6 (Jos 5,2). The Lord said to Joshua, "Make yourselves sharp stone knives, or, as the Greek says, of sharp stone and start circumcising the children of Israel again." In relation to this precept, the question arises of knowing why it was said again, when no man had to be circumcised twice. Well, it is said again because the people were circumcised in some of their individuals and not in others. And so it is said that the circumcised is circumcised again; not man, but the people. What follows demonstrates what we affirm. The Scripture says: And Joshua made himself sharp knives of stone and circumcised the children of Israel in the place called Collado de los Prepucios. For this reason Joshua circumcised the children of Israel. To all those who had been on the journey, and to those who were uncircumcised of those who had left Egypt, all of these were circumcised by Joshua. For Israel had lived forty-two years in the wilderness of Mabdarit and, therefore, they were uncircumcised from among them many of the warriors who had left the land of Egypt, who had disobeyed the commands of God, and the Lord He had promised that they would not see the land he had sworn to give his parents, land that flows with milk and honey. Instead of these he put his sons, whom Joshua circumcised, since they had not been circumcised on the road (Jos 5,2-7).

It is evident, therefore, that not everyone was uncircumcised, but only some. Some children of those who had left Egypt had not been circumcised in that town, and Joshua could circumcise them. It is about the children of those who begot in the wilderness and despised circumcising them because they were disobedient to the law of God. There is no reason to think that this testimony of the law serves those who believe that baptism should be repeated to those who have already received the sacrament of Christian baptism, because in reality no man was circumcised twice. Only the people were circumcised, who had already been circumcised in some of its members, but in others not yet. And if it were possible for God to somehow command a man to be circumcised twice, could anyone say that this was commanded because those Israelites had been circumcised by the Egyptians or by some heretics, separated from the Israelite community? Well, as the motive for which God commanded it appears quite clearly, men can find no defense here of their error.

7 (Jos 5,13-14). When Joshua saw a man in front of him with his sword unsheathed, and when he answered him, he told him that he was the leader of the army of the Lord's army, and Joshua, prostrate on the ground, replied: "What do you command your servant? (Jos 5,15), we can ask if Joshua prostrated himself before an angel and called him Lord or, rather, understanding who had sent him, called him Lord and prostrated himself before him. Joshua, as the text says, was in Jericho, not in the city itself, whose walls had not yet fallen, which would happen immediately, so that the Israelites could enter the city, but was in the field adjoining the city, as the translation of the Hebrew says.

8 (Jos 7,1). The text says that Akar, of the tribe of Judah, stole something from the anathema of the city of Jericho against the commandment of the Lord and that for this sin three thousand men, who had been sent to Ay, turned their backs on the enemies and they killed some thirty-six of them, and while the people were terribly terrified, Joshua prostrated himself with the elders before the Lord, and the Lord answered that this had happened because the people had sinned. God also threatened him saying that he would not be with them again if they did not remove the anathema out of their midst. And he also says that he who had done this was discovered and given to death not only he, but he with all his family. Regarding this, it is often asked how it is lawful to take revenge with justice against one for the sins of another, especially considering that the Lord said in the law that parents would not be punished for the sins of their children, nor would they be punished. children for the sins of the parents (Cf Dt 24,16). Or was it commanded when men judge, namely, that no one be punished for another, but the judgments of God are not like those of men, he who knows, by his high and invisible counsel, until what should it also extend men's temporary pain and healthy fear? In the administration of the universe nothing cruel happens to mortals when they die, since they have to die. In those who fear these things, the law sanctions that not only each one take his precautions in the town, but that they pay attention to each other and that some are caring members of others as members of one body and one man (Cf 1Co 12,12.25).

But we must not think that one can be condemned by another even with the penalties that apply after death. This penalty applies only to things that will come to an end, even if they did not end in this way. At the same time, it also reveals the close relationship that exists in the society of the people with the totality of the individuals, so that each individual is not valued in himself, but they are valued as the parts in a whole. Thus, because of the sin of only one and the death of a few, the entire town received the warning that what the whole body had admitted in a certain way was being investigated. At the same time, the great evil that would follow if the whole assembly had sinned was also indicated, when not even one could be judged so that through it all the rest could be safe. But if Akar, found and imprisoned by someone, had been taken to be judged by Joshua as the defendant of that crime, we should not think at all that the judge man was to punish for him or with him anyone else who was not guilty by have been associated with their action. For the judge was not allowed to exceed the imperative of the law that has been given to men, so that, based on their judgment, commanded or allowed man against man, do not think that one can be punished for the sin of another . God, on the other hand, judges with a much more mysterious justice, he who can liberate or punish even after death, something that man can not do (Cf St 4,12). Thus, the visible afflictions or the deaths of men, since not only can they harm, but take advantage of those to whom they are inferred, the Lord, in the mystery of his providence, knows how and to whom he can give them justice, even when it seems who takes revenge for one another's sins. On the other hand, invisible punishments, which only harm and can not take advantage of, no one has to endure for the sins of others, since God is the judge, just as no one has to endure, except by his own fault, the visible penalties when the judge is the man. This is what God has commanded man, who is judge in the things that pertains to the human judgment to punish, because in his judgment he arrives to where he does not have pretensions to arrive the human power.

9 (Jos 7,15.25). We can rightly ask why Joshua ordered the people to stone the individual who was surprised at having broken the anathema, when the Lord had commanded that, if it were discovered, he should be handed over to the fire. Or perhaps it was fitting that he should die, like Joshua, who was closer to the Lord, could he understand the words of the Lord who commanded him? No other, in fact, could understand them more easily. Therefore, we must ask why the Lord calls fire to stoning before thinking that Joshua did something different from what the Lord sent him. Because there could not be another wiser to understand the words of the Lord or anyone more obedient than him to fulfill them. Therefore, the Scripture testifies in Deuteronomy that, under the name of fire, the punishment could be indicated, when it is said to the children of Israel: "And I brought you out of the iron furnace of Egypt." Here, evidently, the Scripture wanted to mean a hard tribulation.

Two reasons occur to me - not because they fit the two, but only one of them - to say why Akar was not burned with all his things by a visible fire. If the Lord judged that his sin was of such a nature that, atoned for by that torment, he would not punish it eternally, the penalty would very appropriately be called fire by his own atonement and purification. No one would be led to think this if a fire visible in its own right had burned him. Everyone would rather stop to think about what they clearly saw done and no one else would ask another reason. Now, since it is reasonably said that the stoning was also a fire, because of the words of God and the performance of Joshua, it is elegantly recognized that man was purified by that punishment, so that he would not perish later because of that sin In the same way, in Leviticus, the utensils that are purged by fire are also meant (Cf Lv 13,52)

But if the sin was of such a nature that such a man was worthy of gehenna, because of that sin, even after this life, Joshua would have wanted to stone him precisely to warn that in what the Lord had said: he will be delivered to the fire (Jos 7,15), you had to understand not what they did, but what the Lord was going to do. Well, if the Lord had said: You will give it to the fire with all its things, there would be no possibility for this sense. But as the sentence is set so that it seems that God foretold what would happen to the guilty rather than sending what men should do to him, that is why Joshua, who understood the divine words as a great prophet and prophetically realized this very thing, He could not do better than to make him die by stoning instead of burning, so that in those flames the words of the Lord would not be fulfilled, that he wished that it be understood that he had said them for another reason.

And no problem should arise from the fact that God had predicted that not only the person, but all his things had to be given to fire. For the Lord said thus: He will be delivered to the fire with all his things. In all his things his works can be understood, that, according to God, they should be burned with him, not as the Apostle says about certain works burned by fire, that he, on the other hand, will be saved (1Co 3,15), if the sin of this man should be understood in the sense that he was punished even with eternal fire. The people, by punishing the guilty, also covered their children and their daughters with stones, with the cattle and with all the things they had. But Joshua did not do this moved by a human judgment, but by the prophetic spirit, or by having understood the words: with all his things, so that he did not even consider the stoning to be exempt from the children, by also applying the punishment instead of the fire, or because he wanted to signify his works, that God after the death of the culprit had to burn with him, not only by means of the other things that he had, but also by his children.

But not for that reason we must think that also their children, after death, were punished with the torment of the fire of hell for the sin of their father, of whom they were innocent. Because this death, which awaits us all, even if it comes from the first sin, because we were born, and therefore we necessarily have to die, (Cf Rm 5,12) can be useful for some if it accelerates. That is why the following is read about a person: He was taken so that evil did not change his intelligence (Sab 4,11). Therefore, it is something that only those who have no iniquity know the reason for the judgment of God or for the mercy that was applied to both the sons of this man and those thirty-six warriors, all of whom are alien to the sin of that man. Man (Cf Rm 9,14) But it is clear that it was also convenient for the people to investigate with panic what had happened and the others feared so much more to imitate the action of the former the greater the fear of human frailty, and that such a great and just hatred of the people it also gave in those who thought that for the hope of the propagation of the lineage he would let die for his sin, consumed with him his own descendants.

10 (Jos 8,2). Because of what God commands Joshua, telling him to ambush behind the city, that is, ambush warriors to stalk enemies, we deduce that those who wage a just war do not act unjustly. And for that reason, a righteous man should not think about these matters any more important than making a just war, if it is lawful for him to do it. Because not everyone is lawful. If war is fair, it matters little to justice if it wins in open combat or by ambush. Fair wars are usually called those that come insults, in the event that a nation or a city, which must be attacked in war, has neglected to avenge what their own have done wrongfully or to return what has been taken away by means of insults. But without a doubt it is also just that war that God commands to do, he who has no iniquity (Cf Rm 9,14) and knows what should be given to each one. In this kind of war, the head of the army or the people themselves are not so much the author of the war as the servant of the war.

11 (Jos 8, 4-8). Joshua, when he sends to the conquest of Aye to thirty thousand men, says to them: You ambush behind the city, but do not be far from it and you will all be ready. I, on the other hand, and all the people who are with me, will approach the city. And it will happen that when those who live in Ay come to meet us, like the previous time, and we will flee and when they have left behind us, we will take them out of the city, and they will say: "These flee before us as before." You will then leave the ambush and go to the city. You will do according to this order. See that I send it to you. One must ask whether every intention to deceive is to be considered a lie, and, if so, if the lie with which one is worthy to be deceived can be just. And if even this lie is not considered fair, then it remains to refer to the truth that has been said here about the ambushes, according to some special meaning.

12 (Jos 9,3,4). The Gibeonites came to Joshua with bread and old sacks to give the impression that they came from a distant land, as they had planned, so that the Israelites would spare their lives - for the Lord had ordered that no one be respected by the inhabitants of those lands. to those who entered. Well, in relation to this, some codices both Greek and Latin say: And taking old sacks on their shoulders (Jos 9,10 4). Other codices that seem more accurate do not say: on the shoulders, but: on their asses. The similarity of the word in the Greek language facilitated the error and that is why the Latin copies also vary. Indeed, omon and onon do not differ much from each other. But the first word means "shoulder" and the second "ass". It is more likely that they are asses, because the Gibeonites said that they had been sent from their village, which was far away. From this it is deduced that they were legacies and therefore they could carry the necessary things, certainly in donkeys and not on shoulders, since there could not be many, and also the Scripture says that they not only carried sacks, but also wineskins (Cf Jos 9,19 13).

13 (Jos 9,19). We can ask why the Hebrews thought that they should keep the oath made to the Gibeonites, even though the oath was made thinking they had come from a distant land, as they, lying, had told them. The Gibeonites knew that the Hebrews would wage war on them if they knew that they lived in that land that had been promised to them and that they would get it on property if they killed their inhabitants. The Israelites swore to respect them for having lied saying that they came from a distant land. But after knowing that they lived there, where, according to the divine precept, they had to make war on everyone they met, they did not want to break the oath, and, although they knew they had lied, they preferred to respect their lives, because of the oath, although They could naturally tell them that they had sworn an oath, believing that they were coming from a distant land. Knowing the truth, they should have fulfilled the Lord's command over them, making war against them as others. God approved this behavior and did not get angry with the Israelites, who had forgiven them, even though they had not consulted him about who they were and that is why they were able to deceive them. Therefore, we can think that very timely feared God in the midst of his people, although they wanted to deceive men to save his life. That is why the Lord did not get angry with them when they made the oath or when they were spared, to do justice to the Gibeonites themselves, as men of his people, punishing the house of Saul, as the book of the Kings says (Cf 2R 21,1-8). And since the oath was kept, although it had been done in favor of men who had lied, so that the Israelite decision was inclined to clemency, it did not displease God. Because if, on the contrary, they had sworn that they would kill some who believed that they were Gibeonites, that they lived in the promised land and that they had come to them from distant lands, we should not think that they should be exterminated because of fulfilling the oath, since by a feeling of clemency similar to forgiveness, the holy man David, even after swearing that he would kill Nabal, knowing certainly who he was the one he had to kill, preferred to forgive him and not fulfill the oath in a more serious matter, thinking that it pleased God more if he did not do what he had sworn to do, moved by anger to hurt him, than if he did.

14 (Jos 10,7-8). When the Gibeonites, attacked by the Amorite kings, sent word to Joshua to come to their aid, the Scripture reads as follows: Joshua of Gaulla went up, he and all the people of war with him, all the strong and valiant. And the Lord said to Joshua, "Do not fear them; for I have delivered them into your hands; it will not resist before you nor one of them ». They did not consult the Lord to know if they had to go against them. The Lord announced to them that they would obtain the victory, they who had spontaneously wanted to help their people well. Thus he could also say who the Gibeonites were who lied (Cf Jos 9,15(9)), claiming that they lived far away, even if they had consulted him about them, in case he had not liked that oath, that he would force those who submitted to him to be forgiven. They had believed God, whom they had heard to promise their people that they would destroy these people and seize their land. And in a way he rewarded this faith of them, by not betraying them.

15 (Jos 10.5.6). We are presented with the question of why the king of the city of Jerusalem Adonibezec and the four others with whom he besieges the Gibeonites, according to the version of the Seventy, first receive the title of kings of the Jebusites, when they meet to besiege to the Gibeonites, and then the Gibeonites themselves call them kings of the Amorites, when they send messengers to Joshua to set them free from the siege. But, as I have seen in the Hebrew version, on both occasions they are called Amorites, when it is recorded that the king of the city of Jerusalem was a Jebusite, since that same city receives the name of Jebus as the capital of that town. , and the Scripture remembers very many times that there were seven peoples that God promised to exterminate before his, one of which was that of the Amorites. Unless it is a general name for all or maybe most of them, so that under that name would not understand a single town, but many of those seven. Although there could also be one of the seven that were properly called the Amorites, as, for example, there is a part that receives the proper name of Libya, although this name corresponds to all of Africa, and there is a part that is called Asia in the proper sense, although some have considered Asia as half and others as the third part of the earth. As it is known, the Canaanites are mentioned as one people among those seven, and yet all that land is originally called Canaan.

16 (Jos 11,14.15). Joshua did not leave anyone alive in it. As the Lord had commanded his servant Moses and Moses had commanded Joshua in his turn, so Joshua did: He did not let anything of all the things that the Lord had commanded Moses go through. We should not think that this was a cruelty, that is, the fact that Joshua did not leave anyone alive in the cities he conquered, since God had ordered him to do so. Those who draw from this the conclusion that God was cruel, and therefore do not want to accept that the true God was the author of the Old Testament, judge as perversely about the works of God as of the sins of men, ignoring what each one It deserves to suffer and thinking that it is a great evil that is torn down that has to fall and that the mortal dies.

17 (Jos 11,19). And there was no city that was not given to the children of Israel. We wonder how this can be true, when neither after the time of the Judges nor in the time of the Kings could the Hebrews conquer all the cities of those seven nations. That is why, or we must understand this in the sense that Joshua did not approach any city in a war that did not conquer it, or at least none of those located in the regions mentioned before was no longer conquered. Because it lists the regions in which were the cities about which this affirmation was made: all the conquered in the war.

18 (Jos 11,20). For it was through the Lord that his heart was comforted, so that they would make war with Israel so that they would be exterminated, and not be granted mercy, but be exterminated, as the Lord said to Moses. Here the phrase is used: Through the Lord he was made to have his heart strengthened, that is, to harden his heart, in the same sense as when speaking of Pharaoh. When God abandons and the enemy conquers, we should not doubt the least that this happens precisely because of a divine and mysterious judgment. And the phrase here has the same meaning as there. But here it is striking that it is said that their heart hardened to take up arms against Israel, and so the Israelites had no compassion for them, as if they had had it in case they had not risen up in arms, being so God had commanded that no one be forgiven, and that if they forgave the Gibeonites it was because they had pretended that they were coming from a distant land, and they were forced to forgive them because of the oath. But as the Israelites took pity on some of them, even against God's command, we must think that here they were told that they had risen up in arms so that they would not be forgiven and so that the Israelites would not be persuaded and had compassion for them. they against the command of God. We think that this could not happen with Joshua the chief, who scrupulously kept all the divine precepts. However, Joshua could not have destroyed these enemies so quickly if he had not been opposed in an absolutely unanimous way. And so it could have happened that, not destroyed by Joshua, who cared to fulfill the commands of God, they could have stayed until the time when, after Joshua's death, they could be spared by those who did not fulfill God's commands. so much care Even during the life of Joshua the Israelites spared the lives of some, subjecting them only to servitude. Some could not even beat them. But this did not happen as chief Joshua, but, when he was old and the war had ceased, he only distributed some lands to them, so that, when Joshua had ceased the war, they had already distributed those lands, partly free of enemies, and, in part, conquered in war. That the Israelites could not overcome certain peoples, because the Lord determined it, is clearly demonstrated in some texts of the Scriptures.

19 (Jos 16,10). But Ephraim did not destroy the Canaanite who lived in Gazer. And the Canaanite dwelt in Ephraim unto this day, until Pharaoh king of Egypt went up, and took the city, and set it on fire, and cut them with the sword unto the Canaanites, and the Kereites, and the inhabitants of Gazer; and Pharaoh gave it to his daughter as a dowry. What is said of Pharaoh I do not know if it is necessary to understand it in a prophetic sense, since it is believed that this story was written at the time in which those recent events were made. What great thing could be chosen to be prophetically announced, when the past things are told and the greater and most necessary future things are silenced? Therefore, it should be thought rather that the Seventy, who are believed to have translated with prophetic authority because of the admirable consensus that existed among them, added this, not as announcing the future, but because they lived at that time in which they remember what happened. that and they had read it in the books of the Kings (Cf 1R 4,34). Well, it happened in the time of the Kings. And this seems to me more credible, because I have seen the translation made of the Hebrew and I have not found it there. Nor is there what was said about Jericho, that Hoza, who had rebuilt it, had incurred the curse pronounced by Joshua. The text reads as follows: And Joshua pronounced this oath that day: "Cursed be the man that builds and rebuilds that city; He laid his foundation on his firstborn and placed his doors on his last son.” (Jos 6,26) So far it is in the translation made of Hebrew. On the other hand the following is not found in it: And so did Hoza, who was of Bethel; In his first-born Abirón he laid his foundation and in his last saved son for the second time he placed his doors (1R 16,34). It is clear that the Seventy added it, that they knew that it had happened thus.

20 (Jos 19,47). And the Amorite remained in Elom and in Salamin; and the hand of Ephraim fell on them and they were made tributary to him. This was already done against the Lord's command and Joshua still lived. But he was no longer his boss in those battles because of his old age. That is why it is said that the Lord hardened the hearts of those who had made a common conspiracy to go to war against Joshua (Cf Jos 11,20) so that this mercy would not be granted, even against the command of God (Cf Jos 21,20), if they had not been defeated , and, being already old Joshua or having died, they will remain to be overcome by the children of Israel, who could forgive their lives against the Lord's command, something that Joshua would not do.

21 (Jos 21,41-43). The question of knowing how to interpret the following text of the Scripture is rightly presented, since Israel not only did not exterminate the people who owned the land of promise until the time of Joshua's death, but it did not even manage to do so. later, although it did manage to defeat them and settle in the promised land. The text reads as follows: And the Lord granted to Israel all the land which he had sworn to give to his fathers. And they inherited it and lived in it. And the Lord granted them peace in all its confines, as he had sworn to his fathers. None of their enemies could resist them. The Lord gave all his enemies in his hands. Not one of all the good things that the Lord promised to the children of Israel failed. All were fulfilled. You have to consider all these things carefully. And, first of all, you have to know the territory of how many nations were promised to the Israelites. It seems that seven nations are surely mentioned frequently. In the Exodus we read like this: And the Lord said to Moses: "Go, get up from here, you and your people that you brought from the land of Egypt, to the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying: To your descendants I will give it to you. At the same time I will send my angel before you and drive out the Amorite and the Chaldee and the Perizzite and the Gegeseo and the Eveo and the Jebusite and the Canaanite.” (Ex 33,1-3) It seems clear, therefore, that God promised the patriarchs the land of these seven nations. In Deuteronomy it is written even more clearly: If you approach a city to attack it, you will propose peace. If you respond with peace and open the doors, all the people who are in the city will be tributary to you and obey you. But if they do not obey you and make war, then you will besiege them and the Lord your God will deliver them into your hands and kill all their males at the edge of the sword. To the women and to the objects and to all the cattle and all the things that there are in the city, and all the utensils you will take them as booty. And you shall eat all the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God gives you. So you will do to all the cities that are far away from you, that do not belong to the cities of these nations. But as for these cities whose land the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you will not leave anyone alive, but you will consecrate them to the anathema: to the Chalth and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Uvean and the Jebusite and the Girgash, as the Lord your God commanded you. Here, too, it is clear that the land of these seven nations was promised as an inheritance to the Israelites, who would possess it, once these peoples were defeated and exterminated.

As for the other nations that were farther away, outside the confines of these, the Lord wanted them to become tributaries of Israel if they did not resist. But if they opposed it, they too would be slaughtered and exterminated, except for the cattle and other things that could serve as loot. In another passage of Deuteronomy this text is also read: And it shall come to pass when the Lord thy God hath brought thee into the land where thou shalt come in to inherit it, and have cast out of thy presence many great nations: the numbs and the gergesees and Amorites and Phoebeeans and Canaanites and Evens and Jebusites, seven nations greater and more numerous and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God hands them over to you and you defeat them, you will totally exterminate them. You shall not make a covenant with them, nor have compassion on them, nor shall you unite in marriage with them; you shall not give your daughter to her son or take her daughter for your son, (Dt 7,1-3) etc.

Accordingly, these and other places in the Scriptures often show that the children of Israel took possession of the lands of these seven nations in such a way that they did not inhabit them with those who possessed them, but did so in their place. But in Genesis the offspring of Abraham are promised not only these seven nations, but eleven. The text reads as follows: On that day the Lord God signed an alliance with Abraham, saying: "To your descendants I will give this land from the river of Egypt to the Rio Grande, the Euphrates River: the Kenites and the Cenemzei and the Cheloneans and the Kettles and the Pharezites and the Rephaim and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Aeveans and the Girgashites and the Jebusites (Gn 15,18-20). The question is resolved by saying that it preceded this prophecy, according to which, Solomon would extend and expand the kingdom to those limits. The Scripture says thus about Solomon: And all that Solomon had set up to build in Jerusalem and in Lebanon and in all the land of his dominion: all the people that were left of the high places and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Jebusites, who were not of Israel, whose descendants had remained with them in the country, to whom the children of Israel had not been able to deliver the anathema, Solomon submitted them to tribute to this day (1R 10,22 9,19-21). This is the rest of the peoples that had to be defeated and, according to the command of the Lord, totally exterminated; the rest that Salomón submitted to tribute and that, according to the precept of God, must certainly exterminate. These peoples, submitted, were under the control of Israel as tributaries. A little further on it reads: And he ruled over all the kings, from the River to the land of the Philistines and to the ends of Egypt (1R 10,26 4,21). This is where God's prediction of Abraham in Genesis has been fulfilled, when he spoke to him and made his promise. From the River it is understood here from the Euphrates. Well, in those places you can perfectly understand what Rio Grande is without the need to add your own name. It can not be here of the Jordan, since the Israelites had already conquered lands, even before the reign of Solomon, not only on this side, but on the other side of this river. Then the Scripture, in the book of the Kings, says that the kingdom of Solomon extended from the Euphrates River, on the eastern side, to the confines of Egypt, from the western part. Therefore, at that time a territory greater than that occupied by those seven nations was subject. And for that, they were then subjected to slavery not seven, but eleven nations.

What is said in the books of the Kings: to the ends of Egypt from the river, to indicate the extension of the kingdom from east to west, this same thing is said in Genesis, to delimit that kingdom from the west to the east, with these words: from the river of Egypt to the Rio Grande, the Euphrates River (Gn 15,18). The river of Egypt, which is the determining limit of the kingdom of Israel from Egypt, is not the Nile, but another small river, which passes through the city of Rinocorura, to the east of which the promised land already begins. Thus, the children of Israel had been commanded that, exterminated and destroyed these people, they would inhabit the lands of the seven nations and dominate to the Euphrates River, subjecting and making tributary the other nations. And even if they had not obeyed God in this, since some of the nations that had to exterminate were subject to tribute, nevertheless, God fulfilled in the time of Solomon what he had promised.

Now, how can what we have committed ourselves to study in the book of Joshua Nave be true, namely: And the Lord gave Israel all the land which he had sworn to give to his fathers, and they possessed it? How did Joshua, even when he was still alive, give them all the land, when they had not even beaten the remains of those seven nations? What follows: And they possessed it, it is true, because there they were and there they had settled. What is added next: And the Lord gave them peace all around, as he had sworn to their fathers, it is true, because even Joshua still living, the remains of those nations did not move before them; on the contrary, none of them dared to provoke them with a war in the territories in which they had been established. That is why it was also said what comes next: None of all his enemies could resist before them. What is said next: but the Lord gave into his hands all his enemies, refers to the enemies who dared to make war. And what is said next: Not one of the good words that the Lord said to the children of Israel failed; all happened (Jos 21,43-45 (41-43)), it means that, although the Israelites had acted against the Lord's command, forgiving the lives of some of those seven nations and making them tributary, they were still intact among those people. Therefore, when it was said: of all the words it was added: good, because the established curses had not yet taken place for those who had despised and transgressed the Lord's command.

Ultimately, the following words: The Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give his parents, they must be understood in the sense that, although there were still among those nations remains that had to be destroyed and exterminated, and of the other nations that were up to the Euphrates River, or had to be subdued if they did not resist, or had to be exterminated if they opposed it, however, those nations remained in their function, as an occasion for exercise, lest they, weakened by the carnal affections and desires, could not endure moderately and healthily a great and sudden prosperity of temporary things and, proudly, perish more quickly, as will be duly demonstrated elsewhere. They were granted, then, all the land, because even the part that they had not yet conquered, had already been granted according to a certain test.

22 (Jos 21,42). The Scripture says: None of all his enemies resisted before them. We ask how this can be true, when shortly before it was said of the tribe of Dan that their enemies were not allowed to go down into the valley and overcame them in the mountains (Cf Jos 19,48 47). The answer is that here too we can understand this fact as we explain in discussing the twelve sons of Jacob, that the Scripture states that they were born in Mesopotamia, when Benjamin was not born there. Here the eleven tribes are considered as if they were all the people, in the way that we sufficiently know by other passages of the Scriptures. But if we look for the reason why this tribe did not get enough land in the lottery that was made and was bothered by the people who owned that land, we must admit that the explanation certainly lies in the secret counsel of God. But, when Jacob blessed his children, he said such things about Dan that some think that the antichrist (Cf Gn 49,17) will come from this tribe. Therefore, we are not going to say more things now, since this question could also be resolved by saying that none of all their enemies resisted before them, when the tribes waged war all together under the command of a single leader, before the territories were divided. between the tribes, territories that each one had to defend on their own.

23 (Jos 22,27). And in the sacrifices of our salvation. As the sacrifices are spoken in the plural, that is why the salvations are also in the plural. But we must pay close attention to the fact that it is often called "sacrifice of salvation", because if we accept that Christ is called God's salvation (Le 2,30), we do not see how this word could be understood in the plural. For one is only our Lord Jesus Christ, (Cf 1Co 8,6) although some may be called Christ by his grace, as the psalm reads: Do not touch my Christians (Ps. 104,15). But we should not easily dare to say that we could say saludos (salutares) or salvaciones (salutaria), because he alone is the savior of the body (Eph. 5,23).

24 (Jos 23,14). In relation to what Joshua says about his near death: But I walk the path like all those who are on earth, in the translation made of the Hebrew it is said: I enter the road. The word "I travel" (recurro) used by the Seventy is to be understood in the same sense as it was said to man: until you return to the land from which you were taken (Gn 3,19), a phrase to be understood referring to the body. But if we want to refer to the soul, according to Ecclesiastes: And the spirit returns to God who gave it, (Si 12,7) I do not believe that it can be said of all men, but only of those who have lived in such a way that they deserve to return to God, as its owner, who has created them. This can not be correctly interpreted either by those of whom it is said: spirit that goes and does not return (Sal 77,39). If this holy man Joshua Nave had not added: like all those on earth, there would be no problem. For we would not think about him anything else but what we read that is worthy of him. But, adding: like all those on earth, it is not surprising that the Latin translator put recourse (travel), did not mean more than "run through" (percurro) or "I'm running" ( excurro) if this means the Greek word aprotréjo. Because everyone "runs through" or "runs" along the path of life, when they have come to an end. But as this word (recourse) appears in the passage in which the parents of Rebekah say to the servant of Abraham: Behold Rebecca; Take it, go running, and be the wife of your master's son, that's why here I have interpreted this word in that way.

25 (Jos 24,3). What the translation done about the Seventy says: I took your father Abraham from the other side of the River and took him (deduxi) to the whole earth, the translation made of the Hebrew says: And I brought him (induxi) to the land of Canaan . Well, it is strange that the Seventy have wanted to put the whole earth in place of the land of Canaan, unless they have done so by contemplating the prophecy, in such a way that it is taken more as a thing done by the divine promise as all certainty was announced in advance what would happen in Christ and in the Church, namely, that the true offspring of Abraham is not in the children of the flesh, but in the children of the promise (Cf Rm 9,8).

26 (Jos 24,11). And they made war (bellaverunt) against you the people who live in Jericho. We ask how this can be true when the people of Jericho only defended themselves inside the walls, once the doors were closed. But the affirmation is correct, because closing the doors against the enemy is an act of war, because they did not send legacies to ask for peace. Therefore, if it had been said: they fought (pugnaverunt) against you, it would be false. War does not consist of continuous struggles, but sometimes they are frequent, sometimes they are rare, and sometimes they do not even exist. But war exists when armed dissension occurs in some way.

27 (Jos 24,12). What does this mean that Joshua Nave remembers that the Lord did, among other things, in favor of the Israelites: He sent before you wasps and expelled them from your presence? For this is read in the book of Wisdom (Cf Sab 12,8) and, nevertheless, it does not appear that this has happened in any other place among historical events. Has the author wanted to use perhaps the word wasps in a metaphorical sense to indicate the great stings of fear, which stung them in a certain way with the rumors that spread so that they fled or to point out the hidden spirits of the air, hinted at by the psalm when it says: by the evil angels? (Ps.77,49) Unless one says that not everything that has happened is written and that this happened visibly and, therefore, it is true wasps.

28 (Jos 24,19). What does what Joshua said to the people mean: You can not serve the Lord, because he is a holy God? Is it perhaps that it is incompatible with human frailty to serve as perfectly as possible the holiness of God? Upon hearing this, the Israelites not only had to choose the service of God, but also boast of their help and mercy, as the author of the psalm understood, saying: Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no living being will be just in your presence (Ps. 142,2). The Israelites chose rather to boast of themselves, thinking that they could serve God without any hindrance, in such a way that they began then to do what the Apostle said about them: Well, ignoring the justice of God and wanting to establish their own , they did not submit to the justice of God (Rm 10,3). Thus, the law was introduced so that the crime would abound and then grace would abound for Christ the Lord (Cf Rm 5,20.21), which is the end of the law for the justification of every believer (Cf Rm 10,4).

29 (Jos 24,23). What does it mean what Joshua himself affirms, saying to the people: And now separate the foreign gods that are in your midst and turn your hearts to the Lord God of Israel? We can not think that they still had idols of the Gentiles among them, since before they have proclaimed the obedience of the people. But if they had them, after so many threats of the law, would so much prosperity come upon them, if the Lord took such vengeance on them because one had stolen something from anathema? Finally, Jacob said this to those who had gone out with him from Mesopotamia, where the idol worship was such that even Rachel had stolen the father idols. But after that warning from Jacob, they delivered the idols they had (Cf Gn 35,2.4). From where it is shown that they were told that in that way because the one who said it knew they had idols. However, here, after Josué Nave's warning, nobody delivered anything similar. And yet, we can not think that Joshua said that without reason. Because Joshua does not say: And now throw away the foreign gods, if you have any among you, but say the following, as knowing with certainty that there were: that there is among you. Therefore, the holy prophet saw that in their hearts there were thoughts about God alien to God and he ordered them to be discarded. Because whoever thinks of a God who is not God, leads in his thought to a strange and certainly false God. Because who can think of God as God is? Therefore, it remains in the hands of the faithful, while they wander away from the Lord (Cf 2Co 5,6), to eliminate from their hearts the vain phantoms that are presented to them and that enter into thought, suggesting that God is of this or the other way, as it is not actually. And they must faithfully direct the heart to him so that, as he knows and as soon as he knows what is best for us, he himself insinuates himself by means of his Spirit, until every lie disappears. That is why it is said: every man is a liar (Ps.115,2 11). And overcome not only the untruthful falsehood, but also the mirror and the enigma, we know him face to face, as we are also known, as the Apostle says: Now we see through a mirror in an enigma; then, instead, face to face; now I know partially; but then I will know how I am known (1Co 13,12).

30 (Jos 24,25-27). And Joshua arranged an alliance for the people that day and gave him the law and the judgment in Shiloh before the tabernacle of the Lord God of Israel. And he wrote these words in the book of the laws of God. And Joshua took a large stone and put it under the terebinth before the Lord. And Joshua said to the people, "Behold, this stone will be a witness for you, for you have heard all that the Lord has said, all that he has spoken to you today; it will be for you a witness in the last days, when you have lied to the Lord your God ». Those who hear these words, not superficially, but meditate with a little depth, should not think that such an important man was so foolish that he believed that an inanimate stone could hear the words that God told his people. This stone, if it had been reproduced in the image of man by an artist, would certainly be counted among those of whom it is said in the psalm: They have ears and do not hear. Indeed, not only do they not hear the idols of the Gentiles, which are of gold and silver (Ps. 113,14 6), but also those that are made of stone; rather, by means of this stone it was undoubtedly meant that which was a stumbling block for unbelieving Jews and a scandalous stone, which, being rejected by the builders, became the cornerstone (Cf Ps. 113,12 4; 134,15). He also prefigured that rock which, beaten with the rod, gave drink to the thirsty people, of which the Apostle says the following: For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ (Cf Ps. 117,22; 1P 2,7.8). Therefore, this Egregian guide also circumcised the people with stone knives (1Co 10.4): these knives are also buried with him to show them a profound profitable mystery for the descendants. Well, this stone, although it is placed there visibly, must also be taken in a spiritual sense, as a future witness for the infidel Jews, that is, liars, of whom the psalm says: The enemies of the Lord lied to him (Cf Jos 5,2.3). And this does not happen without reason, since already the servant of God, Moses, or rather God through him, arranged for the people an alliance that was kept in the ark, which was called the ark of the covenant, and in the books of the law, written with a great quantity of mysteries and precepts, (Sal 80,16) for here it is also said: Joshua arranged an alliance for the people that day (Cf Ex 24,3). The repetition of the covenant means the New Testament. And this also means Deuteronomy, since Deuteronomy means the second law. And they also mean the new tables of the law, once the first ones are broken (Jos 24,25). Because it had to mean in many ways what had to be accomplished in only one way. That the stone was placed under a terebinto means the same as the rod for the rock, so that water could come out, because here the rock is not detached from the wood. And he was underneath precisely because he would not have been exalted on the cross if he had not submitted with humility, or because at that time when Joshua Nave was doing this, this mystery still had to be hidden. The wood of the terebinth distils a medicinal substance, a tree that the Seventy have mentioned in this place, although according to other translators it is an oak.

The fact that, at least in the last words that Joshua, that man of God, addressed to the people, did not blame them for having spared the lives of those people whom the Lord had commanded to destroy totally, delivering them to the anathema. The text reads as follows: And it came to pass after the children of Israel became stronger and subjected the Canaanites to bondage; however, they were not totally exterminated (Cf Ex 34,1.4). The Scripture testifies that, at first, the Israelites did not succeed. But now, after having become stronger, to the point of subjecting them to servitude, the fact of not having exterminated them, certainly, was done against the Lord's precept (Jos 17.13). And this they did not do with anyone when Joshua was in charge of the army. Why, then, did he not blame them in his last speech for having been negligent in fulfilling the Lord's precept in this matter? Perhaps because we must think that, as before the Scripture says they were not able to destroy them, because they were not strong enough, nor when they became stronger they could, because they were afraid that maybe, if they had not wanted to forgive them life, being as they were prepared to lend them servitude, would force them to fight more fiercely against them by their own desperation, and then they could not have overcome them? The Lord did not want to take into account this human fear, although it shows a certain lack of faith. If they had had a stronger faith, they would have had the same things that happened to Joshua when he was waging war. But because they did not have a faith as great as theirs, even when they had become stronger than their adversaries, fearing the enemies did not dare to fight against them until the extermination. And this fear, as I said, not from malice or arrogance or contempt of the Lord's command, but from the weakness of courage, the Lord did not want to take it into account to present the last things he said to them through of Joshua. Therefore, the Apostle also says: Alexander, the blacksmith, has done me much evil; the Lord will repay him according to his works. About those who left him when he was in danger, not out of malice, but out of fear, he spoke like this: In my first defense, no one assisted me, rather they all abandoned me; that they are not taken into account (2Tm 4,14.16).