Augustine of Hippo

Having built an altar there and called upon God, Abraham proceeded thence and dwelt in the desert and was compelled by pressure of famine to go on into Egypt. There he called his wife his sister, and he told no lie. For she was this also, because she was near of blood; just as Lot, on account of the same nearness, being his brother's son, is called his brother. Now he did not deny that she was his wife but held his peace about it, committing to God the defense of his wife's chastity and providing as a man against human wiles. If he had not provided against the danger as much as he could, he would have been tempting God rather than trusting in him. We have said enough about this matter against the calumnies of Faustus the Manichaean. At last what Abraham had expected the Lord to do took place. For Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who had taken her to him as his wife, restored her to her husband when faced with severe plague. And far be it from us to believe that she was defiled by lying with another. It is much more credible that, by these great afflictions, Pharaoh was not permitted to do this.

Truly that multitude which was promised to Abraham is not innumerable to God, although it is to the human mind. But to God not even the dust of the earth is so. Further, the promise here made may be understood not only of the nation of Israel but of the whole seed of Abraham, which may be fitly compared with the dust for its multitude. Regarding this seed, there is also the promise of many children, not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. However, the reason why I said that this is not clear from the text is that even the multitude of the one people sprung from Abraham, according to the flesh, through his grandson Jacob, has increased so greatly as to fill almost every region of the world. It is because even the number of this progeny is beyond human power to count that it may, by a hyperbole, be compared with the number of dust particles. What is beyond doubt is that the only land meant is that which is called Canaan. However, some may find a difficulty in the expression “I will give to you and your posterity forever,” if the “forever” is taken to mean “eternally.” There is no trouble if only they will take this “forever” to mean “to the end of time,” which, as we hold on faith, is to be the beginning of eternity. For although the Israelites are expelled from Jerusalem, they still remain in other cities in the land of Canaan and shall remain even to the end. And even when that whole land is inhabited by Christians, they also are the very seed of Abraham.

Having received this oracle of promise, Abraham migrated and remained in another place of the same land, that is, beside the oak of Mamre, which was Hebron. Then, on the invasion of Sodom, when five kings carried on war against four and Lot was taken captive with the conquered Sodomites, Abraham delivered him from the enemy, leading with him to battle 318 of his homeborn servants. [He] won the victory for the kings of Sodom but would take nothing of the spoils when offered by the king for whom he had won them. He was then openly blessed by Melchizedek, who was priest of God most high, about whom many and great things are written in the epistle that is inscribed to the Hebrews, which most say is by the apostle Paul, though some deny this. For then first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole wide world. Long after the event this sacrifice was said by the prophet to be fulfilled in Christ, who was yet to come in the flesh: “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” That is to say, not after the order of Aaron, for that order was to be taken away when the things shone forth that were intimated beforehand by these shadows.

But note what is said to Abraham, “Know of a surety that your seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs, and they shall reduce them to servitude, and shall afflict them four hundred years.” This is most clearly a prophecy about the people of Israel, who were to be in servitude in Egypt. Not that this people was to be in that servitude under the oppressive Egyptians for four hundred years, but it is foretold that this should take place in the course of those four hundred years. It is written of Terah the father of Abraham, “And the days of Terah in Haran were 205 years,” not because they were all spent there but because they were completed there. So it is said here also, “And they shall reduce them to servitude and shall afflict them four hundred years” … because that number was completed, not because it was all spent in that affliction. The years are said to be four hundred in round numbers, although they were a little more—whether you reckon from this time when these things were promised to Abraham, or from the birth of Isaac, as the seed of Abraham, of which these things are predicted. For, as we have already said above, from the seventy-fifth year of Abraham, when the first promise was made to him, down to the exodus of Israel from Egypt, there are reckoned 430 years, which the apostle thus mentions: “And this I say, that the covenant confirmed by God, the law, which was made 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of no effect.” So then these 430 years might be called four hundred, because they are not much more, especially since part even of that number had already gone by when these things were shown and said to Abraham in vision, or when Isaac was born in his father’s one hundredth year, twenty-five years after the first promise, when of these 430 years there now remained 405, which God was pleased to call four hundred. No one will doubt that the other things that follow in the prophetic words of God pertain to the people of Israel.

And here follow the times of Abraham’s sons, the one by Hagar the bondmaid, the other by Sarah the free woman, about whom we have already spoken in the previous book. As regards this transaction, Abraham is in no way to be branded as guilty concerning this concubine. For he dealt with her for the begetting of progeny, not for the gratification of lust, and not to insult but rather to obey his wife, who supposed it would be solace of her barrenness if she could make use of the fruitful womb of her handmaid to supply the defect of her own nature. By that law of which the apostle says, “Likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife,” Sarah could, as a wife, do benefit to him through childbearing by another, when she could not do so in her own person. Here there is no wanton lust, no crude lewdness. The handmaid is delivered to the husband by the wife for the sake of progeny and is received by the husband for the sake of progeny, each seeking not guilty excess but natural fruit. Then the pregnant bondwoman despised her barren mistress, and Sarah, with womanly jealousy, rather laid the blame of this on her husband. Yet even then Abraham showed that he was not a slavish lover but a free begetter of children and that in using Hagar he had guarded the chastity of Sarah his wife and had gratified her will and not his own. He had received her without seeking her, gone in to her without being attached, impregnated without loving her. For he says, “Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please.” Here is a man able to treat different women as they require—his wife temperately, his handmaid compliantly, neither intemperately!

There was indeed on earth, so long as it was needed, a symbol and foreshadowing image of this city, which served the purpose of reminding men that such a city was to be rather than of making it present; and this image was itself called the holy city, as a symbol of the future city, though not itself the reality. Of this city which served as an image, and of that free city it typified, Paul writes to the Galatians in these terms: "Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which genders to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, you barren that bear not; break forth and cry, you that travail not, for the desolate has many more children than she which has an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what says the Scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son: for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. And we, brethren, are not children of the bond woman, but of the free, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free." [Galatians 4:21-31] This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants — the old and the new. One portion of the earthly city became an image of the heavenly city, not having a significance of its own, but signifying another city, and therefore serving, or "being in bondage." For it was founded not for its own sake, but to prefigure another city; and this shadow of a city was also itself foreshadowed by another preceding figure. For Sarah's handmaid Agar, and her son, were an image of this image. And as the shadows were to pass away when the full light came, Sarah, the free woman, who prefigured the free city (which again was also prefigured in another way by that shadow of a city Jerusalem), therefore said, "Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac," or, as the apostle says, "with the son of the free woman." In the earthly city, then, we find two things — its own obvious presence, and its symbolic presentation of the heavenly city. Now citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin, but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin; whence the former are called "vessels of wrath," the latter "vessels of mercy." [Romans 9:22-23] And this was typified in the two sons of Abraham — Ishmael, the son of Agar the handmaid, being born according to the flesh, while Isaac was born of the free woman Sarah, according to the promise. Both, indeed, were of Abraham's seed; but the one was begotten by natural law, the other was given by gracious promise. In the one birth, human action is revealed; in the other, a divine kindness comes to light.

However, a question arises here which should not be passed over and which may perhaps also, quite independently, be bothering some of you. What does it mean, that when the name of Abraham, this man Jacob’s grandfather, was changed (he was previously called Abram, you see, and God changed his name and said, you shall not be called Abram, but Abraham)? From that time on he was never called Abram. Search in the Scriptures, and you will see that earlier on, before he received another name, he was only called Abram. After he had received the new one, he was only called Abraham. This man Jacob, however, heard the same words when he received another name: You shall not be called Jacob, but you shall be called Israel. Now search the Scriptures, and see how he was always called either name, both Jacob and Israel. When Abram got another name, he was never called anything but Abraham; when Jacob got another name, he was called Jacob and Israel. The name Abraham was to receive its explanation in this world, because it was here that he became the father of many nations, from which his name is derived. The name Israel, on the other hand, belongs to the next world, where we will see God. So the people of God, the Christian people, is in this world and this time both Jacob and Israel; Jacob in our actual situation, Israel in our hopeful expectation.

God appeared again to Abraham at the oak of Mamre in three men, who it is not to be doubted were angels, although some think that one of them was Christ and assert that he was visible before he put on flesh. Now it belongs to the divine power and invisible, incorporeal and incommunicable nature, without changing itself at all, to appear even to mortals, not by what it is but by what is subject to it. And what is not subject to it? Yet if they try to establish that one of these three was Christ by the fact that although he saw three, he addressed the Lord in the singular, as it is written, “He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth and said, ‘My lord, if I have found favor in your sight.’ ” Why do they not refer also to this, that when two of them came to destroy the Sodomites, while Abraham still spoke to one, calling him Lord and interceding that he would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked in Sodom, Lot received these two in such a way that he too in his conversation with them addressed the Lord in the singular? For after saying to them in the plural, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house,” yet it is afterward said, “So [the angels] seized him and his hand, [because] the Lord [was] merciful to him, and they brought him forth and set him outside the city. And when they had brought them forth, they said, ‘Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed.’ And Lot said to them, ‘Oh, no, my lords; behold, your servant has found favor in your sight.…’ ” And then after these words the Lord also answered him in the singular, although he was in two angels, saying, “Behold, I grant you this favor.…” This makes it much more credible that Abraham in the three men and Lot in the two recognized the Lord, addressing him in the singular number, even when they were addressing men; for they received them as they did for no other reason than that they might minister human nourishment to them as men who needed it. Yet there was about them something so excellent that those who showed them hospitality as men could not doubt that God was in them as he was wont to be in the prophets and therefore sometimes addressed them in the plural, and sometimes God in them in the singular. But that they were angels the Scripture testifies, not only in this book of Genesis, in which these transactions are related, but also in the epistle to the Hebrews, where in praising hospitality it is said, “For thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”