2 (Jc 1,1-3). And it came to pass, after the death of Joshua, that the children of Israel inquired of the Lord, saying, Who shall come up with us as a commander to the Canaanites to fight with them? And the Lord answered, Judah shall go up; Look, I've put the country in your hands. " Here arises the question of whether there was a man named Judah or if he called the tribe of Judah itself, as is usually done. Those who consulted the Lord after the death of Joshua looked for a leader, so some think that it is clearly the name of a man. Now, as the Scripture does not usually name the chiefs, when it speaks of them, without also mentioning the origin of their fathers, and it is clear that after the death of Joshua the people of Israel had their leaders, the first of whom was Gotoniel, son of Cener, is more accurate to say that, under the name of Judah, the tribe of Judah is understood. For this tribe, in fact, the Lord wanted to start crushing the Canaanites. And as the people consulted about their leader, the Lord's response helped them to know that God did not want all the people to make war with the Canaanites. And that's why he told them: Judah will go up. And the Scripture continues the narration: And Judah said to his brother Simeon. It is clear that one tribe speaks to another tribe, since those sons of Jacob, called Judah and Simeon, were no longer living among their other brothers, also designated by their own names. And the tribe of Judah said to the tribe of Simeon: Go up with me to the land that has been my lot, and let us make war with the Canaanites, and I will go with you to the land that has been your lot. It is evident that the tribe of Judah asked another tribe for help to return it when that tribe also began to need it in their territory.

3 (Jc 1,9-12). And Caleb said: "Whosoever beats the City of letters and takes it, and I will give my daughter Acsa for a wife." This was also mentioned in the book of Joshua Nave (Cf Jos 15,16). But one can rightly ask if this happened while still living Joshua, and it is repeated now as a recapitulation, or happened after his death, when it had already been said: Judah will go up, and Judah had already begun to make war on the Canaanites , in whose war all these things are narrated as happened. But it is more likely that it happened after the death of Joshua, and then this is mentioned, as other things are also, by prolepsis, that is, by anticipation. Now, in exposing the actions of the tribe of Judah against the Canaanites, the order of the narrative remains thus among the remaining warlike acts of Judah, of whom the Lord had said after the death of Joshua: Judah will rise. And then the sons of Judah went down to attack the Canaanites who lived in the mountain and in the south and in the field. And Judah marched against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron, and Hebron came forth from the opposite side-the name of Hebron before was Cariatharbocsepher-and defeated Shesi and Akiman and Kolmi, sons of Enac. From there they went up against the inhabitants of Dabir - the name of Dabir was before City of letters. And Caleb said: "Whoever defeats the City of letters and takes it, and I will give my daughter Acsa for a woman" (Jc 1.9-12). It is in this clear order of events that these events took place after the death of Joshua. But then, when mentioning the cities given to Caleb, the narrator, advancing as the opportunity presents itself, anticipates what happened next. For the rest, I think that the Scripture has not intended to mention without reason twice the fact that Caleb was willing to give his daughter as a prize to the winner.

5 (Jc 1,18-19). But Judah did not conquer Gaza and its district, nor Ascalón and its district, nor Accarón and its region, nor Azoto and its region. And the Lord was with Judah. And he conquered the mountain, because he could not conquer the inhabitants of the valley, because Rekab confronted them and had iron chariots. When discussing in the book of Joshua Nave the passage that says: And the Lord gave Israel all the earth, (Jos 21,43 41) when many of its regions still did not possess them, I said that the fact that they had been given all the land could be understood in the sense that the land that was not given them in possession, was given them as a test. This appears here much more clearly, since the cities are mentioned that Judah could not conquer, and, nevertheless, it is said that the Lord was with Judah. He conquered the mountain, because they could not conquer the inhabitants of the valley. Who does not understand, therefore, that this also has something to do with the fact that the Lord was with Judah, so that he would not be arrogant, suddenly getting all the territory? With respect to what follows: For Rekab confronted them and had iron chariots it has been said that he feared the chariots, but not the Lord who was in Judah, but the tribe of Judah itself. If we inquire why Judah was afraid, with whom the Lord was, we should interpret prudently that God, even being propitious, destroys even in the hearts of his people the superabundance of excessive prosperity to turn enemies to their own advantage, not only when the enemies are defeated, but also when they are feared: the first, to reveal the divine generosity; the second, to suppress human pride. Because, evidently, the enemy of the saints is the angel of Satan, who, as the Apostle says, was given to him to slap him, so that he would not be enraged by the magnitude of the revelations (Cf 2Co 12,7).

6 (Jc 1,20). And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses said. And he conquered from there the three cities of the children of Enac and expelled from there the three children of Enac. This was already said in the book of Joshua Nave (Cf Jos 15,13.14), because it happened living him. But here it is recapitulated by recapitulation, when speaking the Scripture of the tribe of Judah, to which Caleb belonged.

7 (Jc 1,21-28). We ask why it is said: The sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; and the Jebusites dwelt in Jerusalem with the children of Benjamin to this day, when it is read above that that city was conquered by Judah and set on fire, killing the Jebusites in it (Cf Jc 1,8.). We must know that this city was common to the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, as Josué Nave's own division of the territories shows. (Cf Jos 15,63; 18,28) The city of Jebus is the same as Jerusalem (Cf Jc 19,10). Therefore, these two tribes remained by the temple of the Lord, when the others, except Levi, who was the priestly tribe, and received no territory in the division, separated from the kingdom of Judah in the time of Jeroboam. One must therefore think that Judah certainly conquered the city and burned it down, killing the people who were there, but not all the Jebusites died, either because they were outside the city, or because they were able to flee. And the children of Benjamin, together with those of the tribe of Judah, who had that city in common, lived in it together with the Jebusites that were left and which they tolerated. Therefore, the phrase: The sons of Benjamin did not expel the Jebusites, it must be understood in the sense that they could not or did not want to make them tributary. Or at least, the phrase: They did not expel the Jebusites, it means that Benjamin did not possess without them the territory that belonged to them.

8 (Jc 1,27). And Manasseh did not conquer Betan, which is the city of the Scythians. It is said that the city is called today Escitópolis. You can call attention to how in those regions so distant from Scythia could be called the city of Scythians. But it can also draw our attention how Alexander the Macedonian could found the city of Alexandria so far from Macedonia, which he certainly did, waging war far and wide. So also the Scythians could found this city when they were advancing the war then in remote places. For in Universal History it is read that at some point the Scythians almost dominated all of Asia when they confronted the king of the Egyptians, who had declared war on them for no reason, and he, scared before his arrival, took refuge in his kingdom.

9 (Jc 1,27). And Manasseh did not conquer Betan, which is the city of the Scythians, nor his daughters. The author calls his daughters to the cities that she as a metropolis had founded.

10 (Jc 1,28). And it happened that, when Israel acquired more strength, it subjected the Canaanites to tribute, but it did not manage to expel them completely. A similar thing had already been said in Josué Nave's book with almost the same words (Cf Jos 17,13). Therefore, either here it is said by anacephaleosis (recapitulation), or there it was said by prolepsis, that is, either here by recapitulation or there in advance.

11 (Jc 1,34). And the Amorites rejected the sons of Dan to the mountain, because they were not allowed to go down into the valley. This was also mentioned in the book of Joshua Nave in advance, (Cf Jos 19,47 48) or here by recapitulation.

12 (Jc 2,1). And the angel of the Lord went up to Clautmonte. The author of this book gave this name to the place, because he wrote later, since, when the angel of the Lord ascended to that place, he still did not call himself that. This name means "weeping," because klauzmós, in Greek, means "weeping." The reason is because the people wept there to hear this angel the words of the Lord rebuking him for having disobeyed by not exterminating the people he had ordered exterminate, people they had managed to overcome, preferring to make tributary rather than exterminate and destroy them , as the Lord had commanded (Cf Jos 17,12-14). And if they did so, either out of contempt of the Lord's command, or out of fear that the enemies would force them to fight against them, more to obtain their salvation courageously than to pay the tribute, they undoubtedly sinned, or despised what the Lord He had ordered them, or not believing that he could help them who had sent him. And he did not want to tell him through Josue-if, even when he was alive, he had already ordered them to do it, and he had not mentioned in advance what began to happen after he died-precisely because he wanted to throw it on everyone. through the angel. They had not yet done all of these, living Joshua; although some may have already begun to do it. But it is more likely that none of this had begun to be done by living Joshua Ship, and that the children of Israel, in the time of Joshua, dominated the extent of the territory that would be enough for them to settle, even though in the corresponding lot they had reasons to exterminate even the adversaries, growing and becoming stronger. Therefore, after the death of Joshua, when they had already become strong to carry out this, they preferred to have them as tributaries, according to their decision, rather than kill them and destroy them, according to the will of God. The angel was sent to rebuke them. Now, the fact that the book by Joshua Nave mentioned it, I think it is rather due to anticipation of what happened after the death of Joshua, or because Joshua already knew, because of the prophetic spirit he had (Cf Jos 13,1-3), that he had It will happen like this, in case he is the one who wrote the book called Josué Nave, or because if someone else wrote it, he already knew what happened in Joshua's death before the death of Joshua.

13 (Jc 2,3). The angel of the Lord says the following, among other divine threats: I will not again expel the people I said I would expel (I will not remove) from your presence; and they will be a cause of anguish for you and their gods cause scandal. Why is this said except to let us think that some sins come from the wrath of God? God, enraged, threatened them by telling them that the gods of the nations, among which the Israelites wanted to live without exterminating them, would be an occasion for scandal, that is, they would make them scandalize the Lord their God and live offenders. And this, evidently, is with all certainty a great sin.

14 (Jc 2,6-8). And Joshua sent the people away, and the children of Israel went every man to his house, and every one to his inheritance to occupy the land. There is no doubt that this is repeated here by recapitulation (Cf Jos 24,28). Because even the death of Josué Nave himself is mentioned even in this book (Cf Jc 2,8), to briefly insinuate all things as if from the beginning, when God granted them the land, and to indicate how they lived under the Judges or what they had to endure. And so it goes back to the order of the book of Judges, from the order that had first been established.

15 (Jc 2,10). After them came another generation that did not know the Lord or the things that he did for Israel. The author explained why he said that he did not know the Lord, that is, in those preclear and admirable works through which it happened before them that Israel knew the Lord.

16 (Jc 2,13). And they served Baal and the Astartes. It is often said that the name of Baal among the people of those regions corresponds to that of Jupiter, and that of Astarte to that of Juno, which seems to be demonstrated also by the Punic language. In effect, the Punic seem to designate Baal as the Lord; from where it is thought that they call Baalsamen as the Lord of heaven; because Samen, for the Punic, means heavens. And without a doubt they call Astarte to Juno. And since these languages ​​do not differ much from one another, it is rightly believed that the Scripture here says that the children of Israel served Baal and the Astartes, because they served Jupiter and the Junos. And we should not be surprised if he did not say to Astarte, that is, to Juno, but that he has put this word in the plural, as if there were many Junos. The Scripture wanted to indicate in this way a great amount of images, because each image of Juno was called Juno. And that's why he wanted to say that there were so many Junos how many were the images of the goddess. And I think he wanted to use the singular for Jupiter and the plural for Juno because of variety. Because if I had done so because of the number of images, I could also have spoken in the plural of the Jupiter. Now, the plural name of the Junos is found in the Greek text. In the Latin texts, on the other hand, it was in the singular. In the text that is not based on the version of the Seventy, but in the Hebrew, we read Astarot and not Baal, but Baales. And if by chance these names mean something else in the Hebrew or Syriac language, it is certain that they were strange and false gods, whom Israel was not to serve.

17 (Jc 2,10-23). And he sold them into the hands of his enemies around him. He usually wonders why it has been said: he sold, as if he had to understand that some price has been given. In a psalm it is also read: You sold your people for nothing (Sal 43,13). And the prophet says: You have been sold for nothing and you will be rescued without money. Why then does it say: sold, if they were "bucket" and "for nothing"? Why do not you say "donated"? Is it perhaps an expression of the Scriptures, in such a way that it could be called also sold to the one who is donated? Here the most acceptable sense of the phrases: You have been sold for nothing and you have sold your people for nothing, this is it: Those to whom you gave your people were ungodly; they did not deserve that, serving God, the people would be given to them in such a way that this cult would seem like the price. In relation to the other phrase: And you will be rescued without money, it is not said "for nothing", but without money, so that we understand that the price of the ransom is what the apostle Peter says: For you have only rescued with silver or with gold, but with a precious blood as of lamb without spot. When the prophet says: You will be rescued without money, in silver he understands all the money, because they would be rescued by the price of the blood of Christ and not by the price in cash.

Nor will I again throw out of his presence any of the towns left by Joshua, son of Nave; and he left them to test Israel with them, whether or not they kept the way of the Lord to go for him, as his parents had kept him. And the Lord left these people so that he did not expel them quickly and did not deliver them into the hands of Joshua (Jc 2,21-23). The cause of Joshua not exterminating all those peoples with war is sufficiently demonstrated by these words of the Lord. If he had, there would be no villages for the Israelites to have been tested. They could be of use to them, if proven by them, they would not turn out to be reprobate and, once they were not reprobate, as the Lord had ordered them not to be, those peoples would be expelled from their presence if they lived there. And it would not be necessary for the Israelites to practice war. It must be noted that the words of the Lord reach here: Since these people have abandoned my covenant, which I commanded their fathers, and they have not obeyed my voice, neither will I again expel from their presence any of their enemies. The rest of the words are those of the writer, which explains why the Lord said that he would not throw any of the people that Joshua, son of Nave, left alive. Then he explains the cause of why they were left, adding the following: He left them to test Israel with them, whether or not they kept the Lord's way to walk through it, as their parents had kept them. By this is meant that the parents who were with Joshua, that is, when Joshua lived, kept the way of the Lord. But before it is said that another generation arose, after those who lived with Joshua, and they began the transgressions that offended the Lord. To tempt them, to prove them, those towns were alive and they were not exterminated by Joshua.

Afterwards, so that no one would think that Joshua had done so because of his human decision to leave those peoples alive, the Scripture adds: The Lord left these people, so he did not expel them quickly and did not hand them over to them. of Joshua. And then it continues: These are the towns that Joshua left alive, to prove to them Israel, to all those who had not known any of the Canaan wars; but it was because of the generations of the children of Israel, to teach them war. This was, then, the cause to put them to the test: to learn the arts of war, to make war with so much piety and obedience to the law of God how much their parents had, that they pleased the Lord God even by making war , not because war is desirable, but because mercy is laudable even in war.

What follows: But to those who did not know them before, to whom do you refer but to the nations that did not know in war those who lived before them for whose temptation or trial they were left alive? Remembering who they were, he says later: the five satrapies of foreigners. They are spoken of more explicitly in the books of the Kings (Jc 2,20). Satrapias is called a kind of small kingdoms, in front of which were the satraps. Now, this name in those regions is or was a reason for a certain honor. And the text continues: And to all the Canaanites and Sidonians and Evens, who lived in Lebanon, from Mount Hermon to Laboemat. And it came to pass that Israel was tempted with these. It is as if he said: This happened so that Israel would be tempted with them to know if they will hear the commands of the Lord. Not for God to know, who knows all things including future ones, (Cf Dn 13,42) but for them to know and their conscience and glory or be convinced if they heard the commands of the Lord that he sent to his parents through Moses. Well, as they knew that they had not obeyed God in those nations that had remained, for their temptation, to exercise and test them, that is why God said the things that the angel sent by God spoke more clearly and expressly to those the Lord said shortly before: Since this people abandoned my covenant, which I sent to their parents, and they did not obey my voice, neither will I ever expel anyone from their presence.

Deuteronomy puts the following in the mouth of God, when speaking of these enemy peoples: I will not expel them in a single year, so that the land will not be deserted, and the beasts of the field multiply against you. I will expel them little by little, until you multiply and grow and conquer the land (Ex 23,29.30). The Lord could keep this promise of his for the obedient ones, so that the extermination of those nations, as the Israelites grew, would be partially done, not allowing their multitude to leave deserted the lands from which the adversaries would be exterminated. The phrase: And do not multiply against you the beasts of the field, I would be very surprised if you did not refer to the desires and passions, in a way beastly, that are usually born of a sudden attainment of earthly happiness. For it is not true that God could not exterminate men and could not annihilate the beasts, or rather not allow them to be born.

18 (Jc 3,9). And the Lord raised a savior for Israel and saved them. And then, as if he were asked who the savior was, he adds: To Gotoniel, son of Cenez. Gotoniel is here in accusative, as if he had said: Gothonielem (to Gotoniel). For the rest, we must pay attention to the fact that God calls a man a savior through whom he will save them. The text reads as follows: The children of Israel cried out to the Lord, and the Lord raised a savior for Israel, and he saved them: to Gothoniel son of Cenez, Caleb's younger brother, and he heard them. Among the different kinds of hyperbaton, what is here is rare, because it also participates in what the Greeks call hysterology. If the words that are put at the end: And he listened to them, put them before, the phrase would be clearer. For the order is this: And the children of Israel cried to the Lord, and he heard them, and the Lord raised up a savior for Israel. Then comes what has interposed here: And saved them. And then it is said: To Gotoniel -as if he were in accusative Gothonielem-, son of Cenez. If the passage were read this way, it would be clearer: And the Lord raised a savior for Israel, Gotoniel son of Cenez, and saved them.

19 (Jc 3,11). The Scripture testifies that, under judge Gotoniel, the promised land was in peace, free of wars, for forty years. It is the space of time that the beginnings of the Roman Empire under Numa Pompilio could have in peace as the only king.

20 (Jc 3,19-20). We can ask if Judge Aod lied when he killed Eglon, king of Moab. Trying, then Ehud ambush him to kill him, he says: I have a message from God for you, oh king, so that Eglon could fire everyone who was with him. When he did it, Aod says again: I have a message from God for you, oh king! (Jc 3,20) The answer is that it may not be a lie, because the Scripture usually also calls word or message to a fact. And that was the way it was. The words: a message from God, we must understand them in the sense that God commanded that to be done to that man whom he had raised as savior for the people, as it was convenient in those times for those things to be done by divine disposition.

21 (Jc 3,17-22). We can rightly ask why it is said that King Eglon was very thin and that fats closed the wound, when he was mortally wounded. We must think that what was usually understood in the opposite sense was said with that first sentence. For example, it is called sacred forest (lucus) which does not let the light pass (luceat). It is said that a thing abounds, when there is nothing of it. It is said that one blessed the king when he cursed him, as it appears in the book of the Kings about Nabute. In the Latin translation, which does not depend on the Seventy, but on the Hebrew text, we find the following: But King Eglon was very fat.

22 (Jc 3,23). And Aod went out and passed through the guards and closed the doors of the upper gallery behind him and bolted. This which had been omitted, is now said by recapitulation. Because it is to believe that Ehod did this before and so he would come down from the top and pass in front of the guardians.

23 (Jc 3,25). It may be strange that the servants of King Eglon had opened with a key what Eod had not locked with a key, he would not have taken it with him so that the servants would not have opened it even with the key. Therefore, either they brought another key, or it was another kind of lock that could be locked without a key, but it could not be opened without it. Sure enough, there are locks like that, like what are called locks.

24 (Jc 3,30). Under Judge Aod Israel enjoyed peace for eighty years the promised land. It is twice as long as the Romans enjoyed under King Numa Pompilio.

25 (Jc 3,31). After him arose Shamgar, son of Anat, who defeated the foreigners, who were six hundred men, besides the calves of the cows, and saved Israel. We can ask how after Ehud this man fought for Israel and is said to have saved Israel, since the Israelites had not been taken captive again or had not been subjected to the yoke of slavery. But we can understand what is said: he saved, not because the enemy had caused any damage, but that he acted so that he was not allowed to do so. We can think that the enemy began to try to make war, but this Judge prevented him, defeating him. On the other hand, the meaning of the phrase is obscure: besides the calves of the cows. Did he make a killing of cows in the battle and that's why he is said to have killed six hundred men, in addition to what he did with the cows he killed? And why calves? Is it normal in the Greek language to call calves also those who are already big? It is said that in Egypt it is said so vulgarly, just as among us chickens of any age are called chickens. The translation done on the Hebrew does not have this phrase: besides the calves of the cows, that is based on the Seventy. The translation made on the Hebrew says: Six hundred men killed with the plowshare, phrase that the Seventy do not have.

26 (Jc 4,8). What does it mean that Baraq responds to Deborah, saying: If you go, I will go, and if you do not go with me, I will not go, because I do not know the day when the Lord favors the angel with me, as if I could not hear the day from the prophetess? She did not indicate the day, but went with him. And what does it mean: The Lord favors the angel? Is it possible to show here that the acts of the angels are also favored, that is, does the Lord help them to obtain a happy result? Or does it favor the angel with me is it a peculiar expression that means that it does with me favorable things through the angel?

27 (Jc 4,15). And the Lord sowed panic in Sisera and all his chariots. This is how the Scripture reminds us that God acts in the hearts to give things the success he established. Indeed, he sowed panic or stunned Sisera to deliver him to Israel.

28 (Jc 4,22). Speaking of Jael, the woman who killed Sisera, and when it is said that she spoke with Baraq, who sought her, the Scripture says of Baraq that he entered into it. It should be noted that when the Scripture says of a man who entered a woman, it does not follow that one must necessarily think that he slept with her. The Scripture, in fact, says many times: he entered it, so that he does not want to understand anything else but joined it. But here the expression is used: he entered it, in the proper sense, that is, he entered his house. And with these words does not mean that he slept with her.

29 (Jc 5,7-8). In the song of Deborah it is said: The inhabitants of Israel were missing; they were missing, until Débora arose, until the mother in Israel arose. They chose new gods as barley bread; then they conquered the cities of the princes. This intermingling of words makes the text obscure and poses problems. For how are the phrases to be understood: They chose new gods as barley bread; Then they conquered the cities of the princes? It seems as if God had given them help to conquer the cities of the princes, when they chose new gods as barley bread. But from other passages of the Scriptures we know how hyperbaton is often used, and that once the order of words has been corrected and restored, the meaning is easily explained. The order is as follows: The inhabitants of Israel were missing, they were missing; they chose new gods as barley bread, until Deborah arose, until the mother arose in Israel; then they conquered the cities of the princes.

30 (Jc 5,8). We can ask why it is said: They chose new gods as barley bread, since barley bread is of lower rank, when compared to wheat bread, but it also serves to eat and is vital food. On the other hand, the new gods who chose, as they say, those who abandoned the living God, can not be considered as food for the soul, but rather as poison. It is possible that this comparison has to be taken for what it is worth, in such a way that this statement is valid only because, as often happens, that due to distaste the things to be chosen are rejected and those that should be despised are rewarded, as blame for the bad disposition, as if it were the weakness of boredom, being their God the true God, in the false gods they chose only the fact that they were new, despising the truth. And for that reason they chose a deadly food, as if it were barley bread, without thinking that they would perish because of that bread, but that they would even reach through it their life, as if it were a healthy food, although of inferior value. Thus, the author used that comparison according to their opinion and according to the weakness of the soul, not according to the truth. Because these new gods can not be compared to any food of life.

31 (Jc 6,8-11). And it came to pass that when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord for Midian, the Lord sent a man a prophet unto the children of Israel, and said unto them. There is some hidden reason for not saying the name of this prophet, which is very rare in the Scriptures, but I do not think there is no reason. Well, as after the words with which he rebuked the disobedience of the people, the Scripture continues saying: And the angel of the Lord came and sat under the oak that was in Ephra (Jc 6,11), it is not absurd to think that under the name of the prophet man This angel is indicated, so that, after saying these words, he has come to the aforementioned oak tree and has sat there. It is a known fact that angels are usually called men, but it does not appear easily or clearly that the man, who could be an angel, (Cf Gn 19,10) was called a prophet. We read that the one who was a prophet is called an angel (Cf Mt 11,9-10). But if the prophetic words of the angels are known, that is, the words with which they announced future things, why could not an angel be called a prophet? However, as I said, there is no clear and explicit testimony on this matter.

32 (Jc 6,12). What the angel says to Gideon: The Lord is with you powerful in strength, is in nominative, not vocative, and therefore, its meaning is "The Lord is powerful with you," and not "you, powerful."

33 (Jc 6,14). It is necessary to notice that the angel, when he spoke to Gideon, said to him as if he were speaking with divine authority: Am I not the one who sent you? Because who sent him, but who sent the angel? Deborah does not say to Baraq, "Have not I commanded you?" But he says to him, "Has not the Lord God of Israel commanded you?" (Jc 4,6) Here, on the other hand, it is not said: Is not the Lord has he sent you? But it is said: Am I not the one who sent you?

34 (Jc 6,15). When Gideon responds to the angel: In me, Lord - that is, listen to me. With what will I save Israel? Behold, the thousand men of mine are the most humble in Manasseh, it is understood that he was the leader of a thousand men, whom the Scripture calls in Greek jiliárjous. Or is it something else?

35 (Jc 6,18-22). It should be noted that Gideon does not say to the angel: I will offer you a sacrifice, but he says to him: I will offer my sacrifice and I will put it in your presence. Therefore, we must think that Gideon did not want to offer his sacrifice to the angel, but through the angel. And this is made clear by the angel himself, since he did not take the sacrifice from him, as if offering it to him, but he says to him: Take the unleavened meats and bread and put them next to that stone and pour the broth. When Gideon did it, the angel of the Lord extended the end of the rod that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread, and fire came out of the stone and consumed the unleavened meat and bread (Jc 6,20-21). In the same way, the angel also served as minister in the sacrifice that Gideon offered, since the man minister, as a man, would have lit the fire without a miracle, a fire that he kindled as an angel in a miraculous way. Finally, Gideon knew then that it was the angel of the Lord. The Scripture immediately adds the following: And Gideon saw that he was the angel of the Lord. So, at first Gideon spoke with him as if he were a man, although he believed that he was a man of God and wanted to offer sacrifice before him as if he wanted to be helped by his holy presence.

36 (Jc 6,20). You may wonder why Gideon dared to offer a sacrifice to God outside of the place that God Himself had established. God, in effect, had forbidden sacrifices to be offered outside his tabernacle, (Cf Dt 12,13) to which the temple later happened. But in the time of Gideon the tabernacle of God was in Shiloh, and therefore, only there sacrifices could legitimately be offered. However, we must bear in mind that at the beginning Gideon had believed that the angel was a prophet, and had consulted him as God about the offering of sacrifice. If he had forbidden it, he would not have offered it; but as he approved it, and agreed to be offered, Gideon followed the authority of God in offering it. God established legitimate norms, so that he did not give rules to himself, but to men. Therefore, everything that God commanded outside those norms, it is to be assumed that they have fulfilled it, not the transgressors, but the pious and obedient, as Abraham did when immolating his son (Cf Gn 22,2). Elijah also offered sacrifices in this way outside the tabernacle of the Lord to convince the priests of idols (Cf 1R 18,30.38). And this is supposed to be done by the command of the Lord who commanded him to do so, as a prophet who was, by revelation and inspiration. Although the custom of offering sacrifices outside the tabernacle had grown so large, it seems that even Solomon offered sacrifices on high and that his sacrifices were not reprobated, (Cf 1R 3,4-15) notwithstanding the kings being told that among their praiseworthy works they did not destroy the high places where the people used to offer sacrifices against the law of God. And, on the other hand, the king who destroyed them receives greater praise. In short, God tolerated more than forbade the custom of his people to offer sacrifices outside his tabernacle, but they could not offer themselves to foreign gods, but to the Lord God theirs, being propitious even to those who offered them in this way.

Now, what Gideon did, who does not see that the angel did it in a prophetic way so that in that prophecy the stone could be seen? And naturally the sacrifice was not offered to that stone, but it is remembered that fire came out of it to consume the sacrifice. Well, either the water that poured out through the desert (Cf Nm 20,11) the stone that was beaten or the fire signified the gift of the Holy Spirit, which Christ the Lord poured out abundantly upon us. This gift is also pointed out by the gospel through water, when the Lord says: If anyone is thirsty, let him come and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture says, will flow from his bosom rivers of living water. And the evangelist adds: This told him of the Spirit that would receive those who believed in him (Jn 7,37-39). This also means the fire that came upon the assembled, as the Scripture says: They appeared some tongues spread out like fire, which landed on each of them (Acts 2,3). And the Lord himself says: I have come to bring fire to the earth (Lc 12,49).

37 (Jc 7,6). And the number of those who licked (the water) with his hand, with his tongue turned out to be three hundred men. Most Latin codices do not have the words with their hand (manu sua) but only with their language (lingua sua), because they understood what was said before: (they licked) like dogs (Jc 7,5). The Greek has both: with his hand, with his tongue, to indicate that the water they caught with his hand was brought to his mouth. And this was similar to what dogs do when they drink water, that they do not drink like cows, putting their mouths in the water, but that they take it to their mouths with their tongues, as it is believed that those men did too. That is, with the hand they brought to the mouth water which they received on the language.

The translation done on the Hebrew expresses this more clearly with the following words: Thus, the number of those who had licked the water, taking it with the hand to the mouth, was of three hundred men. Men, of course, do not usually drink water like that, so they take it with their tongues, like dogs, without the help of their hands. But these men had been given the task of doing so. When they went down to the water to drink, many drank bending the knee, which was easier and was done with less effort. A few, on the other hand, because they did not bend down by bending their knees, they drank like dogs, but the water was carried to the mouth with the hand. The number of these men, who were three hundred, implies the sign of the cross, because of the Greek letter T, which means this number. And since it is a Greek letter, it is prefigured by means of it that Gentiles will also believe more in the Crucified. Therefore, under the name of the Greeks, the Apostle designates all the Gentiles, when he says: First the Jew and the Greek (Rm 2,9), and the Jews and the Greeks (1Co 1,24), thus referring many times to the circumcision and the foreskin, because among the languages ​​of Gentiles the Greek language stands out in such a way that it appropriately designates everyone.

This same number is also found in the servants of Abraham through whom he delivered his brother from the enemies, when Melkisédek blessed him with such great mystery. In the fact that there are eighteen there -because those servants are said to be three hundred and eighteen (Cf Gn 14,14.20), the time in which it would happen, that is, the third age, which would take place under grace, seems to me also signified. Because the first age took place before the law. The second, under the law. The third, under grace. But each of the ages is meant by the number six because of perfection, since three times six is ​​eighteen. For that reason that woman had also been ill for eighteen years, and the Savior, seeing her bent over, made him stand upright, and, as the Gospel says (Lc 13,11-13), freed her from the bonds of the devil. For the fact that these men, by means of which Gideon would overcome, were tested so that it was said that they resembled dogs when drinking water, means that the Lord has chosen despicable and ignoble things (Cf 1Co 1,28), since the dog It passes for being a despicable animal, and for that reason it is said: It is not good to take bread from children and give it to dogs (Mt 15,16). And David, to lower himself as a despicable being, called himself a dog when talking with Saul.

38 (Jc 7,11). What does it mean what is said about Gideon: He and his servant Farah, down to the fiftieth party, who were in the camp? Some Latin codices have: to that part where there were fifty guards in the camp. Others translate: to the fiftieth part towards the camp. Since the passage is obscure, it has given rise to various translations. But it is about that part of the camp that had fifty guards, or, if we think that those fifty kept the whole camp around, these men went down to a place where those fifty were.

39 (Jc 7,13). A man told a dream to his neighbor. Gideon heard it. To confirm the future victory of Gideon, he said that he had seen a table with barley bread, which rolled through the camp and hit the Midian store and overturned it. I think that this must be interpreted as that of the dogs, that is, that the Savior will confuse the proud by means of the despicable things of the world-that is what the table means with barley bread (Cf 1Co 1,27.28).

40 (Jc 7,20). That Gideon would command his three hundred men to shout, saying: The sword for the Lord and Gideon, that is, for himself, means that the sword would do what pleased the Lord and Gideon.

41 (Jc 8,26-27). He often wonders what the efud or efod was. If it was a priestly garment, as many say, or rather a kind of shelter, which in Greek is called epénduma or epomís, and that in Latin is usually translated by superhumeral (superhumerale) and then the question arises spontaneously why Gideon did with such amount of gold. The text reads as follows: The weight of the gold earrings that she had ordered was one thousand seven hundred shekels of gold, not counting the bracelets, the necklaces, and the purple dresses worn by the kings of Midian; not counting the necklaces that had their camels around their necks. And Gideon made him an efud and raised him up in his city, in Ofra. And all Israel fornicated there after him and became a scandal for Gideon and his house. How could you make a dress with so much gold? Samuel's mother also made for her son, as we know, an ephod bar, which some have translated as "a linen ephod," when he consecrated his son to the Lord to be raised in the temple (Cf 1R 2,18). In this case it appears more clearly that it was a kind of dress. Or does it say: He raised him in his city, so that we can get the conclusion that it was made of gold? Because the text does not say: "He put it on", but he did raise it, because it was so solid and so strong that it could be lifted, that is, standing up.

When Gideon did this forbidden thing, all Israel fornicated after him, following him against the law of God. When we get here we can rightly ask why the Scripture calls fornication to what the people did, following and venerating this object, since it was not an idol, that is, the image of a false and foreign god, but an ephod, it is say, one of the sacred things of the tabernacle related to the priestly dress. And the answer is that precisely because it was outside the tabernacle, where these things that God had commanded were made there, it was not lawful for anything like that to be done out there. That is why the Scripture continues saying: And it became a scandal for Gideon and his house. That is, to turn away from God, who was offended, because that too was in some way a kind of idol, since it would be venerated as a god outside the tabernacle of God, any object made by hand, when those same things that they were ordered to do in the tabernacle should refer rather to the worship of God than to consider those objects as god or that it was considered that they had to be worshiped as the image of God.

For the rest, if we take the rhetorical phrase by which the whole is affirmed by the part, by efud or efod all the things that Gideon did in his city similar to the tabernacle of God to worship God could be understood. And precisely because the ephod is a hallmark of priestly dignity, often reminiscent of Scripture (Cf Ex 28,2), it follows that Gideon's sin consisted of something similar to God's worship being done outside the tabernacle of God. Not because Gideon had made an ephod of pure gold with the intention of being worshiped, but because of the gold from the booty he made things that belonged to the ornaments or instruments of the sanctuary, all things signified by the ephod, by dignity, as I said , of the priestly dress. For the ephod itself was not commanded to be made of pure gold, if the ephod is the superhumeral of the priestly dress, though it bears also some gold. God commanded him to make gold, and hyacinth, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. But the Seventy put all this so that, remembering all the things that Gideon had received from the spoils, they would conclude: And Gideon made him an ephod. And so, it seems as if they wanted to say that the ephod was made with everything that alluded to before, when it could also be interpreted that there is given the rhetorical figure of taking the part for the whole. And then, the phrase: He made it an ephod, he would say: "he made an ephod with it" or "he made it an ephod", not using all that material in the ephod, but using only what he needed. The translation done on the Hebrew says thus: And Gideon made an ephod with it. The word used by the Seventy is "efud." The Hebrew text calls it "ephod." But not all the priests used a superhumeral of this kind, made of gold and of hyacinth and purple and scarlet and fine linen, but only the high priest. Therefore, that dress that he made to Samuel his mother, as we said before, was not like this, because, obviously, Samuel was not a high priest when his mother gave him up to be raised as a child. That is why it was called efud bar, as we said, or better, efud bat, as those who know Hebrew say, and which is translated by efud of linen. I believe that Gideon did what was the garment and principal ornament of the high priest by means of which the other works of the sanctuary, which Gideon had done in his city outside the tabernacle of God, were also signified. For this sin, that ephod became for him and his house a reason for scandal, so that they died-as the Scripture says-as many children as he had.

42 (Jc 8,27-28). We can not ignore the question of how the territory was peaceful for forty years in Gideon's time, when after the victory with which he freed the Hebrews, he made the gold of the booty the abomination and all Israel prostituted himself after it and It was a scandal for him and his house. We want to know, therefore, how after a great sin, committed by Gideon and the people, he enjoyed the territory of forty years of peace, when Scripture usually shows that if the people prostitute themselves away from the Lord God, then the People tend to lose peace, not get it, and it is usually defeated by enemies, not protected from attack. The answer is that Scripture, as it usually does, says by prolepsis, that is, in advance, that Gideon made the ephod against the law of God with the gold he had snatched from enemies defeated and humiliated, because the Scripture prefers to say a single place where the gold came from and what was done with it. But this sin happened later, at the end of the days of Gideon, when they also followed the evils that later discover the Scripture, after remembering the years of peace that the territory had enjoyed in the time of Gideon, and those years he mentions them by recapitulation that is, going back to the order that he had abandoned earlier when he spoke about the scandal that had taken place at the last moment.

43 (Jc 8,33). And it came to pass that, after the death of Gideon, the children of Israel separated themselves and played the harlot after the Baals, and established Baalberith for themselves as an alliance for him to be their god. It must be assumed that both the Baals and Baalberit were idols. After the death of Gideon, the people committed a transgression and a fornication greater than he had committed when he lived for the ephod, because although the ephod had been made unlawfully, however it was something pertaining to the sacred things of the tabernacle. On the other hand, this fornication after idols does not even have the false defense of the father's religion. Therefore, even if that ephod was not made until the end of Gideon's time, but had been done before, God endured it with such patience that He allowed there to be peace in the territory. For though they had done what he had forbidden, yet the people to whom he had commanded that such a thing be done in his tabernacle and for his honor had not been far from him. Now, however, God did not want to leave without punishment more serious sins and a very clear fornication of the people after the idols.

44 (Jc 9,14-15). Dark is the passage in which the bush is introduced, that is, a thorny tree, saying in an apologue to all the trees that gather around it, so that it reigns over them: If you really anoint me to reign upon you, come, trust in my protection; and if not, let fire come out of the bush and devour the cedars of Lebanon (Jc 9,15). The meaning is obscure, but, making a proper separation, it becomes clear. Do not read like this: And if fire did not come out of the bush. You have to separate the phrase as follows: And if not, and then continue: that fire comes out of the bush. That is, if you do not trust in my protection, or, if you do not truly anoint me to rule over you, let fire come out of the bush and devour the cedars of Lebanon. It is, then, threatening words of those who say what they could do if they did not want her to reign over them. But as it does not say: fire will come out of the bush and devour the cedars of Lebanon, but: that fire comes out and devours, the meaning becomes darker than if only the separation of words were hidden. Indeed, it is a threat more vehement and, in a way, a greater effectiveness if one said: If you do not want to do what I want, that my anger falls with all its force on you, that is to say, already fall with force Why do I keep it? What if I said: my wrath will fall on you, threatening a sorrow that has to come with a kind of promise.

45 (Jc 9,23). And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the people of Shechem. It is not easy to say if the word "sent" refers to what God commands or allows. The word that appears here is sent. The Greek has exapésteilen, a word that also appears in the psalms, where it is read: send (emitted) your light (Sal 42,3). In spite of everything, our translators, when in Greek they appear exaptereth in some places, have translated by "mandó" (misit) and not by "sent" (emisit). It can also be interpreted in the sense that God has sent an evil spirit, as if he wanted to go among them, that is, as if he had given the evil spirit power to disturb the peace that was between them. To such an extent it has not been considered as absurd that the Lord could send an evil spirit to avenge justice, that some have even translated the exapésteilen by "launched" (inmisit).

46 (Jc 9,32-33). The message he sent to the messengers of Abimelech Zebul, governor of the city of Shechem, also contains the following: And now get up at night, you and the people who are with you, and put an ambush in the field. And it will happen that tomorrow, when the sun rises, you will hurry and launch yourself against the city. What some Latin translators translate for "you will hurry" (maturabis), others translate it for "madrugarás" (manicabis). The Greek has a word that should be translated by two terms: you will get up at dawn (elucidate surges). Perhaps it has been said here "you will hurry" (maturabis), thinking about the time of the morning, although this is also often said of any other time, when it comes to accelerating the realization of a thing. As for the word manicabis, I must say that I do not know that I am Latina. But it is strange that after saying: when the sun rises, add: you will get up at dawn, when the dawn (diluculum), which in Greek corresponds to orzros, means the time before sunrise, an expression commonly used when it begins to lighten. Therefore, the word mane (of tomorrow), which appears in the text, must be understood from the dawn itself (diluculum). Well, it is added: when the sun rises, to say that it is not necessary to do it when the sun has already risen, but when the sun shines at birth. Well, at dawn it does not begin to get brighter than when the sunlight, which comes back, begins to touch the part of the sky that we see from the east. From this it follows that in the Gospel, too, one evangelist says that it was made at dawn, when the sky was still dark, (Cf Jn 20,1) and another says that it happened when the sun came out, (Cf Mc 16,2) because the dawn light itself, however small, it came, evidently, from the sun that began to appear, that is, when the sun came towards the exit and cast its radiance from the closeness of its presence. Some fools do not believe that light is the light of the sun, but it is that light, created at the beginning, before God made the sun on the fourth day.

47 (Jc 10,1). And after Abimelech arose to save Israel, Tolá, son of Puá, son of his brother's father, a man of Issachar. The son of his paternal uncle is called son of his brother's father, when it was said in a more orderly, usual and clear son of his father's brother. He was, therefore, the son of his paternal uncle, as is most clearly found in the translation made on Hebrew. Therefore, the expression of the father of the brother (patris fratris) does not come from the fact that the term pater is in the nominative: "father of the brother" (pater fratris), but that frater is in the nominative: "brother of the father" (patris frater) ) and this is what is called paternal uncle. Because, whether it is put in nominative: «the father of the brother», or if it is put in genitive »« the brother of the father »(patris frater), in both cases they would be two genitive:« (son) of the father's brother »(Patris fratris). In addition, another question arises. Abiméleq, paternal uncle, was a man from Issachar, that is, a man from the tribe of Issachar, since Abimelech had Gideon as his father, and Gideon was from the tribe of Manasseh. For that reason, how Puá and Gideon were brothers so that Puá could be paternal uncle of Abiméleq, whose son of his uncle, Tola, happened to the own Abiméleq, according to this story? Thus, Gideon and Puá could have the same mother, of whom they would have been born of different fathers, and these brothers would be children of the same mother and not of the same father. Because the women of some tribes used to marry men from other tribes. Therefore Saul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin, gave his daughter to David, a man from the tribe of Judah. And the priest Yóyada, a man of the tribe of Levi, married the daughter of King Yoram, a man of the tribe of Judah. From this it follows that Elizabeth and Mary, according to the Gospel, were relatives (Cf Lc 1,36), although Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron. From this it follows that some woman of the tribe of Levi and the daughters of Aaron married some man of the tribe of Judah, so that there would be kinship between them, and thus the Lord's flesh would not only be propagated from the royal lineage, but also of the priestly lineage.

48 (Jc 11,24). Among other things that Jephthah sends to the king of the children of Ammon by the messengers, is this also: You will not inherit everything that your God Kamós inherited for you, and we will not inherit everything that has been inherited from you our Lord God? Some Latin translators have thought that it should be translated like this: Will you not possess everything that your god Kamós has given you as an inheritance? It can be seen here that Jephthah confirmed that this god, named Kamós, had been able to give something to his worshipers as an inheritance. But some translators say: You will not possess what your God Kamós possessed? And this sounds like that god may have possessed something. Does it perhaps mean that the nations are under the protection of the angels, according to the song of Moses, a servant of God? (Cf Dt 32,8) Was Kamos perhaps called that angel under whose protection the children of Ammon were? Who would dare to affirm it, when it could be understood that this was said according to the opinion of the former, because he believed that his god possessed this or that he had given it to him in possession? In the Greek text this sense appears clearer: Will not you inherit everything that your god Kamós has inherited for you? That is to say, that in the expression for you (tibi) it is understood how if it had been said: as it seems to you. For you, then, that you think this, the god Kamós inherited, not because he could inherit something. Finally, in the following words: And everything that the Lord our God inherited does not say: he inherited for us. As if he wanted to say: as it seems to us, but he really inherited from you, because he took it from them to give it to them. We will inherit this, he ends up saying.

49 (Jc 11,29-35). About the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah, offered by his father in holocaust to God, usually presents a great problem, very difficult to solve. Jephthah had made a vow in the war, saying that if he won, he would offer a burnt offering to anyone who came to him from his home (Cf Jc 11,30.31). After the vote was made, he won, and, when his daughter presented himself, he fulfilled what he had promised. For some, the problem is that they want to know what this fact means and piously seek a solution. For others, who oppose with absurd impiety these holy Scriptures, the problem is that they claim as the main accusation against them the fact that the God of the law and the prophets has been pleased even in human sacrifices. To the calumnies of these we respond, first of all, by saying that to the God of the law and the prophets, and, to put it more expressly, to the God of Abraham and to the God of Isaac and to the God of Jacob (Cf Ex 3,16) he did not even like those sacrifices. in which holocausts of animals were offered. But since they had a meaning and were like shadows of future things, God wanted to recommend the things themselves meant by these sacrifices. And this was also a convenient reason for those sacrifices to be changed and not imposed now, even more, forbidden to offer them, so that we would not think that God really delighted in such sacrifices with a carnal affection.

But we rightly wondered whether it was also convenient to indicate future things with human sacrifices, not so that with them we should be horrified and fear in this case the deaths of men, who anyway have to die anyway, if the that they would welcome with them that they would be put in the hands of God for an eternal reward. If this were true, this kind of sacrifice would not displease God. But the Scripture itself testifies with sufficient clarity that these sacrifices displease God. Because if, on the one hand, God wanted and commanded that all the firstborn sons be consecrated to him and that they be his; on the other hand, the firstborn of men were rescued (Cf Ex 13, 2.12.13), so that the people would not believe that they had to sacrifice their children born in the first place to God. In addition, this is even more clearly demonstrated by the fact that God reproves human sacrifices in such a way that he forbids these same sacrifices by detesting them in other nations and ordering his people not to imitate them. For the text says: But when the Lord your God has exterminated from your presence the nations in whose territory you are going to enter to occupy it before you and have inherited them and lived in your territory, be careful not to try to follow them, after have been exterminated from your presence; Do not look for their gods, saying, "As these nations do with their gods, so will I do." You shall not do so with the Lord your God, for they have done with their gods the abominations that the Lord hates, because they even burn their sons and daughters for their gods.

What can be demonstrated with more evidence by these testimonies of Sacred Scripture and by others that we omit that God, who has given the human race this Scripture, not only does not love, but hates such sacrifices in which men sacrifice themselves? He certainly loves those sacrifices and gives them a reward, when a righteous man, who suffers iniquity, fights to the death for the truth or is killed by the enemies whom he offends for defending justice, giving them back property for evil, that is, love for hate. The Lord calls this the righteous blood, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah (Cf Mt 23,35). And above all, because he shed his blood for us and offered himself as a sacrifice to God. He certainly offered himself so that his enemies would kill him for defending justice. Thousands of martyrs, imitating Christ, fought to the death for the truth, and were immolated by bitter enemies. Of these the Scripture says: As gold in the crucible he tasted them and as a burnt offering, as a host received them; That's why the Apostle says: Well, I'm already being immolated (2Tm 4,6).

But Jephthah did not make his daughter a holocaust, like these, to the Lord, but he did it as he had commanded that animal sacrifices be made and forbidden that men be slain. More similar to this one seems to be what Abraham did, a sacrifice that the Lord commanded in a singular way that was offered to him, (Cf Gn 22,2-13) but without ordering with some general law that such sacrifices were sometimes made to him, on the contrary, totally forbidding him to be do. There is, then, a difference between what Jephthah did and what Abraham did, because Abraham offered his son by virtue of a mandate, while Jephthah did what the law prohibited and was not imposed by any special mandate. Furthermore, not only later in his law, but also then, God manifested in Abraham's own son that he did not delight in such sacrifices, since he forbade the father, whose faith he had tried with the command, to kill his son and put at his disposal a ram to make the sacrifice lawfully, according to the custom of the ancients, suitable at that time.

But if this raises to some the problem of knowing how Abraham could well believe that God delighted in such sacrifices, if these things are offered to God unlawfully, and for that reason he thinks that Jephthah could also well believe that such sacrifice pleased God, consider First, it is one thing to make a vow voluntarily, and another thing to obey a mandate. Because if something is sent to a servant out of the usual in the house, established by the master, and he does it with obedience worthy of praise, he does not have to be punished if he pretends to do it spontaneously. On the other hand, Abraham had reason to believe that he should not forgive his son's life because God had commanded him, not believing that God took pleasure in such victims, but had sent him that precisely to resurrect a sacrificed person and for half of it prove something like God wise. Because even in the epistle called to the Hebrews this is read about him and his faith is praised for having believed that God could raise his son (Cf Hb 11,17-19). Jephthah, on the other hand, without God sending him or asking him, and against a legitimate mandate from him, spontaneously made the vow to offer a human sacrifice. For the text says thus: And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said: "If you deliver me with certainty to the children of Ammon in my power, whoever goes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it will be for the Lord, and I will offer it as a burnt offering" (Jc 11,30-31).

With these words he made no vow to offer an animal that could be sacrificed as a holocaust according to the law. Because it is not usual, nor was it, that the leaders who returned victorious from the war were presented with victories along the way. But, as far as mute animals are concerned, dogs usually go out to meet their masters, playing with soft servitude. But Jephthah would not think of the dogs when he took his vow, so as not to give the impression that he had promised something injurious to God, but even contemptible and unclean, according to the law. For he did not say, whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, I will offer it as a burnt offering, but said: Whoever comes out, I will offer it. Undoubtedly, with these words, he thought of nothing more than a human being. However, maybe he did not think about his only daughter. Now, at such a glorious time for his father, who could go to meet him before his daughter but perhaps his wife? In relation to the fact that I did not say whoever (in feminine), but whoever (in masculine) comes out of the doors of my house, it is necessary to say that the Scripture usually puts the masculine by both genders; as, for example, referring to Abraham, the Scripture says: rising from beside the dead, (Gn 23,3) when the dead woman was his.

Well, it seems that the Scripture has not issued any judgment on this vow and on this fact, as it very clearly stated when Abraham offered his son by God's command, but only left it written for the readers to judge. Something similar happened with what Judah, son of Jacob, did when he unknowingly slept with his daughter-in-law; but as soon as he depended on it, he fornicated with her, believing that she was a prostitute, (Cf Gn 38,15) and that the Scripture neither approved nor reproved him, but left him to be esteemed and valued in light of the justice and law of God. Well, as about the act of Jephthah the Scripture of God has not issued a ruling either for or against, so that our reason is exercised in the trial, we could say since that vote displeased God and led him to take revenge of that act, allowing the father to be presented to him just his only daughter - because if the father had expected this and wanted it, upon seeing it, he would not have immediately broken his clothes or said: Woe is me, my daughter, you are an impediment to me; you have become a stumbling block before my eyes (Jc 11,35). Furthermore, despite the 60-day period given to the daughter, the Lord did not prevent her, as she prevented Abraham, from sacrificing her only daughter, allowing Jephthah to carry out what he had promised and thus punish him. itself with a very serious loss (Cf Jc 11,36-39), and, on the other hand, it would not placate God in any way with the immolation of a human person. And therefore, it must be said that this father was given the punishment so that the example of such a vote would not go unpunished, and men would think or offer something great to God when they offered him human victims, and what is even more horrible, they offered to their own children, or that these vows were not true, but rather simulated, as if, following the example of Abraham, those who had made the vow expected that God would prevent the fulfillment of similar vows.

I would affirm that we could say these things if they did not force us to abandon this sentence, especially two testimonies of the divine Scriptures. And so, as far as God allows, I will investigate not only with more diligence this matter, remembered in the book of so much authority, but I will do it with more caution, so as not to make a reckless judgment in any case. One of the testimonies is found in the epistle to the Hebrews, where Jephthah is mentioned among characters of such a nature that I would fear to blame him for something. The text goes like this: And what else could I add? Well, I do not have time to talk about Gideon, Baraq, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who by faith overcame kingdoms by acting in justice, got the promises (Hb 11,32.33). The second testimony is found in the passage where these things are related to the vow he made and its fulfillment. Well, before this fact, the Scripture says: And the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he went through Gilead and Manasseh and passed through the watchtower of Gilead, and from the watchtower of Gilead he passed over to the sons of Ammon. And Jephta made a vow to God (Jc 11,29.30). And then come the other things related to the vote. Well, everything that happens next, seems to be interpreted as actions of the spirit of the Lord, which had come on Jephthah. These testimonies prompt us to look for the reason why what happened, rather than to easily fail what happened.

In the first place, the text that I mentioned of the epistle to the Hebrews, not only puts among those men worthy of praise that are mentioned there, to Jephthah, but also to Gideon, of whom the Scripture also says: And the spirit of the Lord comforted to Gideon (Jc 6,34). And yet the action of making an ephod with the gold of booty and fornicating all Israel behind it, and becoming a scandal to the house of Gideon, (Cf Jc 8,27) not only can we not praise it, but we do not even doubt the most the minimum is to condemn it, since the Scripture clearly issues a judgment against it there. But this does not cause any offense to the spirit of the Lord, who comforted him to overcome so easily the enemies of his people. Why, then, is it mentioned among them those who by faith overcame kingdoms, working justice, if it is not because the Sacred Scripture, whose faith and justice praises truth, is not for this reason prevented from also revealing truth? his sins, if he knows any and he judges that it is convenient to betray him? Because even in the very thing that Gideon himself tried with the fleece, asking for a sign (Cf Jc 6,39), as he himself says, I do not know if he would not have transgressed the precept that says: Do not tempt the Lord your God (Dt 6,16). But the Scripture, even with its temptation to the Lord, reveals what it wanted to predict, namely, that in the drenched fleece and in the dry era all around it was prefigured, first, to the people of Israel, where the saints were with heavenly grace, which was like spiritual rain. And then, in the era drenched with the dry fleece, the Church was foreshadowed throughout the world, which has, not in the fleece, as in a veil, but in the open, the celestial grace, being that people first as alienated and dry from the dew of one's own grace. But Gideon rightly deserved in the Epistle to the Hebrews such a testimony among faithful men and that they do justice for his honest and faithful life, in which we can believe that he died.

I would not dare to say that after those words of Scripture: The spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, (Jc 11,29) everything that comes next, like the vow he made, the winning over of enemies, the fulfillment of the promise, all of it, I say, it would have to be attributed to the spirit of the Lord, as if this sacrifice also had to be considered as commanded by the Lord in a similar way to how he sent it to Abraham. In relation to Gideon, this difference could naturally be adduced, that, after the sin he committed, when he made the ephod behind which all the people prostituted themselves, no prosperity of Gideon is mentioned, and, instead, after making Jephthah the He obtained that distinguished victory of his, for which he had made the vow, and, once achieved, fulfilled what he had promised (Cf Jc 11,33.34). But we must pay attention again to the fact that Gideon got salvation for the people, defeating and defeating the enemies with a great massacre, although not after making the ephod, and after having tempted the Lord, which, Certainly, it is a sin. The text reads as follows: And Gideon said unto the Lord, Let not thy anger be enraged against me; I will talk again and try again with the fleece (Jc 6,39). Gideon feared, indeed, the wrath of God, because he knew that he sinned by tempting God, something that God expressly forbids in his law. And yet, to this sin of his followed the evidence of an admirable miracle and the great prosperity of the victory and of the liberation of the people. Because God had already determined to come to the aid of his afflicted people and he used the spirit, not only faithful and pious, but also defective and delinquent of this chief, whom he had taken to carry out this work and to predict what he wanted and fulfill what he had said.

God granted many things to his people, not only through those who, although they sinned, are counted among the righteous, also through Saul, absolutely reprobate, because on him also came the spirit of God and prophesied, and not when he worked rightly, but when he railed against David, good and innocent man (Cf 1R 19,20-23). Because the spirit of the Lord acts through the good and the bad, through those who know it and through those who do not know it, what he knows and decides to do. For even through Caiaphas, a stalwart persecutor of the Lord, he made a famous prophecy, without knowing what he was doing, because he said that it was necessary for Christ to die for the people. Because who acted but the spirit of the Lord, who tried to foretell the future, so that Judge Gideon would come to mind precisely this of the fleece, first soaked and then dry, and of the era, first dry and then soaked, to him who wanted to tempt the Lord and who did not believe what he had already been told by his means about the salvation of the people? The lack of faith must be attributed to his weakness and his crime. But God also used his encouragement for what was appropriate to indicate the human race, and we must understand that it refers to the mercy of God and his admirable providence.

But if one says that Gideon did everything knowingly and said it by divine revelation, so that through him those miracles would manifest, and that he did not fail in his faith and that he believed what the Lord had already promised him, but that a prophetic action he tried to prove in the fleece, and that his temptation was not therefore guilty, nor was Jacob's deception (Cf Gn 27,15.16), and that what he says to the Lord: Do not anger your anger against me (Jc 6,39), do not say it precisely because I feared the wrath of God, but because he trusted that God would not be angry in doing what he felt, dictating his spirit, felt that as a prophet he had to do it, that individual - I repeat - to tell him what he feels, provided that what When the Scripture reproaches, like the ephod, whatever its meaning, do not dare to excuse it, saying that it is not a sin. In relation to that other fact that three hundred men, at a sign of the cross, received in equal numbers the corresponding clay pitchers and put torches in them and, breaking the pitchers, the numerous lights that began to shine suddenly terrified a Such a large crowd of enemies (Cf Jc 7,16-22), it must be said that it seems as if Gideon did it on his own initiative. The Scripture, in effect, does not say that the Lord advised him to do it. And yet, such a great prodigy, who inspired him in his mind and in his decision to do it but the Lord? This Lord, who foresaw that his saints would carry the treasure of evangelical light in clay vessels, as the Apostle says: For we carry this treasure in clay vessels (2Co 4,7). Well, in the suffering of martyrdom, as in broken vessels, shone the greatest brilliance of his glory, which defeated the impious enemies of the evangelical preaching with the sudden clarity of Christ for them.

In short, the spirit of the Lord worked in the times of the prophets the prefiguration and the announcement of future things, (Cf 1Co 12,6) either through those who knew it, or through those who did not know it. But it can not be said that his sins were not sins, because God, who knows how to use well even our ills, also used his sins to signify the things he wanted. Therefore, if it was not sinful to make or fulfill the vow to offer the sacrifice of a human life, or even the sacrifice of a parricide precisely because it meant something great and spiritual, then in vain God would have forbidden such things and would have testified that he hated them , because even what he ordered to do certainly refers to some meaning of spiritual and great things. And then, why should I forbid those things, since they could be done lawfully by the very meaning of one's own things, by which these things were also lawfully done? And the reason is because human sacrifices, which mean something to be believed, do not please God, when one is not killed by enemies because of justice, because he wanted to live righteously or did not want to sin, but a man is immolated on the other hand as host chosen as cattle.

So what? Someone could say that the victims of animals, by the very fact that they had already been used, although they too could refer to the meaning of spiritual things, which would be given to them by those who understand this correctly, made men less attentive to the investigation of the great mystery of Christ and the Church. Therefore, God wanted to awaken, with an outstanding and unexpected thing, the sleeping spirits of men. And this he did, above all, because he had forbidden such sacrifices to be offered to him and he sought to be offered something of that nature, so that admiration itself would generate a great problem and the great problem would give rise to the desire of the mind. pious to the investigation of the great mystery, and the pious mind of man, scrutinizing the depth of the prophecy, will raise, as with a hook, the fish, to Christ the Lord, from the depth of the Scriptures. I do not object to this reason and consideration. But one thing is the question of the intention of the one who makes the vow and another thing that of the providence of God, which makes optimal use of any intention of the one who makes the vow. Wherefore, if the spirit of the Lord, which came upon Jephthah, absolutely commanded Jephthah to make the vow, which the Scripture does not make clear, however, if God, whose commands it is not lawful to despise, commanded this, there is not only They reprimand foolishness; they have to praise obedience. Because although man kills himself, which is not lawful to do by human will and decision, it is clear that we must think that this is done by obedience, rather than by malice, if God has commanded it. I have already discussed enough about this question in Book I of the De Civitate Dei. But if Jephta, following a human error, thought that he should offer a human sacrifice, his sin about his only daughter was certainly punished with justice - a thing that he himself seems to express enough with his words when he says: Woe to a thousand, my daughter , you are an impediment to me; you have become a stumbling block before my eyes, and when he breaks his clothes; nevertheless, this error of his has also some praise for the faith, because he feared God, fulfilling what he had promised, and did not bow down to himself the judgment of divine judgment, or hoping that God would forbid him, as he did with Abraham , or deciding to fulfill the will of God, by understanding that he did not forbid it, instead of despising that will.

In spite of everything, here we can also rightly inquire if it is better understood that God does not want this to be done, and, thus, if it is not done, God is better obeyed. Because God already showed that he did not want these sacrifices to be made, not only in the son of Abraham, but also in the prohibition he imposed on the law (Cf Gn 22,12). But if Jephthah had not done it for this reason, it would seem that he had forgiven himself in his only daughter, instead of having followed the will of God. Therefore, in the fact that the daughter came to meet him, he understood better that God is avenger and submitted faithfully to just punishment, fearing a more severe punishment, as if it were a distortion. For Jephthah also believed that the soul of his daughter, good and virgin, would be well received, because she had not offered herself to be immolated, but had not opposed the vow and the will of her father and had followed the judgment of God. Since death is not to be voluntarily procured to oneself, nor voluntarily caused to another, neither should death be rejected when God sends it, since by its decision we have to endure it at any moment. And no one who refuses to bear it, works to avoid it altogether, but only strives to delay it.

Now I will investigate and briefly explain, with the help of God, what the spirit of the Lord wanted to prefigure in this action through Jephta, or without knowing it, or knowing it, or by his imprudence, or by his obedience, or for his offense, or for his faith. For he warns us and urges us in a certain way this place of the Sacred Scriptures to think of a strong and courageous man. For thus describes the Scripture to Jephthah. His name means "He who opens." Now, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Gospel says, (Cf Lc 24,27) opened to his disciples the meaning to understand the Scriptures (Lc 24,45). Jephthah was condemned by his brothers and kicked out of his father's house, accusing him of being the son of a prostitute (Cf Jc 11,2.3), as if they were born of a legitimate wife. The same thing was done against the Lord by the chief priests and the scribes and the Pharisees, who seemed to boast of the observance of the law, accusing him as if he were a destroyer of the law and, therefore, as if he were an illegitimate child. . Although she had taken her body from a holy virgin, which the faithful know well, however, her mother, as far as her origin is concerned, can also be called a Jewish synagogue. Check whoever the prophetic books are and see how many times and with what harsh words and with what indignation the Lord is accused that people of fornication, as if it were a prostitute woman. In relation to this, we have even in this book of the Judges those facts mentioned recently, one concerning the ephod that Gideon did, following which, as we read, he fornicated all Israel (Cf Jc 8,27); and the other, concerning that the Israelites went after the gods of the nations among which they lived. Because of these sins, the wrath of God fell upon them, so that the children of Ammon (Cf Jc 10,6-8) crushed them for eighteen years. Well, were not those same priests and scribes and Pharisees born of the same people of Israel, who, as we have said, were prefigured in those who expelled Jephthah, like these to Christ the Lord, persecuting him as a non-legitimate son?  But the similarity is insinuated, as I have said, in the fact that they, as observers of the law, thought that they had rightly expelled who seemed to act against the precepts of the same law, as if they were the children. legitimate and he the son not legitimate. According to this, it is said that these people fornicated, because by not keeping the precepts, they did not show fidelity to God as a husband.

On Jephthah the following is said: And the sons of the wife grew and drove Jephthah away. (Jc 11,2) The word grew up means "prevailed." This was fulfilled in the Jews, who prevailed over the weakness of Christ, because he wanted to suffer from them, in the Passion, what he had to suffer. Jacob also prevailed over the angel with whom he struggled to predict this same and meaning this same thing (Cf Gn 32,24-28). So they said to Jephthah, "You shall have no inheritance in our father's house, because you are the son of a prostitute." It is as if they were saying what the Gospel expresses: This man, who thus breaks the Sabbath, (Jn 9,16) does not come from God. And they, boasting of being the legitimate children, said to the Lord: We are not born of fornication; we have God as our only father(Jn 8,41). And Jephthah fled from the presence of his brothers and dwelt in the country of Tob (Jc 11,3). He fled, because he hid his greatness. He fled, because he hid those who attacked him. Because if they had known him, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory (1Co 2,8). He fled, because they saw the weakness of the one who died; but they did not see the power of the one who resurrected. But he dwelt in a good land, or, to put it more explicitly, in "optimal" land. Because the Greek term agazón means in Latin optimum (optimum), and this is the meaning of "Tob". And here it seems to me that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is meant. For what earth more optimal than the earthly body clothed in the excellence of immortality and incorruption?

With regard to what is said of Jephthah, after fleeing from the presence of his brothers and living in the land of Tob, he was joined by thieves and made raids with him (Jc 11,3), we must say that before the Passion he was also objected to the Lord to eat with the publicans and sinners, and he answered that it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick, (Cf Mt 9,11-12) and the Scripture says that he was counted among the wicked, (Is 53,12) when he was crucified among thieves, and one of they moved him from the cross to paradise (Cf Lc 23,33.43). However, after resurrecting and beginning to be in the land of Tob, according to what we discussed above, around him were evil men who sought the forgiveness of sins, and these men were with him, since they lived according to its precepts. And this never ceased to happen until now and will continue to happen as long as the wicked take refuge in him, so that he justifies the wicked who are converted to him, and the wicked learn his ways (Cf Ps. 50,15).

And the very fact that those who had despised Jephthah-he was also a Gileadite-should turn to him and seek him out of their enemies, in what clear way it prefigures and means that those who despised Christ, turned back to him, in him they find salvation! Well, it is about those to whom the Apostle Peter reproaches them for this same sin, as it is read in the Acts of the Apostles, (Cf Acts 2,22-37) and those same ones he exhorts them to convert to the one they had persecuted, and they were sorry They wished to obtain salvation from the one they had alienated from themselves-for what is it to be freed from their enemies but to be freed from their sins? For the Scripture says: Do penance and let each one of you be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and your sins will be forgiven you (Hch 2,38), or rather it is about that call of the people of Israel that is expected for the end. Indeed, it seems that it is rather this hypothesis, when it says: And it happened after the days (Jud 11,4). And this means without a doubt after a while. And here it is insinuated that we must not understand what happens in the recent Passion of the Lord, but what will happen next. And it seems also related to this the fact that the elders of Gilead came to Jephthah (Cf Jc ll,5), so that by senile age we understand that it is about the later and last times. Gilead means "he who despises" or "revelation." And both things agree quite well with this matter, because first they despised the Lord and then they will be revealed to them.

On the other hand, the fact that Jephthah was sought as the leader against the children of Ammon to deliver the Israelites, defeating the Ammonites, since the Israelites wanted to fight against them having Jephthah as their leader, and like Ammon means « son of my people "or" people of sadness ", it is clear that they are meant here or the enemies of the people themselves, who were predicted to persevere in infidelity, or all the people without exception predestinated to gehenna, where there will be for them weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt 25,30), as if it were a people of sadness. Although it can also be called a town of sadness quite conveniently for the devil and his angels, or because they get eternal misfortune for those they deceive, or because they themselves are destined to eternal misfortune.

Jephthah responds in the following manner to the elders of Gilead, certainly a way to express the prophecy much more clearly: Are not you who hated me and expelled me from my father's house and cast me away from you? And why do you come now, when you are troubled? (Jc 11,7) A thing similar to this one is foreshadowed in Joseph, despised by his brothers, who sold him (Cf Gn 37,38). When hunger took hold of them, they came to their help and compassion (Cf Gn 42,44). But in the case of Jephthah, the significance of future things appears much more clearly, because they did not return to Jephthah precisely the brothers who threw him out of the house, but the elders of Gilead, pleading with him on behalf of all the people. In the same way, the people are called Israel, already in those who lived then and reproved Christ, and in those who returned later to seek their help. And this is said to an enemy people, who drag and keep long hatreds, already in their ancestors, and in their descendants, and that becomes in the end those that are to become: Are not you who hated me and expelled me? from my father's house? This same thing was demonstrated in those who persecuted Christ, because they expelled him from the house of David, in which his kingdom will have no end (Lc 1,33).

And the elders of Gilead said to. Jephta: "It's not like that; now we come to you (Jc 11,8.9).” It is as if the converted Jews said to Christ: We come then to persecute you; we come now to follow you. They also affirm that he will be their leader against the enemies. Jephta replies that he will be his boss if he defeats their enemies, something that Gideon did not want, when they had wanted it (Cf Jc 8,22); for he answers them: The Lord will be your master (Jc 8,23). Under the title of head means the king, an institution that did not have those people at the time of the Judges. They began to have a king with Saul (Cf 1R 10,1) and then with his successors, who are mentioned in the books of the Kings. In Deuteronomy, when they are commanded what kind of king they should have, if they want to have one (Cf Dt 17,14), they are not called a king, but a prince. But as Jephthah meant the true king-a fact that was written even in the title that was nailed to the cross, and which Pilate did not dare to remove or amend (Cf Jn 19,19-22), that is why we thought he said to himself: I will be your master (Jc 11,9). They had said: You will be our head (Jc 11,8); because the head of the male is Christ (Cf 1Co 11,3), and Christ is the head of the body of the Church (Cf Ef 5,23). Finally, after Jephthah freed them from all enemies, they did not make him king, so that we understand that what was said referred more to the prophecy about Christ than to Jephthah himself, from whom the Scripture ends by saying: And Jephthah He judged Israel six years; and Jephthah the Gileadite died and was buried in his city of Gilead. He judged Israel like the other Judges. He did not reign there as a prince, like those mentioned in the books of the Kings.

Jephthah, once constituted head of the Israelites, already sent messengers to the enemies, bringing before them a message of peace (Cf Jc 11, 1). In this fact it is revealed what the Apostle says, in whom Christ spoke: If possible, as far as it depends on you, have peace with all men (Rm 12,18). But, as I am in a great hurry to finish, it is too long to expose all the things that Jephthah sent. As for the meaning of future things, I think that we must understand them in such a way that we can see in them the teaching of Christ, which instructs us about our behavior, that is, how we have to live among those who have not been called. according to the divine decision. For the Lord knows his people (2 Tm 2,19).

Now, that Jephthah received the spirit of the Lord when he was going to defeat the enemies means that the Holy Spirit would be given to the members of Christ.