Edition ausblenden
Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri triginta tres

83.

Sequitur, ut Iudae factum consideremus, quod cum sua nuru concubuit, quid significaverit futurorum. Sed prius praeloquendum est, ne quemquam parvae considerationis offendat, quod de quibusdam malis operibus hominum in scripturis sanctis quaedam non mala, sed bona futura significantur. p. 685,12 Servat enim ubique divina providentia virtutem bonitatis suae, ut, quemadmodum ex adulterorum concubitu formatur et nascitur homo, de hominum opere malo bonum opus dei – sicut in praecedenti sermone iam diximus de fecunditate seminum, non de turpitudine vitiorum – ita in scripturis propheticis non tantum bona hominum, verum etiam et mala facta narrantibus, quoniam prophetica est ipsa narratio, significetur aliquid de malis operibus hominum etiam futurorum bonorum, non peccantis opere, sed scribentis. Neque enim Iudas, cum ad Thamar concupiscentia victus intraret, hanc suae libidinis intentionem gerebat, ut inde aliquid significaretur, quod ad salutem hominum pertineret, sicut nec Iudas ille, qui dominum tradidit, hoc intendit, ut aliquid inde gereretur, quod ad eandem salutem hominum pertineret. p. 685,25 Porro si de tam malo opere Iudae illius tam bonum opus dominus fecit, ut eiusdem suae passionis sanguine nos redimeret, quid mirum, si propheta eius, de quo ipse ait: De me enim ille scripsit, ex malo facto Iudae istius boni aliquid significavit, ut suo ministerio nos doceret? Ea quippe hominum facta sancto spiritu disponente atque inspirante collegit propheta narrator, quorum interpositio non vacaret a praesignatione rerum, quas intenderat prophetare. Ad significanda autem aliqua bona nihil interest, facta illa, quibus ea significantur, seu bona seu mala sint. Quid enim mea interest, cum volo aliquid legendo cognoscere, utrum ex minio reperiam scriptos nigros Aethiopes et ex atramento candidos Gallos? Verumtamen, si non scripturam, sed picturam talem viderem, sine dubitatione reprehenderem. p. 686,9 Ita in factis hominum, quae ad imitandum vitandumve proponuntur, magis interest, bonane an mala sint, quae autem ad significandum scribuntur sive dicuntur, nihil refert, in moribus facientium quam laudem reprehensionemve mereantur, si modo habent aliquam rei, de qua agitur, necessariam praefigurandi congruentiam. Sicut enim Caiphae in evangelio, quantum ad eius noxium perniciosumque animum pertinebat, quantum denique ad ipsa verba, si in eis voluntatem dicentis attendas, quibus agebat, ut iustus iniuste necaretur, utique mala erant, tamen magnum bonum illo nesciente significabant, quando ait: Expedit, ut unus moriatur et non tota gens pereat,dictumque de illo est: Hoc autem a se non dixit, sed cum esset pontifex, prophetavit, quia oportebat Iesum mori pro gente, p. 686,22 ita factum Iudae secundum illius libidinem malum fuit, sed illo nesciente magnum bonum significavit; a se ipso quippe malum fecit, sed non a se ipso bonum significavit. Hoc autem, quod necessario praeloquendum putavi, non ad hoc tantummodo Iudae factum sed etiam ad cetera valeat, si qua occurrerint mala opera hominum, quibus bonum aliquid a narrante prophetatum est.

Übersetzung ausblenden
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean

83.

We have next to consider the prophetic significance of the action of Judah in lying with his daughter-in-law. But, for the sake of those whose understanding is feeble, we shall begin with observing, that in sacred Scripture evil actions are sometimes prophetic not of evil, but of good. Divine providence preserves throughout its essential goodness, so that, as in the example given above, from adulterous intercourse a man-child is born, a good work of God from the evil of man, by the power of nature, and not due to the misconduct of the parents; so in the prophetic Scriptures, where both good and evil actions are recorded, the narrative being itself prophetic, foretells something good even by the record of what is evil, the credit being due not to the evil-doer, but to the writer. Judah, when, to gratify his sinful passion, he went in to Tamar, had no intention by his licentious conduct to typify anything connected with the salvation of men, any more than Judas, who betrayed the Lord, intended to produce any result connected with the salvation of men. So then if from the evil deed of Judas the Lord brought the good work of our redemption by His own passion, why should not His prophet, of whom He Himself says "He wrote of me," for the sake of instructing us make the evil action of Judah significant of something good? Under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the prophet has compiled a narrative of actions so as to make a continuous prophecy of the things he designed to foretell. In foretelling good, it is of no consequence whether the typical actions are good or bad. If it is written in red ink that the Ethiopians are black, or in black ink that the Gauls are white, this circumstance does not affect the information which the writing conveys. No doubt, if it was a painting instead of a writing, the wrong color would be a fault; so when human actions are represented for example or for warning much depends on whether they are good or bad. But when actions are related or recorded as types, the merit or demerit of the agents is a matter of no importance, as long as there is a true typical relation between the action and the thing signified. So in the case of Caiaphas in the Gospel as regards his iniquitous and mischievous intention, and even as regards his words in the sense in which he used them, that a just man should be put to death unjustly, assuredly they were bad; and yet there was a good meaning in his words which he did not know of when he said, "It is expedient that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not." So it is written of Him, "This he spake not of himself; but being the high priest, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the people." ¹ In the same way the action of Judah was bad as regards his sinful passion, but it typified a great good he knew nothing of. Of himself he did evil while it was not of himself that he typified good. These introductory remarks apply not only to Judah, but also to all the other cases where in the narrative of bad actions is contained a prophecy of good.