Augustine of Hippo
Nicene & Post-Nicene · AD 325–500
7,530 passages across 62 books of the Bible · Who was this?
On Genesis
20 of 165-
Genesis 7:7
Was not Noah a holy man, who alone in the whole human race together with his whole house deserved to be delivered from the flood? And is not the church prefigured by Noah and his sons? They escape the flood, with wood (which symbolizes the cross) carrying them.
TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 11.7.2
-
Genesis 7:8-9
Christ was also represented in Noah, and the world, in that ark. For why were all living creatures shut up in that ark except to signify all the nations? For God did not lack the capability of creating anew every species of living things. For when no creatures were in existence, did he not say, "Let the earth bring forth" and the earth brought forth? So from the same source as he made them then, he could remake them. God made them by a word, so God could remake them by a word.
TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 9.11.1
-
Genesis 7:11
It is now time to examine the evidence that proves convincingly that the biblical years, so far from being only one-tenth as long as ours, were precisely as long as the present solar years. This is true of the years used in giving those extremely long life spans. It is said, for example, that the flood occurred in the six hundredth year of Noah's life. But notice the full text: "The waters of the flood overflowed the earth in the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the twenty-seventh day of the month." Now those words are inexplicable if a year was so short that it took ten of them to make one of ours. That would mean that a year had only thirty-six days. For so short a year (if it was actually called a year in ancient usage) either had no months at all, or if it had twelve months, then each month could have had but three days. How, then, [can we] explain the words of the text, "in the six hundredth year … in the second month, in the twenty-seventh day of the month," unless the months then were the same as they are now? There is no other way of explaining…
It is now time to examine the evidence that proves convincingly that the biblical years, so far from being only one-tenth as long as ours, were precisely as long as the present solar years. This is true of the years used in giving those extremely long life spans. It is said, for example, that the flood occurred in the six hundredth year of Noah's life. But notice the full text: "The waters of the flood overflowed the earth in the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the twenty-seventh day of the month." Now those words are inexplicable if a year was so short that it took ten of them to make one of ours. That would mean that a year had only thirty-six days. For so short a year (if it was actually called a year in ancient usage) either had no months at all, or if it had twelve months, then each month could have had but three days. How, then, [can we] explain the words of the text, "in the six hundredth year … in the second month, in the twenty-seventh day of the month," unless the months then were the same as they are now? There is no other way of explaining how the flood could be said to have had a beginning on the twenty-seventh day of the second month. -
Genesis 7:22
Then, a little further on in the same book [Genesis], one could just as easily have noticed the verse "Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died." This means that everything that lived on the earth perished in the flood. Thus we find that Holy Scripture is accustomed to use both phrases—"living soul" and "the breath of life"—in regard even to beasts, and in the verse "All things wherein there is the breath of life" the Greek text does not use the word pneuma but pnoē.
-
Genesis 8:7
You do not know when that last hour is going to come and yet you say, "I am reforming." When are you going to reform? When are you going to change? "Tomorrow," you say. Behold, how often you say, "Tomorrow, tomorrow." You have really become a crow. Behold, I say to you that when you make the noise of a crow, ruin is threatening you. For that crow whose cawing you imitate went forth from the ark and did not return.
-
Genesis 8:11
It is not difficult to see why everlasting peace is signified by the olive branch that the dove, returning, brought back to the ark. For we know that the smooth surface of oil is not readily hindered by a different liquid. And the olive tree itself is forever in leaf.
CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION 2.16.24
-
Genesis 8:11-12
The secular powers often and for a long time spare the wicked from corporal punishment and relieve some of them from their harassments, but the hearts of holy men never have any respite until the end of the world from the sinful conduct of men. It is thus we have the fulfillment of what the apostle said, as I cited it, that “all who will live godly in Christ suffer persecution.” Their suffering is more bitter in proportion to its inwardness. This is so until a man passes over the deluge where the ark shelters the raven and the dove.
LETTERS 248
-
Genesis 8:20
[The clean and the unclean] were together in the ark, but they were not equally pleasing to the Lord as a savor of sacrifice, for after the deluge Noah offered sacrifice to God of the clean, not of the unclean.
LETTERS 108
-
Genesis 9:25
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
AGAINST JULIAN 6.25.82
-
Genesis 9:25
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
-
Genesis 10:1
In the same book [of Genesis], when the generations of the sons of Noah are recalled to our minds, we read, “These are the children of Ham in their tribes according to their tongues, in their lands and nations.” Also, in enumerating the sons of Shem, it is said, “These are the children of Shem in their tribes according to their tongues, in their lands and nations.” And this is added in reference to all of them: “These are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their generations and according to their nations. From these were the islands of the nations scattered over the earth after the flood. And the whole earth was one tongue, and there was one speech for all.” And so, because this sentence was added: “And the earth was one tongue and there was one speech for all” (that is, one language for them all), it could be inferred that at that time, when human beings had been scattered according to the islands of the nations over the earth, there was one language common to all of them. Without a doubt, this contradicts the words used above, “according to their tribes and tongues.” For…
In the same book [of Genesis], when the generations of the sons of Noah are recalled to our minds, we read, “These are the children of Ham in their tribes according to their tongues, in their lands and nations.” Also, in enumerating the sons of Shem, it is said, “These are the children of Shem in their tribes according to their tongues, in their lands and nations.” And this is added in reference to all of them: “These are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their generations and according to their nations. From these were the islands of the nations scattered over the earth after the flood. And the whole earth was one tongue, and there was one speech for all.” And so, because this sentence was added: “And the earth was one tongue and there was one speech for all” (that is, one language for them all), it could be inferred that at that time, when human beings had been scattered according to the islands of the nations over the earth, there was one language common to all of them. Without a doubt, this contradicts the words used above, “according to their tribes and tongues.” For, each single tribe that had formed individual nations would not be said to have had its own tongue when there was a common one for all. So it is by way of recapitulation that there is added: “And the earth was one tongue, and there was one speech for all.” The narrative, without mentioning it, goes back to tell how it came about that the one language common to all men was broken up into many tongues. And immediately we are told about the building of the tower, when this punishment for their pride was inflicted upon them by the divine judgment. After this event they were scattered over the earth according to their languages.CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION 3.36.53
-
Genesis 10:1
We must therefore introduce into this work an explanation of the generations of the three sons of Noah, insofar as that may illustrate the progress in time of the two cities. Scripture first mentions the youngest son, who is called Japheth, who had eight sons, and by two of these sons seven grandchildren, three by one son, four by the other; in all, fifteen descendants. Ham, Noah’s middle son, had four sons, and by one of them five grandsons, and by one of these two great-grandsons; in all, eleven. After enumerating these, Scripture returns to the first of the sons and says, “Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a giant on the earth.” He was a giant hunter against the Lord God; hence they say, “Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Assur, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: this was a great city.” Now this Cush, father of the giant Nimrod, is the first-named among the sons of Ham, to whom five sons and two grandsons are a…
We must therefore introduce into this work an explanation of the generations of the three sons of Noah, insofar as that may illustrate the progress in time of the two cities. Scripture first mentions the youngest son, who is called Japheth, who had eight sons, and by two of these sons seven grandchildren, three by one son, four by the other; in all, fifteen descendants. Ham, Noah’s middle son, had four sons, and by one of them five grandsons, and by one of these two great-grandsons; in all, eleven. After enumerating these, Scripture returns to the first of the sons and says, “Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a giant on the earth.” He was a giant hunter against the Lord God; hence they say, “Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Assur, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: this was a great city.” Now this Cush, father of the giant Nimrod, is the first-named among the sons of Ham, to whom five sons and two grandsons are ascribed. But he either begat this giant after his grandsons were born or, which is more credible, Scripture speaks of him separately on account of his eminence, for mention is also made of his kingdom, which began with that magnificent city Babylon, and the other places, whether cities or districts, mentioned along with it. But what is recorded of the land of Shinar, which belonged to Nimrod’s kingdom—that Assur went forth from it and built Nineveh and the other cities mentioned with it—happened long after. But he takes occasion to speak of it here on account of the grandeur of the Assyrian kingdom, which was wonderfully extended by Ninus son of Belus, and founder of the great city Nineveh, which was named after him, Nineveh, from Ninus. But Assur, father of the Assyrians, was not one of the sons of Ham, Noah’s son, but is found among the sons of Shem, his eldest son. Whence it appears that among Shem’s offspring there arose men who afterwards took possession of that giant’s kingdom, and advancing from it, founded other cities, the first of which was called Nineveh, from Ninus. From him Scripture returns to Ham’s other son, Mizraim. His sons are enumerated, not as seven individuals but as seven nations. And from the sixth, as if from the sixth son, the race called the Philistines are said to have sprung, so that there are in all eight. Then it returns again to Canaan, in whose person Ham was cursed, and his eleven sons are named. Then the territories they occupied, and some of the cities, are named. And thus, if we count sons and grandsons, there are thirty-one of Ham’s descendants registered.It remains to mention the sons of Shem, Noah’s eldest son, for to him this genealogical narrative gradually ascends from the youngest. But in the commencement of the record of Shem’s sons there is an obscurity that calls for explanation, since it is closely connected with the object of our investigation. For we read, “Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, were children born.” This is the order of the words: And to Shem was born Eber, even to himself, that is, to Shem himself was born Eber, and Shem is the father of all his children. We are intended to understand that Shem is the patriarch of all his posterity who were to be mentioned, whether sons, grandsons, great-grandsons or descendants at any distance. For Shem did not beget Eber, who was indeed in the fifth generation from him. For Shem begat, among other sons, Arpachshad; Arpachshad begat Cainan, Cainan begat Salah, Salah begat Eber. And it was with good reason that he was named first among Shem’s offspring, taking precedence even of his sons, though only a grandchild of the fifth generation. For from him, as tradition says, the Hebrews derived their name, though the other etymology that derives the name from Abraham (as if Abrahews) may possibly be correct. But there can be little doubt that the former is the right etymology and that they were called after Eber, Heberews, and then, dropping a letter, Hebrews; and so was their language called Hebrew, which was spoken by none but the people of Israel among whom was the city of God mysteriously prefigured in all the people and truly present in the saints. Six of Shem’s sons then are first named, then four grandsons born to one of these sons; then it mentions another son of Shem, who begat a grandson; and his son, again, or Shem’s great-grandson, was Eber. And Eber begat two sons and called the one Peleg, which means “dividing.” Scripture subjoins the reason of this name, saying, “for in his days was the earth divided.” What this means will afterwards appear. Eber’s other son gave birth to twelve sons; consequently all Shem’s descendants are twenty-seven. The total number of the progeny of the three sons of Noah is seventy-three, fifteen by Japheth, thirty-one by Ham, twenty-seven by Shem. Then Scripture adds, “These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.” And so of the whole number “These are the families of the sons of Noah after their generations, in their nations; and by these were the isles of the nations dispersed through the earth after the flood.” From which we gather that the seventy-three (or rather, as I shall presently show, seventy-two) were not individuals but nations. For in a former passage, when the sons of Japheth were enumerated, it is said in conclusion, “By these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his language, in their tribes and in their nations.”
But nations are expressly mentioned among the sons of Ham, as I showed above. “Mizraim begat those who are called Ludim; and so also of the other seven nations.” And after enumerating all of them it concludes, “These are the sons of Ham, in their families, according to their languages, in their territories, and in their nations.” The reason, then, why the children of several of them are not mentioned is that they belonged by birth to other nations and did not themselves become nations. Why else is it that though eight sons are reckoned to Japheth, the sons of only two of these are mentioned; and though four are reckoned to Ham, only three are spoken of as having sons; and though six are reckoned to Shem, the descendants of only two of these are traced? Did the rest remain childless? We cannot suppose so; but they did not produce nations so great as to warrant their being mentioned but were absorbed in the nations to which they belonged by birth. -
Genesis 11:4
This city named "Confusion" was none other than Babylon, to whose marvelous construction pagan history brings testimonies. For Babylon means "confusion." It would seem that the founder of the city was the giant Nimrod, as was noticed above. In mentioning him, the Scripture tells us that Babylon was the head of his kingdom, meaning at the head of all the other cities, the capital where the government of the kingdom had its seat. However, the city never reached the kind of completion that the pride of impious men had dreamed. The actual plan called for an immense height—it was meant to reach the sky. This perhaps refers to one of its towers, which was to be higher than all the others, or perhaps the word tower may mean all the towers much as "horse" can mean thousands of horsemen.
-
Genesis 11:4
After the flood, as if striving to fortify themselves against God, as if there could be anything high for God or anything secure for pride, certain proud men built a tower, ostensibly so that they might not be destroyed by a flood if one came later. For they had heard and recalled that all iniquity had been destroyed by the flood. They were unwilling to abstain from iniquity. They sought the height of a tower against a flood; they built a lofty tower. God saw their pride, and he caused this disorder to be sent upon them, that they might speak but not understand one another, and tongues became different through pride.
TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6.10.2
-
Genesis 11:7
It is conceivable that here there may have been an allusion to the Trinity, if we suppose that the Father said to the Son and the Holy Spirit, "Come, let us descend and confound their tongue." The supposition is sound. But if so, we must rule out the possibility that angels were meant. And surely it is more proper for the angels to come to God unbidden, moved by grace, that is, by the thoughts that make them devoutly submissive to unchanging truth, as to the eternal law that rules their heavenly court. The angels are not their own criterion of truth, but, depending on creative truth, they move unbidden toward it as toward a fountain of life from which they must imbibe what they do not have of themselves. And their motion is without change, since they keep coming, never to depart.
-
Genesis 11:10
But to avoid needless prolixity, we shall mention not the number of years each member of this series lived but only the year of his life in which he gave birth to his heir, that we may thus reckon the number of years from the flood to Abraham and may at the same time leave room to touch briefly and cursorily upon some other matters necessary to our argument. In the second year, then, after the flood, Shem when he was 100 years old begat Arpachshad; Arpachshad when he was 135 years old begat Cainan; Cainan when he was 130 years begat Salah. Salah himself, too, was the same age when he begat Eber. Eber lived 134 years and begat Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided. Peleg himself lived 130 years and begat Reu; and Reu lived 132 years and begat Serug; Serug 130, and begat Nahor; and Nahor 79, and begat Terah; and Terah 70, and begat Abram, whose name God afterwards changed into Abraham. There are thus from the flood to Abraham 1, years, according to the common or Septuagint versions. In the Hebrew copies far fewer years are given, and for this either no reason or a not very credibl…
But to avoid needless prolixity, we shall mention not the number of years each member of this series lived but only the year of his life in which he gave birth to his heir, that we may thus reckon the number of years from the flood to Abraham and may at the same time leave room to touch briefly and cursorily upon some other matters necessary to our argument. In the second year, then, after the flood, Shem when he was 100 years old begat Arpachshad; Arpachshad when he was 135 years old begat Cainan; Cainan when he was 130 years begat Salah. Salah himself, too, was the same age when he begat Eber. Eber lived 134 years and begat Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided. Peleg himself lived 130 years and begat Reu; and Reu lived 132 years and begat Serug; Serug 130, and begat Nahor; and Nahor 79, and begat Terah; and Terah 70, and begat Abram, whose name God afterwards changed into Abraham. There are thus from the flood to Abraham 1, years, according to the common or Septuagint versions. In the Hebrew copies far fewer years are given, and for this either no reason or a not very credible one is given. -
Genesis 11:10
When, therefore, we look for the city of God in these seventy-two nations, we cannot affirm that while they had but one tongue, that is, one language, the human race had departed from the worship of the true God. Nor can we conclude that genuine godliness had survived only in those generations that descend from Shem through Arpachshad and reach to Abraham. But from the time when they proudly built a tower to heaven, a symbol of godless exaltation, the city or society of the wicked becomes apparent. Whether it was only disguised before or nonexistent, whether both cities remained after the flood—the godly in the two sons of Noah who were blessed and in their posterity, and the ungodly in the cursed son and his descendants, from whom sprang that mighty hunter against the Lord—is not easily determined.
-
Genesis 11:10
It is necessary, therefore, to preserve the series of generations descending from Shem, for the sake of exhibiting the city of God after the flood. As before the flood it was exhibited in the series of generations descending from Seth, now it is descending from Shem. And therefore does divine Scripture, after exhibiting the earthly city as Babylon or "Confusion," revert to the patriarch Shem and recapitulate the generations from him to Abraham, specifying the year in which each father gave birth to the son that belonged to this line and how long he lived. And unquestionably it is this that fulfills the promise I made, that it should appear why it is said of the sons of Eber, "The name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided." For what can we understand by the division of the earth, if not the diversity of languages? And, therefore, omitting the other sons of Shem, who are not concerned in this matter, Scripture gives the genealogy of those by whom the line runs on to Abraham, as before the flood those are given who carried on the line to Noah from Seth. Accordingl…
It is necessary, therefore, to preserve the series of generations descending from Shem, for the sake of exhibiting the city of God after the flood. As before the flood it was exhibited in the series of generations descending from Seth, now it is descending from Shem. And therefore does divine Scripture, after exhibiting the earthly city as Babylon or "Confusion," revert to the patriarch Shem and recapitulate the generations from him to Abraham, specifying the year in which each father gave birth to the son that belonged to this line and how long he lived. And unquestionably it is this that fulfills the promise I made, that it should appear why it is said of the sons of Eber, "The name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided." For what can we understand by the division of the earth, if not the diversity of languages? And, therefore, omitting the other sons of Shem, who are not concerned in this matter, Scripture gives the genealogy of those by whom the line runs on to Abraham, as before the flood those are given who carried on the line to Noah from Seth. Accordingly this series of generations begins thus: "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old and begat Arpachshad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he begat Arpachshad five hundred years and begat sons and daughters." In like manner it registers the rest, naming the year of his life in which each begat the son who belonged to that line that extends to Abraham. It specifies, too, how many years he lived thereafter, begetting sons and daughters, that we may not childishly suppose that the men named were the only men, but that we may understand how the population increased and how regions and kingdoms so vast could be populated by the descendants of Shem. Especially this is true of the kingdom of Assyria, from which Ninus subdued the surrounding nations, reigning with brilliant prosperity and bequeathing to his descendants a vast but thoroughly consolidated empire, which held together for many centuries. -
Genesis 11:29
"And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah." This Iscah is supposed to be the same as Sarai, Abraham's wife.
-
Genesis 11:31
But afterwards, when Abraham sent his servant to take a wife for his son Isaac, we find it thus written: “And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his lord, and of all the goods of his lord, with him; and arose, and went into Mesopotamia, into the city of Nahor.” This and other testimonies of this sacred history show that Nahor, Abraham’s brother, had also left the region of the Chaldeans and fixed his abode in Mesopotamia, where Abraham dwelt with his father. Why, then, did the Scripture not mention him when Terah with his family went forth out of the Chaldean nation and dwelt in Haran, since it mentions that he took with him not only Abraham his son but also Sarah his daughter-in-law and Lot his grandson? The only reason we can think of is that perhaps he had lapsed from the piety of his father and brother, and adhered to the superstition of the Chaldeans and had afterwards emigrated there, either through penitence or because he was persecuted as a suspected person.