• Accueil
  • Œuvres
  • Introduction Instructions Collaboration Sponsors / Collaborateurs Copyrights Contact Mentions légales
Bibliothek der Kirchenväter
Recherche
DE EN FR
Œuvres Augustin d'Hippone (354-430) Contra Faustum Manichaeum Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
Book XXII.

84.

In Tamar, then, the daughter-in-law of Judah, we see the people of the kingdom of Judah, whose kings, answering to Tamar's husbands, were taken from this tribe. Tamar means bitterness; and the meaning is suitable, for this people gave the cup of gall to the Lord. 1 The two sons of Judah represent two classes of kings who governed ill--those who did harm and those who did no good. One of these sons was evil or cruel before the Lord; the other spilled the seed on the ground that Tamar might not become a mother. There are only those two kinds of useless people in the world--the injurious and those who will not give the good they have but lose it or spill it on the ground. And as injury is worse than not doing good, the evil-doer is called the elder and the other the younger. Er, the name of the elder, means a preparer of skins, which were the coats given to our first parents when they were punished with expulsion from paradise. 2 Onan, the name of the younger, means, their grief; that is, the grief of those to whom he does no good, wasting the good he has on the earth. The loss of life implied in the name of the elder is a greater evil than the want of help implied in the name of the younger. Both being killed by God typifies the removal of the kingdom from men of this character. The meaning of the third son of Judah not being joined to the woman, is that for a time the kings of Judah were not of that tribe. So this third son did not become the husband of Tamar; as Tamar represents the tribe of Judah, which continued to exist, although the people received no king from it. Hence the name of this son, Selom, means, his dismission. None of those types apply to the holy and righteous men who, like David, though they lived in those times, belong properly to the New Testament, which they served by their enlightened predictions. Again, in the time when Judah ceased to have a king of its own tribe, the elder Herod does not count as one of the kings typified by the husbands of Tamar; for he was a foreigner, and his union with the people was never consecrated with the holy oil. His was the power of a stranger, given him by the Romans and by Caesar. And it was the same with his sons, the tetrarchs, one of whom, called Herod, like his father, agreed with Pilate at the time of the Lord's passion. 3 So plainly were these foreigners considered as distinct from the sacred monarchy of Judah, that the Jews themselves, when raging against Christ, exclaimed openly, "We have no king but Caesar." 4 Nor was Caesar properly their king, except in the sense that all the world was subject to Rome. The Jews thus condemned themselves, only to express their rejection of Christ, and to flatter Caesar.


  1. Matt. xxvii. 34. ↩

  2. Gen. iii. 21. ↩

  3. Luke xxiii. 12. ↩

  4. John xix. 15. ↩

pattern
  Imprimer   Rapporter une erreur
  • Afficher le texte
  • Référence bibliographique
  • Scans de cette version
Les éditions de cette œuvre
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres Comparer
Traductions de cette œuvre
Contre Fauste, le manichéen Comparer
Gegen Faustus Comparer
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

Table des matières

Faculté de théologie, Patristique et histoire de l'Église ancienne
Miséricorde, Av. Europe 20, CH 1700 Fribourg

© 2025 Gregor Emmenegger
Mentions légales
Politique de confidentialité