Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 59 part 31/33

For the first age is before the law, the second under the law, the third under grace. But the several ages are signified by the number six, on account of perfection; for three sixes are eighteen. Whence also that woman had been eighteen years in her infirmity, whom the Saviour, when he had found her bowed down, raised up and loosed from the bond of the devil, as the Gospel indicates. For that these men were tested in such a way, through whom Gideon should conquer, that they were said to be like dogs in drinking, signifies that the Lord chose the contemptible and ignoble things; for a dog is held in contempt. Whence he says, 'It is not good to take the bread of the children and to cast it to dogs'; and David, to cast himself down as though contemptible, called himself a dog, speaking to Saul.

What is the meaning of what is written concerning Gideon: 'He himself went down, and Phurah his servant, into the part of the fifty who were in the camp'? — which certain Latin codices have as 'into that part in which were the fifty guards in the camp,' but others as 'into the fiftieth part in the camp'; for the obscure wording has produced several opinions of the translators. But either that was a part of the camp which fifty guards were keeping, or, if we are to understand fifty guarding on every side, these men went down into one part where there were fifty.

As for the fact that the man who told his neighbour the dream — which Gideon heard, that he might be confirmed concerning the future victory — said that he had seen a cake of barley bread rolling in the camp and striking the tent of Midian and overturning it, I judge this to be understood in the same way as the matter of the dogs: because through the contemptible things of the world — which the cake of barley bread signifies — the Saviour was to confound the proud. As for the fact that Gideon commanded to be cried out by his three hundred, 'A sword for the Lord and for Gideon' — that is, 'for this Gideon' — this signifies that the sword was to work that which should please the Lord and Gideon. It is commonly asked what an 'ephud' or 'ephod' is.

Now if indeed this ephod is a priestly vestment, as most say, or rather an over-garment—which in Greek is called endyma, or epomis, which in Latin can better be rendered 'that which is worn over the shoulders'—then it rightly raises the question how Gideon made it out of so great a quantity of gold. For it is written thus: 'And the weight of the golden earrings which he had requested was a thousand seven hundred shekels of gold, besides the bracelets and the collars and the purple coverings which were upon the kings of Midian, besides the collars which were on the necks of their camels. And Gideon made it into an ephod and set it up in his own city, in Ophrah. And all Israel went a-whoring after it there, and it became a stumbling-block to Gideon and to his house.'

How then could this vestment be made from so great a quantity of gold? For the mother of Samuel too, as we read, made for her son an 'ephud bar,' which some have interpreted as 'a linen ephod,' when she gave him to the Lord to be reared in the temple; and here it appears more clearly that this is a kind of garment. Or was it said, 'he set it up in his own city,' precisely so that from this it might be understood to have been made of gold? For it does not say 'he placed it,' but 'he set it up,' since it was so solid and strong that it could be set up—that is, stand upright once placed. So then, when Gideon had done this unlawful thing, all Israel went a-whoring after it—that is, by following it against the law of God.

Here it is not vainly asked: since it was not an idol—that is, not an image of any false and alien god, but an ephod, that is, one of the sacred things of the tabernacle belonging to the priestly vestment—how does Scripture speak of the fornication of a people that pursued and venerated these things? Namely for this reason: because apart from God's tabernacle, where these things were which God had commanded to be made there, it was not lawful for anything similar to be made outside. Therefore Scripture goes on and says:

'And it became a stumbling-block to Gideon and to his house'—that is, so that he departed from the God he had offended; because this too was in some manner a certain kind of idol: namely that anything whatever made by hand outside God's tabernacle should be worshipped in place of God, whereas those very things that were commanded to be made in the tabernacle were to be referred rather to the worship of God, and none of them was to be held as an object to be worshipped in place of God or in place of an image of God. Although, through 'ephud' or 'ephod,' by that manner of speech which signifies the whole by a part, one may understand all the things that Gideon set up in his own city as though for the worship of God, in imitation of God's tabernacle.

And therefore by this—because this ephod is a badge of priestly honour, which Scripture often mentions—the sin of Gideon is this: that outside God's tabernacle he made something similar, where God should be worshipped. Not that he set up the ephod of solid gold as an object of adoration, but that from the very gold, which came from the spoil, he made those things that pertained to the ornaments or instruments of the sanctuary, all of which are signified by the ephod, on account of the excellence, as I have said, of the priestly vestment. For not even the ephod itself was commanded to be made of gold alone, if this is the shoulder-piece of the priestly vestment; nevertheless it does have some gold too, for it was divinely commanded to be made of gold and blue and purple and scarlet and fine linen.

But because the Seventy translators set it down thus—that, after mentioning all that Gideon had received from the spoils, they add: 'And Gideon made it into an ephod'—it seems to be said as though it were believed that this was made out of the whole of what was mentioned; although even there one may understand a manner of speech which signifies the part by the whole, so that what is said, 'he made it into an ephod,' may be understood as 'he made an ephod from it' or 'he made an ephod out of it.' That is, not consuming the whole of it in the ephod, but expending as much of it as sufficed. For in that translation which is from the Hebrew it is read thus: 'And Gideon made an ephod out of it.' For what among the Septuagint is written 'ephud' is reported in the Hebrew to be called 'ephod.'

Not all the priests, however, used such a shoulder-piece as was made of gold and blue and purple and scarlet and fine linen, but the high priest alone. Hence that which we mentioned as having been made for Samuel by his mother was certainly not of such a kind, since when he was given to be reared he was surely not, as a boy, the high priest. Hence, as has been said, it is called 'ephud bar,' or rather 'ephud bat,' as those who know the Hebrew tongue assert, and it is interpreted 'a linen ephod.' But I judge that Gideon made that which was the chief garment and ornament of the high priest, through which the other works of the sanctuary also were signified, and which he had set up in his own city apart from God's tabernacle.

And on account of this sin it became a stumbling-block to him and to his house, so that thus perished—as Scripture afterward relates—so great a multitude of his sons. There arises a question not to be passed over: how the land had rest for forty years in the days of Gideon, when after the victory by which he had freed the Hebrews he made an abomination out of the gold of the spoils, and after it all Israel went a-whoring, and it was a stumbling-block to him and to his house.

How then, after so great a wickedness, which both Gideon and the people committed, did the land have rest for forty years—when Scripture is wont to show that, when the people went a-whoring from the Lord God, they then rather lost peace than acquired it, and were subjugated to enemies, not fortified against the enemies' assault? But it must be understood that Scripture, as is its custom, spoke by prolepsis, that is, by anticipation, in saying that Gideon made the ephod against God's law out of that gold which had been taken from the conquered and overthrown enemies; because it wished to state in one place both whence the gold came and what was made of it.

But afterward, at the end of Gideon's days, this sin was committed, when there also ensued the evils which Scripture then wove into the narrative, after it had mentioned how many years the land had rested in the days of Gideon—which years it mentioned by way of recapitulation, that is, returning to the order which it had earlier passed over by speaking first of that stumbling-block which was done last of all. 'And it came to pass, when Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned away and went a-whoring after Baalim, and they set up for themselves Baal-berith as a covenant, that he might be to them a god.' And Baalim and Baal-berith are to be understood as idols.

A greater transgression and fornication, therefore, was committed by the people after Gideon's death than while he lived, on account of the ephod; since that ephod, even though it had been unlawfully made, was nevertheless of the sacred things of the tabernacle; but this fornication after idols has not even a false defence of ancestral religion. Hence, even if that ephod was made not at the end of Gideon's time but before, God bore it patiently, so that peace endured in the land, because, although a thing had been done which He had forbidden, yet there had been no far departure from Him who had commanded such a thing to be made in His own tabernacle and for His own honour. But now He willed that the graver deeds and the most open fornication of the people after idols should not go unpunished.

As for the bramble being introduced—that is, a certain kind of thorn-bush—saying, by way of parable, to all the trees agreeing to it that it should reign over them: 'If in truth you anoint me to reign over you, come, put your trust in my protection; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon'—the sense is obscure, but a distinction once found makes it plain. For it is not to be read thus: 'and if let not fire come out of the bramble,' but there must be a sub-distinction, 'and if not,' and then the addition, 'let fire come out of the bramble.' That is: 'And if you do not put your trust in my protection,' or, 'and if you do not in truth anoint me to reign over you, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'

For these are the words of one threatening what it could do, if they should be unwilling for it to reign over them. But because it does not say, 'fire will come out of the bramble and will devour the cedars of Lebanon,' but says, 'let it come out and let it devour,' it has been made more obscure than if the distinction alone lay hidden. Moreover it is a more vehement threat, and in a manner one of more present efficacy, if one says: 'If you will not do what I wish, let my anger rage against you'—that is, let it rage now, why should I hold it back?—than if one says, 'it will rage,' threatening a future penalty in a promissory manner. 'And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem.' Whether this expression signifies God commanding or permitting cannot easily be determined.

For what is here rendered 'he sent' the Greek has as 'exapesteilen,' which is also in the Psalms, where it is read: 'Send forth thy light.' Although in certain places our translators, even where in the Greek there is 'exapesteilen,' have rendered 'he sent,' not 'he sent forth.' It can therefore be understood in this way too, that God, as it were, sent forth the evil spirit which was itself willing to go among them—that is, He gave power to the evil spirit to disturb their peace. And it has seemed not absurd that an evil spirit is even sent by the Lord for the sake of justice in taking vengeance, so much so that some have rendered what is 'exapesteilen' as 'he sent forth.' The words which Zebul, the ruler of the city of Shechem, sent to the messengers of Abimelech have this too:

'And now rise by night, you and your people with you, and lie in wait in the field. And it shall be in the morning, as soon as the sun rises, you shall make early haste and stretch out against the city.' Where certain Latin copies have 'maturabis' (you shall hasten early), but some 'manicabis,' the Greek has what could be expressed in more than one word: 'at dawn you shall rise.' And perhaps 'maturabis' is said from this, from the morning (matutino) time, although it is also wont to be said at other times of hastening a matter. But 'manicabis' does not occur to me as a Latin word. But that troubles me: that when it had said 'as soon as the sun rises,' it added 'at dawn you shall rise,' whereas dawn itself, which in Greek is called 'orthros,' signifies the time before the sun, which is now very commonly spoken of as when it has begun to grow light.

Thus therefore it is to be understood, that what is set down as 'morning' is itself to be understood as dawn. But there was added, 'as soon as the sun rises,' so as to express that it was to be done not when the sun had already risen, but when the radiance of the rising sun should appear. For dawn grows light from no other source than when the light of the sun, returning toward it, begins to touch that part of the sky which we see in the east. Hence it is that even in the Gospel one and the same event one evangelist says was done at dawn, while it was yet dark, another at sunrise; because even that light of dawn, however slight, came about by the sun rising—that is, coming toward its rising and casting its own radiance from the nearness of its presence.

Which light certain ignorant persons have thought not to be of the sun, but to be that light which was first created, before God on the fourth day created the sun. 'And after Abimelech there arose, to save Israel, Tola the son of Puah, the son of his father's brother, a man of Issachar.' It called the son of his uncle 'the son of his father's brother,' although it would have been said more properly and more usually and more clearly, 'the son of the brother of his father'; for he was the son of his uncle, as is found more evidently in that translation which is from the Hebrew. Therefore what is said, 'of the father's brother,' is not declined from what is in the nominative 'father of a brother,' but from that which is 'the brother of a father'; for this is the uncle. For whether it be put in the nominative:

'this father of a brother' (hic pater fratris), or it be put 'this brother of a father' (hic patris frater), it makes the genitive 'of this father's brother' (huius patris fratris). But another question arises: how was the uncle of Abimelech a man of Issachar, that is, a man of the tribe of Issachar, since Abimelech had as father Gideon, who Gideon was of the tribe of Manasseh? How then were Puah and Gideon brothers, so that Puah could be the uncle of Abimelech, whose uncle's son Tola succeeded, according to this narrative, Abimelech himself? Gideon and Puah, then, could have had one mother, from whom they were born of different fathers and were brothers—sons of one mother, not of one father. For women used to marry from other tribes into other tribes.

Hence Saul too, though he was of the tribe of Benjamin, gave his daughter to David, a man of the tribe of Judah; and the priest Jehoiada, certainly a man of the tribe of Levi, married the daughter of King Jehoram, a man of the tribe of Judah. Hence it came about that we read in the Gospel of Elizabeth and Mary as kinswomen, though Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron. From which it is understood that some woman of the tribe of Levi and of the daughters of Aaron married into the tribe of Judah. Whence that kinship arose between the two, so that the flesh of the Lord was propagated not only from a royal but also from a priestly stock. Among the other things which Jephthah sends by messengers to the king of the children of Ammon, he also says this:

'Are not the things which Chemosh thy god gave thee to inherit, these thou shalt inherit; and all the things which the Lord our God gave to inherit before your face, these we shall inherit?' Which certain Latins thought should be interpreted so as to say: 'Are not the things which Chemosh thy god gave thee in inheritance, these thou shalt possess?' Where Jephthah may seem to have confirmed that this god, who is called Chemosh, was able to give something in inheritance to his worshippers. But some have it thus: 'Are not the things which Chemosh thy god possessed, these thou shalt possess?' And this sounds as though he could possess something. Or was it perhaps said according to this, that the nations were placed under angels, according to the canticle of Moses the servant of God?

Was that angel, then, under whom were the children of Ammon, called Chemosh? Who would dare to affirm this, when it can be understood to have been said according to his (the king's) opinion, because he thought his god possessed this or had given it to him in possession? But this sense shines forth more in these words which the Greek has: 'Are not the things which Chemosh thy god gave thee to inherit, these thou shalt inherit?'—so that in the word 'thee' it may be understood to have been said as if it were said: 'as it seems to thee.' For 'he gave thee to inherit' who thinkest this, not that he (Chemosh) could give anything to inherit. Finally, in what follows, 'and all the things which the Lord our God gave to inherit,' he did not say, 'gave us to inherit,' as though he were saying:

'as it seems to us,' but 'He truly gave to inherit before your face,' since He took away from them and gave to these: 'these,' he says, 'we shall inherit.' Concerning the daughter of Jephthah, that her father offered her to God as a burnt offering—since in the war he had vowed, if he should conquer, that he would offer as a burnt offering whoever should meet him first coming out of his house; and when he had vowed this, he conquered, and, his daughter meeting him, he rendered what he had vowed—this is wont to be a great question and most difficult to judge, both for certain persons who, desiring to know, piously inquire what this may mean for them, and for certain persons who, with unskilled impiety, oppose these holy Scriptures, above all bringing this as a charge: that the God of the Law and the Prophets was pleased even with human sacrifices.

To whose calumnies we first reply thus: that the God of the Law and the Prophets—and, to speak more expressly, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—was not even pleased with those sacrifices in which the burnt offerings of cattle were offered, but, because they were significative and certain shadows of things to come, He willed to commend to us the very realities which were signified by those sacrifices; but that there was also this useful reason why they were changed and are now not merely not commanded but forbidden to be offered: lest we should think that God, according to carnal affection, is truly pleased with such things. But whether even future things ought to have been signified by human sacrifices is rightly asked:

not that we ought in this matter to shudder at and dread the deaths of men who are one day to die, if those who accepted such things being done to themselves gladly were commended to God for an eternal reward. But if this were true, this kind of sacrifice would not displease God; and that it does displease God the same Scripture testifies plainly enough. For although He willed all the firstborn to be dedicated to Himself and to be His, and so commanded, yet He willed the firstborn of men to be redeemed from Him, lest they should believe that their sons, whom they had first received when born, were to be immolated to God. Then He speaks more openly thus, that God so disapproves of human burnt offerings that He forbids them, detesting them in other nations and commanding His own people not to dare to imitate.

'But if,' He says, 'the Lord thy God shall destroy the nations into whose land thou art entering to inherit it, from before thy face, and thou shalt inherit them and dwell in their land, take heed to thyself, lest thou seek to follow them after they have been destroyed from before thy face, lest thou seek their gods, saying: As the nations do to their gods, so will I also do. Thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God; for the abominations which the Lord hates they did to their gods, since they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.' What can be shown more evidently than by these testimonies of holy Scripture—to omit others of this kind—than that God,

by whom this Scripture was imparted to the human race, not only does not love but even hates such sacrifices, in which men are immolated? Those He plainly loves and crowns: when any just man, suffering iniquity even unto death, contends for the truth, or is slain by enemies whom he has offended for justice' sake, repaying them good for evil—that is, love for hatred. Such just blood the Lord calls it, 'from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah.' But above all, because He Himself shed His blood for us and offered Himself as a sacrifice to God; and thus indeed He offered Himself, so as to be slain by enemies for justice' sake.

Imitating Him, thousands of martyrs contended unto death for the truth and were immolated by raging enemies. Concerning whom Scripture says: 'As gold in the furnace He tried them, and as a burnt-offering victim He received them.' Whence the Apostle also says: 'For I am now being offered.' But Jephthah did not thus make of his daughter a burnt offering to the Lord, but as it had been commanded that cattle be offered and forbidden that men be immolated. That which Abraham did seems more like this: which the Lord specifically commanded to be done, not by a general law commanding that such sacrifices at some time be made to Him; nay rather, He forbade them to be made at all.

This, then, which Jephthah did differs from the deed of Abraham, since Abraham, being commanded, offered his son, but Jephthah did what was both forbidden by the Law and commanded by no special order. Then, not only afterward in His own Law, but even then, in Abraham's very son, God showed how little He was pleased with such sacrifices: when He forbade the father—whose faith He had proved by commanding—from the slaying of his son, and set beside him a ram, by which the sacrifice might lawfully be completed according to the custom of the ancients suited to those times.

But if this troubles anyone—how Abraham could piously have believed that God was pleased with such sacrifices, if these are unlawfully offered to God—and for this reason he thinks that Jephthah too rightly believed that such a sacrifice could be acceptable to God, let him first consider that it is one thing to vow of one's own accord, another to obey one who commands. For if something contrary to custom, instituted in a house by the master, is commanded to a servant, and he does it with laudable obedience, he is not therefore to be punished; but if he should presume to do this of his own accord, he is.

Then Abraham had that which he might believe: that on account of the divine command he should not spare his son—not believing that God gladly accepts such victims, but that He had commanded this for the reason that He might raise up the slain and thereby demonstrate something, as a wise God. For this too is read of him even in the epistle which is inscribed to the Hebrews, and his faith is praised, because he believed this of God: that He could raise up his son. But Jephthah, with God neither commanding nor demanding, and against His lawful precept, of his own accord vowed a human sacrifice. For thus it is written: 'And Jephthah vowed a vow to the Lord and said:'

'If Thou wilt indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me on my returning in peace from the children of Ammon shall be the Lord's, and I will offer him up as a burnt offering.' He certainly did not by these words vow any animal, which according to the Law he might offer as a burnt offering; for it is not, nor was it, the custom that cattle should come to meet leaders returning with victory from war. But as regards dumb animals, dogs are wont to run to meet their masters, sporting with fawning servility: of which he could not think in his vow, lest to the injury of God he should be seen to have vowed something not only unlawful but even contemptible and, according to the Law, unclean. Nor did he say:

'Whatever (neuter) comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, I will offer it up as a burnt offering,' but he said: 'Whoever (masculine) comes forth, I will offer him up.' Where beyond doubt he thought of nothing other than a human being; yet perhaps not his only daughter. And yet who, in such great paternal glory, could go before her, unless perhaps his wife? For as to his saying not 'whatever female,' but 'whoever comes forth from the doors of my house,' Scripture is wont to put the masculine gender for either sex; just as it is said of Abraham: 'rising from the dead,' when it was his wife who had died. Since therefore concerning this vow and deed Scripture seems to have passed no judgment, as it most openly judged concerning Abraham when he offered his son at command,

but seems only to have left it in writing to be judged by readers—just as concerning the deed of Judah the son of Jacob, when he went in unknowingly to his own daughter-in-law, but as far as in him lay committed fornication, because he thought her a harlot, Scripture neither approved nor reproved this, but left it to be estimated and weighed by consulting justice and the law of God—since therefore concerning this deed of Jephthah the Scripture of God has pronounced sentence on neither side, so that our understanding might be exercised in judging, we could now say that such a vow displeased God and was brought to that vengeance, that his only daughter should above all meet the father—which, if he had hoped for it and had been unwilling, he would not straightway, as he saw her, have rent his garments and said:

'Alas, my daughter, thou hast hindered me; thou art become an obstacle in my eyes'—then, a delay of sixty days so long having been granted to his daughter, the Lord, when He did not forbid him from the slaying of his dearest only child, as He forbade Abraham, until, by fulfilling what he had vowed, he should strike himself with the gravest bereavement, yet by no means appease God by the immolation of a human being; and therefore that to such a father this penalty was repaid, lest an example of such a vow should be left unpunished, so that men should either think they vow something great to God—

when they should vow human victims and, what is more horrible, of their own children; or lest those same vows should be not true but rather feigned, when, as by the example of Abraham, those who had vowed should hope that God would forbid such vows to be fulfilled. We could, I say, say these things, were it not that from this opinion two testimonies especially of the divine Scriptures hold us back, so that we should more diligently, as far as the Lord helps, and more cautiously scrutinize this deed—done and committed to memory in books of such great authority—lest we should pronounce a rash judgment to either side. One is that in the epistle to the Hebrews this Jephthah is mentioned among such men, so that we should fear to blame him, where it is thus written: 'And what more shall I say? For time fails me to tell of Gideon,