Augustine of Hippo

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.”

I have already put it to your holinesses yesterday that the reason why the elder son is called Esau is that no one becomes spiritual without first having been "of the flesh" or materialistic. But if they persist in "the mind of the flesh," they will always be Esau. If, however, they become spiritual, they will then be the younger son. But then the junior will be the senior; the other takes precedence in time, this one in virtue. Before it ever came to this blessing, Esau had longed to have the lentils Jacob had cooked. And Jacob said to him, "Give me your birthright, and I will give you the lentils I have cooked." He sold his right as firstborn to his younger brother. He went off with a temporary satisfaction; the other went off with a permanent honor. So those in the church who are slaves to temporary pleasures and satisfactions eat lentils—lentils that Jacob certainly cooked but that Jacob did not eat. Idols, you see, flourished more than anywhere else in Egypt; lentils are the food of Egypt; so lentils represent all the errors of the Gentiles. So because the more obvious and manifest church which was going to come from the Gentiles was signified in the younger son, Jacob is said to have cooked the lentils and Esau to have eaten them.…Now apply this. You have a Christian people. But among this Christian people it is the ones who belong to Jacob that have the birthright or right of the firstborn. Those, however, who are materialistic in life, materialistic in faith, materialistic in hope, materialistic in love, still belong to the old covenant, not yet to the new. They still share the lot of Esau, not yet in the blessing of Jacob.

“He smelled his clothes and said, ‘Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of an abundant field, which the Lord has blessed.’ ” This field is the church. Let’s prove that the church is a field. Listen to the apostle telling the faithful: “You are God’s tilled field; you are God’s building.” Not only is the church a field, but also God is the tiller of the field. Listen to the Lord himself: “I am the vine, you the branches, and my Father is the vinedresser.” Toiling in this field as a laborer and hoping for an eternal reward, the apostle claims no credit for himself, except a laborer’s due. “I planted,” he says, “Apollo watered, but God gave the increase. And so neither the one who plants is anything, nor the one who waters, but God who gives the increase.” Notice how Paul safeguards humility to make sure of belonging to Jacob, to that field which is the church, and of not losing the robe whose scent was as the smell of an abundant field. He does not pass over to the pride of Esau, materialistic in thought and abounding in arrogance. So the smell of the field comes from the garment of the son. But this field is nothing in itself. That’s why he added, “which the Lord has blessed. And the Lord will give you from the dew of heaven above and from the fruitfulness of the earth, and quantities of corn and wine. And nations will serve you, and you shall be lord of your brother, and the sons of your father shall pay you homage. Whoever curses you shall be cursed, and whoever blesses you shall be blessed.” That is the blessing of Jacob. If Esau had not been blessed too, there would be no problem. But he is blessed too, not with this blessing, and yet one not altogether different from this one.

What advice does Rebekah give? That Jacob should take the skins of the kids and go to his father. The father is expecting the elder and blesses the younger. The Old Testament has the Jews in mind according to its literal meaning, and by the spiritual understanding of it, it is a blessing to Christians. Would your holinesses please concentrate on this great mystery, this great sacrament.Isaac says, “Your brother came with guile” about a man without guile. Isaac undoubtedly knew what was happening since he had the spirit of prophecy, and he himself was acting symbolically. He stakes everything on the sublime truths being symbolically, sacramentally enacted. For if he hadn’t known what he was doing, he would surely have been angry with his son for deceiving him. The elder comes and says, “Here, father, eat; I have done just as you ordered me.” He says, “Who are you?” He replies, “I am your elder son, Esau.” “And who is the one,” Isaac says, “at whose hands I have already eaten, and I blessed him, and blessed he shall be?” He seemed to be angry; Esau was expecting from his lips some sort of curse upon his brother. While he is expecting a curse, Isaac confirms the blessing. What splendid anger, what marvelous indignation! But he knew the mystery being enacted. The blindness of his bodily eyes stood for the mental blindness of the Jews. But the eyes of his heart were able to see the sublimity of the mysteries being unfolded.