Considering Commands

Iterum quaestio: Sciebat praevaricaturum Deus Adam mandata sua, an nesciebat? Si nesciebat, non est ista divinae potestatis assertio: si autem sciebat, et nihilominus sciens negligenda mandavit, non est Dei aliquid superfluum praecipere. Superfluum autem praecepit protoplasto illi Adae, quod cum noverat minime servaturum: nihil autem Deus superfluum facit; ergo non est Scriptura ex Deo. Hoc enim objiciunt, qui Vetus non recipiunt Testamentum, et has interserunt quaestiones. Verum hi sua sententia et opinione vincendi sunt. Cum enim novi Testamenti non refutant fidem, exemplo sunt arguendi, ut vetus credant: quoniam cum sibi divina praecepta et facta conveniant, unius auctoris Testamentum utrumque liquet esse credendum. Discant igitur non superfluum, non injustum etiam praevaricaturo praescriptum esse mandatum. Nam et ipse Dominus Jesus elegit Judam, quem proditorem sciebat. Quem si per imprudentiam electum putant, divinae derogant potestati. Sed hoc aestimare non possunt, cum Scriptura dicat: Quia sciebat Jesus quis eum proditurus esset. Conticescant igitur repugnatores isti veteris Testamenti. Sed quoniam etiam gentilibus, si forte istud objecerint, respondendum videtur, qui exemplum non recipiunt, rationem exigunt; accipiant etiam ipsi qua ratione Dei Filius vel praevaricaturo mandaverit, vel elegerit proditurum. Venerat Dominus Jesus omnes salvos facere peccatores, etiam circa impios ostendere suam debuit voluntatem. Et ideo nec proditurum debuit praeterire; ut adverterent omnes, quod in electione etiam proditoris sui servandorum omnium insigne praetendit, nec in eo laesus est vel Adam, quia mandatum accepit, vel Judas, quia electus est. Non enim necessitatem Deus vel illi praevaricationis, vel huic proditionis imposuit, quia uterque si quod acceperat, custodisset, a peccato abstinere potuisset. Denique nec Judaeos omnes credituros sciebat, et tamen ait: Non veni nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel. Ergo non in mandante culpa est, sed in praevaricante peccatum est. Et quod in Deo fuit, ostendit omnibus quod omnes voluit liberare. Nec tamen dico quia praevaricationem nesciebat futuram, immo quia sciebat assero: sed non ideo pereuntis proditoris invidiam in se debuit derivare, ut ascriberetur Deo, quod uterque sit lapsus. Nunc autem uterque redarguitur, atque reconvincitur; quia et ille mandatum ne laberetur accepit, et hic etiam in apostolatus munus adscitus est, ut vel beneficio Dei revocaretur a proditionis affectu; simul ut dum alii revincuntur, prodesset omnibus. Non enim consisteret peccatum, si interdictio non fuisset. Non consistente autem peccato, non solum malitia, sed etiam virtus fortasse non esset: quae nisi aliqua malitiae fuissent semina, vel subsistere vel eminere non posset. Quid est enim peccatum, nisi praevaricatio legis divinae, et coelestium inobedientia praeceptorum? Non enim auribus corporis de mandatis coelestibus judicamus: sed cum esset Dei verbum, opiniones quaedam nobis boni et mali pullularunt; dum id quod malum est, naturaliter intelligimus esse vitandum, et id quod bonum est naturaliter nobis intelligimus esse praeceptum. In eo igitur vocem Domini videmur audire, quod alia interdicat, alia praecipiat. Et ideo si quis non obedierit illis quae semel a Deo praecepta credimus, poenae obnoxius aestimatur. Dei autem praeceptum non quasi in tabulis lapideis atramento legimus inscriptum, sed cordibus nostris tenemus impressum spiritu Dei vivi. Ergo opinio nostra ipsa sibi legem facit. Si enim gentes quae legem non habent, naturaliter ea quae legis sunt, faciunt; ejusmodi legem non habentes ipsi sibi sunt lex, qui ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis. Opinio igitur humana sibi tamquam Dei lex est. Sanctus Ambrosius Mediolanensis, De Paradiso, Caput VIII Source: Migne PL 14.291d-293a

Again a question: 'Did God know that Adam would disobey His commands, or did He not know? If He did not know, it is a detraction from Divine power; if He knew, and nevertheless commanded which He knew would be disregarded, it is not Godlike to give an unnecessary order. It was superfluous to issue a command to the first created Adam which He knew would not be observed. But God does nothing superfluous, therefore, this Scripture is not from God.' Now they who do not accept the Old Testament give this as an objection and so they propose these questions. Truly these are to be condemned from their own thought and opinion. When they do not withold trust in the New Testament, they must be convinced by example that they should believe the Old, because when they see His commands and His deeds harmonise, it is clear that they must believe that both Testaments are the work of one Author. Let them learn, then, that a command to one who will disobey is not something unjust or superfluous. The Lord Himself chose Judas, whom He knew would betray Him. Which if they think that he was chosen unwisely, they diminish the power of God. But they cannot judge so, since Scripture says: 'For Jesus knew who it was who would betray Him.' 1 Those who are hostile to the Old Testament should therefore be silent. But because it apears that the Gentiles, if they should object to this also must have their reply, they who will not admit example but demand reason, let them understand for what reason the Son of God either commanded one who would disobey or chose a betrayer. The Lord Jesus came to save all sinners; 2 even for the impious He had to show care, and therefore it was not that he should have passed over a traitor, that all might see that in the choice of traitor was a sign of His service of all; no injury was done to Adam because he received a command, nor Judas, because he was chosen. God did not impose it as a necessity that one disobey him and the other become a traitor, because both, if they had guarded what they received, were able to avoid sin. Then He knew that not all the Jews would believe, yet He still said: 'I have not come but to the lost sheep of Israel.' 3  Therefore there is no fault in commanding, but the sin is in the one who disobeys. God's intent was this: He showed to everyone that He wished everyone to be free. I do not say, however, that He did not know of the future disobedience to come. Rather, I assert that He did know, but that He should not therefore be reproved for the envy of a betrayer going to destruction, so that the cause of the fall of both is ascribed to God. For now both are convicted, and condemned, because the former received a command not to fall, and the latter was enrolled among the Apostles, that he, by the kindness of God, might be recalled from his intention to betray, and that at that time when the others were overthrown he might be a help to all. There would not be any sin if there were no prohibition. Without the existence of sin there would not only be no wickedness but, perhaps, not even virtue, which unless their were seeds of wickedness, there would be no falling short or preeminence. What indeed is sin, if not disregard of Divine law and disobedience to heavenly commands? Not by the ear of the body do we judge heavenly commands, but only with the Word of God can we bring forth opinions on good and evil, so that naturally we understand what should be avoided is evil and what is naturally good for us to be a command. In this, then, we seem to hear the voice of the Lord, that some things are forbidden and other things commanded. And therefore if someone does not obey those things which are believed to have been once commanded by God, he is considered to be liable to punishment. The commands of God we do not read as if they were recorded in ink on a tablet of stone, but they are impressed in our hearts by the Spirit of the living God. 4 Thus in our own thought we conceive a law. 'If the Gentiles who have no law do by nature what the law prescribes, those having no law of this kind are a law to themselves. They show the work of the law written in their hearts.' 5 Therefore human opinion to itself is as the Law of God. Saint Ambrose, On Paradise, Chap 8 1 Jn 6.65 2 Lk 19.10 3 Prov 5.15 4 2 Cor 3.3 5 Rom 2.14-15