Augustine of Hippo

But tell us the other thing you were saying you were going to tell us. “The prophet,” says he, “says God ‘will come from Afric,’ and now of course where the Afric is, there is Africa.” Well, there’s a fine testimony for you! God will come from the Afric, and from Africa God will come. The heretics are announcing another Christ who is born in Africa and goes through the world. I’m asking what it means, God will come from Africa. If you said, “God has only remained in Africa,” you would certainly be saying something shameful enough. But now you also say, “He will come from Africa.” We know where Christ was born, where he suffered, where he ascended into heaven, where he sent his disciples from, where he filled them with the Holy Spirit, where he instructed them to evangelize the whole world, and they complied, and the world is filled with the gospel. And you say, “God will come from Africa!” …So how does he come from “the shady mountain”? Read the Gospel once more: it was from the Mount of Olives that Christ ascended into heaven. Continue. And what could be clearer? You hear “from the Afric”; you have heard “from the shady mountain.” We recite the law, we recite the Gospel; you have heard “beginning from Jerusalem”; now hear “throughout all the nations.” In the same prophet continue with those words that you ignored, those words you left out.… “God will come from the Afric, and the Holy One from the shady mountain,” that is, from the Mount of Olives, where he ascended into heaven, where he sent his disciples from, where he also said as he was about to ascend, “It is not for you to know the times which the Father has placed in his own power; but you will receive might from on high, and you will be witness to me … in Jerusalem, and in Judea and in Samaria, and as far as the whole earth.”

There remain for discussion the three minor prophets who belong to the closing days of the captivity, namely, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. To begin with, Haggai has the following brief but clear prophecy of Christ and the church: “For thus says the Lord of hosts: yet one little while, and I will move the heaven and the earth, and the sea and the dry land. And I will move all the nations, and the desired of all nations shall come.” It is obvious that this prediction is, in part, already fulfilled; the rest we may confidently expect at the end of the world. Surely God set the heavens rocking when angels and a star stood as witnesses to the birth of Christ; surely too he moved the earth when he performed the tremendous miracle of giving Christ a virgin birth. Surely he moved the sea and the dry land when he made Christ’s name known throughout the whole world, on island and on mainland. For the rest, we ourselves are witnesses of the fact that all nations are being moved to accept the faith. The last part of the text, “and the desired of all nations shall come,” refers to Christ’s second coming. For before the whole world can await him and desire his coming, it just first believes in him and loves him.

Surely the glory of the house of the New Testament is greater than that of the old because it was built of better materials, namely, those living stones that are human beings renewed by faith and grace. Yet precisely because Solomon’s temple was renovated—was made new—it was a prophetic symbol of the second Testament which is called the New. Accordingly we must understand the words God spoke by Haggai’s mouth, “And I will give peace in that place,” as referring to the place for which the temple stood. Since the restored temple signified the church, which Christ was to build, those words can mean only “I will give peace in that place [the church] which this place [the rebuilt temple] prefigures.” (All symbols seem in some way to personify the realities of which they are symbols. So, St. Paul says, “The rock was Christ,” because the rock in question symbolized Christ.) Not, however, until the house of the New Testament receives its final consecration will its greater glory in relation to the house of the Old Testament be made perfectly clear. This will take place at the second coming of him whom the Hebrew text calls “the desire of all nations.” Obviously his first coming was not desired of all nations, for unbelievers did not even know whom they should desire to come. In the end too, as the Septuagint puts it with equal amount of prophetic meaning, “the chosen of the Lord shall come from all nations.” Then, truly, only the chosen shall come, those of whom St. Paul says, even “as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.”

But this is not the fault of gold and silver. Let us suppose that someone of tender heart has found a treasure. The kindness of his heart works, does it not, so that hospitality is shown to strangers, the starving are fed, the naked clothed, the needy assisted, captives redeemed, churches are built, the weary are refreshed, the quarrelsome pacified, the shipwrecked set on their feet again, the sick cured—material resources distributed on earth, spiritual ones stored up in heaven? Who does all this? The good and kindhearted person. What does he do it with? Gold and silver. Whom is he serving when he does it? The one who says, “Mine is the gold and mine is the silver.” Now, brothers, I think you can see what a great mistake it is, what lunacy indeed, to project onto the things which people misuse the offense of the people who misuse them. If gold and silver, after all, can be blamed simply because people warped by avarice and neglecting the commands of the Creator are carried away by an abominable kind of lust for these things that he brought into being, then let us blame every single creature of God, because, as the apostle says, some perverse people “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.” Let us also blame this sun, which these same Manichaeans, as we all know, not understanding that it is a creature, never cease to worship and adore as though it were the Creator—or at least some sort of part of him.

Why is it that Scripture reports, for the sake of the tremendous difference between the priesthood of Christ and that of Levi, that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek when he was in the loins of Abraham, since Christ was also there, and so both Levi and Christ paid the tithe? Unless it is because we should understand that, in some other way, Christ was not there? But who would deny that Christ was there according to the flesh? Then he was not there according to the soul, for the soul of Christ did not originate through the transmission of the sin of Adam, or else he would have been there.…Levi was surely there in the loins of Abraham in accordance with the transmission of human seed by which he would enter into his mother; Christ was not there through that cause, although the flesh of Mary was. Thus, neither Levi nor Christ were present there according to the soul, but both of them were there according to the flesh. Levi was there according to fleshly desire, while Christ was there only according to his physical substance. For in a seed, there is both a visible physicality and an invisible principle. Both ran their course from Abraham, even from Adam himself, all the way to the body of Mary, since that too was conceived and born in the normal way. So Christ assumed the physical substance of flesh from the flesh of the virgin, but the reason for his conception did not come from a man's seed, but from a much different source—from above. So for this reason, the flesh which he assumed from his mother was also present in the loins of Abraham.
So Levi paid a tithe in Abraham, who, although he was only there according to the flesh, was still there in the loins of Abraham, as Abraham also was once in the loins of his own father. In other words, he was born of his father Abraham in the same way that Abraham was born of his own father, namely through the law at work in his members fighting against the "law of his mind" and an invisible concupiscence, though the chaste and noble rights of marriage do not permit it to grow strong except insofar as these things are able to make provision for the continuation of the human race.
But he who acquired his flesh not as a rotting wound, but as the source of healing, did not himself also pay a tithe in that way. Since the paying of the tithe served to prefigure the source of healing, the one who would be cured paid the tithe in the flesh of Abraham, but not the one from whom healing would come. For the same flesh, not only that of Abraham, but also that of the first man taken from the earth, contained in itself at the same time both the wound caused by transgression and the medicine for that wound. The wound of sin was at work in the law of the fleshly members fighting against the law of the mind; this law was being transcribed upon all flesh begotten by the principle of a human seed. But the medicine for the wound was also in that flesh, which was assumed without any deed of concupiscence, assumed only in the physical material of the flesh from the Virgin through a divine principle of conception and formation for the sake of a participation in our death not due to his own iniquity and as an example of resurrection that is not deceptive.…
The soul of Christ is from the original soul only if it has not contracted the stain of sin; but if it could not be from that source without the guilt of sin, it has not come from that soul.

They do not understand that not even the proudest of spirits could themselves rejoice in the honor of sacrifices unless a true sacrifice was due to the one true God in whose place they desire to be worshiped. This sacrifice cannot be rightly offered except by a holy and righteous priest, and it also must be received by those for whom it is offered. And it also has to be without fault, so that it may be offered for cleansing those with faults. This is at least what everyone does who wants a sacrifice to be offered for themselves to God. Who then is so righteous and holy a priest as the only Son of God who had no need to purge his own sins by sacrifice, neither original sins nor those that are added by human life? And what could human beings more appropriately choose to be offered for themselves than human flesh? And what could be more fitting for this immolation than mortal flesh? And what could be cleaner for cleansing the faults of mortals than the flesh born in and from the womb of a virgin without any infection of carnal desires? And what could be more acceptably offered and taken than that the flesh of our sacrifice be the body of our priest? And so, where four things are to be considered in every sacrifice—(1) to whom it is offered, (2) by whom it is offered, (3) what is offered, (4) for whom it is offered—the same one and true mediator himself, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with him [the Father] to whom he offered, might make those one in himself for whom he offered, and he himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering.

Prophetic utterances are of three kinds: (1) some relating to the earthly Jerusalem; (2) some to the heavenly Jerusalem; (3) and some to both simultaneously. I think it proper to prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to convict King David of heinous sin and predict what future evils would happen to him because of his sin. Who can question that this pertains to the earthly city? There are other instances, sometimes addressed to the public at large for their safety and benefit, and sometimes addressed to someone in private who merited an utterance from God in order to know in advance about some event to guide his temporal life.The following prophecy, however, without a doubt references the heavenly Jerusalem. "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new testament: not according to the testament that I settled for their fathers in the day when I laid hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my testament, and I regarded them not, says the Lord. For this is the testament that I will make for the house of Israel: after those days, says the Lord, I will give my laws in their mind, and will write them upon their hearts, and I will see to them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." Here, God himself is Jerusalem's reward. Its chief and entire good is to possess him and to be possessed by him.
Both cities are indicated when the city of God is called Jerusalem and when it is prophesied that the house of God shall one day be in Jerusalem. This prophecy seems to be fulfilled when King Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. This kind of prophecy, as it were, blending both the others in the ancient canonical books devoted to historical narratives, is very common. It has exercised and continues to exercise greatly the talents of those who search holy Scripture.