It must be noted according to the words of Stephen, that God did not (as appears in Genesis^[1]) speak to Abraham after the death of his father, who certainly died in Haran, where his son also lived with him; but [he spoke to him] before he lived in that city, although he was already in the region of Mesopotamia,^[2] of which Haran was a city.

He shows that these were types, as was Abraham’s leaving of his home country, at God’s command, not against the law (for home and country is where God shall lead): Then he departed, he says, from the land of the Chaldeans. He shows that the Jews, if one looks closely into the matter, are of Persian origin and that, even without miracles, one must do as God says, whatever hardships may result. For even the patriarch left the grave of his father and all that he had in obedience to God’s command. If Abraham’s father had no part in the migration because he was unworthy, much more unworthy were the children, even though they came much of the way.

Therefore the following words, Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans, do not signify a physical but a mental departure, by which he separated himself forever from association with the Chaldeans and their nation. According to the belief of the chronicles, in one and the same year he left Chaldea, entered Mesopotamia, tarried in Haran and was brought into the land of the promise.

[Paphnutius said,] We read that the Lord commanded Abraham to do these three things all at once when he said to him, ‘Leave your country and your kinsfolk and your father’s house.’ First he spoke of your country, namely, of the resources of this world and of earthly wealth; second, of your kinsfolk, namely, of the former way of life and behavior and vices that have been related to us from our birth by a connection as it were of a certain affinity or consanguinity; third, of your father’s house, namely, of every vestige of this world which the eyes gaze upon.

He shows here that the promise had been made before the place, before the circumcision, before sacrifice and before the temple. He also shows that it was not by merit that these people received either circumcision or law, but that obedience alone secured the land as its reward. And even though the circumcision has been given, the promise is not yet fulfilled.

Thus did [Abraham] await patiently the promise of God and was unwilling to appear to receive from people what God had promised to give him, when he said again to him as follows, I will give this land to your seed, from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates. If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said, For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham.

Do you see how what occurred contradicted the promise? Again he said, In Isaac will your seed be named,^[1] and Abraham believed. Then he says, Offer to me as sacrifice this, while this was the one who was to fill all the world from his seed. Did you notice the contradiction between the commands and the promise? He commanded what was in opposition to the promises. Yet not even so did the just man lose his head or say that he had been deceived.

Notice how many years ago was the promise made and the way in which it was made, and no mention of sacrifice anywhere, or of circumcision. Here he shows how God himself allowed them to suffer terribly, and yet he had no complaint against them. Nevertheless their enemies did act with impunity. ‘But I will judge the nation which they serve,’ said God. For it was to prevent them from judging people as pious according to the saying, He puts his trust in God; now let God rescue him^[1] that he, who promised and who gave the land, first permits the sufferings. Likewise also now, even though he had promised a kingdom, he allows us to practice obedience through trial. It was only after four hundred years that the freedom came, so is it any wonder that one has to wait in the case of the kingdom? Nonetheless he did what he promised, and time did not prevail to cast into falsehood his word.

This is not to be understood as meaning that he said that this offspring was to be mistreated or subjected to slavery for four hundred years. Rather, by hyperbaton it should be read in the sense that his offspring would be wanderers for four hundred years, and during part of that time slavery too would fall to their lot. Because it is written, ‘In Isaac your offspring will be called,’^[1] there are counted from the year of Isaac’s birth to the year of the departure from Egypt 405 years (which Scripture according to its usual practice calls 400), during which that offspring would be wanderers, either in the land of Canaan or in Egypt.^[2] It can thus be understood that the hardship of 400 years may be counted from Isaac’s fifth year, during which he began to be ill-treated by the son of the slave girl.^[3]

It is fitting to say here that God is rich in ways to lift us up, since the resourcefulness of God was especially clear here. For even as it suffered reverses—enslavement, maltreatment, slaughter—the nation increased.

See how it demonstrates what Gamaliel said, If it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy it.^[1] See how the victims of plots became the authors of salvation to those plotting against them; how the word, plotting against itself and itself plotted against by others, was saved for all this. The famine did not destroy them. And not only that, but they were saved through him who was expected to perish. The royal edict did not destroy them. Their number at that time rather increased, because he died, the one who knew them. Their savior they wished to kill, but for all that, they had not the power to do it. Do you see how by the very means the devil tries to break the promise of God, the promise is increased?

Thus even the one who was sold as slave, he makes him reign as a king in the place where he was considered a slave. Just as Christ also in death shows his power, so he reigns there, where they sold him.

In his discourse he [Stephen] followed the Septuagint. In the original Hebrew, however, we find only seventy souls. Even if you should wish to count up the same lineage of souls in Genesis, you would find only seventy souls, even with the addition of Jacob himself, and Joseph with his two sons who were in Egypt.^[1]

In fact, it is only of Joseph that Scripture reports his bones being transferred from Egypt and buried in Shechem.^[1] However, from these words of the blessed Stephen and from the writings of Jerome, who was a resident of these very places, it is to be observed that other patriarchs were also buried in the same place, although the memory of Joseph is rightly held more famous, since it was he who commanded that this be done with his bones, and it is to his tribe that this city belonged. Indeed, in his history of the blessed Paula, Jerome reports thus,^[2] She passed through Shechem (not Sychar as many erroneously read), which is now named Neapolis, and she entered the church built on the side of Mount Garizim, in the neighborhood of Jacob’s well, upon which the Lord sat.^[3] And a little further on he says,^[4] And turning away from there, she saw the tombs of the twelve patriarchs. Likewise, in his [Jerome’s] book on the best sort of translating,^[5] But the twelve patriarchs are not buried in Arboc but in Shechem.

Truly when speaking to the populace the blessed Stephen followed the popular opinion in his discourse. In conflating the two accounts he concentrated less on the arrangement of the historical details than on the point with which he was concerned. For this man, who was accused of teaching against the holy place and the law, proceeded to show how it might be demonstrated from the law that Jesus Christ was the promised one and that they [the Jews] had been unwilling to be subject to Moses then, and they were unwilling to be subject to the Lord now. I have given the best explanation that I can, not [intending to] pass judgment in advance on a better opinion, if there should be one. Furthermore, the phrase from the sons of Hamor, the son of Shechem in the Greek exemplar is written from the sons of Hamor, who was in Shechem. This seems to be more in accord with the history in Genesis, although it could have been the case that the same Hamor had both a father and a son named Shechem.

If it was astonishing that Joseph was sold by his brothers, here is something even more astonishing. The king who was to perish nourished the one who was to overthrow his rule. Do you see in all this a figurative enacting, so to speak, of the resurrection of the dead? Yet it is not the same for God himself to do something and for it to come to pass as an act by human choice. For these things indeed came to pass by human choice.

During the time Moses was in Egypt and was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, he was not feeble in speech or slow in tongue, nor did he profess to be ineloquent.^[1] For, so far as concerned the Egyptians, his speech was sonorous and his eloquence incomparable. But when he began to hear the voice of God and recognize divine communications, then he perceived his own voice to be meager and feeble, and he understands his own tongue to be slow and impeded. When he began to recognize that true Word which was in the beginning with God,^[2] then he announces that he is mute. But let us use an analogy that what we are saying may be more easily understood. If a rational person is compared with the dumb animals, although he may be ignorant and unlearned, he will appear eloquent in comparison with those who are devoid of both reason and speech. But if he is compared with learned and eloquent people who are most excellent in all wisdom, he will appear ineloquent and dumb. But if someone should contemplate the divine Word himself and look at the divine wisdom itself, however learned and wise he be, he will confess that he is a dumb animal in comparison with God to a much greater extent than the cattle are in comparison with us.

Thus Moses led the people out of Egypt, and everyone who follows in the steps of Moses in this way sets free from the Egyptian tyrant^[1] all those guided by his word. Those who follow the leader to virtue must, I think, not lack the wealth of Egypt or be deprived of the treasures of the foreigners, but having acquired all the property of their enemies, they must have it for their own use. This is exactly what Moses then commanded the people to do. . . . It commands those participating through virtue in the free life also to equip themselves with the wealth of pagan learning by which foreigners to the faith beautify themselves. Our guide in virtue commands someone who borrows from wealthy Egyptians to receive such things as moral and natural philosophy, geometry, astronomy, dialectic, and whatever else is sought by those outside the church, since these things will be useful when in time the divine sanctuary of mystery must be beautified with the riches of reason.

Those who treasured up for themselves such wealth handed it over to Moses as he was working on the tent of mystery, each one making his personal contribution to the construction of the holy places. It is possible to see this happening even now. For many bring to the church of God their profane learning as a kind of gift: Such a man was the great Basil,^[2] who acquired the Egyptian wealth in every respect during his youth and dedicated this wealth to God for the adornment of the church, the true tabernacle.