And whether they did this from contempt of God's command or from fear, lest they should force the enemy to fight the more fiercely against them for the obtaining of their own safety than for the not-paying of tribute, without doubt they sinned — either by spurning what was divinely commanded, or by not presuming that he who had commanded could help them. And this the Lord was unwilling to say to them through Joshua — if indeed it had already been commanded to be done while he was yet living, and had not rather been recorded by anticipation as beginning to be done after his death — because he willed to reproach all with this through the angel; but not yet had all done it while Joshua was living, even if perhaps some had already begun.
It is nonetheless more credible that nothing of the sort began to happen while Joshua was alive, and that under him the children of Israel held only as much land as sufficed for them to settle in, although within their allotted portions they had ground where, by growing and gaining strength, they might yet drive out their adversaries. Accordingly, after the death of Joshua, once they had prevailed so that they were able to do this, they chose rather to keep them as tributaries according to their own will than to slay and destroy them according to the will of God; and it was on this account that an angel was sent to rebuke them.
But as for what is recorded in the book of Joshua, I rather think it was recorded by way of anticipation — something which, if that book was written by the very Joshua who is so named, he already knew by the prophetic Spirit would come to pass after his death; or, if it was written by another, that writer already knew had come to pass after Joshua's death, and recorded it in that book by way of anticipation. What is the meaning of the angel of the Lord saying, among other words of divine threatening: 'I will no longer bring across the people whom I said I would cast out; I will not take them away from before your face; and they shall be to you distresses, and their gods shall be to you a stumbling-block' — save that we are to understand that certain sins also come from the anger of God?
For that the gods of the nations, among whom the Israelites chose to dwell rather than to have them exterminated, should be to them a stumbling-block — that is, should cause them to be scandalized in the Lord their God, and to live in a manner offensive to him — this is what God, indignant, threatened; and it is surely manifest that this is a great sin. 'And Joshua dismissed the people; and the children of Israel departed, each one to his own house, and each one to his inheritance, to inherit the land.' There is no doubt that this is repeated by way of recapitulation. For the death of Joshua himself is also mentioned in this book, so that all things may be briefly set forth as from the beginning — from the time when the Lord gave them the land, and how they lived under those same judges, and what things they suffered;
and then the narrative returns again to the order of those very judges, beginning from him who was first appointed. 'And there arose another generation after them, who knew not the Lord nor the works which he had done for Israel.' It explained in what sense it said 'they knew not the Lord' — namely, in those illustrious and marvellous works by which it had been brought about, in the sight of their forefathers, that Israel should know the Lord. 'And they served Baal and the Astartes.' It is commonly said that Baal is the name among the peoples of those parts for Jupiter, and Astarte for Juno, which the Punic tongue too is thought to show. For the Punic people seem to say 'Baal' for 'lord'; whence 'Baalsamen' they are understood to say for 'lord of heaven,' since 'Samen' among them is the name for the heavens. Juno, without doubt, is called Astarte by them.
And since these languages do not differ much from one another, it is rightly believed that Scripture here says of the children of Israel that they served Baal and the Astartes, meaning Jupiter and the Junos. Nor need it disturb us that it did not say 'Astarte,' that is, Juno, but, as though there were many Junos, set down this name in the plural. For it wished the sense to be referred to the multitude of images, since each single image of Juno was called a Juno; and thus it meant that there were understood to be as many Junos as there were images. But I think the reason for the variation was that it wished to mention Jupiter in the singular and the Junos in the plural; for by the same reason of the plurality of images, the Jupiters too might be spoken of in the plural.
This, that is, the plural name 'Junos,' we find in the Greek copies according to the Septuagint, but in the Latin ones it stood in the singular. Among these, in that copy which did not have the Septuagint translation but was from the Hebrew, we read 'Astaroth,' and not 'Baal' but 'Baalim.' But if perchance in the Hebrew or Syriac tongue these names signify something else, it is nonetheless established that they were other gods, and false ones, whom Israel ought not to have served. 'And he sold them into the hand of their enemies round about.' It is often asked why it said 'he sold,' as though some price were understood to have been given. But in the Psalm too it is read: 'Thou hast sold thy people without price'; and in the prophet: 'Ye were sold for nothing, and ye shall not be redeemed with silver.'
Why then 'sold,' if 'for nothing' and 'without price,' and not rather 'given away'? Or is it perhaps a manner of speaking in the Scriptures, so that even one who is given away may be said to be 'sold'? But the best sense here lies in what was said, 'Ye were sold for nothing,' and, 'Thou hast sold thy people without price': namely, because those to whom thou didst hand over the people were impious, and did not, by worshipping God, deserve to have that people handed over to them, so that the very worship should be regarded as a price. But as for what was said, 'Neither shall ye be redeemed with silver,' it did not say 'nor with a price,' but 'nor with silver,' that we may understand the price of redemption to be such as the apostle Peter speaks of: 'For ye were not redeemed with silver and gold, but with the precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish.'
For by 'silver' the prophet signified all money, when he said 'Ye shall not be redeemed with silver,' since indeed they were to be redeemed by the price of the blood of Christ, yet not by a monetary price. As to what the Lord says: 'And I also will not go on to take away a man from before them, of the nations which Joshua the son of Nun left; and he left them to try Israel by them, whether they observe the way of the Lord to walk in it, as their fathers kept it, or not. And the Lord left these nations, so as not to take them away swiftly, and delivered them not into the hand of Joshua' — the reason is sufficiently shown why Joshua did not destroy all those nations by warfare: because, if this were done, there would be none in whom these people might be tested.
But these nations could serve to their advantage, if, when tested by them, they were not found reprobate; and once found to be such as the Lord had commanded them to be, then those nations would be taken away from before them — provided they lived thus, and there would be no need for them to be exercised by wars. For the words of the Lord are to be taken only thus far: 'Because this people has forsaken my covenant so greatly, which I commanded their fathers, and have not obeyed my voice, I also will not go on to take away a man from before them' — that is, an adversary. But the remaining words are the writer's, explaining in what sense the Lord said that he would not take away a man from the nations which Joshua the son of Nun left.
Then, adding for what cause he had left them, he says: 'and he left them to try Israel by them, whether they observe the way of the Lord to walk in it, as their fathers kept it, or not' — wishing us to understand that the fathers had kept the way of the Lord, those namely who were with Joshua, that is, at the time when he was alive. For above he related that another generation had arisen after those who lived with Joshua, and that from these had begun the transgressions which offended the Lord: for the trying, that is, the testing, of whom the nations had been left and not exterminated through Joshua. Then, lest it should be thought that Joshua had done this by his own counsel as though a human one, namely that those nations should be left, Scripture adds:
'And the Lord left these nations, so as not to take them away swiftly; and he delivered them not into the hand of Joshua.' Then it follows: 'And these are the nations which Joshua left, to try Israel by them, all who had not known all the wars of Canaan, but to teach the generations of the children of Israel war.' This, then, was the reason in their testing, that they might learn to make war — that is, that they might make war with as great piety and obedience to the law of God as their fathers, who pleased the Lord God even in warring — not because war is anything to be desired, but because piety is praiseworthy even in war. And as to what follows:
'but those who before them had not known them' — what else does it mean us to understand but the nations, whom those who lived before these had not come to know by warring, for the trying, that is, the testing, of whom they were left? Then, recounting what they are, it says: 'the five satrapies of the foreigners,' which it sets forth more plainly in the books of Kingdoms. Now they are called 'satrapies' as being small kingdoms, over which satraps presided: which name in those parts is, or was, a mark of a certain honour. 'And every Canaanite,' it says, 'and Sidonian, and Hivite dwelling in Lebanon, from Mount Hermon as far as Lebo-hamath. And it came to pass, that Israel was tried by them' — as though it said: this came to pass, that Israel might be tried by them, to know whether they would hearken to the commandments of the Lord;
not that God, the knower of all things, including things to come, might know, but that they themselves might know, and by their own conscience either glory or be convicted, whether they would hearken to the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses. Since therefore it had been made manifest to themselves that they had not obeyed God in the matter of these nations, which had been left for their trying — that is, for their exercising and testing — for this reason God said either those things in which an angel was openly sent and spoke more expressly, or a little before, where he says: 'Because this people has forsaken my covenant so greatly, which I commanded their fathers, and have not obeyed my voice, I also will not go on to take away a man from before them.'
But it was said in Deuteronomy, in the person of God speaking about these adversary nations: 'I will not cast them out in one year, lest the land become desert and the wild beasts be multiplied against thee; little by little I will cast them out, until ye be multiplied and increase and inherit the land.' The Lord could have kept this promise of his toward the obedient, so that the extermination of those nations should take place as the Israelite portions grew, since their multitude would not suffer the lands, from which the adversaries were being exterminated, to be desert. But as for what he says, 'lest the wild beasts be multiplied against thee,' it would be no wonder if he meant to be understood, in a certain manner, the bestial desires and lusts, which are wont to arise from the sudden success of earthly prosperity.
For God was not able to exterminate men and yet unable either to destroy the beasts, or rather to not permit them to be born. 'And the Lord raised up a saviour for Israel, and he saved them.' Then, as though it were asked what saviour, it says, 'Othniel the son of Kenaz.' For we ought here to take it as an accusative case, as though it were said 'Othniel.' Now it is to be noted that it calls a saviour even a man, through whom God brings salvation. For 'the children of Israel cried unto the Lord; and the Lord raised up a saviour for Israel, and he saved them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, the younger brother of Caleb himself, and he heard them.'
Now among those figures which are called 'hyperbata,' this is a rare kind, since it also has that which the Greeks call 'hysteroproteron' (the latter placed first). For what it says afterward, 'and he heard them,' if it be placed first, the discourse becomes clearer. For the order is: 'And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, and he heard them, and the Lord raised up a saviour for Israel.' Then what is here interposed, 'and he saved them,' and afterward said, 'Othniel' — as though 'Othniel (accusative)' — 'the son of Kenaz': if it were so said, it would become plainer: 'And the Lord raised up a saviour for Israel, Othniel the son of Kenaz, and he saved them.' Scripture testifies that the land of promise rested from wars for forty years under Othniel the judge:
as long a period of peace as the beginnings of the Roman empire were able to enjoy under Numa Pompilius, and under him alone as king. It may be asked whether Ehud the judge lied when he slew Eglon, king of Moab. For when, being alone, he lay in wait for the man who was alone, that he might strike him, he said this to him: 'I have a secret word for thee, O king,' that Eglon might remove from himself all who had been with him. And when this had been done, Ehud again said: 'I have a word of God for thee, O king.' But this may not be a lie, since Scripture is wont to call even a deed by the name of 'word'; and in truth it was so. But as for what he said,
'a word of God' — it is to be understood that God had commanded him to do this, God who had raised him up as a saviour for his people, just as in those times such things ought divinely to come about. It is rightly asked how King Eglon was 'very lean' and yet 'the fat closed over the wound' when he was struck. But it is to be understood as said by that manner of speaking which is wont to be understood by its contrary; as a grove (lucus) is so called because it least shines (luceat), and one is answered that a thing 'abounds' which does not exist, and 'he blessed the king' is said for 'he cursed,' as it is written in the book of Kingdoms concerning Naboth. For in that translation which is not according to the Septuagint but from the Hebrew, we find it thus: 'Now Eglon was exceedingly fat.'
'And Ehud went out to the porch, and passed by the guards, and shut the doors of the upper chamber upon him, and made it fast.' This is said by way of recapitulation, having been passed over. For it is to be understood that he did this first, and thus came down from the upper chambers and passed by the guards. How the servants of King Eglon opened with a key what Ehud had not locked with a key may cause perplexity; or, if he had locked it with a key, how he did not carry it away with him, so that they could not open it with a key either. Accordingly, either another key was brought, or it was such a kind of fastening as could be shut without a key and yet not be opened without a key. For there are some such things, like those that are called 'bolted.'
Under the judge Ehud, Israel had peace in the land of promise for eighty years — double, that is, the time that was memorable among the Romans under King Numa Pompilius. 'And after him arose Shamgar the son of Anath, and he smote of the foreigners six hundred men, besides the calves of the oxen, and saved Israel.' How, after Ehud, this man fought for Israel and is said to have saved Israel may be a question; for they had not again been taken captive nor bound under the yoke of servitude. But it is to be understood that 'he saved' was so said, not because the enemy did any harm, but lest he be permitted to do harm: whom we are to believe he began to make trial of by war, and who was driven off by this man's victory. But what he means by adding 'besides the calves of the oxen' is obscure.
Did he perhaps also make a slaughter of the oxen in fighting, and so it is said that he slew six hundred men besides that which he did in the killing of the cattle? But why 'calves'? Or is it a custom of Greek speech to call even those 'calves' which are full-grown? For it is reported that people commonly speak thus in Egypt, just as among us the chickens (pulli) of a hen of any age are so called. But the translation from the Hebrew does not have 'besides the calves of the oxen,' as does this one which is according to the Septuagint; just as the one from the Hebrew has 'having slain six hundred men with a ploughshare,' which this one does not have. What is the meaning of Barak's answer to Deborah when he says:
'If thou wilt go, I will go; and if thou wilt not go with me, I will not go, for I know not the day on which the Lord prospereth the angel with me' — as though he could not have heard the day from the prophetess? Nor did she answer him the day, but she went with him. And what is 'the Lord prospereth the angel with me'? Is it here shown that the acts even of angels are prospered, that is, are aided by the Lord, so that they turn out happily? Or is it a manner of speaking, 'he prospereth the angel with me,' that is, 'he maketh prosperous things with me through the angel'? 'And the Lord terrified Sisera and all his chariots.' Behold how Scripture commends that God works in hearts, to give to matters the outcome which he has appointed. For assuredly he terrified, or struck with amazement, Sisera, so as to deliver him up.
Where Jael, the woman who slew Sisera, had spoken to Barak who was seeking him, it is written of that same Barak that 'he entered in unto her': it is to be observed that it does not follow that, when Scripture says of a man that 'he entered in unto some woman,' it is therefore to be believed that he also lay with her. For Scripture continually speaks thus, 'he entered in unto her,' meaning nothing to be understood except that he had intercourse with her. Here, therefore, it is said properly, 'he entered in unto her,' that is, he entered into her house, not so that intercourse should be understood by these words. In the song of Deborah it is said: 'They that dwelt in Israel failed, they failed, until Deborah arose, until a mother arose in Israel. They chose new gods like barley bread;
then they took by storm the cities of the princes.' Here the intermixed order of the words causes obscurity and raises a question. For how is it to be understood: 'They chose new gods like barley bread; then they took by storm the cities of the princes'? — as though God favoured them for storming the cities of the princes at the time when they chose new gods like barley bread. But in other passages of the Scriptures we have already often learned how hyperbata come about, by whose setting-straight, when the words return to their order, the sense is made plain. This, therefore, is the order: 'They that dwelt in Israel failed, they failed; they chose new gods like barley bread, until Deborah arose, until a mother arose in Israel; then they took by storm the cities of the princes.'
It may be asked how it was said, 'They chose new gods like barley bread,' since barley bread, although it is to be rejected in comparison with wheaten bread, nevertheless itself also nourishes and is a life-giving food; whereas the new gods, whom those who fell away from the living God are said to have chosen, cannot be reckoned among the nourishments of the soul, but rather among the poisons.
Or is the comparison to be taken only so far as it holds good, so that it is understood to have been said for this reason alone: because, just as it often happens through fastidiousness that things to be chosen are rejected and things to be spurned give delight, so, by the fault of a depraved will as by the languor of loathing — although their God was the true God — they chose in false gods nothing else but novelty, truth being scorned; and thus they chose deadly food as though it were barley bread, not thinking they would perish thereby, but that they would even take from it life, as from harmless though baser fare? The comparison, therefore, is set down according to their opinion and the languor of their mind, not according to the truth. For those new gods are to be compared with no life-giving foods.
'And it came to pass, when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord because of Midian, that the Lord sent a man, a prophet, unto the children of Israel, and said unto them.' Why the name of this prophet is not given — which is very unusual in the Scriptures — the cause is hidden; yet I do not think it is none. But because, after the words with which he reproached the people for their disobedience, Scripture goes on to say, 'And the angel of the Lord came, and sat under the oak which was in Ophrah,' it is not absurdly understood that this angel was signified by the name of a man, so that, after he had spoken these words, he came to the aforesaid oak and there sat down.
For it is well known that angels are wont to be called by the name of men; although it does not readily or evidently occur to us that one who was an angel was called a prophet, whereas we do read that one who was a prophet was called an angel. But if the prophetic sayings of angels are well known — that is, those by which they foretold things to come — why can an angel not be named by the name of prophet? Yet, as I have said, express and manifest testimony on this matter does not present itself. As to what the angel says to Gideon, 'The Lord is with thee, mighty in strength,' it is the nominative case, not the vocative; that is, 'The Lord mighty is with thee,' not 'thou mighty one.' It is to be observed that the angel spoke, as it were, out of the Lord's authority, 'Have I not, behold, sent thee?' when he was speaking to Gideon.
For who sent him, save he who sent the angel to him? But Deborah did not say to Barak, 'Have I not commanded thee?' but she said, 'Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded thee?' Here, however, it is not said, 'Behold, hath not the Lord sent thee?' but, 'Behold, have I not sent thee?' Where Gideon answers the angel, 'In me, Lord' — that is, 'attend to me' — 'wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my thousand are the humbler ones in Manasseh?' — it is understood that he had been set over a thousand men, whom Scripture in Greek calls 'chiliarch.' Or is it something else? It is to be noted that Gideon did not say to the angel, 'I will offer thee a sacrifice,' but he said, 'I will offer my sacrifice and set it before thee.' Whence it is to be understood that he wished to offer the sacrifice not to the angel, but through the angel.
And the angel himself plainly showed this, who did not take the sacrifice from him as though for himself, but said to him: 'Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes and lay them upon that rock, and pour out the broth.' And when Gideon had done this, the angel of the Lord stretched forth the top of the staff which was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and fire was kindled from the rock and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Thus the angel himself, in the sacrifice which Gideon offered, fulfilled the office of a minister; for a human minister, as a man, would have applied fire without a miracle, which this one, as an angel, applied miraculously. Finally, then Gideon knew that it was the angel of the Lord; for Scripture immediately subjoined this: 'And Gideon saw that it was the angel of the Lord.'
For at first he was speaking as though with a man — a man of God, however, whom he believed him to be — so that he wished to offer sacrifice before him, as though he were to be aided by the presence of his holiness. It may be asked why Gideon dared to offer sacrifice to God apart from the place where God had commanded. For God had forbidden that sacrifice be offered to him apart from his tabernacle — the tabernacle to which the temple afterward succeeded. But at the time when Gideon lived, the tabernacle of God was in Shiloh; and therefore there only could sacrifice lawfully be offered. But it is to be understood that he had at first thought that angel to be a prophet, and had consulted him as though a man of God about offering sacrifice: which, if he had forbidden it, it would assuredly not have been done;
but since he approved and gave assent that it should be done, Gideon in doing it followed the authority of God. For God so established those lawful ordinances that he gave the laws not to himself but to men. Whence whatever he himself commanded beyond those ordinances is to be understood as fulfilled not by transgressors, but rather by the pious and obedient: as Abraham in the matter of sacrificing his son. For thus also Elijah sacrificed outside the tabernacle of the Lord, to confound the priests of the idols: which he is to be understood to have done by the command of the Lord, who ordered him to do it as a prophet, by revelation and inspiration.
Although so great a custom of sacrificing apart from the tabernacle had grown up that even Solomon is found to have sacrificed in the high places, nor was his sacrifice rejected. And yet those kings are marked out who, among their praiseworthy works, did not destroy the high places, where contrary to the law of God the people had been accustomed to sacrifice; and he who did destroy them is praised with greater commendation. Thus God endured rather than forbade the custom of his people, whereby they nevertheless offered, apart from his tabernacle, not to strange gods but to the Lord their God, even so hearing those who offered. But as to this which Gideon did, who does not understand that it was brought about through the angel so that it might be done prophetically, in which prophecy that rock might be commended?
To that rock, indeed, no sacrifice was offered, but from it fire is recorded to have gone forth, by which the sacrifice was consumed. For whether by the water which the smitten rock poured forth in the desert, or by fire, the gift of the Holy Spirit is signified, which the Lord Christ most richly poured out upon us. For in the Gospel too this gift is signified by water, where the Lord himself says: 'If any man thirst, let him come and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'; where the evangelist subjoined: 'But this he spake of the Spirit which they that believed in him should receive.' It is signified also by fire, where, when he came upon the assembled ones, it is read:
'There appeared unto them cloven tongues, as it were of fire, which also sat upon each one of them'; and the Lord himself says: 'I am come to send fire upon the earth.' 'And the number of those who lapped with their hand, with their tongue, was three hundred men.' Most of the Latin codices do not have 'with their hand,' but only 'with their tongue,' since they thus understood what was said above, 'like dogs'; but the Greek has both, 'with their hand, with their tongue,' so that it may be understood that they threw with their hand the water they had snatched into their mouth. And this was like dogs drinking, which do not draw the water they drink with the mouth applied, as oxen do, but snatch it with the tongue into the mouth — as these men also are understood to have done, yet while throwing the water with the hand into the mouth, which they caught with the tongue.
For the translation from the Hebrew too has this more plainly in these words: 'And so the number of those who had lapped water, throwing it with the hand into the mouth, was three hundred men.' For men are not wont to drink in such a way that, without the work of the hand, the tongue draws up water as dogs do; nor indeed had these men been commanded to do this. But when they had come down to the water to drink, many drank with the knee fixed, which was done more easily and with less labour; but a few, because they did not bend the knee, stooped down, as dogs drink, but with the water thrown by the hand into the mouth. Whose number, because they were three hundred, insinuates the sign of the cross, on account of the Greek letter T (tau), by which this number is signified.
By which it was also prefigured that the gentiles rather would come to believe in the Crucified — because it is a Greek letter. Whence the apostle signifies all the gentiles by the name of the Greeks, when he says, 'to the Jew first, and to the Greek,' and 'to Jews and Greeks,' often mentioning thus the circumcision and the uncircumcision, because among the tongues of the gentiles the Greek so excels that by it all are fittingly signified. This number is also to be observed in Abraham's home-born servants, through whom he freed his brother from the enemies, when Melchizedek blessed him in a great mystery. For that there are eighteen over and above there — for they are recorded to have been three hundred and eighteen — seems to me to have signified at what time also it should come to pass, that is, in the third age, which was to be under grace.