16. But what about David alone? Let us also consider others in such a discussion, so that we do not think David's weakness was simply that of one man, but rather the weakness of his physical condition. Samson, strong and mighty, strangled a lion, but he could not stifle his love. He broke the chains of his enemies, but he could not break the bonds of his own desires. He set ablaze the harvest of others, and he himself, inflamed by the spark of one woman, lost the harvest of his own virtue. Solomon built a temple for God, but I wish he had preserved his own body as a temple! But let us return to the one to whom I was speaking. David triumphed in ten thousand: but he erred in twenty thousand and more; and because he erred, he knew himself to be a man, confessed his fault, begged for forgiveness, saying to the Lord: Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger, nor chastise me in your fury. Have mercy on me, Lord, for I am weak (Psalm 6:2-3). If David is weak, are you strong? If Solomon has fallen, are you immovable? If Paul is the foremost of sinners, can you be the foremost of saints? Therefore, if the righteous have erred, they have erred as humans, but they have recognized their own sin as righteous. If the righteous have received the sentence of a severe punishment, how do you propose hope of impunity for yourself, when the Scripture says: If the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the sinner and the ungodly appear (I Peter 4:18)?
17. Therefore, children, be aware how often even a good intention is undermined by the cause of adultery; and therefore you must first flee from and avoid the very causes themselves. Do you not want to be captivated by love? Do not focus on the appearance of a woman, for your eyes, when they see someone else, your mouth will speak perversity, and you will lie as if in the heart of the sea, and like a ship's captain in a great storm. For the multitudes of desires create a great tempest, which, like a certain strait in the body, disturbs the one sailing here and there, so that the captain's mind cannot be his own, unaware of the day and night darkness of love.
18. Therefore, desire is excited by the eyes, but it is ignited by drunkenness. For every drunkard and fornicator becomes poor. Do not boast about your power to drink. Noah was drunk, and he who was not drunk by the flood, was drunk by wine. But he did not know the nature of wine, for he had not drunk before: you have learned to be careful in that matter. Lot was deceived in his sleep, and if you do not want to be deceived, shake off the sleep of your mind, so that your drunkenness does not deceive your son or daughter while they are asleep. There is no piety there, but rather drunkenness returned; there is no father there, but rather a sleeping person deceived. Do you not want to be burned? Do not approach the fire. Do you not want to fall headlong? Avoid swaying things, beware of precipices, decline from falling and slipping things.
Therefore, you see that in those who have deserved to be just, there was not another nature, but rather another discipline. After the fall of the first man and the just judgment when the desire of the flesh was condemned in one, the condition drew vice and infected nature; but the vice of nature itself was tempered by faith and the intention of devotion mitigated the offense.
Therefore, let the nations turn to the Lord, knowing that the Lord is God. He made us, not we ourselves. Know that we are flesh and dust. Let us therefore abandon what we have done, and let us worship the author himself, who gave us life, forgave our sins, and who alone can say: I am, I am the one who blots out your iniquities, and I will not remember (Isaiah 43:25). Truly great and merciful is God, who bestows blessings without reproach. You marvel because David made him king, and victor over many nations? Thus he is accustomed to exalt his servants. He is not greedy for gifts, nor sparing of kindness, nor narrow and stingy in his grace; but abundant in generosity, he increases those he has redeemed from sin with rewards. These things are against the Gentiles.
Caput IV.
He refutes the mistaken belief of the Jews that David, who was guilty of sin, or Solomon, to whom the words about Christ do not apply, are the Son of God; and he refutes the false interpretation of certain heretics regarding the Son of God.
But since we have promised a three-part division of this treatise, one part against the Gentiles, another against the Jews, and a third among the Church; now it seems to be necessary to discuss against the Jews. Therefore, let us recall what our purpose is. The title, he says, is 'The understanding of the psalm of David when Nathan the prophet came to him: when he went in to Bathsheba'. Surely this story introduces both the adulterous David and the murderer, and you, Jews, say that he is the Son of God? But God is the God of virtues, not of crimes. And about this, God the Father says: His throne is like the days of heaven (Ps. LXXXVIII, 30); whoever commits deceit will not overcome sins? And as it is written: No one is without sin, except for one God (Luke XVIII, 19). Therefore, if it is impossible for God not to exist, who is the Son of God, certainly the Son of God is the judge of justice, not subject to guilt.
22. But by what opinion do you judge either David to be the son of God, or do you consider Solomon? Or is it because it is written, \"Give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the son of the king\" (Ps. 71:2)? And because the title of the psalm says that it is composed for Solomon in Psalm 71? But pay attention to whom it says Solomon refers to. For Solomon is peaceful, this is what the interpretation says. The psalm is said to be about him, whom we truly know to be the author of peace. But how is Solomon peaceful? This does not indicate the blood of Joab, whom he ordered to be killed among the altars of the temple; nor the punishment of Adonijah, whom he struck as guilty of royal affinity, nor being recalled from indignation by the pleas of his mother. However, how do you suppose that what is written, 'he shall endure with the sun and before the moon forever and ever' (Psalm 71:5), applies to Solomon, the son of David, when he will have obtained only a brief span of life and will have passed through the narrow limits of living? But how is it said of him: He shall have dominion from sea to sea (Ibid., 8); when he, being placed within Syria, that is, within the province of one region, had the boundaries of his empire limited? But Christ alone has extended his dominion to the ends of the whole world. For he alone is the one about whom the psalmist prophesied well, that the kings of Arabia and Sheba will bring gifts, and all the kings of the earth will worship him: all nations will serve him (Psalm 72:10-11). For we know that he ruled over all peoples and nations, with unbounded authority and endless power. Therefore, he is not Solomon, the son of God.
23. But by what reasoning did you believe him to be the Son of God? Was it because he was wise? But here he demanded wisdom, so that he might receive what he did not have: Christ himself is wisdom, naturally possessing it in its entirety, which Solomon received by grace in human affairs. In the end, what is received in time is possessed in time. For Solomon did not have wisdom at the beginning, nor did he possess it at the end. Nor did he believe that he possessed what he asked for; and afterwards, turning away from the worship of God, he fell not as a wise man, but as a foolish one, in order to offend. He offended to such an extent that he even lost what he had deserved. So why did you believe in this son of God? Is it because he built a temple for God? But from this you should have believed that he is not the Lord and God, because it is written: Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain (Ps. 126:1). In vain did he labor, who built that temple, which was consumed by fire. Or is it because it was said to his own father David: You shall not build me a house. But when you sleep, I will raise up your seed after you; and I will build a house to my name. However, there the promised temple is not a physical or material one, for God does not dwell in things made by hands, but the temple is the holy Church, which is founded not by human power, but by celestial virtue.
24. For if we marvel at the works of those who have outstanding skill, yet are still human, we find many such individuals whom we can compare to David and Solomon. And therefore, where there is an equality of work, there is no excellence of power. Nor can we say that there are multiple sons of God, when we have read of only one Son of God; but it is a grievous offense against the Son of God to attribute to Him the benefits He bestowed upon our ancestors. For there are many illustrious men, but it is written that the sun stood still for one Joshua son of Nun, against Gibeon (Joshua 10:13). You see him having surpassed the power of King David; for David ruled over earthly things, not heavenly ones. You also see that he is a servant of the sun, not its master, who even obeyed the human voice. And yet he stood, because he recognized in Jesus both the image of the future and his name. For it was not by his own power that Joshua commanded the heavenly lights, but by the mystery of Christ; for it was indicated that the Son of God would come into this world, who by his divine power would delay the setting of the worldly light that is already declining into darkness, restore the light, and bring in glory. Enoch was also taken up to heaven: but yet he was taken up, but here he returned. He was taken up, lest his heart be changed by wickedness; here he abolished the very wickedness of this age. Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot and horses; but Christ descended from heaven, not in a chariot and horses, as he ascended, because he could not have done so otherwise; but here he returned by his own power. Elisha commanded the leper to wash himself in the Jordan, so that he would be cleansed from all contamination; but here in the Jordan he washed away the whole world. Moses himself, to whom the people of the Jews trusted, divided the water; and indeed he divided the elements, because he did not divide the power of the Trinity; he separated the masses of water, because he did not separate the Father from the Son.
25. You see how great men, and of what kind of works they left behind. Therefore, just as you recognize those who are equal to David the king or to Solomon in virtue, you judge them to be unequal in condition, so that you may think Solomon the son of David to sit at the right hand of God. Especially since David himself clearly expressed about whom it was said, for he would not say about his son: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand (Ps. CIX, 1). For how could he call his son Lord? The law prohibits, religion opposes, faith abhors that you place a mortal man at the right hand of Almighty God. He is the other one who sits at the right hand, who received a body, not the one who began from a body; who was born before Lucifer, that is, before the brightness of all lights; for he himself created the dignities of various lights: for Solomon is after Lucifer. Solomon was not a priest; and therefore it could not be said to him by the Almighty Lord: From the womb before Lucifer I have begotten you (Ibid., 3); it could not be said to him: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Ibid., 4); especially since during the time when Solomon was, there were priests according to the order of Aaron, not according to the order of Melchizedek. For up until now, the priests were offering the blood of goats and bulls for the sins and errors of the people; but after Christ came, who offered himself for the salvation of the world (so that the blood of bulls could not cleanse, but the blood of Christ could), the priests began to offer themselves as sacrifices.
Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ silenced the mouths of all heretics with one question, and he refuted sacrileges. For he not only refuted the Jews, but also the Photinians, the Arians, and the Sabellians with this question. And for this reason, we must now address the Arians, who do not differ much from the Jews, as well as the Photinians and Sabellians, and touch upon some points in this discussion. Let Photinus, therefore, be silent, who says that Christ is the son of David, not the son of God; and let him be silent, condemned by the heavenly voice. For how can he say that Christ is the son of David, when David himself says in the book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool (Ps. 109:1)? If David, he says, calls him Lord, how is he his son (Luke 20:13-14)? Therefore, not the son of David, but the son of God is Christ. Let Sabellianus also be silent; and when he reads that the Lord said to the Lord, let him understand that it is not the same person who speaks as to whom it is spoken: for the Father did not say this to Himself, Sit thou on my right hand; nor to Himself, Set thy enemies as a stool to thy feet. But let them recognize that the Father is one, the Son another; the Father He who commands, the Son He who obeys: to the Father He who sends, to the Son He who is sent. To the Father He who gives, to the Son He who receives. Lastly, let them observe the distinction of persons in a way that the Unity may be believed in. Let them not, therefore, make the Son the Father, because they will lose the Son, if they do not admit Him to be the Son of the Father; neither let them make the Father the Son, as the Sabellian heretics have done, who will lose the Father, not having Him as the Father, unless they hold Him to be the Son. Let him hear the Lord saying to the Lord, let him hear that the Son is sitting on the right hand of the Father; and let him cease from questioning the divinity of the human order. Let him not argue here, because the Father says, sit; for we read elsewhere that the Son is seated without the Father's command, as it is written: And he sits on the right hand of God (Mark XVI, 20). And elsewhere: Henceforth you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God (Matthew XXVI, 64). For it is He to whom it is said, 'Sit at my right hand, who is called the Son of Man'; He hears as a man, He sits as the Son of God. What can be said to be more excellent than this power, which has also placed the flesh of man at the right hand of God; and after the weakness of human nature, nevertheless, united it with the divinity of the eternal Word, when the Word became flesh?
27. But what is this? After Photinus fell silent, Arius was silent, Sabellius lost his voice; yet I still see different heresies with mouths that stir up controversy against the Church. For behold, there is Manichaeus and Valentinianus, and every derivation of the Manichaeans depends on the same weapon by which others have been destroyed; and it fabricates a prejudice against faith, it constructs a testimony for faith. For the detestable heresy says: 'Behold, Christ denied that he is the son of David' (Luke 20:41); and therefore, it says, it must be believed that he did not assume flesh. Which the Scripture very clearly affirms from the very beginning of the Gospel, when it says: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David (Matt. 1:1). So why is David sometimes called the son of someone else, or sometimes the son of David is denied, unless you understand that according to his divine nature he is the Son, and according to his assumption of flesh he is the son of David? For according to his divine nature, he is the Son of God; according to the flesh, he is the son of David. Therefore, when the generation according to the flesh of the Savior is described, he is called the son of David; but when the fullness of confession is required, when the generation of the Savior is designated, he does not want to be called the son of David, but the son of God; for the designation of his majesty interprets his nature. But now that you have refuted the interpretations of the wicked, the discourse must be turned to the Church.
Caput V.
He confirms the arguments brought against the Jews and Gentiles, and turns to the discourse to the Church.
28. However, the fact that we often repeat the title of the fiftieth psalm is not an example of presumption, but of weakness. For in one day, either due to the limitations of our understanding or the frailty of our voice, we cannot deliver the entire series of discourses. And therefore, since our previous discourse was directed against the Jews, who were subjected to the evidence of faith to such an extent that Christ was placed on the heavenly throne, which certainly cannot apply to a mere mortal. For it is not credible that anyone other than the Son of God should sit at the right hand of God. Certainly no one but the Son of God should sit at the right hand of the Father for us, once all ambiguous things have been removed, he is to be esteemed. Furthermore, since Scripture says: 'I will set upon your throne the fruit of your womb' (Psalm 131:11), it is to be believed that the same Son of God received flesh from Mary, in whom the prophetic fruit of the womb is found. This is so that you may truly recognize the succession of origin and not hesitate to believe that this same Son of God, who later became the son of man by accepting human flesh, sits on the heavenly throne of the Father. For Christ did not have any royal throne in this world, so that you may think that another throne similar to that of David has been promised; especially since the Lord Himself said: My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
Therefore, they conclude on all sides, deriving the conditions of their treachery, that it is unbelievable that God would assume flesh; however, they cannot explain the manner by which He could not assume it. For I ask whether they think that the reason the flesh could not be assumed by God is due to impossibility or injustice? If impossibility, then there is something impossible for God: for there is nothing that He wills to do and is unable to do. Therefore, it remains to be taught whether He willed it or not. But what greater indication of will than what He Himself said: 'I have appeared openly to those who did not ask for Me... I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people' (Isa. 65:1-2)? If, therefore, He both wanted and could, do we think that He would not have wanted without cause for injustice? And what injury does divinity feel? For it is devoid of insult, and it is not subject to our passions; for neither could the flesh bring harm or benefit to divinity, nor increase it.
30. But those who object to this argue that the Son of God could not take on flesh. If the pagans, who cannot deny that their gods (since they admit them to have been men) appeared in human form? Did their king, whom they prefer above all their gods, not assume outrageous forms out of love: and yet Christ, the Son of Man, whom He made in His own image, could not assume that most excellent work of His for the salvation of the world? And is it more beautiful to them because of the adultery of an alien bed than because of the redemption of all mankind in the assumed form of flesh? But if a Jew objects to this, how does he read: Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a son; and his name shall be called Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which is interpreted, God is with us? How does he read: Behold, here I am who spoke (Isaiah 53:6)? How does he also claim: Behold, I will meet them like a leopard... and like a bear robbed of her whelps (Hosea 13:7-8)? Therefore, the Son of God could not assume flesh for the redemption of all, since they themselves cannot deny that God, moved by the cruelty of wild beasts, has taken on a certain affliction for the punishment of our sins; so that He, who is by nature kind and merciful, is nevertheless moved by the enormity of our crimes to assume a certain savagery of beasts towards us.
31. But now, since I believe that I have sufficiently responded to the Jews both yesterday and today, dear brothers, a prophetic explanation must be given to you. For when the title of this psalm is read, which says, 'When Nathan went to David, when he went to Bathsheba,' we said that many events of this story are confused: and therefore we have taken up a threefold treatment of it; and we thought that the division of the treatment should be made in such a way that the lapse of condition is not denied among the Gentiles, but the correction of error is established; but among the Jews we would teach that the lapse was holy for David, so that the perfidy of the Jews would no longer stumble, and they would cease to believe that he, whom they saw subject to the common condition of sin, was the Son of God; but Christians can understand the mysteries of the rising Church. Therefore, a threefold division has been made: one according to nature, another according to faith, and a third according to grace; neither weakness excludes from mercy, and faith excuses from fault; the sacraments also reconcile the grace promised long ago.
Caput VI.
He teaches the Church why David and many other authors of the holy race were allowed to fall into error; and in order to more easily bring forth the mysteries from them, he recounts the history of David's murder and adultery.
32. David sinned so that the whole world would not go astray; he sinned for himself, so that he could correct all of us; finally, he sinned against his own body (for whoever commits fornication, sins against his own body), he sinned against his own body so that he could be redeemed in the body of Christ: behold, the one whom we thought was difficult to defend, we now see proclaiming. For who is there that does not want divine gifts to be preached in him more than human works? For we believe, according to the apostle (Rom. III, 28), that a person is justified by faith, without works of the Law. Therefore, let David be justified by faith, who, by the Law, acknowledged sin but believed in the forgiveness of sin through faith; let David be justified, for in his sin the mysteries of the Church shone forth.
Someone asks, in what way did the chosen author of the Dominician lineage commit both adultery and homicide? I say, such an author of the Dominician lineage should have been chosen for his body. For what is corporatio, if not the forgiveness of sins? And therefore, he could not have been void of sin, so that he might offer divine grace both in example and in message. Finally, by that disposition, Bathsheba and Tamar are included among the authors of the Dominician lineage: one of whom committed adultery, the other committed incest. Both Achab and Jechonias are included in the lineage of Christ, as Matthew the Evangelist described (Matt. 1:9 and 11), so that he, who would redeem all men, might begin his benefit from his ancestors. At the same time, so that no one who subjected himself to the passion of the body would seem to have acquired the nobility of an immaculate origin. For this boasting of men is to seek the glory of another, not one's own; and yet among men, the grace of virtue is greater than nobility. At the same time, there was an example of eating together, so that everyone could understand that the faults of our ancestors cannot bring shame to future generations; that each person can erase the stain of their own merit through virtue. Do you see how many and how gravely sinful the succession of the Lord's generation includes, from whose origin Christ did not hesitate to be born because of you? And if you believe this, these are gifts of divine mercy to you, and this is the mark of celestial power. For sin abounded, so that grace might also abound. Therefore, David was not exempt from fault in order to be chosen for grace.
34. But now let us recount the mysteries of the history itself, and let us draw from the very sources of the Scriptures; and so that we may be able to examine the entire series of mysteries, let us repeat the text of the history itself. For thus we remember it expressed in the book of Kings (2 Kings 11:2 ff.), that when David saw Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, bathing, he fell in love with her; then he ordered her to come to his house, while her husband was absent; not long after, her husband returned, a religious and devout man, who, during the time of war, did not think it fitting to enter his house, when he saw his companions intent on the war, not in domestic chambers, but keeping watch in battle tents; afterwards, by David's order, he was called back to the war, under the command that he should be exposed to the enemy warriors, so that the king might have free access to the woman by the death of her husband. And here there is also a certain shame of sin, and the shame of guilt, because he sought a hiding place for his error; and he did not assume the authority of royal power for the unjust killing, but he avoided the envy. He admits guilt, but the shame that is suppressed is more tolerable than the insolence that is preached. So Uriah, having been exposed to the warriors, is dead, but afterwards the same ones who killed him, by the order of David, were destroyed after the city was captured. This is a series of stories, in which you can explore profound mysteries.