angels. It was already under this inspiration that he spoke, when he consented to deliver his daughters. Let us understand by this that his words concerning the dishonor of his children ought not to be authoritative, any more than the lack of confidence in God, who would rely on his example. [Question 44]

(Gen. 19:29). TO WHAT DO WE ATTRIBUTE THE DELIVERANCE OF LOT? — And God remembered Abraham and brought Lot out of the midst of destruction. The Scripture recalls that Lot was liberated by the merits of Abraham rather than by his own, so that we may understand that Lot is called righteous according to a certain way of speaking, mainly because he worshiped the one true God, and also when his sins are compared with the sins of the Sodomites, since, living among them, he did not lead a life like them. [Question 45]

(Gen. 19:30). FROM THE MOUNTAIN WHERE LOT FLED. —  Lot went up from Segor, and stayed in the mountain. It is, of course, the same mountain that he climbed on his own and he did not want to climb when the Lord sent him. Because there is no other mountain, or does not appear to be. [Question 46]

ON LOT'S LITTLE FAITH. — For he was afraid of staying at Ségor. In the face of Lot's weakness and fear, the Lord had granted him to live in the place that he had chosen, and had given him assurance that He would forgive the city. But he was also afraid to live there. So his faith was not very strong. [Question 47]

GENESIS CHAPTER 20

(Gen. 20:1-6). THE BEAUTY OF SARAH. — And Abraham said concerning Sarah his wife, She is my sister, for he feared to say, She is my wife, lest at any time the men of the city should kill him for her sake. It is commonly questioned how Abraham could still be afraid of being in danger because of the beauty of Sarah, given his age. The answer is that one must admire more the vigor of that beauty, which could still be desired, than not think that it is a difficult question. [Question 48]

(Gen. 20:6). GOD'S WORDS TO ABIMÉLECH. — Concerning what God said to Abimelech because of Sarah: I spared you, so that you should not sin against me, when you warned him that what he believed to be Abraham's sister was really his wife, you have to keep in mind and pay attention that in reality it is a sin against God when you commit certain acts, that is, what men think are minor things, such as carnal sins. Concerning what he said to him, "See that you are going to die," (Gen. 20:3) it is necessary to pay attention to what God tells him to warn him, as predicting something that would surely happen, so that he would take precautions in order to avoid sin. [Question 49]

GENESIS CHAPTER 21

(Gen. 21:8). ON THE FEAST THAT ABRAHAM MADE WHEN HIS SON WAS WEANED. — The question arises why Abraham did not celebrate the day his son was born or the day he circumcised him, but the day he weaned him. And the question has no solution if it does not refer to some spiritual significance. For it is evident that only then must there be a great joy for the spiritual age when the new spiritual man is born, that is to say, not a man like the Apostle describes with these words: I have fed you with milk, and not with meat, for hitherto you were not able, but not even now you are able: for you are yet carnal. (1Cor. 3:2) [Question 50]

(Gen. 21:10). ON THESE PROPHETIC WORDS: CAST OUT THIS MAID AND HER SON, ETC. —  The question arises as to why Abraham is saddened to hear the words of Sarah: Cast that slave and her son, for the son of that slave woman is not to be heir with my son Isaac, being that he obviously had to know better than Sarah that this was a prophecy (Cf. Gal. 4:21). So we have to think that Sarah said this by revelation, inasmuch as it had been revealed first to her, and that Abraham, knowing it later, because God made it known to him, was shaken, full of paternal affection, by the luck of his son; or that both were ignorant at first of the meaning of that, and Sarah, who was ignorant of it, said it prophetically, moved by her feminine animosity because of the pride of the slave. [Question 51]

(Gen. 21:13). ISHMAEL, CHILD OF THE FLESH, ISAAC, CHILD OF THE PROMISE. — It should be noted that Ishmael is also called by God the descendant of Abraham, according to the words, which, according to the Apostle, must be taken in this regard: Isaac will be your offspring; (Gen. 21:12) That is, they are counted as offspring, not the children according to the flesh, but the children according to the promise (Rom. 9:7-8). So that this, properly speaking, is quite fitting for Isaac, who was not a son according to the flesh, but a son according to the promise, when that promise is made with reference to all peoples. [Question 52]

(Gen. 21:14). RETURN OF HAGAR AND ISHMAEL. — And Abraham rose up in the morning and took loaves and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar, and he put the child on her shoulder, and sent her away. It’s often asked how he put such a big boy on her shoulder. For Ishmael had been circumcised at the age of thirteen, before Isaac was born, when Abraham was ninety-nine years old (Cf. Gen. 17:17-24). Isaac was born when his father was one hundred years old. Ishmael was playing with Isaac when Sarah saw him with concern (Cf. Gen. 21:9), Isaac was already a big boy, since he had already been weaned. For all this, it is evident that Ishmael was more than sixteen years old when he was expelled with his mother from his father's house. Now, even if we consider that it was said in recapitulation that he played with Isaac when he was still very young, before being weaned, nevertheless, it is too absurd to believe that a child, even in this case of more than thirteen years, had been placed on the shoulder of his mother, with a wineskin and some loaves. The question is solved very easily if we do not understand "put", but "gave". For Abraham, as it is written, gave to his mother loaves and a wineskin, which she put on her shoulder. When it was added and said: also the child, we must understand was "gave" the same that gave her the loaves and the wineskin, and he did not "put the child on her shoulder." [Question 53]

(Gen. 21:15-18). THE ANGEL'S WORDS TO HAGAR. — And the water failed out of the skin, and she cast the child under a fir tree. And she departed and sat down opposite him at a distance, as it were a bow-shot, for she said, Surely I cannot see the death of my child: and she sat opposite him, and the child cried aloud and wept. And God heard the voice of the child from the place where he was, and an angel of God called Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, What is it, Hagar? fear not, for God has heard the voice of the child from the place where he is. Rise up, and take the child, and hold him in your hand, for I will make him a great nation. The question is often asked how, when the child was more than fifteen years old, his mother threw him under a tree and left at a distance as a bow shot so as not to see him die. The text appears as if she had thrown down the child she was carrying, especially considering what follows: ‘the child began to mourn’. But it must be understood here that the child was thrown, not by the one who carried him, but, as is often the case, by his state of mind, thinking that he was going to die. For concerning these words of the Scripture: I am cast out from the sight of your eyes (Ps. 30:23), neither was any man has said this. On the other hand, in ordinary language there is the habit of saying something similar when one says that he is thrown by another with whom he was with, so that he does not see or remain with him. It must be understood, then, that the Scripture omitted to say that the mother separated herself from her son so that the child did not know where the mother had gone, and that she hid among the woods in the forest so as not to see her child die of thirst. What, then, is it strange that, even at his age, he would burst into tears when he had not seen his mother for so long and thought that he had been lost in the place where he remained alone? In relation to what the Scripture says: Take the child, he was not told to take it from the ground, as if he were lying there, but to join him and then give him the hand to accompany him, as he was, thing That usually do those who walk together of any age that they are. [Question 54]

(Gen. 21:19-33). WHEN WAS THE WELL OF THE OATH DUG? —  It happened at that time that Abimélech said, etc. Abimélech, and the well which he dug was called the Well of the Oath: How, can one ask, does this accord with the truth? And the reason is that Hagar was expelled from the house of Abraham with her son, and wandered, as stated, by the Well of the Oath, which, according to Scripture says, Abraham made much later, for Abimélech and Abraham swore in this place (Cf Gen. 21:22-24), and this event had certainly not yet arrived (Cf Gen. 21:31), when Sara was driven away with her son from the House of Abraham. How then did she wander around the Well of the Oath (Cf Gen. 21:19)? Should we believe that the well was already dug, and then, as a recapitulation, it then recalls what Abraham did with Abimélech?  Although it may also be that the one who wrote the book (Moses) much later chose the name of Well of the Oath to the region where the mother wandered with her son, as if to say: she was wandering in that region where the Well of the Oath was made, although the well would have been made later, but long before the time of the writer (Moses). However, the well was named after the book was written, retaining the ancient name Abraham had given it. But if it is the same well that Hagar saw when opening her eyes, there is no other solution than to solve the question by way of recapitulation. And it should come as no surprise that Hagar did not know the well Abraham had dug, if the well was dug before she was expelled. It could well be that, because of his herds, Abraham dug the well away from the house where he lived with his family, and she did not know of the well. [Question 55]

(Gen. 21:33). DID NOT ABRAHAM POSSESS ANY FIELD IN THE LAND OF CHANAAN? — We may ask how Abraham planted a field not far from the well of the oath, if, as St. Stephen says (Cf Acts 7:5), he had not received an inheritance in this country, not even a foot of land. But we must understand here by inheritance (Cf Gen. 21:27-30), not the one he bought for money, but the one God had to give him for his goodness. The space around the well was no doubt included in the acquisition of seven young sheep by Abraham, when he and Abimelech swore to one another faithfully. [Question 56]

GENESIS CHAPTER 22

(Gen. 22:1). TEMPTATION OF ABRAHAM. —  And God tempted Abraham. It is often asked how this can be true when James says in his letter that God does not tempt anyone (Jas. 1:13). The answer is that the language of Scripture often uses the word "tempt" with the meaning of "prove." Instead, the temptation spoken of by James is understood only as referring to that by which one falls into the nets of sin. That is why the Apostle says: lest the tempter should tempt you (1 Thess. 3:5). For it is written elsewhere: The Lord your God tempts you to know if you love him (Deut. 13:3). Naturally, this expression says: to know, as if it were said: "to make you know", because the power of love itself is hidden from man, if God does not make it known through a test of his. [Question 57]

(Gen. 22:12-14). ON THESE WORDS: I KNOW NOW THAT YOU FEAR GOD. — On these words: I know now that you fear God. — an angel said from Heaven to Abraham: "Do not put your hand on the child, and do nothing to him." For I know that you fear God. This issue resolves, like the previous one, by an analogy of expressions; For these words: "I know now that you fear God" mean: now I make you known. This way of speaking is clearly understood in the following text: "And Abraham called this place: the Lord saw;" And it is said today: The Lord appeared on the mountain. He saw, put for: He appeared (Gen. 22:14), has the same meaning as: he did see; The cause is set for the effect; A cold numb, for: a cold that numbs. [Question 58]

(Gen. 22:12). WAS IT FOR THE SAKE OF THE ANGEL, OR OUT OF RESPECT FOR GOD, THAT ABRAHAM WAS PREPARED NOT TO SPARE HIS SON? — and for My sake you have not spared your beloved son. Is it that Abraham did not spare his son by an angel or God? The solution is that under the name of an angel it is to be understood that it was our Lord Jesus Christ, who is undoubtedly God, and the prophet expressly calls him Angel of Great Counsel (Is. 9:6), or that God was in the angel and the angel spoke in name of God, as he usually does through the prophets.  This latter sense appears to be drawn more clearly in the following words of the text: "And the Angel of the Lord called again Abraham from the top of heaven, saying: I sworn by myself, says the Lord (Gen. 22:15-16)." It is difficult indeed to find that here Christ engages God the Father as his Lord, in this time frame who preceded the Incarnation. With regard to the form of slave that he has taken, this expression seems not to be lacking in modesty. Indeed to prophesy this event it is said in a psalm: “The Lord said to me: you are my son (Ps. 2:7).” But it is difficult to discover in the Gospel itself, that Christ calls God the Father his Lord, because this would be true, though he calls him God, in this passage where they say: " I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God. (Jn. 20:17);" As to these words of Scripture: "The Lord said to my lord," it is in the name of the one who speaks that they are uttered: "The Lord said to my lord (Ps. 109:1)," that is, the Father told the Son. Thus these other words: "The Lord made rain… from the Lord (Gen. 19:24; Lk. 17:29)," are also said in the name of the sacred writer and here is the meaning: the Lord of this writer sent the rain on the part of his Lord; Our Lord on behalf of our Lord, the Son of the Father. [Question 59]

(Gen. 22:21). ABOUT CHAMUHEL, FATHER OF THE SYRIANS. — When it was announced to Abraham that Melcha had children and called one of them, Chamuhel, the father of the Syrians, it is obvious that the latter name has been given by those who brought the news, since Syrians, who owe their origin to this Chamuhel, formed a numerous people only in much later times. This addition is by the author, who wrote these facts long after they had been accomplished. We have already made a similar remark concerning the Well of the Oath. [Question 60]

GENESIS CHAPTER 23

(Gen. 23:7). MEANING OF THE WORD ADORE. — "Abraham, rising, adored the people of this land."  We may ask how it is written, “you will worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve only him (Deut. 6:13);" if Abraham showed reverence to a Gentile people to the point of worshiping?  But it must be noted: it is not said in this commandment: Thou shall worship only the Lord thy God, as it is said: Thou shall serve "only him," a word that in Greek corresponds to . For such servitude should only be given to God. That is why the idolaters are condemned, i.e. those who give idols the kind of servitude that is owed to God. And it should not cause us trouble the fact that in another passage of Scripture an angel forbids a man to adore him and warns him that it is the Lord to whom one must worship (Cf. Rev. 19:10). Indeed, the angel had manifested himself in such a way that he could be worshipped as a god, and that is why the worshipper had to be admonished. [Question 61]

GENESIS CHAPTER 24

(Gen. 24:2-3). OATH REQUIRED BY ABRAHAM. — The fact that Abraham sends his servant to put his hand under his thigh and swear to him thus by the Lord God of Heaven and Lord of the Earth, ordinarily baffles the incompetent readers, who do not realize that there was this great prophecy about Christ. It is indeed, that the Lord God of Heaven and Lord of the Earth would come in that flesh that was propagated from that thigh. [Question 62]

(Gen. 24:14). HOW THE REQUEST FOR A MIRACLE DIFFERS FROM THE CONSULTING OF PREMONITIONS. — We must investigate the difference between the unlawful sorceries of that request for a miracle made by the servant of Abraham when he begged God to show him that the wife of his master Isaac would be the one who would tell him: You drink, and I will give your camels drink, until they shall have done drinking. It is one thing to ask for a miracle which is extraordinary; it is another thing to observe that which has nothing marvelous and meaningful except in the vain and superstitious interpretation of diviners. But still, is it permissible to ask for a miracle, to be assured of what one wants to know? This is not a small inquiry.  From here it is understood that it is said that they tempt the Lord who do not do it correctly. The Lord himself, being tempted by the devil, proclaimed proof from Scripture: You shall not tempt the Lord your God (Mt. 4:7). Indeed, the Lord was asked as if he were a mere mortal, that he himself show with some proof with a miracle how great he was, that is, the great power he had before God; which is a sin to do. But this evil temptation must not be confused with the conduct of Gideon (Jud. 6:17), who was in a hurry to engage in battle with the enemy: he consulted God on this occasion rather than tempt him. Ahaz also feared in Isaiah to solicit a miracle for fear of appearing to tempt God at the moment when the Lord gives him the advice of the prophet to ask for one (Is. 4:11-12). He probably believed that the prophet was trying to find out if he remembered the precept that forbids God to tempt. [Question 63]

(Gen. 24:37-40). DIFFERENCES THAT RELATE TO WORDS, NOT TO THOUGHT. —The servant of Abraham, recounting the orders he received from his master, said that they were given to him in the words, You shall not take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I travel in their land. But you shall go to the house of my father, and to my tribe, and you shall take from there a wife for my son. Now, if we realize how all these orders were given, we find that the meaning is the same; But the words are not all identical, or are rendered otherwise. I make this observation for the fools and the ignorant, who reproach the Evangelists for not agreeing perfectly in some expressions, while for things and thoughts they do not disagree. There was certainly only one author to write this book, and he could have read again to repeat himself verbatim, if the thing had seemed to him to be adequate: But the truth of the narrative is only about things and thoughts, and it suffices that the will, for the manifestation of which the words are made, be understood quite clearly. [Question 64]

(Gen. 24:41). OATH AND CURSE. — With regard to the words of the servant of Abraham, where he describes the orders of his master, where the Latin codices have: then you will be free of my oath or “my vow”, the Greek codices say: of my curse, for  means "oath"  "curse", and therefore also  and  mean "accursed". From this comes the question of knowing how that oath can be understood as a curse. And the reason has to be because one is cursed who acts against an oath. [Question 65]

(Gen. 24:49). ON MERCY AND JUSTICE. — If then you deal mercifully and justly with my lord, and if not, tell me. Here begins to appear these two divine attributes, mercy and justice, always inseparably united in the other books of the Holy Scriptures and especially in the Psalms (Cf. Ps. 24:10). For mercy and truth have the same meaning as mercy and justice. [Question 66]

(Gen. 24:51). RESPONSE BY BATHUËL TO ELIEZER. — Behold, Rebecca is before you, take her and run away, and let her be a wife to the son of your lord, as the Lord has said. At what moment did the Lord say that? Rebecca's parents saw in Abraham's person a prophet, and they accepted what he had said as a prophetic word inspired by God: or what they understood to be God's word was the sign given to the servant by the patriarch and reported by him: this last interpretation applies better to Rebecca. What Abraham had said did not really have Rebecca as his object, but any woman of his tribe or kinship. And in either case the servant should be relieved of his oath if he did not obtain what he asked. But we do not speak thus when we prophesy something. For certainty is a condition of prophecy. [Question 67]

(Gen. 24:60). FAREWELL MADE TO REBEKAH BY HIS BROTHERS. —  The fact that her brothers told Rebekah when she left, you are our sister; you shall become thousands of myriads, and let your seed possess the cities of their enemies; they did not prophesy; nor are these magnificent wishes inspired by pride; but they could not ignore the promises God had made to Abraham. [Question 68]

(Gen. 24:63). EXERCISE OF ISAAC. —  In relation to these words of Scripture: One afternoon Isaac went out to exercise in the field; those who do not know the corresponding Greek word, think that it is a bodily exercise. But the Greek says: ; however, refers to the exercise of the mind and is often considered somewhat bad. But Scripture tends to use that word most of the time in good sense. Some of our translators translate that word into 'exercise'; others translate it by 'chat', a kind of verbiage. And this word verbiage, as far as the Latin language is concerned, is never or almost never used in a good sense. But, as I have just said, in Scripture the Greek word is used many times in the good sense, and I believe that this expression signifies the state of a soul deeply absorbed in meditation, and finding its delights there. Those who know Greek better may find a preferable meaning. [Question 69]

GENESIS CHAPTER 25

(Gen. 25:1). ON POLYGAMY. —  And Abraham again took a wife, whose name was Keturah.  The question that arises here is whether this would be a sin, thinking especially of the ancients, who were dedicated to the propagation of the offspring. Here you can think of anything but the lack of self-restraint of a man so outstanding as Abraham, taking into account also his advanced age. I said earlier why he had children of Keturah, when Sarah only had them by miracle. Although there are some who think that Abraham's gift, consisting of a kind of bodily rejuvenation to father children, remained in him for a long time, so that he could become the father of other children. But it is much easier for an elderly man to have children of a young girl than to have a man of advanced age from a woman of similar age, if God had not done in him a miracle, taking into account, above all, not only the age of Sarah, but also her sterility. In fact, a man of an advanced age can even be called an elderly man, and, as the Scripture says, to one full of days. This is what is meant by πρεσβυτην (elder), which is what was said of Abraham when he died.   Every old man is therefore an (elder) πρεσβυτης, but every πρεσβυτης is not an old man: for it is ordinarily referred to as the age next to oldness. Also, in the Latin language, the word old age, senectute, is “senior” which means old age and applies to πρεσβυτης.  In Greek, mainly in the style of writing, it is said by contrast πρεσβυτεροι and νεωτεροι even when we still speak of young men, as we say among us the eldest, and the youngest. However, the fact that Abraham, after Sara's death, had children by Keturah, should not be taken in the sense that this is due to human custom and desire only to have a larger offspring. Because then men could also interpret what happened with Hagar, if the apostle had not warned us that those things prophetically came to pass (Gal. 4:22-24), so that in the people of those two women and their children the allegorical sense would represent the two Testaments for the revelation of future things. That is why, in this fact of Abraham, we must also look for something similar. Although this sense does not appear easily, I, in the meantime, say what I think: the gifts that the children of the concubines received (Cf. Gen. 25:5-6) seem to me to mean certain gifts of God already in the mysteries, already in certain signs given also to the carnal people of the Jews and the heretics, as children of the concubines, while the gift of the inheritance, which is charity and eternal life, belongs only to Isaac, that is, to the children of the promise. [Question 70]

(Gen. 25:13). WHY ARE THE NAMES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISHMAEL BASED ON THE NAMES OF THEIR GENERATIONS? — What do these words mean: And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, according to the names of their generations? For it is not sufficiently clear why he added, “according to the names of his generations”, since only those he begot are named, and not those begotten by others. Perhaps with these words: According to the names of their generations it is meant to indicate that the nations coming out of them are called by their respective names. But in this way the names of the nations would be in conformity with the names of the children of Ishmael, rather than the names of the latter, in conformity with those of the nations which did not exist until afterwards. We must therefore note this expression, for it is said even farther that they were "twelve rulers according to their nations (Gen. 25:16)." [Question 71]

(Gen. 25:22). REBEKAH CONSULTS THE LORD. — Regarding what the Scripture says about Rebecca, went to enquire of the Lord when her children moved in her womb. But where did she go? There were no prophets, no priests either for the service of the Tabernacle or the Temple of the Lord. Where did she go, if not at the place where Abraham had established an altar? But the Scripture says absolutely nothing about the way the answers were given there, if by means of a priest, it seems incredible that it had not been mentioned, if there were any, and that no mention be made of it that there were priests there, or perhaps once they had expressed their desires there by prayer, they waited asleep to receive the answer in their dreams? Or was Melchizedek still alive, whose excellency was so great, that some doubted whether he was a man or an angel? Or was there, at that time, men of God like himself, by whom they could be consulted? Whatever may be of these opinions and any others that have escaped my memory, the truth is that Scripture cannot lie when it says that Rebekah went to consult the Lord and that the Lord answered. [Question 72]

(Gen. 25:23). MYSTICAL SENSE OF THE ANSWER MADE TO REBEKAH. —  In the answer that the Lord gives to Rebekah: There are two nations in your womb and two peoples shall be separated from your belly, and one people shall excel the other, and the greater shall serve the lesser. According to the spiritual sense, the carnal men of the people of God are signified by the eldest son, and spiritual men by the younger son, because, as the Apostle says: Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural: afterwards that which is spiritual (1 Cor. 15:46). These words are still understood in the sense that Esau is the eldest people of God, that is, the Israelites according to the flesh, while Jacob signifies his own spiritual descent.  History in turn complements this answer made by God when it relates that the people of Israel, that is to say Jacob, the younger, overcame the Idumeans, that is to say, the nation which came from Esau, and made them inferior in the time of David (Cf. 2 Sam. 8:13-14; 1 Kgs. 11:15). The Idumeans remained long in this state, until King Jehoram, under the reign of which they revolted and issued themselves to the yoke of the Israelites, according to Isaac's own prophecy, when he blessed the younger instead of the eldest (Cf. Gen 27:26, 39-40). Since all this he told the eldest, when he also blessed him after having blessed his brother. [Question 73]

(Gen. 25:27). ON THESE WORDS: JACOB WAS A SIMPLE MAN. —  Jacob was a simple man, living in a house. What the Greek text qualifies as απλαστος, some Latins translated it as simplicem (simple). But απλαστος accurately means "sincere." For this reason, some Latin translators translated that word “sine dolo” (without deceit), giving the phrase the following meaning: “Jacob was a man without deceit, who lived at home.” Hence arises the great problem of knowing how the blessing received through a deception was considered for a man without deception. The answer is that Scripture anticipated this to mean something great. Therefore, we are totally obliged to understand something spiritual in this passage, because it was a man without deception who acted with deceit. I have sufficiently developed, in a sermon addressed to the people, my feeling on this subject (Cf. Serm. 4.16). [Question 74]

GENESIS CHAPTER 26

(Gen 26:1). FAMINE ARRIVED AT THE TIME OF ISAAC. — And there was a famine in the land, besides the former famine, which was in the time of Abraham; and Isaac went to Abimelech the king of the Philistines to Gerera. to Abimelech king of the Philistines. In relation to this text we can ask when this event occurred. Was it after Esau had sold his birthright for a meal of lentils, that this begins to be narrated? Or, as is often the case, did the narrator return to this matter by recapitulation, when, abandoning the story about his children, he returned to that passage that we have mentioned of the plate of lentils? We ask ourselves, too, why does Abimelech himself appear here, who had even desired Sarah, and his companion and the chief of his troops is also mentioned (Cf. Gen. 21:22, 32; 26:26.); could they still be alive?  Because, when he became a friend of Abraham, Isaac was not yet born, but his birth was already promised. Suppose that it happened a year before Isaac was born. Then after Isaac, at the age of sixty, had children, but they were young when Esau sold his birthright. Suppose also that they were about twenty years old. Then Isaac's age, when the event of his sons took place, would be about eighty years. Suppose Abimelech was a young man when he desired Sarah and became friends with Abraham.  He could, therefore, be almost a hundred years old, if he went to that land pressed by famine after that event of his children. Nothing, therefore, obliges us to think that the departure of Isaac for Gerera is reported by way of recapitulation.  But as it is said that Isaac remained for a long time in this country, that he dug wells, on the occasion of which there were disputes, and that he became very rich (Cf. Gen 26:14). It would be strange that these things are mentioned if the author does not resort to recapitulation. These things would therefore have been passed over in silence, in order to enable the narrative to speak first of the sons of Isaac to the place where the lentil dish is mentioned. [Question 75]

(Gen 26:12-13). ISAAC BLESSED BY THE LORD. — The following text tells us that what Scripture says about Isaac: and the Lord blessed him. And the man was exalted, and advancing he increased, till he became very great. We must understand it referring to earthly happiness. For the writer describes the riches by means of which he became rich. It follows that Abimelech, impressed by it, feared his presence in that place, lest his power would become dangerous to him (Cf. Gen. 26:14-16).  For that reason, although this means something spiritual, however, from what happened, it was previously said that “the Lord blessed him,” and so we understand rightly that even these temporary goods can only be given by God and should only be expected from him, even if those who desire them are the most humble. So that whoever is faithful in the least may also be faithful in the great, and whoever has been found faithful in the unrighteous riches deserves also to receive true wealth, as the Lord says in the Gospel (Cf. Lk. 16:10-11). It is also said of Abraham that his riches were a blessing from God. This narrative, understood with piety, is not, therefore, mediocre in edifying sincere faith, even though no allegorical meaning could be derived from it. [Question 76]

(Gen. 26:28). MEANING OF THE WORD CURSE. — Let there be an oath between us and you, that is to say, an oath that obliges with curses, which are to come to him who dares to perjure. It must be observed that this was the meaning of the words used by the servant of Abraham in his speech to those whom he received a wife for his master Isaac. [Question 77]

(Gen 26:32-33). THE NAME GIVEN TO THE WELL DUG BY ISAAC. —  Why is it written that the servants of Isaac came and said to him, We have dug a well and found no water; Isaac called that well "an oath"? Although it had happened this way, there is no doubt that there is a spiritual meaning here, because it literally makes no sense to call that well 'oath ', precisely because there was no water found in it. Other translators have said that Isaac's servants told him rather the opposite, that is, that water had been found. But even supposing this, why is it called an "oath," if no oath had been made? [Question 78]

GENESIS CHAPTER 27

(Gen. 27:1-20). BLESSED JACOB IN THE PLACE OF ESAU. — Since a great patriarch asks his son, before he dies, to bring him the game and food that he likes, considering this a great favor, and promises his blessing, we believe that this text does not in any way lack a prophetic meaning.  And more so considering that his wife gives him the youngest son in a hurry, preferred of her, to receive that blessing. Other things that are narrated there are enough for us to understand or seek greater things in them. [Question 79]

(Gen. 27:33). THE ECSTASY OF ISAAC. — Where the Latin codices say: expavit autem Isaac pavore magno valde (but Isaac began to tremble with a great fear), the Greek codices say: ἐξέστη δὲ Ισαακ ἔκστασιν μεγάλην σφόδρα (Isaac was cast into a very great ecstasy). In this text it is understood, therefore, a commotion so great that would produce a kind of mental alienation. This alienation is properly called ecstasy. And since ecstasy usually occurs in the revelations of very important things, we must understand that in this revelation a spiritual admonition was given to confirm the blessing that Isaac had to give to his youngest son, against whom he should rather have been angry, since he deceived him. The same case occurs when, concerning Adam, the great mystery of which the Apostle speaks is prophesied with these words: And the two will be one flesh, a mystery that is realized between Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:31-32.). There it is affirmed that this fact preceded an ecstasy (Cf. Gen 2:21). [Question 80]

(Gen. 27:42-46). HOW DID REBECCA KNOW ESAU'S MURDEROUS PLANS? — How were they announced, or reported to Rebekah, of Esau's death threats against his brother (Cf. Gen. 27:41)? For the Scripture affirms that he thought about it within himself. The explanation is that by this we know that all things were revealed to them by the influence of God. Therefore, the fact that Isaac wanted to bless his younger son instead of the eldest is something that holds a great mystery. [Question 81]

GENESIS CHAPTER 28

(Gen 28:2). THEY WERE NOT IGNORED BY ISAAC. — Where the Latin manuscripts have these words of Isaac to his son: Go to Mesopotamia, to the house of Bathuel, the father of your mother, and take from there a wife.  The Greek manuscripts do not have the word “go”, but “flee”, that is to say, ἀπόδραθι. It is also seen here that Isaac knew what his son Esau said within himself about his brother. [Question 82]

(Gen 28:16-17). JACOB'S LADDER, FIGURE OF THE TABERNACLE. — And Jacob awoke out of his sleep, and said, The Lord is in this place, and I knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How fearful is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. These words contain a prophecy, for there it was to be the tabernacle, which the Lord had set up among men among his first people. We must understand by the word gate of heaven, that the tabernacle is for the men of faith as an avenue that leads them to the kingdom of heaven. [Question 83]

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO. (Verse 18) JACOB'S STONE. — The fact that Jacob erected the stone that had served as the head, and he set it up as a pillar, and pouring oil on it does not mean that he did something like an act of idolatry. For neither at that time nor afterwards did he visit this stone to worship or offer sacrifices to it, but it was the monument of a very significant prophecy concerning the anointing of Christ. We must not forget that the name of Christ comes from chrism (anointing). [Question 84]

(Gen 28:19). HOUSE OF GOD. — And Jacob called the name of that place, the House of God; and the name of the city before was Ulamluz. There is no problem in this text if it is understood that he slept next to the city. But if it is in the city, it seems astonishing that he could erect a monument there. The fact that Jacob made a vow if God helped him in his comings and goings and promised to pay tithing to the House of God that was to be in that place (Cf. Gen. 28:20-22), it is a prophecy about the house of God, where he himself, upon returning, offered sacrifices to God, is the prophetic proclamation of the house of God, where he himself offered a sacrifice to the Lord. He does not call this stone God, but the House of God, to signify that there was to be a house consecrated to the Lord. [Question 85]

GENESIS CHAPTER 29

(Gen. 29:10). IT IS NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT WHAT THE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SAY. — Concerning the fact that Rachel came with her father's sheep and that, as the Scripture says, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban, his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother, that Jacob came and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well; it must be noted that Scripture omits something that we must understand rather than arouse a problem. It is understood that those with whom Jacob spoke at the beginning, being questioned as to who came with the sheep, said that it was the daughter of Laban, whom Jacob evidently did not know. But the Scripture, while passing over in silence the request of the one and the reply of the others, has willed that we should supplement them. [Question 86]

(Gen. 29:11-12). ON THE KISS JACOB GIVES TO RACHEL. — Concerning the text that says: And Jacob kissed Rachel, and cried with a loud voice and wept. And he told Rachel that he was the near relative of her father, and the son of Rebecca. It was the custom, especially in the beautiful simplicity of ancient times, to kiss between parents and relatives, and even today this custom is practiced in many countries. But one can ask how Rachel accepts the kiss from a stranger, since Jacob revealed his kinship only after kissing her. One of these two assumptions must therefore be used: Thus, it is necessary to think that he, who had already heard who she was, rushed himself with all confidence to kiss her, or that the Scripture narrates later, as a recapitulation, what had happened before, that is, that Jacob had already said who he was. It is something similar to what happens with the story of Paradise. It tells how God, having already said before that He had planted it and had put in it the man who He had formed (Cf. Gen. 2:8). There are many other examples that must be interpreted as presented as a recapitulation. [Question 87]

(Gen. 29:20). A LONG TIME FELT BRIEF FOR JACOB IN HIS SERVICE TO RACHEL. — In relation to what is written: And Jacob worked for Rachel seven years, and they were like a few days to him, because he loved her. You may ask how the author could say that since time for lovers usually seems very long in a short time frame. It is, therefore, to signify that love made the fatigues of his service light and bearable to him. [Question 88]

(Gen. 29:27). WHEN DID JACOB MARRY RACHEL? — If little attention is paid to the account of this event it will be thought that Jacob, after marrying Leah, served another seven years for Rachel, and only then did he marry her. But the reality is not so, but Laban said to him, and fulfilled her sevens… and he worked for him seven other years. The words, fulfilled her sevens, refer to the celebration of the nuptials, which used to last seven days. The following is said: and fulfilled the sevens of marriage that correspond to her with whom you have married, and I will also give to the other for the service that you will lend me for another seven years. Then he continues: And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her sevens; that is, the seven days of marriage with Leah, And Laban gave his daughter Raquel his wife. And Laban gave his slave Bala as a bondwoman to his daughter Rachel. And Jacob also joined Rachel, and loved Rachel more than Leah, and served her uncle another seven years. It appears clearly that, after marrying Rachel, he served her another seven years. It would have been too hard and too unfair that, in addition to deceiving Jacob, Laban would delay the delivery by another seven years and only then deliver to whom he should have given from the first place. That the wedding used to be celebrated for seven days is also demonstrated by the book of Judges, when he speaks of Samson, who celebrated a banquet for seven days (Cf. Judg. 14:10). And Scripture adds that such was the custom of young men.  But Samson made this feast for his wedding. [Question 89]

GENESIS CHAPTER 30

(Gen. 30:3-9). WIVES AND CONCUBINES. — Among the women named in Scripture, wives are not easily distinguished from concubines. For Hagar is called a wife, and later she is called a concubine, as well as Keturah (Gen. 16:3); also Rachel and Leah gave slaves to their husbands (Gen. 30:3-4, 9). According to the usual language of Scripture, a concubine may be called a wife, but not every wife is called a concubine. That is to say, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel cannot be called concubines. On the other hand, Hagar, Keturah, Bala and Zelfa can be called wives and concubines. [Question 90]

(Gen. 30:11). ON FORTUNE. — The Latin manuscripts read that at the birth of the son of Zelfa, Leah said: "I have become happy or blessed;" the Greek manuscripts have: ευτυχη, which means rather "good fortune." Unintelligent readers conclude from this that this man adored fortune or that the authority of the Scriptures consecrated this word.  Now either the word fortune must be understood in relation to those things which seem to happen by chance, not because there is any divinity, since the very things that seem to happen by chance happen in reality for hidden reasons, because God does so; from there it is derived that there are words that no one can derive from linguistic usage, such as forte (by chance), fortasse (possibly), and forsitan (perhaps), and fortuito (accidentally), and such a thing seems to echo also in the Greek language in using the word ταχα, as derived from ταχη. Or surely Leah spoke that way because she had kept this habit of the Gentiles. For it was not Jacob who used this term, and cannot be considered as authorized by the patriarch. [Question 91]

(Gen. 30:30). OBSERVE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE. — Concerning the words of Jacob: the Lord has blessed you at my foot; you must pay close attention and notice the meaning of the Scriptures, lest it seems as if it were augury being used, when in fact it was a normal expression. Thus, it is very important to highlight what he says: the Lord has blessed you at my foot, He wanted it to be understood "at my entrance", and Jacob gives thanks to God. [Question 92]

(Gen. 30:30). ON THE ENGINEERING OF JACOB TO VARY THE COLOR OF HERDS. — About what Jacob did, when he took off the bark of the branches, tearing out the green to make them look white, so that at the moment of conception, when the mothers would drink in the water of the canals, and would look upon the branches in this variety of colors, the flocks of the herds also became spotted. It is said that many facts of the same nature are produced in the animals. There is even a similar story of a woman, and a skillful physician of the highest antiquity, which is described in the books of Hippocrates*. The woman, therefore, having brought into the world a child of rare beauty, who had no resemblance either to its father or mother or to its family; the woman was under the suspicion of adultery, condemned to execution. But the physician whom we mentioned above decided to inquire by seeking counsel to see if there was not some similar picture of the child in the bedroom. A similar picture was found, and this woman was relieved of suspicion. Let us return to what Jacob did: It is not clear how useful it was, for the multiplication of spotted animals, the meeting of three branches of different trees; It was not important for this result that the spotted branches were made from one or more tree species, since the variety of colors was the only necessary condition. We must therefore see a prophecy and a figurative sense in this act that, without a doubt, Jacob did as a prophet: And that is why he should not be accused of deceit. One must believe indeed, that he did not behave in this way only according to a spiritual revelation. Now, in order not to violate justice, as other translators say it more clearly, he did not lay the branches when the sheep conceived a second time. This is what the Septuagint says in few words and with some obscurity:  But he did not put them in whenever the cattle happened to bring forth (Gen. 30:42). This assertion must be understood in the sense that as soon as they had given birth for the first time, so that they do not think that they used to put them when they were going to give birth a second time, so that he did not take all the offspring, which would be an injustice. [Question 93]

*(this story is not in the surviving works of Hippocrates)

GENESIS CHAPTER 31

(Gen 31:30). THE GODS OF THE GENTILES NAMED FOR THE FIRST TIME. — Concerning what Laban says: Why have you stolen my gods? Perhaps you should think of the fact that he had said that he was making augury and that his daughter had spoken of good fortune. It should be noted that from the beginning of the book we find here for the first time the mention of the gods of the Gentiles. In the previous texts of the Scripture only God is mentioned. [Question 94]

(Gen 31:41). ON THE CONDUCT OF LABAN TO JACOB IN RELATION TO THE HERDS. — What does it mean what Jacob says to his father-in-law, and you did falsely rate my wages for ten lambs? For the Scripture does not say when or where this was done. But obviously what Jacob mentions did happen. He even told his wives, when he made them come to the country, complaining about their father, he says among other things: "And he changed my wages to ten lambs (Gen. 31:7)." It happened, therefore, that in each of the times the lambs were born.  When Laban saw that the offspring that was agreed upon that they belonged to Jacob, Laban fraudulently changed the agreement and said that Jacob would have as payment other colored lambs that would be born in the future. Jacob no longer the varying shades, but there were no spotted offspring, but only one-color offspring, which Jacob took under the new agreement. When Laban became aware of this, he again fraudulently changed the agreement so that the spotted lambs belonged to Jacob. And the spotted lambs were born because Jacob had put out those branches. Then what Jacob says to his wives: "He changed my pay into ten lambs”, and then to Laban: “You took away from my wages ten lambs.” Jacob therefore does not wish to make it understood that this disloyalty benefited his father-in-law, for he says that God helped him against Laban to prevent this result. But he wagered ten lambs or ten young lambs to indicate the ten times that the sheep he kept had offspring for a six-year term. They gave birth twice a year. However, the first year he dealt with Laban, and he agreed to keep the flocks for the agreed reward, the sheep only gave lambs once at the end of the year, the first litter having already come, when the commitment was contracted. The same thing happened in the sixth and last year. When the sheep had given a first litter, it was necessary for Jacob to leave, before they had given the second. Thus, as the first year and the last year had only two births, that is, each year one, and, on the other hand, the four years in between had two in each one, they make a total of ten births.  It is not surprising that he designates these ten seasons by the names of the lambs which came at these times; It is as if one said: during so many harvests, during so many harvests, to mark the number of years. Thus a poet said (Virgil, Ecl. 1, 70), "After a few ears," hearing the harvest, and the harvests of the years. As to the fertility of the herds of this country, it is such that they give, as in Italy, two litters in a year. [Question 95]

(Gen 31:45). WHY MONUMENTAL STONES WERE ERECTED. — And Jacob having taken a stone set it up for a monument. It is necessary to pay close attention to the fact that they erected these monuments in memory of anything; And not to worship them as divinities, but to signify something through them. [Question 96]

(Gen 31:47-48). HEAP OF STONES RAISED BY LABAN AND JACOB. — Those who know the Syriac and Hebrew language say that it is due to the properties of each one of them that Laban and Jacob called differently the pile of stones which they had erected among them, for Laban called it Acervum testimonii “Heap of Testimony” and Jacob Acervum testem “Witness Heap”. It happens sometimes, indeed, that a language does not express with a single word what another language can express, and so one word receives its name because it has a close meaning.  In fact, afterwards it is said: It is for this reason that this place has been called "the heap testifies" (Acervus testatur). This expression is half-way, so that it can satisfy one and another: one of which says “Heap of Testimony” (Acervus testimonii) other which says “Witness Heap.” (Acervus testis) [Question 97]

(Gen 31:48-49). REVERSE WORD ORDER. — What do the words that Laban say to Jacob mean: this heap witnesses, and this monument witnesses; therefore its name was called, the Heap witnesses. And the vision of which he said, Let God look to it between me and you?" Perhaps the order must be: “and the vision, which God said, look to it between me among you.” Because God had told him in a vision not to hurt Jacob. [Question 98]

(Gen 31:50). WHAT DOES IT MEAN: NO ONE IS WITH US? — Why does Laban say, Look, no one is with us? It may be that there was no stranger with them, or he has said it in the light of the testimony of God. When they had him, they should consider that there was no one else, whose testimony could be added to his. [Question 99]

(Gen 31:53-55). FEAR OF ISAAC. — And Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac. From the fear, evidently, with which he feared God, a fear that he also mentions before, when he says: The God of my father Abraham and the fear of my father Isaac (Gen. 31:43). [Question 100]

GENESIS CHAPTER 32

(Gen. 32:2). GOD'S CAMP. — The camp of God, which Jacob saw on his journey, was undoubtedly a multitude of angels. For this is called in the Scriptures the army of heaven (Cf. Rev. 19:14). [Question 101]

(Gen. 32:6-12). FEAR OF JACOB BEFORE ESAU. — When Jacob received the announcement that his brother was coming to meet him with four hundred men, he was troubled and distressed. Indeed, fear seized him. And as a man might be troubled as he was, he divided his people, dividing them into two camps. When we arrive here we can ask how he could have faith in the promises of God if he said: If Esau should come to one camp, and destroy it, the other camp shall be in safety (Gen. 32:8). But it could also happen that Esau destroyed his camps, and yet, after that affliction, God would help him and deliver him and fulfill what he had promised. This example should serve as a warning to us, so that, even if we believe in God, let us, however, do what men must do to protect their lives, lest by omitting these measures it seems that we tempt God. Finally, after this we must meditate on the words that Jacob himself said: God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, O Lord, you are he that said to me, Depart quickly to the land of your birth, and I will do you good. Let there be to me a sufficiency of all the justice and all the truth which you have wrought with your servant; for with this my staff I passed over this Jordan, and now I am become two camps. Deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I am afraid of him, unless he gladly should come and kill me, and the mother upon the children. But you said, I will do you good, and will make your seed as the sand of the sea, which shall not be numbered for multitude (Gen. 32:9-12).  In these words appear both and the weakness of man and pious faith. [Question 102]

(Gen. 32:20). THE PRESENTS OF JACOB TO ESAU. — The Latin manuscripts say about Jacob: For he said, I will appease his face with the gifts that precede him. But these words are to be understood as follows: The writer of the book puts this in the mouth of Jacob: For he said, "I will appease his face," and then adds of his harvest: “with the gifts that precede him.” It is as if he said, “With the gifts that preceded Jacob I will appease the face of my brother.” The order of the words of Jacob is thus the following, “I will appease his face and then I will see his face, and he may welcome me favorably." The author inserted the words of his harvest with the gifts that precede him. [Question 103]

(Gen. 32:26). JACOB FOUGHT AND BLESSED. — The fact that Jacob desires to receive the blessing of that angel whom he overcame in the struggle contains a great prophecy about Christ. For it indicates to us that there is here a mystical sense, by the very fact that every man wants to be blessed by someone superior to himself. And then, how could Jacob want to be blessed by someone he defeated in the fight? Jacob overcame Christ, or rather seemed to conquer him through those Israelites who crucified Christ. And yet Jacob is blessed in those Israelites who believed in Christ, among whom was the one who said, “For I am also an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1).” So the one and the same Jacob was lame and blessed. Lame in the whole length of his thigh, that is to say, in the multitude of those of his race, of whom it is said, “They have limped away from your paths (Ps. 17:46).” Blessed, in those of whom it is said: "there is a remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5)." [Question 104]

GENESIS CHAPTER 33

(Gen. 33:10). ON THESE WORDS: I SAW YOUR FACE AS WHEN ONE SEES THE FACE OF A GOD. — What does Jacob mean to his brother: therefore have I seen your face, as if anyone should see the face of God? Is it possible that the words of a frightened and disturbed person have reached such a degree of adoration? Can they perhaps be taken as blameless to indicate some special meaning? Perhaps, indeed, since even the gods of the gentiles, who are demons (Cf. Ps. 95:5), are called gods, do not misjudge the man of God by these words, for he did not say: "as if I saw the face of God”, but as if anyone should see. But we do not know who that "anyone" is to whom it could mean. And perhaps the words have been chosen so that Esau himself would welcome the honor so great his brother did to him. And those who are able to interpret them even in a different way, do not dare to accuse the one who said them of any sin. For although these words, spoken with good intention, are fraternal, and since even fear itself had disappeared after the brother had received them well, that expression could be used, just as, for example, Moses was also called the god of Pharaoh (Cf. Ex 7:1), according to what the Apostle says, “Although there are those who are called gods or in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords (1 Cor. 8:5).” And it may be said above all in view of the fact that in Greek the word does not carry an article, because it is used most obviously to indicate the only true God. Actually it did not say, προσωπον του Θεου, but προσωπον Θεου. Now, those who often hear and understand the Greek language, easily understand the difference between these two expressions. [Question 105]

(Gen. 33:14). JACOB'S UNFULFILLED PROMISE. — Was there not a lie in the promise made by Jacob to his brother, to follow the steps of his followers, whose march was slow, and then to go and find him at Seir? But, as the Scripture says, Jacob did not do it, but went on the road that led to his own way. Is it the fact that he promised that by telling the truth, and then, thinking otherwise, he changed his mind? [Question 106]

GENESIS CHAPTER 34

(Gen. 34:2-3). HOW THE SCRIPTURE GIVES THE NAME OF VIRGIN TO DINA, DISHONORED BY SHECHEM. — The Scripture says that Sychem the son of Emmor the Evite, the ruler of the land, saw her, and took her and lay with her, and humbled her. And he was attached to the soul of Dina the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the virgin, and he spoke to her according to the virgin’s heart. How can the Scripture say that she was a virgin, if he had already slept with her and humiliated her? The answer is that perhaps the word virgin is used to indicate age, according to the Hebrew expression. Or perhaps it is rather a recapitulation by means of which the author then says what happened before? In fact, he was able to take her first to love her, to be a virgin, and to talk to her as to a virgin, and then to lie down with her and humiliate her. [Question 107]

(Gen. 33:5-34:1). HOW COULD JACOB'S CHILDREN HAVE DONE SO MUCH HARM TO THE SICHIMITES? — Speaking to Jacob shortly before with his brother Esau says that his children are still children. That word in Greek expresses by the word παιδια. We may ask how they were able to make such a massacre and devastation in the city, by putting to death, even in the midst of their sufferings, those who had circumcised themselves for their sister Dina. The answer is that we must know that Jacob lived there for a long time until his daughter became a girl and her children were young. For the Scripture says, And Jacob came to Salem, a city of the Shechemites, which is in the land of Canaan, when he departed out of Mesopotamian Syria, and encamped in front of the city. And he bought the portion of the field, where he pitched his tent, of Emmor the father of Sychem, for a hundred lambs. And he built there an alter, and called on the God of Israel. And Dina, the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went forth to observe the daughters of the inhabitants, etc. By these words it is seen that Jacob stayed there not in a fleeting way, as a traveler usually does, but bought a field, established a tent, erected an altar, and so lived in that place for a long time. His daughter, when she reached the age of being able to have friends, wanted to meet the daughters of the local citizens. And on account of it took place that dreadful slaughter and plunder, I think, no longer needs an explanation. There was indeed a not small crowd with Jacob, who had grown rich. Their children are mentioned in this misdeed, because they were the main cause of the fact.  [Question 108]

(Gen. 34:30). NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM JACOB. — Jacob, fearing the war of the inhabitants of the land, when he lived in the city of Salem that destroyed his sons, says, For I am small in number, and they, meeting against me, will kill me. Out of fear of the attack of many who could rise against him, he says that he has a small number of men. He does not say that he has many less than necessary for the conquest of that city, since he divided them into two camps during his return journey. [Question 109]

GENESIS CHAPTER 35

(Gen. 35:1). APPEARANCES OF GOD TO JACOB. — God said to Jacob, Arise and go up to the place of Bethel and live there and make an altar there to the God who appeared to you when you fled from the presence of your brother Esau. Why does he not say: and make there an altar for me, that I have appeared to you, but it is God who says: Make there an altar to the God who appeared to you? Did the Son appear there, and God the Father said this? Or is it attributed to some special type of expression? [Question 110]

(Gen. 35:2-4). AMULETS OF IDOLS. — Jacob, when he went up to Bethel, where he was commanded to build an altar, says to those in his house and to all those who went with him, Remove the strange gods that are with you from the midst of you, and so forth." Then he said, And they gave to Jacob the strange gods, which were in their hands, and the earrings, which were in their ears. We can ask why they also gave the earrings, which if they were objects of adornment, had no relation to idolatry. The reason has to be that they were amulets of strange gods, because Scripture testifies that Rebekah received earrings from Abraham's servant (Cf. Gen. 24:22-30), which would not have happened had they not been allowed to wear earrings for personal adornment. Therefore, those earrings that were given with the idols, as was said, were amulets of idols. [Question 111]

(Gen. 35:5). HOW GOD ACTS ON THE MINDS OF MEN. — And the fear of God was upon the cities round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Israel. Let us begin by noting how God acts in the minds of men. For whom to attribute the fear of God spread over these cities, if not to the one who showed himself faithful to his promises to Jacob and his children? [Question 112]

(Gen. 35:6). CHANGE OF NAMES. — Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, which is Bethel. Let us recall that three names of this city have already appeared: Ulammaus, a name which it had before Jacob reached Mesopotamia, passing by earlier; Bethel, a name which Jacob himself gave it, which means "house of God"; And Luz, just mentioned right now. This is not surprising, as it happens in many other passages, both in terms of cities and rivers, and in any place on earth, because it happens in many countries, and for different reasons, that rivers, other objects, and men themselves, add to their names, or take new ones. [Question 113]

(Gen. 35:10). ON THE NAME OF ISRAEL GIVEN TO JACOB. — God appeared again to Jacob in Luz and said to him: Your name shall not be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name. It is for the second time that God addresses these words to Jacob, blessing him, and thus confirms it. It is striking that those who once received a name are no longer called as they were called, but are given a new name, without ever calling them again their first name. From now on they are called by the new name. Instead, Jacob was called Jacob all his life and after he died, even though God had said to him, Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name (Gen. 32:28). Thus it is perfectly understood that this name belongs to that promise by which God will be seen as not seen before by the patriarchs. There the old name will no longer exist. Nothing will remain, not even in the old reality itself, and the vision of God will be the supreme reward. [Question 114]

(Gen. 35:11). WHAT DOES IT MEAN: FOR NATIONS AND GATHERINGS OF NATIONS? — Among the promises made to Jacob is the following: for nations and gatherings of nations shall be of you. Are "nations" according to the flesh, and "gatherings of nations" according to faith, or both by the faith of the Gentiles, if the nations cannot be called a single nation of Israel according to the flesh? [Question 115]

(Gen. 35:13-15). DID JACOB IMITATE IDOLATERS BY ERECTING MONUMENTS? — And God went up from him from the place where he spoke with him. And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where God spoke with him, a pillar of stone; and offered a sacrifice upon it, and poured oil upon it. And Jacob called the name of the place in which God spoke with him, Bethel.  Did this happen again in the same place where it had happened before? Or is it mentioned again? Whatever it was, Jacob offered a sacrifice, but not on the stone. He did not act, then, as idolaters do, who erect altars in front of the stone and offer a sacrifice as if they were gods. [Question 116]

(Gen. 35:26). WAS BENJAMIN BORN IN MESOPOTAMIA? — When the twelve sons who were born to Israel are mentioned, it is said: These are the sons of Israel, who were born to him in Mesopotamia. Now Benjamin was born long afterwards, when Bethel had already passed and they were approaching Bethlehem. Some interpreters strive unnecessarily to decide this question, saying that one should not read: nati sunt, as most Latin copies do, but facti sunt, according to the Greek text εγενοντο, pretending to understand also Benjamin would not have been born in Mesopotamia, but there he had come, since he was already begotten in the womb of his mother, for it is thought that Rachel had come out of there pregnant. In this way, although it was read, they were born to him, it could be said that he was already born in the womb, since he had already been conceived. As an example, what was said to Joseph about the Virgin Mary is indicated, “For what has been born in her is of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:20).”  But there is another reason that prevents this solution of the problem. For if Benjamin had been conceived there, the sons of Jacob, who had come out of that place and grown up, could scarcely be twelve years old. For Jacob spent twenty years there. Of these twenty, the first seven years without being married, hoping to marry serving Laban. Assuming that the year he was married was born a child, the oldest could be about twelve, when they left. Therefore, if Benjamin had already been conceived, all that journey had to take place within ten months, and all that was written about Jacob in the journey. It follows that their children, such small children, would have carried out such a large slaughter on the occasion of their sister Dina, would have killed a large number of men and thus have taken possession of the city. Two of them, Simeon and Levi, who with sword in hand, were the first to reach these men, and killed them, were age eleven and the other ten years. Their mother would have had without interruption, a child every year. But it is unbelievable that children of this age could have done all this, when Dina herself was barely six years old. Therefore, we must find another solution to this problem so that we correctly understand what was said about the twelve children mentioned. These are the sons of Jacob, who came to him in Mesopotamia of Syria. Because among all those children, who were so many, there was one who was not born there, but who had reason to be born in that place, since his mother had married there with his father. But this solution of the problem must be confirmed by some example of another similar expression. There is no easier solution to this question than recourse to a synecdoche (A figure of speech that uses the name of a part of something to represent the whole). Thus, when in one part is greater or more important, it is usually also designated by its name that which does not belong to the name itself. For example, the case of Judas, who no longer belonged to the twelve apostles, because he had already died when the Lord rose from the dead (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:5), and yet the Apostle keeps in his letter the number of twelve when he says that the Lord Appeared to the twelve. The Greek codices have this word with an article, so that no twelve persons can be understood, but those known by that number. I think that this same type of expression belongs to what the Lord said, “Have I not chosen you, the twelve? And one of you is a devil.” And he says so that it does not appear that he too belongs to the elect. It is not easy to speak of the elect with reference to evil, except when the bad ones are chosen by other bad ones. But if we thought that Judas was also chosen so that through his betrayal the Lord's passion would be realized, that is, if we thought his wickedness was chosen for something, since God uses good even of bad things, let us pay attention to these other words, I do not mean all of you; I know who I chose (Jn. 6:70). Here he declares that only the good belong to the elect. And so, that which the Lord said, “I chose you twelve,” he said it through a synecdoche, so that under the name of the greater part and better understood also what does not belong to the name itself. This way of expressing itself is in this same book when Emmor goes to speak with Jacob in favor of his son Shechem to obtain that he married Dina, the daughter of Jacob. And the sons of Jacob, which were absent, came, and Emmor said unto them all, My son Shechem is fond of your daughter; Give her then for a wife (Gen. 34:8).” As the person of the father was the most important, in saying, by synecdoche, your daughter, also understands under that name the brothers, of whom Dina was not a daughter. To this same type also belongs the expression: Go to the sheep and bring me from there two kids. For they grazed the sheep and the goats at the same time. And since the sheep are more important, under that name it also included goats. Now as the eleven number of the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Mesopotamia, was the most important, when he mentioned the Scripture to them, he also understood Benjamin, who was not born there. And he said, These are the sons of Jacob, who came to him in Mesopotamia of Syria. [Question 117]

GENESIS CHAPTER 36

(Gen. 36:1-5). HOW IS HE SPOKEN OF THE POSTERITY OF ESAU AFTER THE STORY OF ISAAC'S DEATH? — The fact that after the account of Isaac's death is spoken of the women Esau had and the number of children he fathered, it is to be understood as a recapitulation. Indeed, that did not begin to happen after the death of Isaac, when Esau and Jacob were already a hundred and twenty years old, because Isaac had them at seventy years and lived a total one hundred and eighty years. [Question 118]

(Gen. 36:6). HOW ESAU RETIRED TWICE ON MOUNT SEIR. — The question arises as to how the Scripture can say that Esau, at the death of his father Isaac, withdrew from the land of Canaan and went to live on Mount Seir, when another passage reads that when his brother Jacob came Mesopotamia, he already lived there. Therefore, we must find the reason why this is said, in order not to believe that Scripture is wrong or deceives us. Esau, after his brother went to Mesopotamia, did not want to live with his parents, either because of the anger that tormented him to be deprived and deceived of the blessing, either for the sake of his wives, who he saw that they were hateful to their relatives, or for any other reason, and so he went to live on Mount Seir. Later, after the return of his brother Jacob and once peace was established between them (Cf. Gen. 33:4), he returned even with his parents, and went back to Seir, giving rise there to the town of the Idumeans, after burying together his father, who had died. And the reason for leaving was that the land which, as the Scripture says, had enriched them so much, was no longer sufficient for both (Cf. Gen. 36:7). [Question 119]

(Gen. 36:21). ON THE LAND OF EDOM, OTHERWISE IDUMAEA. — The words of the Scripture: These are the rulers of the Horrhite, the son of Seir, in the land of Edom, they refer to the time in which the author lived. For when Seir, who begat them, dwelt there, before Esau came to that land, it was evidently not yet called the land of Edom. It is clear that it was none other than Esau who gave the name to that land, since the same person was named Esau and Edom. And from him the origin of the Idumeans, that is, the nation of Edom. [Question 120]

(Gen. 36:31-32). ON THE KINGS OF EDOM. — These are the kings who reigned in Edom before a king reigned in Israel. This passage must not be understood, as if it contained the number of all the kings, from Edom, until the time when the kingdom began in Israel even in the days of Saul. There were many kings in Edom before the coming of Saul in the days of the Judges, which preceded the kingdom; but among these kings Moses could only name those who lived before his death. And not surprised to find, from Abraham to the last king named by Moses, through Esau, the father of the people of Edom; by Raguel the son of Esau; by Zara, son of Raguel; by Jacob the son of Zara, and by Balak his successor, who is given as the first king of Edom, more generations than are counted by Jacob from Abraham to Moses. There indeed are nearly twelve generations, and here scarcely seven as far as Moses. It may have happened that where there are the most, there have been more kings to succeed each other, because death took them away more quickly. Thus, following a different order, St. Matthew has two generations, from Abraham to Joseph (Mt. 1:1-17); St. Luke, according to another order, and counting the generations, not by Solomon, but by Nathan, enumerates fifty-five from Abraham to Joseph (Lk. 3:23-28). In the line where we count the most generations, death has been more prompt than in that where it counts the least. And in fear lest we should be astonished that Balak the son of Beor should be numbered with the kings of Edom, and because of the likeness of the name, it is not imagined that it was this Balac who resisted Moses, the leader of the people of Israel, it must be known that this was Moabite and not Idumean, and that he was from Sephor and not from Beor; there was in the days of Moses a son of Beor, whose name was Balaam, and not Balak, and it was this same Balak who called Balaam to curse the people of Israel (Num. 22:2-6). [Question 121]

GENESIS CHAPTER 37

(Gen. 35:29; 37:2). WAS JOSEPH SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD WHEN ISRAEL DIED? — From whatever side we turn, it is difficult to find out how, at Isaac's death, Joseph, his grandson, could be seventeen years, as seems to result from the narrative in Scripture. I do not wish to be proved, for I cannot know what would not escape others. If Joseph, after the death of Isaac his grandfather, was seventeen years old, when his brothers sold him for Egypt, there is no doubt that at the same time his father Jacob was one hundred and twenty. Indeed, according to Scripture (Gen. 25:26), Isaac was sixty years old when he had Esau and Jacob; he lived a hundred and twenty years afterwards, for he died a hundred and eighty years old; so he left his sons a hundred and twenty years old and Joseph seventeen years old. As Joseph was thirty years old, when he appeared at the court of Pharaoh, and there was then seven years of abundance, and two famines, until the coming of his father and of his brethren, Joseph reached his thirty-ninth year, when Jacob came to Egypt (Gen. 47:9). Now, at that time, Jacob had come, as he himself said to Pharaoh, at his one hundred and thirtieth year; and he was a hundred and twenty years old, when Joseph was seventeen: it is absolutely impossible that this should be true. For if Jacob were a hundred and twenty years old, when Joseph had seventeen; at the time when he was thirty-nine, it was not a hundred-thirty years, but a hundred-forty-two that Jacob had to reckon. And if Joseph had not yet attained his seventeenth year at the death of Isaac, but only some time afterwards, as at this age he was sold by his brothers in Egypt, to the testimony of Scripture, it follows that his father must have been more than a hundred and forty-two years old, when he went to find his son in Egypt. Indeed, after having said that Isaac lived a hundred and eighty years; after having related his death and burial, the Scripture records how Esau left his brother and the land of Canaan to retreat to mount Seir; then it gives the terminology of kings, and interweaves the mention of kings and princes of the race in which Esau was established or propagated (Cf. Gen. 36:6-43). After this, Joseph's story begins in the following terms: “But Jacob dwelt in the land of Canaan.” Now this is what concerns the children of Jacob. Joseph, seventeen years of age, was feeding the herds with his brethren. It is then said how, on account of his dreams, he became the object of the hatred of these same brothers, and was sold by them (Gen. 37:1-2). So it was at the age of seventeen, or at a somewhat more advanced age, that he came to Egypt; but whatever the hypothesis is adopted, the problem remains. For if he was seventeen years after the death of his grandfather, when his father was one hundred and twenty, evidently at thirty-nine, when Jacob went to Egypt, Jacob had to be one hundred and forty-two; but Jacob was only one hundred and thirty years old. That is why, if Joseph was sold to Egypt at the age of seventeen, he was sold twelve years before his grandfather died. It is necessarily twelve years before the death of Isaac, and when Jacob his father was a hundred and eight years old, then Joseph was seventeen years old. In addition to the twenty-two years he spent in Egypt before the arrival of his father, we shall find thirty-nine years for the age of Joseph, and a hundred and thirty for the age of Jacob, and the question will be settled. But as the Scripture describes these events after Isaac's death, Joseph is thought to be seventeen years after his grandfather's death. Therefore, we must think that the Scripture did not say anything about the life of Isaac, as of a very decrepit elder, when he began to speak of Jacob and his children. Joseph, however, began to turn seventeen when Isaac was still alive. [Question 122]

(Gen. 37:10). DREAM OF JOSEPH. — Jacob says to Joseph, What dream is this that you dreamed? Am I and your mother and your brothers coming to worship you on earth? If these words are not taken figuratively, how can they be applied to the mother of Joseph, who had already died? Therefore, we must accept that this was not done in Egypt, when Joseph was at the height of fame, because neither his father adored him when he came to Egypt, nor could his long-dead mother. It can easily be understood by applying it to the person of Christ, whom even the dead worshiped, according to the words of the Apostle: “He gave him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in the heavens, on earth and in the under the earth (Phil. 2:9-10).” [Question 123]

(Gen. 37:28). THE MIDIANITES NAMED ISHMAELITES. — It is known that Ishmael was the son of Abraham through Hagar, while the Midianites were through Keturah. Should one think perhaps that they formed a single people, since Scripture had said that Abraham had given gifts to the children of his concubines, i.e. Hagar and Keturah, and had dismissed them with his son Isaac, sending them to the eastern region (Cf. Gen. 25:6)? [Question 124]

(Gen. 37:35). JACOB'S DAUGHTERS. — The Scripture says the following concerning Jacob when he wept for Joseph: All his sons and his daughters were gathered together and came to comfort him. What daughters did she have outside of Dina? Does he say sons and daughters, counting grandchildren and granddaughters? For his sons, now grown up, could have children. [Question 125]

WHAT HELL IS JACOB TALKING ABOUT? — But he did not want to be consoled, and he said: My sadness will lead me to hell with my son. There is often a serious problem in interpreting the word "hell." Do only the bad or the good ones they go down there? If only the bad guys come down, how does Jacob say he wants to come down crying where his son is? Obviously, he does not believe that his son is in the pains of hell. Or is it the words of a disturbed person who laments and therefore exaggerates their evils? [Question 126]

(Gen. 37:36). WHAT WAS POTIPHAR? — And they sold Joseph into Egypt to Potiphar, the chief eunuch of the cooks. Some do not translate chief of the cooks, which corresponds to the Greek αρχιμαγειρος, but head of the militia, which would have the power to kill. This is also termed the one sent by Nebuchadnezzar (Cf. I Kgs. 25:8-9), who seems to have rather the head of the militia. [Question 127]

GENESIS CHAPTER 38

(Gen. 38: 1-3). CHRONOLOGICAL QUESTION. — And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and went unto an Adollamite, called Ira. And Judah saw there the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua, and took her for a wife, and came to her, and conceived, and bare a son, etc. We want to know when these things could happen. For if it happened after Joseph had come down to Egypt, how in the space of twenty-two years; for after so long it was clear that they were able to go to Egypt with their father to see their brother; it could happen that all the sons of Judah of that time could marry? For when his firstborn son died, he married his daughter-in-law Tamar to another of his sons (Cf. Gen. 38:6-11). This second died, waited for the son third to grow. When he got older, he did not give her as his wife, fearing that he too would die. So it happened that she gave herself to her own father-in-law (Cf. Gen. 38:12-18). With all reason, therefore, the problem arises of knowing how so many things could happen in so few years. The explanation might be that, as is often the case, Scripture meant by way of recapitulation that all this began to happen some years before the sale of Joseph, because the text is written as follows: “It happened at that time.” Nevertheless, if Joseph was seventeen when he was sold, the question arises as to how many years Judah, Jacob's fourth son, could have, since his firstborn, Reuben, could have at most five or six more than his brother Joseph. But it is clear that Scripture says that Joseph was thirty years old when he became known to Pharaoh (Cf. Gen. 41:46). Now, if one thinks that he was sold at seventeen years of age, he would have spent thirteen years in Egypt unknown to Pharaoh. To these thirteen years we would have to add the seven of abundance, and thus we arrived at the twenty years. To these should be added the two years of famine, because Jacob went to Egypt with his children the second year of the famine. And so we are at twenty-two years old, during which Joseph was far from his father and his brothers. Well, it is difficult to know how in this interim of time all the things that were told about the woman, the children and the daughter-in-law of Judah could happen. Unless we think, well, it may have happened that Judah, when he was a teenager, fell in love with the woman he married before Joseph was sold into Egypt. [Question 128]

(Gen. 38:14). ON THE CLOTHES OF THE WIDOWS. —She took off her widow's clothes. This text implies that also in the time of the patriarchs the widows wore certain dresses, different from those that the married women wore. [Question 129]

GENESIS CHAPTER 39

(Gen. 39:1). TRANSITION. — The Scripture goes on to repeat that Joseph was taken to Egypt and was bought by Potiphar, the eunuch of Pharaoh. With this phrase the sacred text returns to the order from where it had left, to narrate what we have exposed previously. [Question 130]

GENESIS CHAPTER 40

(Gen. 40:16). WHAT WERE THE THREE BASKETS OF THE GRAND BAKER? — Some Latin codices have: Three baskets of grain. The Greek codices have χονδριτων, which translates by "bread of low quality" those who know the Greek language. But we can ask how it is possible that the Pharaoh had for food a bread of low quality. For the text says that in the basket above there was everything that Pharaoh ate in a bakery. But we must know that this basket also contained low quality breads, because the Scripture mentions three baskets of χονδριτων and says that on top was that basket full of all sorts of bakery items in the same basket above. [Question 131]

GENESIS CHAPTER 41

(Gen. 41:1). WHAT DOES IT MEAN: IT SEEMED TO PHARAOH THAT HE WAS ON THE RIVER? — Pharaoh thought he was standing on the river. Abraham's servant used the same expression: Here I am standing on the fountain of water (Gen. 24:43). The Greek text, in the second passage, says: επι της πητης; in the same way as in the first one it says: επι του ποταμου. If this expression is correctly understood in the Psalm that says: That he founded the earth on the water (Ps. 24:2), there is no need to think that the earth swims on the water like a ship. In fact, according to this expression, it is perfectly understood that the earth is higher than water. For it is high above the waters, that the animals of the earth may dwell therein. [Question 132]

(Gen. 41:30). ABUNDANCE PROMISED. — The words of Scripture: And they will forget the future abundance in all the land of Egypt, we must understand them in the sense that it is not a future abundance for those who have to endure hunger, as if afterwards abundance would come to them. But that abundance was future then, when the author spoke. It is as if he said: men will forget this abundance that the fat cattle and the good grains meant as a future thing, during the famine that meant the undernourished cattle and the bad grains. [Question 133]

 (Gen. 41:38). THE SPIRIT OF GOD. — Shall we meet another man like this, who has in himself the spirit of God? If I am not mistaken, this is already the third time that the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, is insinuated in this book. The first time it was said: “And the spirit of God was carried on the water (Gen. 1:2).” The second time, where God said, "My spirit will not abide in these men, for they are flesh (Gen. 6:3)." The third time here, when Pharaoh says that Joseph has the spirit of God. But the Holy Spirit is not yet said. [Question 134]

 (Gen. 41:45). NICKNAME OF JOSEPH. — Pharaoh gave the name Zaphenath-paneah. It is said that this name means "revealed things hidden". Obviously it is because Joseph revealed to the king his dreams. They say that in the Egyptian language this name means "savior of the world". [Question 135]

ON POTIPHAR, JOSEPH'S FATHER-IN-LAW. — And he gave him Asenath the daughter of Potiphar, the priest of the city of the sun. We often wondered who this Potiphar was, that is, whether he was the servant of Joseph or another. Most likely it was another. In fact, there are many reasons to think that it is not the first one. First, because the Scripture does not mention anything that could report no small glory to that young man, we seem to have been able to omit such a thing, namely, to marry the daughter of that man in whose house he served. Secondly, how could a eunuch have a daughter? To this we answer: And how could he have a wife? Thus, it is believed that he became a eunuch or because of some injury or of his own volition. In addition it is necessary to consider the fact that there is not even a mention his position, as is usually done, and that was the αρχιμαγειρος, title that the Latin translators translated as head chefs and others translate as head of the militia. But this is also answered by saying that he had those two positions, the priesthood of the Sun and the head of the militia. In another place, however, the position which he held and which was suitable for such acts was appropriately remembered, and here, after Joseph had manifested a not insignificant divine quality, that office must have been mentioned by his father-in-law; divine quality not small, in the opinion of the Egyptians, since it boasted the priesthood of the Sun. Now in all this, since he was also head of the prison guard, it seems too incredible that a priest was the head of this job. Moreover, Scripture does not simply say that he was a priest of the Sun, but of the city of the Sun, called Heliopolis. It is said that this city is more than twenty miles from the city of Memphis, where the Pharaohs, that is, the kings, resided in a special way. How, then, could he courageously serve the king in the leadership of the militia, abandoning the office of priest? It should be added, furthermore, that they are said to have always rendered their services only in the temples of the gods and did not perform any other office. But just in case things happened in another way, that each one think what he wants, since there is no problem that has no solution, whether there has been a single Potiphar or two. Neither of these two hypotheses that one admits is dangerous to faith or contrary to the truth of the Scriptures of God. [Question 136]

(Gen. 41:49). WHAT IS THE MEANING: BECAUSE THERE WERE NO MORE NUMBERS? —And Joseph gathered grain as the sand of the sea, very much, until he could not count it, because it was innumerable. The words ‘because it was innumerable’ meant that the amount was so large, that it exceeded any number usually used and did not know what that number was. But how can there be no number to indicate a huge but finite quantity? In spite of everything, this has been said in the form of hyperbole. [Question 137]

GENESIS CHAPTER 42

(Gen. 42:9). ON THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF JOSEPH'S DREAMS. — And Joseph remembered the dreams he had seen. His brothers had indeed prostrated themselves before him. But there is something more exalted in those dreams that need to be investigated. It is evident that neither his father nor his mother, who had already died, can exhaust the meaning of everything he had seen about the sun and the moon, and that his father, who was still alive, had heard and because of this he had rebuked him. [Question 138]

 (Gen 42:15-16). ON JOSEPH'S OATH: "BY THE SALVATION OF PHARAOH." — How could Joseph, a man so prudent and so praised, not only by the testimony of the men among whom he lived, but by the affirmation of his own Scripture, so swear by the salvation of Pharaoh that his brothers would not depart from Egypt if their younger brother did not come with them? Is it true that even for a good and faithful man the salvation of Pharaoh was despicable, to whom was he faithful as before, in everything, as his master? And how much more should he keep to him who had placed him in such an important post, if he kept it to him who owned him as a servant who had bought! And if he did not care for Pharaoh's salvation, should he not have avoided perjury for the salvation of any man? Is it not perjury? He kept one of his brothers until Benjamin came and fulfilled what he had said: You will not leave here, unless your brother comes (Gen. 42:15). For these words of his could not refer to all his brothers, for how could Benjamin come if some had not come to bring him? But the words that come next pose an even greater problem, when he swears again, saying, Send one of you and bring your brother. In the meantime, the rest of you will remain here prisoners until your words are checked, to see if you speak the truth or not. If not, for the salvation of Pharaoh! that you are spies (Gen. 42:16), that is, if you do not tell the truth, you are spies. He ratified these words with an oath, for if they had not told the truth, they would be spies, that is, they would be liable to the punishment of the spies, those men who, in spite of everything, knew that they were telling the truth. In reality, one is not a perjurer if he says to someone, who knows that he is an absolutely chaste person; "If you have committed this adultery of which you are accused, God condemns you," adding an oath to these words. This individual swears a totally true thing, because there is given the condition that he used, saying: if you have done it, when you know perfectly well that he has not done it. But someone can say: it is true, because if he committed adultery, God condemns him. But how can this be true: if you do not tell the truth, you are spies, when, even if they lie, they would not be spies? Well, this is what it said in the Scripture: you are spies, as if you had said: you are worthy of the punishment of the spies, that is, you will be considered spies because of your lie. That the word you have been able to be used instead of "you will be held by" or "you will be considered as" is demonstrated by many other similar expressions, such as that of Elijah: He who hears in the fire, that will be God (I Kgs. 18:24). It does not mean that then it will be God, but then it will be had by such. [Question 139]

(Gen. 42:23). ON THIS PASSAGE: THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH HEARD THEM, FOR THERE WAS OF THEM AN INTERPRETER. —What do the words of the Scripture mean: They did not know that Joseph understood them, because there was an interpreter between them? The words refer to the repentant conversation of the children of Israel concerning their brother Joseph, in the sense that they had wronged him, and that God punished them for it, for they saw that they were in danger. This text must be interpreted in the sense that the brothers thought that Joseph did not understand them, because they saw the interpreter who stood between them. And they told him nothing of what they were talking about, believing that the interpreter was there precisely because Joseph ignored his tongue. They thought that the interpreter did not bother to say to the one who had put him there, the things that they did not say to him, but they commented to each other. [Question 140]

(Gen. 42:24). RELUCTANCE. — Again he approached them and told them. The text does not add what he told them. Therefore, it is understood that he would tell them what he had said to them before. [Question 141]

 (Gen. 42:38). STILL ON HELL. — And you will bring down my old age with sadness to hell. Would he go down to hell precisely because he came down with sadness? Or, even if the sadness is absent, does this perhaps mean as if by indicating that by dying he would descend into hell? About hell there is a big problem, and that is why we must study all the passages in which this word is mentioned. [Question 142]

GENESIS CHAPTER 43

(Gen. 43:23). ON THE MONEY OF JOSEPH'S BROTHERS. —What the house steward says to you: Your God and the God of your fathers put the treasures in your sacks; your silver of good law already I have it, seems a lie, but we must think that means something. In fact, the silver that is given to them and which does not diminish precisely because it is said to be silver of good law, surely means what about it is affirmed in another text: The words of the Lord are sincere words, silver tested by fire, cleansed already in the earth, purified seven times (Ps. 12:6), that is to say, perfectly purified. [Question 143]

 (Gen 43:34). WHAT DOES IT MEAN "GET DRUNK?" — They drank and got drunk with it. The drunks often offer this text, not looking at those children of Israel, but in Joseph, who is considered as a very prudent man. But the Scriptures often offer these words to indicate satiety as well, as you may find in many passages who read carefully. An example: You have visited the earth and drunk it; you have filled it with riches (Ps. 65:10). As these words are said to exalt the blessing and the gift of God is remembered in them, it is clear that with this drunkenness satiety is indicated. For the earth does not get drunk as drunkards get drunk, since this would not be useful to it, because a greater humidity than the earth needs does not to satisfy it, but spoils it. Such is the life of drunkards, who are not filled by satiety, but are plunged into the flood. [Question 144]

GENESIS CHAPTER 44

(Gen. 44:15). ON JOSEPH'S DIVINATORY SCIENCE. — And Joseph said to them, What is this thing that ye have done? know ye not that a man such as I can surely divine? About this divination he also sent word through a messenger. Well, what does this mean? Since those words were not spoken in earnest, but only as a joke, as the ending showed, should one think that it is not a lie? Lies, in fact, are from liars that are serious, not joking. On the other hand, things that are said jokingly and do not exist are not considered lies. But the greatest problem is the meaning of Joseph's actions with his brothers, making fun of them so often and keeping them in suspense until they discovered who he was. For although the action, when it is read, is all the softer and the more unexpected for those to whom it was addressed, however, given the seriousness of Joseph's prudence, if there were no significant meaning in this kind of game, then neither he would have done it and the Scripture would not have narrated it, which has such great authority and sanctity and such a keen insight into future things that will be prophesied as prophecy. It is not my intention now to develop this point; I just want to warn you what to do here. For I think that it is not even meaningless who does not say: I divine, but a man like me divines. And if this is a special mode of expression, we must find something similar in the texts of Scripture. [Question 145]

WHY DOES JOSEPH DIFFER FROM MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN TO HIS BRETHREN? — In my opinion, we must not lightly consider Joseph's conduct, letting it subsist as long as he pleased, the trouble and anxiety of his brothers, and extending the duration of it to his will; he did not want their misfortunes, for he thought even of the arrival of a future joy so great for them, and everything he did so that his joy might be delayed, he did so with the intention of being greater precisely because of delay. It was as if the sufferings they endured during all that time of anguish were not comparable with the future glory of joy, which was to be manifested in them when they recognized their brother, whom they believed lost. [Question 146]

(Gen. 44:18-34). ERRONEOUS NARRATION OF JUDAH. — In Judah's account many things are said differently than Joseph had dealt with his brethren, even though Joseph had spoken with him. And this goes so far as to say nothing at all of that accusation that they were spies. But it is not clear whether things were stopped voluntarily or if this omission caused the forgetfulness, due to the concern. Because even what they said about Joseph asking them about their father and his brother, and that they answered those things when asked, it is strange that this narrative can even reach a point of view that it is true. However, although there are some false things in the story, the author was mistaken for forgetting rather than daring to lie, especially for one whom the author included in the story, not as who knew nothing, but as one who, even the things he knew, knew to move his mercy. [Question 147]

GENESIS CHAPTER 45

(Gen. 45:7). WHAT DOES THE REMNANTS OF THE GREAT RACE OF JACOB MEAN? — What does Joseph mean: For God has sent me before you, so that your remains may remain on the earth and that your survivors may grow greatly. This does not entirely coincide with reality, so that we are forced to think that Jacob and his children were mere survivors or remnants, for they were all safe. Does it mean, perhaps, that which the Apostle says with profound and secret mystery: “By the election of grace a remnant has been saved (Rom. 11:5),” which the prophet had predicted, saying, "If the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea, will only one rest be saved (Is. 10:22)?” Christ was killed by the Jews and given to the Gentiles as Joseph was delivered by his brothers to the Egyptians so that a remnant of Israel would be saved. That is why the Apostle says: “For I am an Israelite (Rom. 11:1),” and “until all the Gentiles come in, and thus all Israel may be saved (Rom. 11:25-26),” then it is the rest of Israel, according to the flesh, and all the nations, who are Israel by faith in Christ, according to the Spirit. Or even of the people of Israel, if they preserve the fullness of faith, from which the rest proceed, in which the apostles were also saved. All this was foreshadowed by that fullness of the deliverance of Israel which they received through Moses, when he brought them out of Egypt. [Question 148]

GENESIS CHAPTER 46

(Gen. 46:6-7). WHAT DOES HIS DAUGHTERS AND DAUGHTERS OF HIS DAUGHTERS MEAN? —And Jacob and all his descendants, and his sons, and his sons' sons, and his daughters, and the daughters of his daughters, went into Egypt. We ask how his daughters and his daughters' daughters can be said, when Scripture states that Jacob had only one daughter. The answer is that, as we said before, daughters can be understood when the granddaughters, just as all the children of Israel designate, in turn, all the people propagated from it. But in this case, when he says the daughters of his daughters, alluding to Dinah only, he puts the plural for the singular, as the singular is also used for the plural. It may also be accepted that the daughters-in-law may have been called daughters. [Question 149]

(Gen 46:15). WHAT DO YOU HEAR ABOUT THE SOULS OF JACOB? — In relation to what Scripture says, that Leah begot so many souls, or that so many souls left the thigh of Jacob, we must note how it is answered to those who try to confirm by this text that the fathers propagate the souls at the same time as the bodies. Well, no one can doubt that with this expression the author speaks of souls to refer to people, as when one mentions the part to refer to the whole. In spite of this, there is the problem of separating the part that has given name to the whole, that is to say, the soul, whose name designates the complete man, of what the text says next: “they left his thighs (Gen. 46:26).” Well, even if only the souls are mentioned, it is necessary to accept that only the body left Jacob. But to solve the problem we must investigate the modes of expression of the Scriptures. [Question 150]

ON THE THIRTY-THREE SOULS OF LEAH IN MESOPOTAMIA. — These are the children whom Leah gave to Jacob in Mesopotamia of Syria and also his daughter Dinah. His sons and daughters were a total of thirty-three souls. Were all these thirty-three people born from Leah in Mesopotamia of Syria? Certainly six sons and a daughter were born, and the grandchildren whom they gave him are mentioned. Now if the matter had first arisen concerning Benjamin alone, when counting the twelve sons Jacob and naming them, it was said: These are the sons of Jacob who came to him in Mesopotamia of Syria (Gen. 35:26), how much greater trouble is now presented to know how thirty-three people of Syria were born from Leah, unless that expression was used as if it meant that all those whose parents were born there had been born there! For the rest, there is no longer any doubt that mentioning the daughters refers to a single daughter, and therefore, the plural is used instead of the singular. [Question 151]

(Gen 46:26-27). ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ACCOMPANIED JACOB TO EGYPT. —What the Scripture says about sixty-six persons entering with Jacob in Egypt, excepting of course the sons of Joseph, and what he then adds, counting already to the sons of Joseph, who were seventy-five persons who entered with Jacob in Egypt, we must interpret it as follows: these are the individuals who were in the house of Jacob when he entered Egypt. Because it is clear that those he met there did not take them with him. But if we diligently inquire into the truth, we find that two, Ephraim and Manasseh, were already born when he entered, which, it is said, not only have the Hebrew codices in this passage, but the Septuagint itself in the Exodus (1:5), and the Septuagint's version do not seem to me wrong in this, for this, by some mystical meaning and, using a certain prophetic freedom, wanted to complete this number, if still living Jacob, spread from the two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, those individuals whom the Septuagint version believed should be added to the number of the people of the house of Jacob. Now if, on the one hand, it is known that Jacob lived seventeen years in Egypt (Cf. Gen. 47:28), on the other hand, it is not known how the sons of Joseph could have grandchildren, while Jacob still lived. Jacob, in fact, entered Egypt the second year of the famine. Joseph's children, on the other hand, were born in the years of abundance (Cf. Gen. 46:21), although they do not know the years of the abundance in which they were born. From the first year of the abundance to the second year of the famine, when Jacob entered Egypt, there are nine years. If we add to these the seventeen years that Jacob lived there, he was twenty-six years old. How could young people under the age of twenty-six have grandchildren? This question cannot be resolved by any Hebrew text. For how could Jacob have so many grandchildren before entering Egypt, even of his son Benjamin, who at that time came to his brother Joseph? For the Scripture not only speaks of Jacob having children, but also grandchildren and great-grandchildren, all of whom must be added to those sixty-six persons with whom Jacob entered into Egypt, as it says even the Hebrew text itself. It is also necessary to consider the fact that while Joseph and his children are only eight, Benjamin and his children are eleven in all, not nineteen among all, as indeed eight are eleven plus, but the sum throws the figure of eighteen. And besides, Joseph and his children are not eight people, but they are said to be nine, when in reality only eight appear. These problems, which seem unsolvable, undoubtedly contain a great meaning; but I do not know if I will be able to agree all things literally, especially the numbers that in the Scriptures are absolutely sacred and are full of mysteries, as we believe with all reason, based on some numbers that we have been able to know by them. [Question 152]

(Gen 46:32-34). WHY THE SCRIPTURES PRAISE IN THE PATRIARCHS THEIR PROFESSION, SHEPHERDS OF HERDS. — When speaking of the patriarchs, it is made more explicit that they were shepherds from their youth, just as their fathers had been. And rightly so, because no doubt is given the just servitude and the right rule when the cattle serve man and man dominates the cattle. Indeed, in the creation of man, Scripture says: Let us make man in our image and likeness, and have power over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over all the cattle that are upon the earth (Gen. 1:26). Here it is hinted that reason must rule over irrational life. And iniquity or adversity made man a servant of man. Iniquity, no doubt, according to the words of the Scripture: Cursed be Canaan; will be a servant of his brothers (Gen. 9:25). Adversity also, as happened to Joseph, sold by his brothers as a servant to a foreigner. The wars gave rise to the first to whom this name of slaves was given in the Latin language. For the man overcome by another man, who by right of war could have been killed, by pardoning his life, became a servant. They are also called mancipia (slave), because they have been captured by hand. There is also a natural order in men, so that women serve their husbands and children to their fathers. For in this too there is a justification, which is that the weakest reason serves the strongest. There is, therefore, a clear justification and legal right in names, so that those who excel in reason, also excel in the domain. But as in the present world this is disturbed by the iniquity of men or by the diversity of fleshly natures, the righteous endure temporal perversity, since on the day of death they are to obtain the most ordained and everlasting happiness. [Question 153]

(Gen. 46:34). THE EGYPTIANS, FIGURE OF THE PRESENT WORLD. — For every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians. The Egyptians, who symbolize the figure of this world in which abounding iniquity, rightly abhor every shepherd, for a righteous man is an abomination to the ungodly. [Question 154]

GENESIS CHAPTER 47

(Gen. 47:5-6). REPETITION. — Jacob and his sons came to Egypt, where Joseph was. And Pharaoh king of Egypt heard it. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Thy father and thy brethren have come to thee. There you have the land of Egypt before you. settle thy father and thy brethren in the best land. This is a repetition. It is not a forgotten thing, to which it is returned again and again in a dark way by means of a recapitulation. On the contrary, it is very clear. In fact, the Scripture had already said how the brothers of Joseph had come to Pharaoh and what he had told them or what they had answered. Now the sacred writer resumes his narrative as at the beginning, and connects it with what precedes by the words which Pharaoh makes Joseph hear in particular.  Of all these things that appear in the Greek codices, written by more careful men, some carry obelisks, which indicate the things that are missing in the Hebrew text and are found in the Septuagint, and others bear asterisks, which indicate what the codices have Hebrews and missing in the Septuagint. [Question 155]

(Gen 47:9). THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD IS ONLY A TEMPORARY ABODE. — What does it mean what Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my life, in which I dwell as a stranger? So say the Septuagint. The Latin codices have either a (step) or habeo (I have) or some other similar word. He said perhaps in those who live as a foreigner, because he was born in a land that the people had not yet received in inheritance by the divine promise, and living there was evidently in a foreign land, not only when he was a pilgrim, as in Mesopotamia, but also when he was there where he was born? Or is it to interpret these words rather as the Apostle says: While we are in the body, we are pilgrims away from the Lord (II Cor. 5:6)?  According to this is also meant what is said in the Psalm: I am a stranger on the earth and a pilgrim like all my parents (Ps. 39:12). About the days of his life he says again: They have not reached the days of the years of the life of my fathers, the days in which they dwelt as strangers. Here he has not wanted to understand anything other than what the Latin codices say: that is, the years they lived. By this he meant to indicate that the present life is a dwelling in another's homeland in the earth, that is to say, the dwelling of a pilgrim. I believe that this is convenient for the saints, to whom the Lord promises another life, which is eternal. Therefore, we must understand well what is said about the wicked: They will live as strangers and they will hide; they will observe my footsteps (Ps. 56:6). For this is better understood what the psalm says that they inhabit as strangers to hide themselves, that is to say, to lay up their children; they never stay at home. [Question 156]

(Gen. 47:11). IS THE COUNTRY OF RAMESSES THE SAME AS THAT OF GESSEN? — And he gave them possession in the best part of the land, in the land of Rameses, as the Pharaoh had commanded. We should investigate whether the land of Ramses is the same as that of Gesen. Because they had gone there, and Pharaoh had commanded them to be given that land. [Question 157]

(Gen. 47:12). JACOB DOES NOT ADORE JOSEPH. — And Joseph reaped wheat for his father. His father, however, did not worship him when he saw him, or when he received the wheat from him. How are we going to think that Joseph's dream was fulfilled now and we should not believe that there is a prophecy of something greater here? [Question 158]

(Gen 47:14). PROBITY OF JOSEPH. — And Joseph brought all that money into Pharaoh's palace. The Scripture has also sought in this matter to reveal the faithfulness of the servant of God. [Question 159]

(Gen 47:16). GRAIN SCARCITY: ABUNDANCE OF PASTURES. — And Joseph said to them, "Bring your cattle and I will give you food in exchange for your cattle, if money is lacking." One may ask, if Joseph gathered food to feed the men, how did he keep the livestock in the midst of so great a scarcity? And the question is justified especially when the brothers of Joseph had said to Pharaoh: For there is no pasture for the cattle of your servants, for there is a great famine in the land of Canaan. And they had added that they had come there precisely because of that lack of pasture. If, therefore, because of this famine the pastures in the land of Canaan were lacking, why had the pastures not been lacking in Egypt, if that famine had spread everywhere? Could pastures not be lacking in many marshy regions of Egypt, as those who know those places say, even if there is a famine of wheat, since these pastures usually appear after the floods of the Nile? It is said that those marshy regions produce pastures, the more fertile the less the Nile water rises. [Question 160]

(Gen. 47:29). JACOB'S RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO HIS BURIAL. — Jacob, when he dies, says to his son Joseph: If I have found grace in your eyes, put your hand under my thigh and you will show me mercy and truth. Jacob obliges his son with the same oath with which Abraham had required his servant (Gen. 24:29). Abraham ordered him from where he would look for a wife for his son and Jacob indicating to him where to bury his body. In these two circumstances there are at the same time named two things which deserve special attention and interest, in whatever place of Scripture they are found; sometimes they are called mercy and justice, sometimes mercy and truth, for in one text it is said: “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth (Ps. 25:10).” In short, these two things so recommended should be highly appreciated. The servant of Abraham had said, "If you act with my lord mercy and justice (Gen. 24:29)." Jacob says to his son, "You will show me mercy and truth." If we measure with human parameters what is meant by such an important man, so solicitous a recommendation that his body not be buried in Egypt, but in the land of Canaan, with his parents, seems strange and almost absurd, and does not agree with excellence so great of a prophetic mind. But if in all these things are sought the mysteries that enclose, who discovers them will obtain the joy of a greater admiration. There is no doubt that in the law the bodies of the dead signify sins, because men, after touching them or after any contact with them, were obliged to purify themselves as if it were an impurity (Cf. Num. 19:11-13). Hence this sentence is derived: “Who purifies himself from contact with a dead man and touches him again, what good is his purification? So it is he who fasts for his sins and again goes and does the same (Sir. 34:25-26).” Therefore, the burial of the dead means the remission of sins, according to what is said in that passage: "Blessed are those whose iniquities have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered (Ps. 32:1)." Where, then, were the corpses of the patriarchs to be buried, which meant these things, but in that land where he was crucified for whose blood the forgiveness of sins took place? He whose blood has redeemed us from sin? For the death of the Patriarchs was the figure of sins of men. From the place where the Lord was crucified, to the one bearing the name of Abrahamium, where the bodies of the Patriarchs are buried, there is, it is said, the distance of nearly thirty miles; this number itself signifies the one who came to receive baptism at the age of thirty. This and any other similar or more sublime thing can be discovered here on this subject, provided that we do not believe that men of God of such importance and status so frivolously worried that their bodies were buried, being and ought to be for the faithful, a total security, the fact that wherever their bodies are buried or even if they are buried even by the hatred of the enemies, or even if they are dismembered to procure pleasure for those same enemies, this does not mean that their resurrection will be less complete or less glorious. [Question 161]

(Gen. 47:31). ON THE ADORATION OF JACOB. — The Latin copies bear: "And he bowed on the top of the rod of him (ejus); But several more chastened examples say: he bowed on the top of his rod (suae), or at the upper of his rod; at the end, or at the close. These translators are misled by the Greek word that is written with the same letters, either to translate eius (of it) or suae (su). But, on the other hand, the accents are different. And therefore, those who know these things do not despise them in the codices. Well, they serve to make a great distinction. Although it could have even a letter of more, if it were his or his own, so that in Greek was not αυτου, but εαυτου. It is therefore not without reason that one asks what is the meaning of this passage. It would easily be understood that an old man, carrying a rod in the same manner as a stick at that age, when he bowed to worship God, made it on the end of his rod, since he wore it so that by bowing his head on, he could worship God. What does it mean then: "He bowed to the end of the rod of his," that is to say, of his son Joseph? Would it be by chance that Jacob had received his son's scepter while he was swearing, and that after Joseph's oath, still holding the scepter in his hands, he worshiped God immediately? He had no reason to be ashamed of bearing for a moment the insignia of his son's power, the figure of a great event to come. But the Hebrew text gives a very easy means of solving the question; he said, "And Israel worshiped and toward the bedside," of that evidently upon which the old man was placed so as to pray without difficulty, whenever he wished. However, it should not be imagined that the interpretation of the Septuagint is meaningless or of little significance. [Question 162]

GENESIS CHAPTER 48

(Gen. 48:4). IN WHAT SENSE DOES GOD PROMISE JACOB THAT HE WILL BE THE LEADER OF A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS. — When Jacob remembers the promises that God made to him, here also it says that it was said to him: I will make you an assembly of towns. With these words the vocation of the believers is more indicated than the carnal propagation of the race. [Question 163]

(Gen. 48:5-6). ON MANASSES AND EPHREM, SON OF JACOB. — The Scripture states that Jacob said about Ephraim and Manasseh the following: Now the two of you who were born in the land of Egypt before I came to Egypt to meet with you are mine: Ephraim and Manasseh. Just as Reuben and Simeon will be mine-if you will bear children after them, they will be yours; with the name of the other brothers they will be called in the lot of them. This text sometimes misleads some who think that something is said in him as if Joseph had other children and Jacob had sent to call them with the names of these. But it's not like that. The order of the words is this: Now the two sons of thine, who were born to thee in the land of Egypt, before I came to Egypt to meet with thee, are mine: Ephraim and Manasseh. The same as Reuben and Simeon will be mine. With the name of the other brothers they will be called in their lot; that is, they will receive the inheritance together with their brothers, so that they will be called at the same time the children of Israel. These are the two tribes which, joined to the others, and leaving the priestly tribe of Levi alone, form the twelve who were to share the promised land and provide the tithe. What is said of the other children that Joseph is thus as an addition. [Question 164]

(Gen. 48:7). WHY DID JACOB TELL JOSEPH ABOUT THE PLACE WHERE HE BURIED RACHEL'S MOTHER? — Jacob wanted to point out to his son Joseph, as if he did not know, where and when he buried his mother, also with his brothers. But if Joseph was so small, he could not even worry about it or remember it, what reason is there for him to tell him now? The motive may be to remember that Joseph's mother was buried where Christ was to be born. [Question 165]

(Gen. 48:14-18). JACOB BLESSES THE YOUNGEST SON OF JOSEPH, PREFERABLY THE ELDEST. — Israel blesses his grandchildren, putting his right hand over the child and the left over the eldest. And when Joseph wants to call his attention as if he had been wrong and did not realize it, he responds: "I know, son; I know. He too will become a people and he too will be great; but his younger brother will be greater than he, and his offspring will be a crowd of people.” This must be applied to Christ, since it was also said of Jacob and his brother that the elder will serve the younger. According to this, Israel meant something prophetically, causing the people who would later come, through Christ, to the spiritual generation, would overcome the previous people, who gloried in the carnal generation of the ancestors. [Question 166]

(Gen. 48:22). ON JACOB'S GIFT TO JOSEPH OF THE LAND OF SHECHEM. — When Jacob tells his son Joseph that he gives him Shechem apart, and adds that he took it with his sword and his bow, one has the right to ask how this can be true to the letter. For he bought this land at the price of one hundred lambs (Gen. 33:19), he did not conquer it by right of victory in a war. Is it perhaps that his sons conquered Salem, the city of the Shechemites (Gen. 34:25), and by law of war became his, so that the war which they did against those who had previously committed such a great injury in the rape of his daughter (Cf. Gen. 34:25-29)? Why did he not give his eldest sons that land, since they had done that? If now, rejoicing in that victory, he gives that land to his son Joseph, why then did the sons who did this act displease him? Why, finally, even now, when he blesses them, he mentions this fact, throwing their conduct against them? It is clear, therefore, that some prophetic mystery is hidden here, for even Joseph prefigured Christ with a principal meaning and was from that land where Jacob had destroyed and annihilated the foreign gods so that it would be understood that Christ would possess the Gentiles, who would renounce the gods of their fathers and believe in him. [Question 167]

GENESIS CHAPTER 49

(Gen. 49:33). WHAT DOES IT MEAN: "HE WAS GATHERED TO THE PEOPLE? — We must see in what sense Scripture says so frequently: "And he gathered it unto his fathers," or: "He was gathered unto his people. This is the language it holds of Jacob, as soon as he is dead, and even before he is buried; but to what people was he assembled? For from him is born the first people who were called the people of Israel. But among those who preceded him are so few just, that we hesitate to give him the name of a people. For if the text said, "It was placed with his parents," there would be no problem. Is it perhaps the people, not only of holy men, but of the people of the angels of that city, according to what is said in the epistle to the Hebrews: But you came near to Mount Zion and to the city of God Jerusalem and the myriads of exulting angels” (Heb. 12:12)? Those who end this life pleasing God are added to this people. It is said that they are added when there is no longer any concern for temptations and no danger of sins. The Scripture, contemplating this, says: Before death you do not praise anyone (Sir. 11:28).” [Question 168]

GENESIS CHAPTER 50

(Gen. 50:3). OVER THE FORTY DAYS DEVOTED TO BURIAL. — The forty days spent in the tomb, which Scripture recalls, may mean something relative to the penance through which sins are buried. For this reason, the forty days of fasting that Moses (Cf. Ex 34:28), Elijah (Cf. 1Kgs. 19:8), and Our Lord Himself (Cf. Mt. 4:2), lasted forty days, And the Church calls Lent to the special observance of fasting. Even the translation of the Hebrew of the prophet Jonah thus says of the Ninevites: “Forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed (Jon. 3:4).” In this way we understand that during those days, certainly accommodated to the humiliation of the penitents, the Ninevites wept their sins in the midst of the fasts and attained the mercy of God. But we must not believe that this number only suits the crying of the penitents, because in this case the Lord would not have spent forty days with his disciples after the resurrection, going in and out, eating and drinking with them. And these days, of course, were for joy. And it is not necessary to think either that the version of the Septuagint, which the Church uses in her reading, is wrong, not saying: forty days, but three days, and Nineveh will be destroyed. Adorned, indeed, these Seventy men of an authority greater than the simple office of translators, possessed the prophetic spirit. That is why their versions were as close to each other as if they had spoken with one mouth. And this was a great miracle. Well, these men put three days, but they did not ignore that the Hebrew codices said forty days. And this they did so that it be understood that sins are blotted out and disappear in the glorification of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it was said: “He who was delivered for our sins and rose again for our justification (Rom. 4:25).” Well, the glorification of the Lord is known in his resurrection and ascension to the heavens. That is why he gave twice the Holy Spirit, although he is one and the same. The first time, after the resurrection. The second, after the ascent to the heavens. And since he rose again on the third day, and ascended to heaven after forty days, one of these two things, which happened in the second place, signifies the Hebrew codices with the number of days. The other thing, which refers to the three days, which relates to the same subject, the Seventy wanted to remember, not by the literalness of translation, but by the authority of prophecy. Let us not say, then, that one of these two things is false and we fought to defend some translators against others, since those who translate from Hebrew show us that what they translate is written. And the authority of the Septuagint, who recommends even divine authority with such a remarkable miracle, is supported in the churches by a very great antiquity. [Question 169]

(Gen. 50:5). ON THE TOMB OF JACOB. — We can ask how it is true what Joseph commanded the Egyptian dignitaries to tell Pharaoh of his part: "My father took an oath to me, saying, In the sepulcher that I dug in the land of Canaan, you will bury me there; because these words of the father of Joseph do not appear when he gave orders about his grave. However, we must refer to the content, as we have noted above when dealing with similar expressions or narrations. Words must serve to express one's intention and to make it known. That Jacob excavated a tomb for himself, we find him not affirmed before in any passage of Scripture. But if he had not done so, as he was in those lands, the Scripture would not now say so. [Question 170]

(Gen. 50:10). MYSTERIOUS REASON FOR THE PATH FOLLOWED TO BURY JACOB. — What does the Scripture mean when they were to bury Jacob: And they came to the age of Ahaz, which is beyond the Jordan? As those who know the place say, those men went more than fifty miles beyond the place where they had to bury the dead man. This is the distance that is more or less from the place where the patriarchs are buried, including Jacob, to this place where they arrived, as the Scripture says. After a great mourning and grief there, they returned to the place which they had left behind, going back across the Jordan. Someone, however, can say that, to avoid the presence of enemies, they returned with the body through the desert, to the same place where the people of Israel were also led by Moses when he brought them out of Egypt. In fact, there is a great detour along that road, and through the Jordan one arrives at the siege of Abraham, where the bodies of the patriarchs are (Cf. Gen. 50:13), that is, the land of Canaan. But in any way this has happened, the fact of going so far to the east, beyond those places, and the fact of returning to them through the Jordan, we must understand that it was made by some meaning, that is, that by the Jordan would come later to those lands Israel with their children. [Question 171]

ON THE NUMBER SEVEN. — And he mourned for his father seven days. I do not know that in the Scriptures, on the occasion of the death of a holy personage, there is a mourning celebrated for nine days, which the Latin calls the nouendial. Therefore, it seems to me that this custom must be forbidden to Christians if they keep this number of days of mourning for their dead, because it is properly a pagan custom. The number seven, on the other hand, enjoys authority in the Scriptures. That is why it is written elsewhere: “The mourning for a dead man lasts for seven days; by a fool, all the days of his life (Sir. 22:12).” The number seven is, above all, a sign of rest because of the mystery of the Sabbath. That is why the dead are rightly said to rest. In the mourning of Jacob, meanwhile the Egyptians multiplied this number tenfold at the funeral of Jacob; they wept for seventy days. [Question 172]

(Gen 50:22-23). HOW THERE WERE SEVENTY-FIVE PEOPLE WHO WENT DOWN WITH JACOB TO EGYPT. — And Joseph lived a hundred and ten years. And Joseph saw the children of Ephraim unto the third generation. And the sons of Mahir the son of Manasseh were born on the knees of Joseph. As the Scripture says that Joseph saw these sons of his sons or grandchildren of his children while he lived, how can he add them to those seventy-five men with whom Jacob says that he entered Egypt (Cf. Gen. 46:27), since Joseph came to see those sons in his old age, and when Jacob entered Egypt, Joseph was young and when his father died, Joseph was almost fifty-six years old? In conclusion, the Scripture must have recommended that number seventy-five for some mystery that it contains. But if anyone wished to know how it could be true to agree even with the historical accuracy that Jacob entered Egypt with seventy-five people, I tell him that it is not necessary to think that he entered that single day when he arrived there. And the reason is that, like Jacob, he is called many times by the name of his sons, that is, of his descendants, and it is recorded that he entered Egypt through Joseph. The entrance of Jacob, therefore, must be taken during all the time that Joseph lived, for which reason he entered Egypt. In fact, during all that time, all those mentioned were able to be born and live, to the age of seventy-five, counting the grandsons of Benjamin. This is confirmed by what the text says: “These are the children Lia gave birth to Jacob in Mesopotamia of Syria (Gen. 46:15).” And this text also refers to children who were not yet born. And he alludes to them because there he had given birth to the parents of those who were born, presenting them as born there. And she does so because the cause of her parents was born there, the ones that Leah gave birth to there. Now as Joseph was the cause of Jacob's entering into Egypt, all the time that Joseph lived in Egypt was the time of Jacob's entry into Egypt, which he made by his seed, which spread, while he lived was the cause of Jacob entering. [Question 173]