Questions on the Octateuch 7.13–7.28

What is the meaning of “Go in this strength of yours, and you will save Israel from the hand of Midian”? When the angel urged him to take command and be confident about the war, he said to him: “If the Lord is with us, why have all these evils found us? And where are his wonders which our fathers told us of, saying that the Lord brought us up out of Egypt? And now the Lord has cast us off and given us into the hands of Midian.” Since, then, he kept the memory of God's wonders and held a firm belief about God, that it was easy for him, if he wished, to free them from the calamities that held them, the angel said, “Go in this strength of yours, and you will save Israel from the hand of Midian,” that is, draw up for battle with this faith, and you will win. Let no one find fault with what follows. For he did not say “My thousand is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house” as one who distrusted God, but out of a modest mind. Hence the angel answered, “Because the Lord is with you, you will strike Midian as one man.” At once, then, believing, he offered a sacrifice. The angel did not seize the divine honour, but fulfilled the office of a priest: striking the rock with his staff, he consumed the sacrifice with a miraculous fire.

Why did he order the bull being raised for Baal to be offered to God? To move them from error to the truth. For this reason he also commanded Baal's altar to be torn down and the grove cut down. For the man granted such grace had not only to be pious himself but to become a teacher of others.

What is the fleece that received the dew a symbol of? First Gideon asked that the dew be on the fleece and all the ground remain dry; and after that, that the ground be watered and only the fleece remain without dew. The passage shows that formerly Israel enjoyed divine grace as the fleece the dew; but later the whole of human nature obtained the spiritual gifts, and Israel became bereft of them, as the fleece was deprived of the dew.

Why did he order only those who had drunk like a dog to go into battle? God the Master himself showed the reason: “The people with you are too many,” he says, “for me to give Midian into their hand, lest Israel boast against me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’” When most had been sent away, he ordered those left to be brought to the river; then, when the majority knelt and drank quickly, while the three hundred, out of sluggishness, did not do so but brought the water to their mouths with their hand, he ordered these alone, as idle and sluggish, to attack the enemy, so that the divine influence would be plain to all. So too through twelve fishermen and tax collectors, and one leather-worker, he destroyed the phalanx of the demons and saved human nature. For this reason the prophet Isaiah compared those events with these and said, “For the Lord has scattered the rod of the disobedient, as on the day of Midian.” For as here he used unarmed soldiers, carrying in the left hand torches hidden in jars and in the right the trumpets, so he sent the holy apostles unarmed into the world, carrying the torch of the miracles and the trumpet of the preaching.

What is the meaning of “Gideon made them into an ephod and set it up in his city, in Ephratha”? What was done was against the law. For only the priests were allowed to use the ephod, since through it what was to be done was revealed. Gideon's aim, however, did not incline to impiety; as ruler and general he wished to learn through the ephod what was to be done. But for the people it became the occasion of lawlessness: “For all Israel went whoring after it there,” it says, “and it became a stumbling block to Gideon and to his house.” In Exodus the ephod was rendered “shoulder-piece,” to which the oracle was attached; and through it victory in war was made known. The history of the Kingdoms teaches this more clearly. For when the foreigners had gathered, Saul ordered the priest to bring up the ephod; then, seeing the enemy thrown into confusion and the victory made plain, he said, “Withdraw the ephod.” It is clear, then, that it was both a woven garment put on the priests and something that indicated beforehand what was to be done; and Aquila called it a “cloak.” The story of Abimelech and the Shechemites teaches us that an evil concord brings utter destruction on those who use it, ending in discord: for having together killed Gideon's sons, they were destroyed by one another.

What is the meaning of “He sowed it with salt”? This signifies barrenness, for nothing grows from salt. One should note that, enjoying a little respite, they at once served idols: “For the sons of Israel again did evil before the Lord,” it says, “and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of Ammon and the gods of the foreigners.” When God in anger set the king of the Ammonites over them, they cried to God their Saviour and accused themselves, that they had abandoned their benefactor, the true God and Lord, and served the falsely named gods. Then the loving Lord exposed their ungrateful mind (for though they had often enjoyed great care, they preferred the worship of idols) and threatened that he would grant them no care: “For I will not save you again,” he says; “go and cry to the gods you have chosen for yourselves, and let them save you in the time of your affliction.” When, then, they both confessed their own transgressions and removed the foreign gods from among them and served the Lord, they enjoyed his help.

What is the meaning of “Say now ‘Shibboleth’”? The men of the tribe of Ephraim marched against Jephthah, angry that they had not shared in the victory over the Ammonites; then, faring badly, they fled. But Jephthah sent a detachment of his troops and prevented them from crossing the river. Then, when they tried to deceive and said they were of the other tribes, he ordered them to be asked a certain word, which brought their exposure through the tongue. For as the Osrhoenians, the Syrians, the people of the Euphrates region, the Palestinians and the Phoenicians use the Syrian language, yet their speech has many differences, so the twelve tribes were Hebrews but probably had certain peculiarities, like this one. For, as the Syrian says, while the others called an ear of grain “shebla,” the men of Ephraim from some habit said “sebelo.” Knowing this, Jephthah ordered them to say it and killed those who were exposed.

Why did God the Master allow Jephthah's daughter to be slaughtered? Jephthah's promise was very foolish. He ought to have considered that a dog, or a donkey, unclean animals according to the law, might well meet him first. Training others through him, then, to make their promises with understanding and knowledge, God the Master did not prevent the slaughter. That he condemns such sacrifices the blessed David testifies, crying: “And they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the carved images of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood,” and so on. And God the Master himself says through the prophet Ezekiel: “And you took your sons and your daughters whom you bore to me, and offered them to your lovers; this beyond all your harlotry.” And showing the excess of the impiety, he added, “which I did not think of, nor did it come into my heart.” Wishing to exercise Abraham's love for God, he commanded him to sacrifice his son; but having shown the righteous man's mind, he prevented the slaughter. What follows also shows Jephthah's immaturity. For having promised to offer as a sacrifice whatever met him first, and then seeing that his daughter had done so, he tore his clothes and lamented bitterly, allowed her first to mourn, and then sacrificed her. His daughter was far better than he: “If you have opened your mouth to the Lord concerning me,” she says, “do to me as it went out of your mouth, since the Lord has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, on the sons of Ammon.” Teaching, then, how promises to him should be made, God the Master did not prevent the slaughter. After this the history teaches us the goodwill of the angels toward God. For when Manoah wished to offer him a kid, the divine angel said: “If you constrain me, I will not eat your bread; and if you make a whole burnt offering, you shall offer it to the Lord.” I do not need food, he means; I do not accept sacrifice. For the latter belongs to God, the former to human nature. I neither need food as a man nor seize the divine honour. From this too it is clear that those whom Abraham entertained consumed the food set before them in some other way.

How did Samson, living a dissolute and lawless life, enjoy spiritual grace? From this too it is clear that the Master, for the sake of another dispensation, gives a share of the divine gift even to the unworthy. The Saviour shows this in the holy Gospels: “For many,” he says, “will come on that day and say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And I will say to them, ‘Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness; I do not know who you are.’” God the Master did this here too. For wishing to destroy the power of the foreigners, he gave him strength and might through spiritual grace. For this reason he also allowed him to marry a foreign woman. The history teaches this too: “And his father and his mother did not know that it was from the Lord, that he was seeking an occasion against the foreigners.” “It was from the Lord” signifies not the divine working but the divine permission.

Why, though he was a Nazirite and under the law, did he eat the honeycomb made in the mouth of the lion, which was dead? This too shows that the observance of such laws was not necessary for all. For none of those who transgressed such laws was made to pay a penalty. If anyone supposes that Samson did this as one who was not an exact keeper of the law, let him consider again that when he was thirsty God gave him water, commanding the hollow of the donkey's jawbone to gush forth. According to the law this had a threefold uncleanness: the donkey was unclean when alive, unclean again when dead, and, having become an instrument of slaughter and struck down a thousand foreigners, it had another uncleanness. Yet the lawgiver himself supplied him with water from there and from nowhere else. But this unconquered, invincible man, at whom the myriads of foreigners had long shuddered, a harlot of a woman enslaved. So much harder than the battle line in war is the war of desire. Pleasure made a captive of the man who had fought so nobly and become famous for his extraordinary valour. It also stripped him of divine grace: “For Samson awoke from his sleep,” it says, “and said, ‘I will go out and do as always, and shake myself free.’ And he did not know that the Lord had departed from him.” But the loving God did not abandon him entirely; seeing him mocked, he had pity, heard him when he prayed, and supplied such strength that he shook the columns that bore the house of the idols and brought the roof down with them, burying three thousand men and a far greater number of women.

Where did Samson catch so many foxes? There is a mountain in their country that breeds many foxes; and the history teaches this: “For the Amorite began,” it says, “to live on the mountain of the myrtle grove, where there are bears and foxes.”

What is the meaning of “Micah made an ephod and teraphim”? I have often spoken about the ephod: that it was a priestly woven garment and that through it God made known what was to be done. The teraphim was something of the same kind, but dedicated to idols, not to God. The history teaches this here too: “For he made,” it says, “a carved and a molten image.” Then it adds: “And Micah made an ephod and teraphim, and filled the hand of one of his sons, and he became his priest.” He was not of the Levitical tribe but of Ephraim. It also taught the cause of the lawlessness: “For in those days,” it says, “there was no king in Israel; each man did what was right in his own eyes.” Of so much harm is anarchy the cause.

What follows involves much ambiguity: “There was a young man from Bethlehem, of the people of Judah, of the kindred of Judah, and he was a Levite, and he sojourned there.” For if he was a Levite, how was he of the kindred of Judah? He called Bethlehem “the people of Judah”; and, as I think, he also named the same village “the kindred of Judah.” We have said that God did not set apart a separate allotment for the priests and Levites, but scattered them among all the tribes, so that all might have teachers of piety. So this man, being a Levite, lived in Bethlehem, which belonged to the people and kindred of Judah. If anyone thinks this interpretation forced, let him remember what we have already said: that the two tribes, the royal and the priestly, intermarried. It is likely that this man was a Levite on his father's side but had a mother from the tribe of Judah. Great, however, was the man's lawlessness. First, though God had pitched the tabernacle at Shiloh, he ministered in another place, contrary to the divine law. Then he offered sacrifices to handmade idols (for this is what “the carved and the molten image” means). Besides this he dared another transgression: the law forbade the Levites to act as priests and commanded the priests to minister; so he transgressed this law too by daring to act as priest. He also became ungrateful to the man who had looked after him: taking the instruments of the deceit, he followed those of the tribe of Dan and became the agent of their error concerning idols.

What is the meaning of “In the valley which belonged to the house of Rechab”? Rechab probably lived near that city. In ancient times it was called Laish; when it had been besieged by these men it was renamed Dan; and now it is called Paneas. Here, however, we have clearly learned this Levite's descent: “Jonathan,” it says, “son of Manasseh, son of Gershom, son of Moses, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the captivity of the land. And they set up for themselves Micah's carved image which he had made, all the days that the house of God was in Shiloh.” They acted as priests unlawfully, then, not only serving idols but also daring to perform the priestly work. For they were Levites, not priests; God the Master directed that only the family of Aaron should act as priests. And I think that, because the lawgiver had married a foreign woman, he ordered those born of him to be ranked with the Levites and not with the priests, so that the priestly dignity would not be insulted by reproaches about the kinship. For if a brother and sister brought this reproach against the lawgiver, what would those more prone to rebellion and usurpation not have dared? Those who were insolent against Aaron, who married a girl sprung from the royal tribe, what would they not have done against the sons of Moses, who married the daughter of a Midianite priest of idols?

Why was Israel defeated, when it was moved by zeal and preferred piety to kinship? Because they practised similar lawlessness, and saw the licentiousness of others but overlooked their own. The divine Apostle also said this: “For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, for you, the judge, do the same things.” And again: “Do you suppose, O man, you who judge those who do such things and do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness leads you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each according to his works.” This is what these men suffered. For, using a just anger against those who had broken the law at Gibeah, they armed the four hundred thousand; but God, wishing to chastise them as doing the same things, seeing the evil in others but unwilling to see it in themselves, allowed them to be defeated once and twice, and many thousands of them to be killed. But when he saw that they had accepted the chastisement and were imploring him and shedding many tears, he assisted their eagerness and utterly destroyed the lawless tribe, except for a very few who could easily be counted. For those who fought for the licentious men were worse than the licentious themselves: when their kinsmen demanded those who had dared the outrage, they not only did not hand them over but eagerly defended them. For this reason they suffered common destruction. I think this war took place before the other wars, not long after Joshua's death. For “Phinehas,” it says, “son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, stood before the ark in those days.” Eleazar ended his life immediately after Joshua, and Phinehas succeeded to the priesthood; the end of the book of Joshua son of Nun taught us this. I think, then, that the one who wrote this history did not arrange at random, putting last what happened first. He wished first to show us the succession of the Judges, who led first, who second, who third; and then to set down these two narratives …, Laish, and the story of the woman whom the frenzied lust of the licentious killed.

Why did the sons of Israel command the two hundred of Benjamin to seize and marry some of the maidens dancing at Shiloh? All the women of their tribe had been slaughtered; and the others had sworn not to give them their own daughters in marriage. So that they would not, forced by necessity, take foreign wives, they found a way out of an impasse and devised the seizure. [End of question 27:] … narratives: the story of Micah, and the … using and lamenting.