Augustine of Hippo — Commentary on Scripture

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

The example proceeds to wives from the church and to husbands from Christ.… He urges the husbands on the basis of something inferior, namely, their own body, not only from the superior, that is, their Lord.

Ephesians 5:31

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

If Christ cleaved to the church so that they became one flesh, in what way did he “leave” his Father? In what way did he “leave” his mother? He left his Father in the sense that, when he was in the form of God he … emptied himself, assuming the form of a slave. … That means that he left the Father, not by deserting him or withdrawing from him but by coming to humanity in a lowly form in which he temporarily divested his glory with the Father.

Ephesians 5:32

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

The apostle speaks of a great mystery in the relation of Christ and the church. That which is great in respect of Christ and the church may seem less auspicious in the relation between husbands and wives. But in marriage it still represents the mystery of an inseparable bond.

Exodus 1:14

And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

We have been led out of Egypt where we were serving the devil as a pharaoh, where we were doing works of clay amid earthly desires, and we were laboring much in them. For Christ cried out to us, as if we were making bricks, “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened.” Led out of here, we were led over through baptism as through the Red Sea—red for this reason, because consecrated by the blood of Christ—when all our enemies who were assailing us were dead, that is, when our sins have been wiped out.

Exodus 1:17-19 · 2 passages

But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

Many lies indeed seem to be for someone's safety or advantage, spoken not in malice but in kindness: such was that of those midwives in Exodus, who gave a false report to Pharaoh, to the end that the infants of the children of Israel might not be slain. But even these are praised not for the fact but for the disposition shown; since those who only lie in this way will attain in time to a freedom from all lying.

On the midwives' lie, by which they deceived Pharaoh and kept him from killing the Israelite males when they were born: The midwives said that Hebrew women did not give birth as Egyptian women did. It is usual to ask whether such lies have been approved by divine authority. Scripture says that God favored the midwives. It is unclear whether God, in his mercy, pardoned the lie or judged that the lie itself deserved a reward. For the midwives did one thing by letting the infant boys live and another by lying to Pharaoh. In letting them live they performed a work of mercy; but they used that lie for their own ends, to keep Pharaoh from harming the infants. This act could be the occasion not for praise but for pardon. It does not seem to me that the authority to lie has been given to those of whom it is said, "And a lie has not been found in their mouths." For if the lives of certain people, being far below the level of the saints' lives, include these sins of lying, these people are living in accord with their natural abilities, especially if they do not yet know that they should expect…

On the midwives' lie, by which they deceived Pharaoh and kept him from killing the Israelite males when they were born: The midwives said that Hebrew women did not give birth as Egyptian women did. It is usual to ask whether such lies have been approved by divine authority. Scripture says that God favored the midwives. It is unclear whether God, in his mercy, pardoned the lie or judged that the lie itself deserved a reward. For the midwives did one thing by letting the infant boys live and another by lying to Pharaoh. In letting them live they performed a work of mercy; but they used that lie for their own ends, to keep Pharaoh from harming the infants. This act could be the occasion not for praise but for pardon. It does not seem to me that the authority to lie has been given to those of whom it is said, "And a lie has not been found in their mouths." For if the lives of certain people, being far below the level of the saints' lives, include these sins of lying, these people are living in accord with their natural abilities, especially if they do not yet know that they should expect heavenly gifts but busy themselves with earthly things. As for those who live in such a way that their conversation, as the apostle says, is in heaven, I do not think that they should regulate the style of their speech, insofar as it affects speaking the truth and avoiding falsehood, on the example of the midwives. But we should consider this question more carefully, on account of the other examples that are found in Scripture.

Exodus 1:21

And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.

As for its being written that God dealt well with the Hebrew midwives and with Rahab the harlot of Jericho, he did not deal well with them because they lied but because they were merciful to the men of God. And so it was not their deception that was rewarded but their benevolence; the benignity of their intention, not the iniquity of their invention.

Exodus 2:12

And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

Concerning Moses’ deed, when he killed the Egyptian to defend his brethren, we have treated the point adequately in the book that we wrote against Faustus on the lives of the patriarchs. The question was whether his role in that deed was praiseworthy, insofar as he admitted his sin, just as the richness of the earth, even before useful seeds are planted, is often praised for a growth of plants, even if they are useless. Or perhaps the deed itself should be justified. But to do so does not seem right, for up to that point Moses had no legitimate authority—neither authority that he received from God nor authority ordained by human society. But still, as Stephen says in the Acts of the Apostles, Moses thought that his brethren understood that God would bring them salvation through him, so that by this testimony it appeared that Moses could dare to do this because he was already called by God to act. (But Scripture is silent on this point).

Exodus 3:2

And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

And here he is first called the angel of the Lord and then God. Is the angel then the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? Therefore he may be rightly understood to be the Savior himself of whom the apostle says, “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever.” Hence even here he, who is the God blessed over all things forever, is not unreasonably understood to be himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. But why was he previously called the angel of the Lord when he appeared in the flame of fire from the bush? Was it because he was one of many angels but by a dispensation represented the person of his Lord? Or was something belonging to a creature assumed which might appear visibly for the task at hand and from which words might be uttered in an audible way, whereby the presence of the Lord would also become known to the bodily senses of man, as circumstances required, by means of a creature made subject to him? For if he was one of the angels, who can readily affirm wheth…

And here he is first called the angel of the Lord and then God. Is the angel then the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? Therefore he may be rightly understood to be the Savior himself of whom the apostle says, “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever.” Hence even here he, who is the God blessed over all things forever, is not unreasonably understood to be himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. But why was he previously called the angel of the Lord when he appeared in the flame of fire from the bush? Was it because he was one of many angels but by a dispensation represented the person of his Lord? Or was something belonging to a creature assumed which might appear visibly for the task at hand and from which words might be uttered in an audible way, whereby the presence of the Lord would also become known to the bodily senses of man, as circumstances required, by means of a creature made subject to him? For if he was one of the angels, who can readily affirm whether the person given him to announce was that of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, or of God the Father or of the Trinity itself altogether, who is the one and only God, in order that he might say, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”?For we cannot say that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is the Son of God and not the Father. Nor will anyone dare to deny that either the Holy Spirit or the Trinity itself, which we believe and understand to be the one God, is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For he who is not God is not the God of those fathers. Moreover … not only the Father is God, as all, even the heretics, admit, but the Son also, which willingly or not they are forced to confess, for the apostle says, “who is, over all things, God blessed forever,” and the Holy Spirit as well. The same apostle declares, “Therefore glorify God in your body,” when he had previously stated, “Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have from God?” And these three are one God, as the sound Catholic faith believes. It is not sufficiently clear which person in the Trinity that angel represented, assuming that he was one of the rest of the angels, and whether it was any person and not that of the Trinity itself.

Exodus 3:4

And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Was the Lord speaking through an angel? Or was the Lord that angel who has been called the “angel of great counsel” and is understood to be Christ? For Scripture said above, “the angel of the Lord appeared to him.”

Exodus 3:5

And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

What are the shoes? Well, what are the shoes we wear? Leather from dead animals. The hides of dead animals are what we protect our feet with. So what are we being ordered to do? To give up dead works. This is symbolically what he instructs Moses to do in his honor, when the Lord says to him, “Take off your shoes. For the place you are standing in is holy ground.” There’s no holier ground than the church of God, is there? So as we stand in it let us take off our shoes, let us give up dead works.

Exodus 3:6

Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

God gives witness and says, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” Were there not other patriarchs? Was not Noah a holy man before these, who alone in the whole human race together with his whole house deserved to be delivered from the flood, in whom and in his sons the church is represented? They escape the flood, with wood carrying them. And then afterwards [come] the great men whom we know, whom Holy Scripture commends, Moses faithful in all his house. And those three are named, as if they alone were deserving of him: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob; this is my name forever.”An enormous mystery! The Lord has the power to open both our mouths and your hearts that we may be able to speak as he has deigned to reveal and that you may be able to grasp as it is advantageous to you. Therefore those patriarchs are three: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You already know that the sons of Jacob were twelve and from them are the people of Israel because Jacob himself is Israel and the people of Israel are the twelve tribes belonging to the…

God gives witness and says, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” Were there not other patriarchs? Was not Noah a holy man before these, who alone in the whole human race together with his whole house deserved to be delivered from the flood, in whom and in his sons the church is represented? They escape the flood, with wood carrying them. And then afterwards [come] the great men whom we know, whom Holy Scripture commends, Moses faithful in all his house. And those three are named, as if they alone were deserving of him: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob; this is my name forever.”An enormous mystery! The Lord has the power to open both our mouths and your hearts that we may be able to speak as he has deigned to reveal and that you may be able to grasp as it is advantageous to you.
Therefore those patriarchs are three: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You already know that the sons of Jacob were twelve and from them are the people of Israel because Jacob himself is Israel and the people of Israel are the twelve tribes belonging to the twelve sons of Israel. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, three fathers and one people. Three fathers, as it were, in the beginning of the people; three fathers in whom the people was prefigured. And the earlier people itself [is] the present people. For in the people of the Jews the people of the Christians was prefigured. There a figure, here the truth; there a shadow, here the body, as the apostle says, “Now these things happened to them in figure.” It is the apostle’s voice, and he says, “They were written for us, upon whom the end of the world has come.” Let your mind return to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In those three we find free women giving birth and bondwomen giving birth. We find there the progeny of free women; we find there also the progeny of bondwomen. The bondwoman signifies nothing good. “Cast out the bondwoman,” [Scripture] says, “and her son; for the son of the bondwoman will not be heir with the son of the free woman.” The apostle mentions this; and in these two sons of Abraham the apostle says was a figure of the two Testaments, Old and New. To the Old Testament belong the lovers of temporal things, the lovers of the world; to the New Testament belong the lovers of eternal life. Therefore that Jerusalem on earth was a shadow of the heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of us all, which is in heaven. And these are the apostle’s words. And about that city from which we are sojourners you know many things, you have already heard many things. Now we find something remarkable in these births, that is, in these offspring, in these procreations of free women and bondwomen, namely, four types of men. And in these four types of men is comprised the figure of the Christian people, so that what was said in regard to these three is not astonishing: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

Exodus 3:8 · 2 passages

And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Indeed, unless that land which was styled the land that flowed with milk and honey signified something great, through which, as by a visible token, he was leading those who understood his wondrous works to invisible grace and the kingdom of heaven, they could not be blamed for scorning that land, whose temporal kingdom we also ought to esteem as nothing, that we may love that Jerusalem which is free, the mother of us all, which is in heaven, and truly to be desired.

I ask whether we should take the land flowing with milk and honey spiritually, since, according to the proper sense, this phrase does not describe the land that was being given to the people of Israel. Or is it a figure of speech that is used to praise the richness and sweetness of the land?

Exodus 3:9

Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them.

Clamor: not like the clamor of the Sodomites, which signified iniquity without fear or shame.

Exodus 3:14 · 5 passages

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Then too Plato’s definition of a philosopher—one who loves God—contains an idea which shines forth everywhere in Scripture. But the most palpable proof to my mind that he was conversant with the sacred books is this, that when Moses, informed by an angel that God wished him to deliver the Hebrews from Egypt, questioned the angel concerning the name of the one who had sent him, the answer received was this: “I am who I am. Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: he who is has sent me to you,” as though, in comparison with him who, being immutable, truly is, all mutable things are as if they were not. Now Plato had a passionate perception of this truth and was never tired of teaching it. Yet I doubt whether this idea can be found in any of the works of Plato’s predecessors except in the text “I am who I am, and you shall say to them, he who is has sent me to you.”

For although that immutable and ineffable nature does not admit of was and will be but only is (for it truly is, because it cannot be changed), and therefore it was proper for him to say, “I am who I am” and “You will say to the children of Israel, ‘He who is has sent me to you,’ ” nevertheless, on account of the changeableness of the times in which our mortality and our changeableness are involved, we do not falsely say was and will be and is. Was, in past ages; is, in present ones; will be, in future ones. Was, because he was never lacking; will be, because he will never be lacking; is, because he always is.

Perhaps it was hard even for Moses himself, as it is much also for us, and much more for us, to understand what was said, “I am who I am” and “He who is has sent me to you.” And if by chance Moses understood, when would they to whom he was being sent understand? Therefore the Lord put aside what man could not grasp and added what he could grasp. For he added and said, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” This you can grasp. But what mind can grasp, “I am who I am”?

But now the Lord speaks to Moses—you know all this, and I won’t keep you longer on it, for lack of time—”I am who I am; he who is sent me.” When he asked God’s name, you see, this is what was said: “I am who I am. And you shall say to the children of Israel, he who is sent me to you.” What’s this all about? O God, O Lord of ours, what are you called? “I am called He is,” he said. What does it mean, I am called He is? “That I abide forever, that I cannot change.” Things which change are not, because they do not last. What is, abides. But whatever changes was something and will be something; yet you cannot say it is, because it is changeable. So the unchangeableness of God was prepared to suggest itself by this phrase “I am who I am.”

He is the first and greatest existence, who is utterly unchangeable and who could say most perfectly, “I am who I am, and you shall say to them, “He who is has sent me to you.” As a result, the other things which exist could not exist except by him, and these things are good insofar as they have received the ability to be.