1 (Nm 1,1-44). On the chiefs instituted in each tribe. - Where does God command to elect a chief from each tribe, and what does the name of Kiliarques mean, imposed on these chiefs, a name which seems to come from a thousand, and a certain number of Latin interpreters translated by tribunes? Here is the answer to this question. Jothor, Moses' father-in-law, having given to his son-in-law the counsel, besides approved by God, of dividing the government of his people among several princes, so that all the causes of private persons should not be a burden above his forces (Cf Ex 18,14.25), Moses establishes kiliarchs or leaders of a thousand men, ecatontarchs; centurions, or chiefs of a hundred, pentacontarchs, or chiefs of fifty, and decardarques, decurions, or chiefs of ten men, giving each one a name in relation to the number of those to whom they commanded. But does this mean that each of the Kiliarques was only established in a thousand men? Assuredly not: for at that time twelve thousand men did not form the entire strength of the people of Israel. Moses established a chief of that name in every tribe, and each of the twelve tribes certainly did not contain. a thousand men, but many thousands. The names of these chiefs are therefore common to those whom Exodus calls Kiliarques, because each of them had a thousand men under his command; but that there are a thousand or thousands who obey one, the name being the same in Greek, one could always call them Kiliarques.
2 (Nm 1,20.21). We can rightly ask what is meant by the fact that, when the children of Israel of military age are counted for each of the tribes, it is said for each one of them: according to their families, according to their villages, according to the homes of their families , according to the number of their names, according to their head. These five things are repeated in exactly the same way until the count of all the tribes is finished, as if one thing were according to their families, and another, according to their people, and another, according to the homes of their families, and another, according to the number of their names, and another, according to their head, when in reality it seems rather that the same thing is indicated with different words. But it is striking that the same things are repeated with such care for all the tribes. And so anyone can say that this is not done without reason, but do not know the reason. No doubt there is one, because the number itself suggests some mystery, and so that number is repeated five times in a row. This number, which is the same as the five books of Moses, number five is recommended especially in the Old Testament. But those four things that are related later, namely the males, from twenty years old upwards, all those who surpass in value the count of them, although also these things are repeated almost in the same way for each tribe, they have, not However, the necessary difference. Because when it came to the number of all people belonging to a tribe, we had to distinguish sex. That is why it is said: all males. And so that the children were not counted also, it was added: from twenty years up. So that the youth with the old ones was not counted, it was added: all the one that surpasses in value. And it ends with the reference to what was being done, and that is why it is said: the recount of them. Because the count was done to count these thousands of men. Now, those five things: "kinsfolk, villages, family houses, number of names and head", and these four others: "sex, age, strength and recount", maybe they insinuate something with that number. Because if these two numbers, five and four, are multiplied one by another, for example, five by four, or four by five, are twenty. This number also indicates the age of the adolescents. And this number is also remembered when the people enter the land of promise and remember that age of twenty years that had not declined either to the right or to the left. It seems to me that here are the faithful saints of both Testaments, who have the true faith. Because the Old Testament stands out mainly for the five books of Moses, and the New, for the four gospels.
3 (Nm 1.51). When the Scripture speaks of dismantling, moving and lifting the tabernacle, it says: And the foreigner who approaches, will die. This foreigner also refers to the children of Israel who did not belong to that tribe that had the mission to serve in the tabernacle, that is, who was not from the tribe of Levi. But it is surprising that a foreigner is abusively called here, who is more properly a man of another race, that is, allogenés and not allofus, which means man from another tribe. The Scripture uses that name rather to designate the men of other peoples, so they are called alófilos as if they were men of other tribes.
4 (Nm 3,5-7). And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Take the tribe of Levi and set them before Aaron the priest and serve him and keep his guards and the guards of the sons of Israel before the tabernacle of the testimony." Some of our translators call "guards" (custodians) and others, "sentinels" (excubias) to what the Greek text refers to as fulakás. Actually, it would be better to call them "vigils" (vigiliae), because they had the mission to watch the camp every three hours. That is why the Scripture says: And at the fourth watch of the night he came to them walking on the sea. This corresponds to after nine o'clock at night, or what is the same, after three vigils. And in many other places in the Scriptures our translators translated also by vigils (vigiliae) what the Greeks call fulakás. In these texts there is no doubt that these are spaces of time during the night. And this is what I think it means here. The Levites, in effect, are ordered to keep the guards of Aaron and the guards of the children of Israel, that is, the fulakás. And this perhaps they were commanded not to think they were exempt from keeping the vigils that are properly kept in the camp for the honor they had of serving in the tabernacle, when they too should observe, in turn, no less than the others , because of the work they were doing in the tabernacle, the vigils that had to be kept in the other camps that there were all around the children of Israel.
5 (Nm 3,10.38). The foreigner who touches it, will die. It is necessary to investigate why Leviticus says: Whoever touches the tabernacle, will be sanctified (Lv 6,18), when it is said here: The foreigner who touches it, will die. And this text refers to those who were not of the tribe of Levi. Does the verb "touch" refer to the gift of service, something that only the Levites should lend to the tabernacle, according to what was commanded? The text, in effect, spoke of them.
6 (Nm 3,12-14; 41-47). God destines for himself the Levites instead of the firstborn of the children of Israel, and he does it so that, when the firstborn of the people were numbered, those who exceeded the number of the Levites would be redeemed for money at the rate of five shekels for each one. This, of course, was not done with the cattle. God wanted the cattle of the Levites to be for him instead of the firstborn of the cattle of Israel. How could the first-born of them and their cattle belong to God, since he commanded that the impure first-born of men should also be exchanged for sheep? How were the children of the Levites not also counted afterwards by these first-born? -Because the same tribe remained in the offspring, which could be counted by the first-born who followed. The reason is that it was right that those who were born of those who already belonged to the portion of the Lord, consisting of the firstborn who left Egypt, God would have them as their own, descendants of their own, and could not be fairly computed by the that they should then be given to God as first-born. Of all the people and of all the cattle of the town, the portion corresponding to the firstborn was given to God. And this portion were the Levites and their cattle. If they engendered something, this was already from God. But this could not happen as coming from the town, since it was no longer the town. And for this reason, the firstborn children that were to be given afterwards, had to be given to God and the descendants of the Levites and their cattle could not be counted in their place.
7 (Nm 4.7). When the Lord ordered the table removed, he also ordered the loaves to be removed with it, saying, "And the loaves that will always be on it." Obviously, they were not always the same loaves on the table, but similar ones, since they were removed every day and they were fresh daily. The condition was that the table would never be without loaves. That is why it was said: That they will always be on her. The loaves will always be there, but not always the same loaves.
8 (Nm 4.11). And over the golden altar they will cover a purple cloth and cover it with a covering of purple skin. It might seem that the phrase: And on the golden altar will cover a purple cloth, which the Latin translators would not translate as if it were something absurd and incomplete, should say that the golden altar should be covered with a cloth purple. Because the phrase: They will cover a purple cloth seems to mean that the cloth would be covered with something else, not that the altar would be covered with a cloth. It seems to me that it is not so much a special kind of expression as a dark sense. It can be understood as follows: And on the altar of gold they will cover a purple cloth, that is, they would have had the purple cloth covered with something else. The cloth that would already be on the altar. And so it would briefly allude to both: that the altar should be covered with a purple cloth, and that the purple cloth should be covered with something else. Finally, the object that should cover the purple cloth was alluded to, saying: And they will cover it with a covering of purple skin.
9 (Nm 5.6-8). Any man or woman who commits any human sin and disdainfully watching contempt and commits a crime, that soul will confess the sin that he committed and will restore the crime, the totality, and will add on it one fifth more and will return it to the one against whom he committed crimes . But if man had no neighbor to return the crime to himself, the crime that is returned to the Lord will be for the priest, in addition to the ram of the propitiation by means of which he will make atonement for him. Here it is about those sins committed in things that can be restored with money. Because otherwise it would not be said how things should be restored if they were not pecuniary damages. It is ordered to return the whole and a fifth, that is, everything, whatever it may be, and another fifth, in addition to the ram that had to be offered as a sacrifice to atone for the crime. It is also commanded that what is restored be for the priest. It must be for him the whole and that fifth part if the neighbor against whom the crime was committed is not. And it is understood that what belongs to the priest must be given to the Lord if the man who suffered the damage does not survive, nor does his neighbor, who, I believe, should be understood as his heir. The Scripture says nothing about man himself. However, when it says: If you had no neighbor, it is suggested with this concise way of speaking that you have to look for your neighbor if you do not find the victim. If the neighbor does not exist either, it must be restored to the Lord, so that the sin committed will not go unpunished. But the thing is not intended for sacrifice, but for the priest. Thus we must separate the words of Scripture: But if man had no neighbor to return the crime, to himself. The end of the sentence: to himself, is an idiom of Scripture. Or maybe he said: to himself, that is, that it belongs to him, that he owns it. Then he continues: The crime that is returned to the Lord will be for the priest. It is called "crime" to the thing removed by means of crime, which is returned.
10 (Nm 5,6-7). We can ask why in the Exodus it is said that, if one steals an ox or a sheep, he must restore five oxen or four sheep, if he killed or sold them, but if what he stole, he has everything in his power, he must return double (Cf Ex 22,1-4); on the other hand, here it is ordered to restore the whole and a fifth more, which is far from even twice, much further from the fourfold and even more from the quintuple. The explanation could be that here it is said: Any man or woman who commits any human sin, understanding human sins as sins of ignorance. Because it can happen that one, paying little attention for negligence, makes an alien thing his own. Which is sin precisely because, if attention were paid, it would not be committed. And the author wanted this to be restored, returning the whole and a fifth more, and did not want to punish him like thefts. Because if we thought that here it is about thefts and frauds, that are committed, not because of the ignorance of negligence, but with the intention of stealing and defrauding, and they are called human sins, because they are made against men, the solution of this The problem would consist, if I am not mistaken, in that the one who committed the sin, would not return even the double, precisely because he is not surprised or convinced, but he confesses his crime to those who do not know who did it or if it was done. The Scripture, in effect, reads as follows: Any man or woman who commits any human sin and looks disdainfully and despises and commits a crime, that is, commits these things with contempt. And then he adds: That soul will confess the sin that he committed and will restore the crime, the totality and one fifth more (Nm 5,6-7). Perhaps this is imposed alone, because he himself confessed the sin and, therefore, should not be punished with the same punishment that should be punished to the shocked and convicted thief.
11 (Nm 5.21). The Scripture states that the priest must tell the woman that the husband is under suspicion of adultery the following words: May the Lord put you as a curse and execration. With respect to these words we must say that the Greek has enórkion. This word seems to mean "oath by execration." It is as if one said: That this or that does not happen to me. Or as if one swears: That this or that happen to me if I did or did not do this or that. In this same way it is said here: May the Lord put you as a curse and an execration. It is as if it were said: As they swear to you what they will swear by execration, in the same way it does not happen to them, or this happens to them if they did not do that.
12 (Nm 6,14). And he shall present his offering to the Lord: a lamb of a year, without blemish, as a burnt offering; a lamb of one year, without defect, as sin. Some of our translators did not want to translate this in this way to avoid an unusual expression and said: pro peccato (for sin) and no: in peccatum (as sin), despite having that expression a sense that should not be disturbed. In effect, it is said: in peccatum (as sin), because what was offered for sin was called sin. And to confirm this, we have what the Apostle says about Christ the Lord: to him who had not known sin, he made him sin for us (2Co 5,21). God the Father made of God the Son a sin for us, that is, a sacrifice for sin. Therefore, because the lamb was offered as a burnt offering, so that the animal itself was a burnt offering, so the lamb was offered as sin, so that the animal itself was sin, it became a sacrifice for sin. In the same way, later it is said that the ram will be for salvation, as if the animal itself were salvation, when in reality it was the sacrifice of salvation. Something that then becomes clear, repeating it, because it also says that it is pro peccato (for sin) what it had previously called in peccatum (as sin). And what is called sacrifice for salvation is called the sacrifice of salvation (Nm 6,17).
13 (Nm 8,23-24). And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "This is about the Levites." Others have translated as follows: This is the law concerning the Levites. But the words: This is about the Levites, they mean: This I establish about the Levites. 14 (Nm 8,24-26). Then he goes on: From the twenty-five years upwards they will enter to grant the service of the works in the tabernacle of the testimony; and from the age of fifty he will retire from the administration and will no longer work-and his brother will serve-in the tabernacle of the testimony to keep the guards, but the service will not perform it. Hyperbaton makes the meaning obscure, and is so confused that it seems to refer to the brother, when he says: to keep the guards. But in reality it refers to the one who will stop working. To this will remain as a mission to keep the guards in the tabernacle of the testimony; but he will not perform the service. This service will be carried out by his brother, who has not yet reached the age of fifty, starting the service starting at twenty-five. Therefore, we must divide the text as follows: From the age of fifty, he will retire from the administration and will no longer work and his brother will serve. Then he goes back to talking about that fifty-year-old Levite, whom he had talked about before, and about him he explains the other things saying: Keep the guards in the tabernacle of the testimony, but the service will not do it. The verb to save must be preceded by "begin", as if saying with a single verb "keep the guards", because in Latin phrases usually put the verb in the infinitive rather than in a finite time.
15 (Nm 9,6-12). As, at Easter time, some who were impure because of the soul of man, that is, because of the contact of a corpse, asked how they could celebrate the Passover, since, according to the law, they had to purify themselves of the impurity during seven days, Moses consulted the Lord and received this answer: "If anyone happened to that, or being in a place far away, could not go, should celebrate the Passover in another month near the fourteenth of the month," according to the observation of the date of the moon. But if you happen to be presented with the same impurity also around the second month, I think you should keep as a regular thing what is said about the second month, that is, celebrate the Passover in the third month or at least not It was the fault of those who did not celebrate Easter, impeded by such a need.
16 (Nm 9,15-23). On the day on which the tabernacle was erected, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the house of testimony. And in the evening there was something like fire over the tabernacle until morning. This was always the case: the cloud covered it during the day and something like fire at night. When the cloud rose from above the tabernacle, and then the camp of the children of Israel set up camp. And in the place where the cloud stopped, there the camp of the children of Israel. The children of Israel will place the camp at the Lord's command and will raise it up at the command of the Lord. Every day that the cloud overshadows the tabernacle, the children of Israel will be in the camp. And when the cloud had stopped over the tabernacle a number of days, and the children of Israel will keep the watch of God and not rise (the camp). And it will happen that when the cloud has stopped a few days over the tabernacle, at the voice of the Lord they will be in the camp and at the command of the Lord they will set up camp. And it shall come to pass when the cloud has been from evening until morning, and the cloud has gone up in the morning, and they shall set up the camp by day, or they shall also set up camp by night, if the cloud should go up. During the day or during the month of the day, when the cloud covers him abundantly, the children of Israel will be in the camp and will not set up camp, because at the command of the Lord they will set up camp. They kept the Lord's watch, according to the order of the Lord through Moses. All this passage must be explained with care, because it is obscured by an unusual language. It says: The day on which the tabernacle was erected, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the house of the testimony. The tabernacle is called the house of testimony. And in the evening there was something like fire on the tabernacle until morning. This was always the case. Then he says in detail what always happened: The cloud covered him by day and something like night fire. And when the cloud was lifted from above the tabernacle, then the camp of the children of Israel rose up. This phrase would not be obscure if it were not for the idiom that adds y. For the order of words follows perfectly, although that conjunction is missing. The phrase would run like this: And when the cloud was lifted up from the tabernacle, then the camp of the children of Israel set up camp. The phrase would make sense, even if the word was missing later. Then he goes on to say: And in the place where the cloud stood, there the camp of the children of Israel. Once related all that they did, according to the order of the Lord, the text continues: At the command of the Lord the camp will be placed by the children of Israel and at the command of the Lord they will raise it up. The Lord's order is called the signal that was produced in the cloud, whether it was still, giving shade to the tabernacle, so that the camp would also be stopped; already when he went up and moved to another place, so that the Hebrews would follow him, setting up camp. In this phrase the narrator's mode changes, and like someone who predicts and pre-announces something, he begins to pronounce the words of the future tense. For it does not say: At the command of the Lord they "placed" the camp of the children of Israel, if not they will place. It does not say either: At the command of the Lord they would "raise", but they will rise. And he retains this same idiom also in what follows, an idiom very little used in the Scriptures. Because we know that future things have been predicted many times with words of past time, for example: They have drilled my hands and my feet; and: was taken as a sheep to the slaughterhouse, (Is 53,7) and many other examples. But it is very difficult to find in the Scriptures that the narrator of past things use words of future time. Therefore, after saying to which signal of the day or night the people raised the camp or placed it, so as not to make us think that they used to walk at night and rest during the day and that they did this every day, the text keeps saying : Every day that the cloud overshadows the tabernacle, the children of Israel will be in the camp. And when the cloud had stopped over the tabernacle a number of days. Then it is noticed that this does not happen because of their need, but because of God's will. And it is added: And the children of Israel will keep the watch of God, the guard that God commanded. And they will not raise (the camp). And as if one were asking: And when will they raise (the camp)? it is said: And it will happen that when the cloud has stopped a number of days over the tabernacle-a certain number of days, the days that God wills, of course-the voice of the Lord will be in the camp and the order of the Lord will rise the camp It seems to be called the voice of the Lord to the signal that God gives about the stop or the march of the cloud, because also the voice of the speaker is undoubtedly the sign of his will. With respect to what follows: And to the order, I think it is the same signal. Although the voice and command of the Lord could also be equivalent to the phrase, common in Scripture: "He spoke to Moses" and "He commanded that this be done". Because the Hebrews would not know that they should raise the camp, when the cloud rises, or that they should stay, when the cloud is left, if they had not been commanded beforehand. For what we have said so far does not appear if the Hebrews only walked during the day or walked also at night, according to the signal that the cloud gave them with their movement. Because perhaps, although they stayed many days in the camp, when the cloud did not rise, they could believe that the cloud did not usually go up from the camp or give the signal to go out except during the day. The text continues saying: And it shall come to pass when the cloud has been from evening until morning and the cloud has gone up in the morning, and they shall set up the camp by day. Here the copulative conjunction "and" has been put back, according to the custom of Scripture. Removing it, the sense is perfect as follows: And it shall come to pass, that when the cloud has been from evening until morning, and the cloud has gone up in the morning, they shall set up the camp by day. For if the cloud came up at night, they also set up the camp and made the journey at night, if they received that signal, the following is added: Or they will also set up camp at night, if the cloud should rise. The expression is quite unusual, because not only has the et (also) been put on, but it is put in the way it is not usually put. For that reason, it seems to me that the order of words is inverted, as is often the case also in Latin expressions. And this mode of expression is called anastrophe. Therefore, the meaning would be very clear if it were said: "Or at night, if the cloud goes up, the camp will be lifted", or at least if it was said: "If the cloud also rose at night, they would set up camp". However, it could still occur to one who would like to know if, as we know they used to walk during the day or during the night or to stand in the camp during the day and during the night, according to the signal from the cloud, they would also get used to it. to stay still only during those days in whose nights they also left the road. And I believe that the Scripture gives the answer in the following text: During the day or during the month of the day, when the cloud covers abundantly, the children of Israel will be in the camp and will not set up camp. Since he had said: Or they will also set up camp during the night, if the cloud rises, it is as if it remained to say: "by day, if it does not rise, they will not raise the camp", when it almost seemed that they should raise it. But as many days could even happen that they walked at night, when the cloud rose, and did not walk during the days, when the cloud remained, for that reason, it was said: During the day or during the month of the day. It is not said "during the month", so that the nights of the same month are not included there, but it is said: during the month of the day, that is, during the month by the part that is day, not by the part that is at night. Thus, during the day or during the month of the day, when the cloud covers it abundantly - if the cloud is wide when covering it or if it covers it widely. Cover it - it refers to the tabernacle - the children of Israel will be in the camp and will not set up camp. Finally, it is repeated that all this was done by the authority of God, which naturally is not lawful to oppose. It says: Because at the order of the Lord they will set up camp. They kept the Lord's watch, according to the order of the Lord through Moses. Go back to put the verb in the past tense, saying: They kept. The final phrase: Through Moses, is a very frequent expression in the Scriptures, since God sent these things through Moses.
17 (Nm 10.7). When you assemble the assembly, you will sound the trumpet, but not as a sign. Therefore, he ordered that it not be sung to gather the assembly - because if it is done like that, it is a sign. So, when the assembly was assembled, the trumpet was then sent out, as if this already corresponded to singing, and not to give the signal, with which he was admonished to do something. Therefore, as once the assembly was assembled, the trumpets played, anyone in the New Testament interprets this in a spiritual sense, and that is why it is a sign for the one who understands the reason why it is done. And, on the other hand, it is not a sign for those who do not understand it. And only it would be when it was done to indicate that it was necessary to do something.
18 (Nm 11,17). And I will take part of the spirit that is in you and I will put it on them. And they will carry the burden of the people with you, and you will not carry them alone. Many Latin translators did not translate this text as it is in Greek, but they did it this way: And I will take part of your spirit that is in you and I will put it on them or put it on them, and they gave us a meaning difficult to understand. Indeed, one can think that it is the spirit of man, which forms, together with the body, human nature, which consists of body and spirit, also called soul. The Apostle says the following about this spirit: For what man knows the intimacy of man but the spirit of man who is in him? In the same way, nobody knows the intimacy of God but the Spirit of God. What it says next: But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that comes from God, (1Co 2,11.12) clearly demonstrates that the spirit of God is something different, of which the spirit of man participates by the grace of God. But, as others have translated, in the following words you could also understand the Spirit of God: part of your spirit that is in you. The author would have said your spirit, because the Spirit of God, when we receive it, also becomes ours. It is like what the Scripture says about John: in the spirit and in the power of Elijah. Evidently, Elijah's soul had not passed to him. And if this is thought by some with heretical perversity, what would they say about that text which states: The spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha? (2R 2,15) It is clear that Elisha already had his own soul. Therefore, the text refers to the Spirit of God, who was to work through him as he had done through Elijah, not because the spirit had left him to fill Elisha, or because he was less distributed in Elijah so that some part of him could also be in Elisha. God is the only one who could be in everyone who wants to be in that grace. Now, as it says: And I will take part of the spirit that is in you, and it is not said: of your spirit, the solution of the problem is easier, because we understand that God did not mean any other thing than they would have also the help of grace from the same spirit, of which Moses participated. And that's why they would have the amount of spirit that God wanted, but not so that Moses had less.
19 (Nm 11.21-23). And Moses said: "There are six hundred thousand footmen among whom I am, and you have said: I will give them flesh, and they will eat for a month of the days." Will sheep and oxen be slaughtered for them and will it suffice them? Or will all the fish be gathered to them and will they suffice them? He usually wonders if Moses would have said this out of distrust or research. If we think he said it out of mistrust, then the question arises of knowing why the Lord did not reprimand him for it, as he rebuked him because he seems to have doubted the power of the Lord next to the rock from which water flowed. But if we say that Moses said this, wanting to know how it would be carried out, the response of the Lord, when he says: Is not the hand of the Lord enough? (Nm 11,23) It seems that they are the words of those who reproach him for not believing On it. But I think you have to understand that the Lord answered him like that, as if he did not want to say how he was going to realize that future fact, which Moses wanted to know, but rather God intended to demonstrate his power with his own work that performed The slanderers could also object to Mary when she said: How will this happen, because I do not know a man ?, that I had believed less. When asking the way, he had not doubted the power of God. Regarding the response you received: The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow, (Lc 1,34-35) it could also have been answered as here: Is there anything impossible for the Holy Spirit that will come upon you? In this way the same sense would be preserved. And yet, when Zechariah says something similar, he is rebuked for his unbelief and punished with muteness. Why? Because God does not judge words, but hearts. Because, if not, they could also have found excuse the words of Moses next to that rock from which water flowed, if the divine sentence against him had not been clear in the sense that he had said those words out of mistrust. Indeed, the words have the following tenor: Listen to me, unbelievers: "Will we get water from this rock?" And then continues: And Moses lifted up his hand, struck the rock twice with the rod and there came out a lot of water, and drank the water. community and its cattle (Nm 20,10.11). Obviously, for this he gathered the people, for this he took that rod with which he had done so many miracles and with it he struck the rock, and from there the effect of the power he used to have was followed. Therefore, the words that he said: The expression is quite unusual, because not only has the et (also) been put on, but it is put in the way it is not usually put. For that reason, it seems to me that the order of words is inverted, as is often the case also in Latin expressions. And this mode of expression is called anastrophe. Therefore, the meaning would be very clear if it were said: "Or at night, if the cloud goes up, the camp will be lifted", or at least if it was said: "If the cloud also rose at night, they would set up camp" . However, it could still occur to one who would like to know if, as we know they used to walk during the day or during the night or to stand in the camp during the day and during the night, according to the signal from the cloud, they would also get used to it. to stay still only during those days in whose nights they also left the road. And I believe that the Scripture gives the answer in the following text: During the day or during the month of the day, when the cloud covers abundantly, the children of Israel will be in the camp and will not set up camp. Since he had said: Or they will also set up camp during the night, if the cloud rises, it is as if it remained to say: "by day, if it does not rise, they will not raise the camp", when it almost seemed that they should raise it. But as many days could even happen that they walked at night, when the cloud rose, and did not walk during the days, when the cloud remained, for that reason, it was said: During the day or during the month of the day. It is not said "during the month", so that the nights of the same month are not included there, but it is said: during the month of the day, that is, during the month by the part that is day, not by the part that is at night. Thus, during the day or during the month of the day, when the cloud covers it abundantly - if the cloud is wide when covering it or if it covers it widely. Cover it - it refers to the tabernacle - the children of Israel will be in the camp and will not set up camp. Finally, it is repeated that all this was done by the authority of God, which naturally is not lawful to oppose. It says: Because at the order of the Lord they will set up camp. They kept the Lord's watch, according to the order of the Lord through Moses. Go back to put the verb in the past tense, saying: They kept. The final phrase: Through Moses, is a very frequent expression in the Scriptures, since God sent these things through Moses.
17 (Nm 10.7). When you assemble the assembly, you will sound the trumpet, but not as a sign. Therefore, he ordered that it not be sung to gather the assembly - because if it is done like that, it is a sign. So, when the assembly was assembled, the trumpet was then sent out, as if this already corresponded to singing, and not to give the signal, with which he was admonished to do something. Therefore, as once the assembly was assembled, the trumpets played, anyone in the New Testament interprets this in a spiritual sense, and that is why it is a sign for the one who understands the reason why it is done. And, on the other hand, it is not a sign for those who do not understand it. And only it would be when it was done to indicate that it was necessary to do something.
18 (Nm 11,17). And I will take part of the spirit that is in you and I will put it on them. And they will carry the burden of the people with you, and you will not carry them alone. Many Latin translators did not translate this text as it is in Greek, but they did it this way: And I will take part of your spirit that is in you and I will put it on them or put it on them, and they gave us a meaning difficult to understand. Indeed, one can think that it is the spirit of man, which forms, together with the body, human nature, which consists of body and spirit, also called soul. The Apostle says the following about this spirit: For what man knows the intimacy of man but the spirit of man who is in him? In the same way, nobody knows the intimacy of God but the Spirit of God. What it says next: But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that comes from God, 10 clearly demonstrates that the spirit of God is something different, of which the spirit of man participates by the grace of God. But, as others have translated, in the following words you could also understand the Spirit of God: part of your spirit that is in you. The author would have said your spirit, because the Spirit of God, when we receive it, also becomes ours. It is like what the Scripture says about John: in the spirit and in the power of Elijah. Evidently, Elijah's soul had not passed to him. And if this is thought by some with heretical perversity, what would they say about that text which states: The spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha? 12 It is clear that Elisha already had his own soul. Therefore, the text refers to the Spirit of God, who was to work through him as he had done through Elijah, not because the spirit had left him to fill Elisha, or because he was less distributed in Elijah so that some part of him could also be in Elisha. God is the only one who could be in everyone who wants to be in that grace. Now, as it says: And I will take part of the spirit that is in you, and it is not said: of your spirit, the solution of the problem is easier, because we understand that God did not mean any other thing than they would have also the help of grace from the same spirit, of which Moses participated. And that's why they would have the amount of spirit that God wanted, but not so that Moses had less.
19 (Nm 11.21-23). And Moses said: "There are six hundred thousand footmen among whom I am, and you have said: I will give them flesh, and they will eat for a month of the days." Will sheep and oxen be slaughtered for them and will it suffice them? Or will all the fish be gathered to them and will they suffice them? He usually wonders if Moses would have said this out of distrust or research. If we think he said it out of mistrust, then the question arises of knowing why the Lord did not reprimand him for it, as he rebuked him because he seems to have doubted the power of the Lord next to the rock from which water flowed. But if we say that Moses said this, wanting to know how it would be carried out, the response of the Lord, when he says: Is not the hand of the Lord enough? 13 It seems that they are the words of those who reproach him for not believing On it. But I think you have to understand that the Lord answered him like that, as if he did not want to say how he was going to realize that future fact, which Moses wanted to know, but rather God intended to demonstrate his power with his own work that performed The slanderers could also object to Mary when she said: How will this happen, because I do not know a man ?, that I had believed less. When asking the way, he had not doubted the power of God. Regarding the response you received: The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow, 14 it could also have been answered as here: Is there anything impossible for the Holy Spirit that will come upon you? In this way the same sense would be preserved. And yet, when Zechariah says something similar, he is rebuked for his unbelief and punished with muteness. Why? Because God does not judge words, but hearts. Because, if not, they could also have found excuse the words of Moses next to that rock from which water flowed, if the divine sentence against him had not been clear in the sense that he had said those words out of mistrust. Indeed, the words have the following tenor: Listen to me, unbelievers: "Will we get water from this rock?" And then continues: And Moses lifted up his hand, struck the rock twice with the rod and there came out a lot of water, and drank the water. community and its cattle16. Obviously, for this he gathered the people, for this he took that rod with which he had done so many miracles and with it he struck the rock, and from there the effect of the power he used to have was followed. Therefore, the words that he said: Will we extract water from this rock ?, could be taken in the sense that he wanted to say: evidently, according to your disbelief, this rock can not draw water, to prove at last, hitting it, had been able to get water by divine intervention, which they, by their unbelief, would not believe, especially after having said to them: Listen, unbelievers. Thus these words could be interpreted, if God, who sees the hearts, did not indicate with what intention they were said (Cf Pr 24,12). For the Scripture continues: And the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, "Since you have not believed, honoring Me in the presence of the children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this assembly to the land that I have given you. Now it is understood that Moses said those words like hitting the rock with doubt, so that, if the effect was not followed, the people would think that he had predicted that, by saying: Shall we get water from this rock? And this would be a totally hidden thing in Moses' intention, if the first sentence of God had not revealed it. On the contrary, in this passage the words of Moses about the promised flesh we must understand them rather in the sense that they were some words to ask the way of realization of the thing, and not arisen from the distrust, since it does not follow any sentence of the Lord rebuking him, but rather a few words to instruct him.
20 (Nm 12.1). He usually wonders if the Ethiopian woman of Moses is the same daughter of Jethro or if Moses married another or more. It's probably the same woman. This woman was a Midianite. And the Midianites appear in the books of the Paralipomenos under the name of Ethiopians, when Jehoshaphat fought against them. In these texts it is said that the people of Israel persecuted them in the place where the Midianites live, 19 and that they are now called Saracens. Now almost no one calls them Ethiopians, since the names of places and villages often change over time.
21 (Nm 13,18-26). And he said to them: «Go up this desert and you will go up to the north and you will see how is the land and the people that inhabit it, whether it is strong or weak, if there are few or many». When he says: If he is strong or weak, it is understood that he wanted to say: If they are few or many. Because how could one know the strength of human forces looking from a mountain? But there could also be another sense much more congruent with reality. By saying: You will go up the mountain, you want to indicate the country you were going to explore. Because they could not easily present themselves as spies when they looked at all things as pilgrims. Because if we thought that they had seen the country from the top of a mountain and had explored it, how could they have investigated everything that Moses had ordered them to investigate? How could they have entered the cities they entered, according to the Scripture? How could they have taken a bunch of grapes in that valley, which gave the place its name, in such a way that it was called the Valley of the Cluster of Grapes? According to this, the country was explored in the forest itself, since it was the one that had to be explored. And there was a lower place there, from whose valley a cluster of grapes had been taken.
22 (Nm 13,33). And they spread the dread of the country they had explored. "The fear of the country" does not refer to the fear that the country itself had, but to the one they had taken to that country.
23 (Nm 14,9). Caleb and Jesus, son of Nave, when they spoke to the people so they would not fear entering the promised land, they said among other things: "But do not fear the people of the country, because they are for us as food. Well, they've spent their time; instead, the Lord is with us. Do not fear them. The phrase: They are for us as food, it means: "we will consume them". Regarding the following sentence: Well, your time has been spent; Instead, the Lord is with us, we must be careful not to say: The Lord has departed from them -because they were wicked since ancient times-, since even the wicked are given the opportunity to flourish and reign by a mysterious disposition of divine providence, they said: Their time has passed; instead, the Lord is with us. Caleb and Jesus did not say: Their time has passed, and ours has come, but: The Lord is with us, not the time. Those had their time; they had God, creator and computer and distributor of the times he wants.
24 (Nm 15,24-29). In relation to the mandate to atone for sins that are committed involuntarily, the question arises spontaneously to know what these involuntary sins are, if they are those who commit those who do not realize or if one could correctly understand as sin of inadvertence the sin that one He is impelled to commit, since this sin is also often said to be done against one's will. But it is clear that one wants that for which one does something. Like, for example, if you do not want to swear falsely and do it, because you want to keep life, if someone threatens you with death if you do not. He wants to take that oath, since he wants to live, and, therefore, he does not want to swear on his own, but to live by swearing in falsehood. And if this is the case, I do not know if these sins could be called involuntary, as are those that are said here to be expiated. Because if attention is paid, it is concluded that perhaps no one wants to sin, but that sin is committed by something else that the one who sins. Because all men who knowingly do what is not lawful, would like that to be lawful. Obviously, no one wants sin for the sake of sin itself, but for what is achieved with sin. And this being so, there are no involuntary sins, but sins of inadvertence, other than voluntary sins.
25 (Nm 15,30.31). Any soul that sin with a hand of pride, both of the natives and of the foreigners, exacerbates God, and that soul will be exterminated from his people, since he despised the word of the Lord and broke his commandments; that soul will be totally destroyed; his sin will fall on her. When the Scripture says: Since he despised the word of the Lord, he explains with sufficient clarity what he means by sins committed with the hand of pride, that is, with pride. Because one thing is to despise the precepts, and another to appreciate them, but to act against them, either through ignorance or passion. And these two sins may belong to those who commit those who do not want to commit them. The expiation of these sins, so that God forgives them, was exposed above, and the text then added the sins of pride, when one acts badly by arrogance, that is, disregarding the precept. In relation to this kind of sin, the Scripture does not say that it must be expiated with some kind of sacrifice, considering it as unforgivable only through the medium that consisted in resorting to the sacrifices that the Scripture itself orders to make. For these sacrifices, if they consider themselves, can not forgive any sin; but if you attend to the things that you mysteriously represent, you could find in them the purification of sins.
With regard to the text that says: The sinner, when he reaches the depths of the evils, despises, (Pr 18,3) it is necessary to notice that the sinner is represented here that the Scripture describes in this passage as the one who commits a sin with the hand of pride. This sin can not be forgiven without the penalty of the one who commits it. And that is why he can not remain unpunished, and he is forgiven with penance. Because the same affliction of the penitent is the penalty of sin, although it is a medicinal and healthy penalty. Therefore, sin is considered great, which despises the precept with arrogance. But that this sin can be forgiven we know from the text that says: God does not despise a contrite and humbled heart (Ps. 50,19). And since this is not done without pain, that is why these things have been said here: This exacerbates God, because God resists the proud. And this soul will be exterminated from her people - because this person is not in any way among the number of those who belong to God. Because he despised the word of the Lord and broke his commandments. That soul will be totally destroyed. The reason that it will be totally destroyed is indicated below: His sin will fall on her. Now, if the sinner were to apply to himself the due contrition for that sin, repenting of it, God does not despise the contrite heart, as we have said. Although in the Greek text it has not been said in this place: it will be totally destroyed (contritione conteretur) but: it will be totally worn out (extritione exteretur) that soul. This affirmation can be taken in the sense that that soul is consumed by total wear and tear until it ceases to exist. But, in the first place, the nature of the immortality of the soul forbids this interpretation. Second, if what wears will wear out completely until it ceases to exist, the Scripture would not say about the wise man: Let your foot wear down the steps of your door23. Actually, we must pay the utmost attention to the distinction we made to know if only the one who does it ignores or who has been overcome by passion or contempt. But it would be too long to argue about that now.
26 (Nm 16,12.13.14). What do the words that Dathan and Abiron say when they revolted against Moses, and what they answered with arrogance and insults, when Moses called them? Namely: Does it seem little to have taken us to a land that flows milk and honey to make us die in the desert ?; because you are in front of us, are you the prince? And you have introduced us into a land that flows with milk and honey and you have given us the inheritance of the field and the vineyards? Then adding: would you have taken the eyes of those men? we do not go up (Nm 16,13.14). In the eyes of what men refer? Perhaps in the eyes of the people of Israel, as if they wanted to say: if you had done these things, you would have taken the eyes of those men, that is, they would love you so much that they would take their eyes out and give them to you? Let this be a test of great love, says the Apostle with these words: Because, if it had been possible, you would have ripped out your eyes to give them to me. Then they showed their total contumacy, saying: We did not go up, that is, "we will not come", because he had called them. Or perhaps the eyes of those men are the eyes of the enemies, which would have been presented as too cruel and terrible? Something as if they said: Even if you had done this, we would not have obeyed you. In this case, one verb mode is set by another. So they would not have said: We will not go up, but: We do not go up, using this idiom.
27 (Nm 16, 20-21). And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, "Depart from that assembly." It is necessary to notice that the Lord commands to separate corporally from something when the punishment to the bad ones is already imminent. For example, Noah with his family is separated from others, who would perish in the flood (Cf Gn 7,15). Lot with his people is separated from the Sodomites, who would perish by the fire sent from heaven (Cf Gn 19,12). The people of Israel themselves were separated from the Egyptians, who were to be covered by the waves of the sea (Cf Ex 14,20). So now they are separated from the community of Coré, Datán and Abirón, who first wanted to separate themselves by means of sedition. They are also separated from the community. But the saints, who lived and talked before with them and with others, who reprove God, according to the words he says to reprimand them, could not be contaminated in the least by them. They were not commanded to separate, when the Lord differed the punishment or applied one that could not endanger or cause harm to the innocent, such as the bites of the snakes, the havoc of the deaths that God applied to whom he wanted and how he wanted, leaving others intact. Not like the water of the flood or the rain of fire or the water of the sea or the opening of the earth, punishments that could reach everyone indistinctly. And this happened like that, not because God could not keep his people there. But what need was there to prove the miracle where the separation could be made so that either the water or the fire or the opening of the earth would snatch those whom it found? Likewise, at the end of the world the wheat will separate from the tares, so that with the flames that burn the bad, the righteous shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Cf Mt 13,30.40-43).
28 (Nm 16,30). What Moses says about Korah, Abiron and Dathan: The Lord will manifest it in a vision and, opening the earth his mouth, will swallow them, some have translated it like this: In the abyss the Lord will manifest, thinking, I think, that the text says jásmati, when in fact it says fásmati, that is equivalent to: "in the manifestation", because it will appear clearly to the eyes.
Indeed, the expression in a vision does not indicate a vision like the visions of dreams or any figure seen in ecstasy, but as I have just said, it indicates a manifestation. Some authors, who defend another opinion, have translated: into the ghost. But this version is so far from the use of our language, that almost in no case is it called a ghost, unless our senses are deceived by the falsity of the things seen. Although this can also be said of the vision. But, as I said, the custom of saying something else has already issued the verdict.
29 (Nm 16,33). And they went down alive to the underworld with everything they had. It is worth bearing in mind that the hell is spoken of, referring to a terrain place, that is, to the lower parts of the earth. Indeed, the name of hells has in the Scriptures several meanings and many meanings, according to the content of the things in question. But this word is usually applied above all to refer to the dead. Now, as it is said that these men went down alive to the underworld and the story clearly shows what happened, it is evident, as I said, that with the word "infernos" it is meant to refer to the lower parts of the earth, compared with this superior earth, on whose surface we live. The Scripture says that the angels who sinned, locked in the darkness of this air, will be saved to be punished in places that are like the prisons of hell, as comparing this place with the higher heaven, where is the abode of the holy angels . The text reads as follows: For if God did not forgive the angels who sinned, but, by locking them in the dark prisons of hell, he delivered them up to be kept for punishment in the judgment. And the apostle Paul calls the devil the prince of the empire of the air, who acts in the children of infidelity (Eph. 2,2).
30 (Nm 16,36-38). And the Lord said to Moses and to Eleazar the priest, Aaron's son, "Take the bronze censers out of the midst of the burned ones and sow this profane fire there, because they consecrated the censers of those sins in their souls. Make with them ductile sheets to put around the altar, because they were offered before the Lord and consecrated and have become a sign in the children of Israel. The reason that occurs to me, meanwhile, to explain that in this passage the Lord has not spoken to Moses and Aaron, as in the previous texts, but to Moses and Eleazar, son of Aaron, is the following: As the matter he referred to the offspring of the priests, saying to which line they should belong-that is why those of another race, as they dared to usurp the priesthood for themselves, perished in that horrible and striking torture (Cf Nm 16,31.32), God wanted to speak, not to Aaron, who was already a high priest, but Eleazar, who was to succeed him and was already serving as a priest of second rank, to recommend in this way the series of the lineage that should be in the successions of the priests. Therefore, he also says: And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest took the bronze censers that those who were burned had presented and added them, putting them around the altar as a memorial for the children of Israel, so that they would not come near no foreigner who is not of the lineage of Aaron to offer incense before the Lord and not to succeed him as to Korah and his crew, as the Lord said through Moses. Therefore, God wanted in this way to exalt through Eleazar, not the priesthood, which was already in Aaron, but the offspring of the priestly succession. In relation to the sentence: And plant there this profane fire, it must be said that "sow" is instead of "scatters." The following sentence: Because they consecrated the censers of those sins in their souls, it contains an idea expressed in a really unusual way. But it must be noted that the punishment of those who had committed this sin is called in a new sanctified way, because through them an example was given to others to fear. To explain why God wanted the incense burners to do something to put it around the altar, the following is added: Because they were offered before the Lord and consecrated and have become a sign in the children of Israel.
God did not want to be reproached in them for having been presented by these men, but rather to think and pay attention to whom they had presented themselves-that is, they had been presented before the Lord-in such a way that it would be worthwhile. they more the name of the Lord before whom they had been presented than the great demerit of those who had presented them. This was also remembered by the Scripture in the Exodus, when describing the construction of the altar (Nm 16,39.40). Therefore, it is understood that the different events were distributed by books, not the exact order of time. For the Scripture also described in Exodus how it happened that Aaron's rod, as it flourished and germinated, indicated by divine desire the choice of the priesthood of Aaron. And yet in the Exodus it is said of this same rod that it should be placed in the ark with the manna in the Holy of Holies, when the Lord commanded the tabernacle to be built (Cf Ex 26,33.34; 40,18.21). And this, of course, was commanded long before the tabernacle itself was built and finished. It was completed in the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt (Cf Ex 40,15). And the Exodus begins in the second month of the same second year, the first day of the month. Therefore, it is clear that these things, if the order of the books is attended to, are remembered by recapitulation, that is, by remembering the past. And those who pay little attention think that they were done in the same order in which they are narrated.
31 (Nm 18,1). And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, "You and your sons and your father's house with you will bear the sins of the saints; and you and your children will bear the sins of your priesthood. " These are the sins that are called sacrifices for sins. Therefore, the sins of the saints are not the sins that the saints commit. They are the sins that are committed in relation to holy things. Because sacrifices are offered in holy things, and sins are called sacrifices for sins. That is why they are called the sins of the saints and sins of your priesthood, that is, the sins that are offered for sins. This is the same as what is said in Leviticus and it is affirmed that they must be for the priest (Cf Lv 25,26).
32 (Nm 18,13). All the firstborn of all the things that were in their land, that they offer to the Lord, will be for you. The word first-born (first-born) does not refer here to the first-born of the cattle; because these are called, in Greek, protótoka, and there is spoken of protogenémata. But in Latin there are not two words to designate these two things. And for that reason, the word protogenémata some have translated it by "firstfruits" (primitias). But the first fruits are called in Greek aparjaí and they are something else. Therefore, these three things are distinguished as follows: protótoka are the firstborn of animals and also of man; Protogenémata are the first fruits of the earth taken from the trees or from the vine. The first fruits, however, were taken from the fruits, but once collected from the field, as if they were the things that were taken in the first place, coming from the pasta of flour, from the granary, from the jar, from the vat.
33 (Nm 19,9-11). About the red cow, whose ashes commanded the law to be used to prepare the water of the sprinkling and to make pure those who had touched a corpse, I can not keep silence -for there is a prefigured sign of the New Testament in it-, nor I am able to speak in a manner sufficiently worthy of such a great mystery, because of the haste I have in finishing. Because it is the first time that the Scripture begins to talk about this issue, who would not move him or make him pay maximum attention to the depth of the mystery? The text says: And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, "This is the distinction of the law which the Lord established." (Nm 19,1.2) It is evident that there is no distinction only between two or more things, because the singularity does not require distinction. And the Lord did not mention the distinction of any thing, but added: (The distinction) of the law. And not of any law. The Scripture, in fact, often says the following about each of the things that are sent legitimately: This is the law referring to this or that thing, not the universal law, which contains all things that are legitimately sent. By saying here: This is the distinction of the law, he added at once: Everything that the Lord established, commanding, not creating. Some translators have also translated: Everything the Lord commanded. Now if this is the distinction of the law, everything that the Lord commanded is no doubt a very great distinction. And it is rightly thought that the two Testaments are distinguished here. Indeed, the same is in the Old as in the New Testament; there in shadow, here in the open; there prefigured, here manifested. Because not only mysteries are different, but also promises. There it seems that temporary things are proposed, which mysteriously mean spiritual reward; here spiritual and eternal prizes are clearly promised. And what higher and more certain distinction can there be between temporal and carnal honors, and spiritual and eternal honors, than the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ? With his death he proved sufficiently that we should not expect or desire from the Lord God this earthly and transitory happiness for such a great gift; since with a very clear distinction he manifested in his Only Begotten Son, who wanted to endure so many things, that he had to ask and expect from him something totally different. Therefore, what is said about the sacrifice of the red cow prefigures this Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ as a distinction between the two Testaments.
And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, "This is the distinction of the law, which the Lord established." And then he begins to give the precepts, adding the following: Tell the children of Israel (Nm 19,1-2). The texts can also be separated as follows: And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, This is the distinction of the law, all that the Lord has established, saying. Not that the Lord established, creating, as when He made heaven and earth and that is in them, but established the Lord, saying, naturally in the two Testaments. And then I would continue: Tell the children of Israel and bring you to red cow without blemish. The red cow means the flesh of Christ. The female sex designates the carnal weakness. It is red because of bloody passion. The phrase: That they bring you, reveals in Moses the figure of the law, because according to the law it seemed to them that they had killed Christ, because, according to them, I broke the Sabbath and, as they thought, profaned the legitimate norms There is nothing strange about saying that the cow has not defect. Also the other victims meant this meat and about them it is also said that the animals that were slaughtered did not have any defect. That flesh was like the flesh of sin (Rm 8,3), but not the flesh of sin. However, here where God wanted to highlight this distinction of the law, it was little to say: without defect, if it were not said: that it has not defect in itself. And this phrase, if it was said to repeat the same thing, perhaps he did not say himself uselessly; for the repetition itself highlighted the reality more. Although it would not be far from the truth that the words had been added: that it has not defect in itself, when it had already been said: a cow without defect, precisely because of the flesh of Christ had no defect in itself, and, instead, I had it in the others, who are its members. For what flesh is without this life, but only that which has no defect in itself? And that has not been put on her yoke. Indeed, it is not subject to iniquity that, finding the subject of iniquity, freed them and broke their bonds, so that it can be said of her: You have broken my chains, I will sacrifice you to a victim of praise (Ps. 115,7.8 16.17). The yoke has not been laid on his flesh. For he had the power to surrender his life and to recover it again (Cf Jn 10,18).
And he continues: And you will give it to the priest Eleazar (Nm 19,3.4). Why did he not give it to Aaron, but why was it prefigured so that the Passion of the Lord would come, not at the time of that, but to the successors of that priesthood? And they will throw it out of the camp. The Lord was also thrown out of the city during his Passion. The words: to a pure place, mean that the Lord did not have a bad cause. And they will kill her in his presence. The flesh of Christ was sacrificed in the sight of those who were to be priests of the Lord in the New Testament.
And Eleazar will take his blood and sprinkle it seven times with his blood in the direction of the entrance to the tabernacle of the testimony. This is the testimony that Christ, according to the Scriptures, shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins (Cf Eph. 1,7; Rm 3,25). He will sprinkle it in the direction of the entrance of the tabernacle of the testimony precisely because it had been preannounced by the divine testimony. And he did it seven times, because that number is related to spiritual purification. And they will burn it in his presence (Nm 19,5). I think combustion is a sign of the resurrection. The nature of fire is to move up. And what is burned becomes fire. The word cremare (burn), introduced in Latin through Greek, is derived from a term meaning "to hang". The words: in his presence, in the presence of the priest, it seems to me that they imply that the resurrection of Christ appeared to those who were to be a royal priesthood. What follows: And his skin and his flesh and his blood, together with his dung, will be burned, indicates how it is to be burned and means that not only the substance of the mortal body of Christ, indicated with the mention of the skin and of the flesh and blood, but also the insult and contempt of the plebs, meant, as I think, by the word manure, would become the glory that means the flame of combustion.
And the priest shall take the wood of cedar, hyssop, and scarlet, and shall cast it into the midst of the fire of the cow. The cedar wood is hope, which must live firmly in the heights. The hyssop is the faith, because being a humble grass adheres with its roots to the stone. The grana is charity, because it witnesses with its color of fire the fervor of the spirit. These three things we must put in the resurrection of Christ as if we were throwing them in that bonfire, so that our life is hidden with him, as the Apostle says: And your life is hidden with Christ in God (Col 3,3).
And the priest shall wash his clothes and wash his body with water and then enter the camp; and the priest will be impure until the evening (Nm 19,7). The washing of the clothes and the body, what does it mean but the purity of the exterior and interior? This will do the priest. And then it continues: And whoever burns it, will wash his clothes and wash his body with water and be impure until evening. I think that in the combustion are prefigured those who buried the flesh of Christ, sending it to the resurrection as if it were a combustion.
And a pure man will gather the ashes of the cow and deposit them outside the camp in a pure place (Nm 19,9). What do we call the ashes of the cow, the remains of that sacrifice and that combustion, but the fame that followed the Passion and Resurrection of Christ? Because there are remains for the man of peace (Sal 36,37). It was ashes, because the infidels despised them like a dead person. But he purified, because the faithful believed that he had risen. And as this fame spread especially among those who were among the other people and did not belong to the community of the Jews, I think that is why the Scripture says: And a pure man will gather the ashes of the cow. Pure man, because he did not intervene in the death of Christ, who had made the Jews guilty. And he will deposit them in a pure place, that is, he will treat them with decorum, but outside the camp, because evangelical decency flourished outside the celebrations of custom. And they will serve the community of the children of Israel for conservation. The water of the sprinkling is a purification (Nm 19,9). Afterwards it is explained more clearly how the water of the sprinkling was made from this ash, with which they were cleansed from contact with the dead, which certainly meant that they were purified from the iniquity of this dying and dying life.
But the following is strange: And whoever collects the ashes of the cow, will wash his clothes and be impure until the evening (Nm 19,10). How can it be impure for this who has approached pure, but because also those who believe themselves pure, in the Christian faith they recognize themselves that all have sinned and need the glory of God, justified gratuitously by his blood (Cf Rm 3,23.24) This man is commanded to wash his clothes, not his body. I believe that with the collection of those ashes and the placement in a pure place, if understood spiritually, the author wants to understand that it is an internal mandate. As happened to Cornelius, who, hearing and believing what Peter had preached, was purified. And before receiving the visible baptism, he received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Cf Acts 10,44-48) along with those of his house present there. But neither could the visible sacrament be despised, so that he who was clean, even outwardly washed his clothes in a certain way. And it continues: And it will be a legitimate portion forever for the children of Israel and for the strangers who join them (Nm 19,10). What else does this show but that the baptism of Christ, which signified the water of the sprinkling, would profit the Jews and the Gentiles, that is, the children of Israel and the strangers, as natural branches and wild olive grafted into the sap from the root? (Cf Rm 11,16-24) Who would not call attention to the fact that after purification is said of each: and will be impure until late? And not only here, but in all or almost all purifications, the same is said. Therefore, I do not know if it could be understood otherwise but every man, after the complete forgiveness of his sins, being in this life, contracts something that makes him impure until the end of his life, when for him he closes in a certain way this day, which is what the afternoon means.
Then the Scripture begins to say and it finishes explaining how the men who became impure are purified with that sprinkling water. The text reads as follows: Whoever touches a dead person, every soul of man shall be unclean for seven days; it will be purified on the third day and on the seventh day, and it will be pure (Nm 19,11.12). And I believe that here we must not understand anything else but that contact with a dead person is the iniquity of man. I think it has been said that it will be impure for seven days because of the soul and because of the body; because of the soul, for the number three; because of the body, in number four. It is long to explain why this is so. I think that, according to this symbolism, the prophet said: In three and in four iniquities I will not give up (Am 1,3). The text adds: But if it had not been purified on the third day and the seventh day, it will not be pure. Everyone who touches a dead person, if he is dead of any human soul, and has not purified himself-that is, if he died after having touched a dead person, before he had purified himself-stains the tabernacle of the Lord: that soul it will be exterminated from Israel (Nm 19,12.13). It should be noted that it is very difficult to find written in the Sacred Books something more evident than here about the life of the soul after death. Well, when it is said here that "if he had died before purifying himself, the impurity remains in him and that soul must be exterminated from Israel, from the company of the people of God", what else is the Scripture intended to understand? that the punishment of the soul remains even after death if, while it lives, it has not been purified with this mystery that represents the baptism of Christ? For the text says: Because the water of the sprinkling has not been poured on it; his impurity is still in him (Nm 19,13). It still means even after death. It was said before: Stain the tabernacle of the Lord. Certainly it taints it as far as it depends; the Apostle said: Do not extinguish the Spirit (1Ts 5,19), when in reality the Spirit can not be extinguished. If the Lord had wanted us to understand that the tabernacle is made unclean by this, He would certainly have commanded it to be purified.
Then he commands that those who have become impure because of the dead, that is, because of the dead works, which are all iniquities, be purified. It says: And they shall take for the impure ash of the burnt victim of the purification and they shall pour upon it - on the ashes - living water in a vessel. A pure man, taking the hyssop, will wet it and sprinkle everything around the house and the objects and souls that were there, and whoever touched human bones or a murdered person or a dead person or a grave. And the pure man shall sprinkle the impure on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall purify himself on the seventh day, and wash his clothes, and wash himself in water, and be unclean until the evening. One thing is the water of the sprinkling and another, certainly, the water with which the clothes will be washed. The phrase: And it will be washed with water, I think it has to be understood in a spiritual sense, not in a proper sense. For it was certainly a visible thing, like all those shadows of future things. Therefore, who is properly purified by the sacrament of baptism, which represented that water of sprinkling, is also cleansed spiritually, that is, invisibly in the flesh and in the soul, so that it is cleansed not only of body, but also of spirit. In relation to what was said that the water of the sprinkling was sprinkled with the hyssop, and that that herb, as we said before, symbolized the faith, what else could happen to us but what is written: purifying their hearts with faith? (Hch 15,9) Because baptism is useless if faith is lacking. And it was ordered that this be done by a pure man. Here are indicated the ministers who represent the person of their Lord, who is a pure man of truth. The following is said about these ministers: And he who sprinkles with the water of the sprinkling will wash his clothes-he will observe the purity also in his body-and whoever touches the water of the sprinkling will be impure until evening. And all that the unclean has touched will be impure. And the soul that touches him will be impure until the evening (Nm 19,21-22). I already said before what I thought the meaning of until evening.
34 (Nm 19,16). Everyone who touches, on the field, a wounded or a dead man or bones or a grave. We can ask why it is spoken of a wounded or a dead person. If the author wanted it to be understood that one thing was a wounded and another a dead one, we must avoid thinking that it is impure also who touches a wounded alive, which would be an absurdity. Now, since the dead may also have been wounded, it is clear that a distinction has been made here between the dead. It may, in fact, be a wounded dead person, that is, a dead man killed by the sword or a dead person without being killed by the sword.
35 (Nm 20.11). The apostle Paul explained what it meant to have water drawn from the rock, when he said: And all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ (1Co 10,4). With these words is indicated the spiritual grace that comes from Christ, which quenches the interior thirst. The fact that the rock is struck with the rod signifies the cross of Christ. For this grace flowed as the log approached the rock. And the fact that the rock is struck twice means more clearly the cross, because two logs make a cross.
36 (Nm 20,13). About the water that came out of the rock it is said: This is the water of contradiction, because the children of Israel spoke ill before the Lord, and manifested his holiness in them. On this fact it is said, first, that the Israelites spoke ill when they spoke against the favor of the Lord, who had brought them out of Egypt. And, second, that God showed in them his holiness when his holiness was declared through the miracle that of the water source. Is it perhaps two classes of men, those who oppose the grace of Christ and those who accept this grace, so that for some it is a water of contradiction and for others a water of sanctification? Because even the Lord himself is read in the Gospel: And it will become a sign of contradiction (Lc 2,24).
37 (Nm 20,17-19). The words that Moses says to the king of Edom: We will not drink water from your lake, it must be completed with the free term, that is, «that we will not drink water for free». This already appears clearly later, when it is stated: But if I and my cattle drink of your water, I will pay you the price.
38 (Nm 20.17). We will not twist the things on the right nor the things on the left. It is said in plural: to the things that are to the right or to the left.
39 (Nm 20.24). You shall not enter the land that I have given to the children of Israel, because you have exacerbated me in the water of the curse. What was once called the water of contradiction, now calls it the water of the curse. The Greek text does not say antilogies, but loidorías.
40 (Nm 21.2). And Israel made a vow to the Lord and said: "If you surrender me to that people - if you submit it to me, handing it over to me - I will anathematize him and his cities." We must highlight here the meaning of "anathematize", which is the object of a vote and is considered a curse, as it is said here with respect to this people. Such is the meaning of the text: If anyone evangelizes you to anything other than what you have received, let him be anathema68. From this derives what is commonly called "imprecation", because almost nobody says that he has impregnated one, unless he curses.
41 (Nm 21.3). And he anathematized him and his cities; and that place received the name of Anathema. From this it follows that the anathema seems somewhat detestable and abominable. The verb anathematize, which is vulgarly translated as imprecate, means that the victor would not take anything for his use of the things of the vanquished. Everything was devoted to erase the pain. In this consisted the anathematizing that is vulgarly said to impregnate. The word comes from the Greek. And it was said of those things that, offered and offered, promised and delivered, were put back in the temples: apó tou ano tizénai, to put a thing again by nailing it or by hanging it.
42 (Nm 21,13-14-15). In describing the journey in which the children of Israel raised and fixed the camps, it is said, among other things, the following: They left from there and placed the camp beyond the Arnon at Ermon, which is from the confines of the Amorreos For the Arnon is the border of Moab between the Moabites and the Amorites. That is why it is said in the book: The War of the Lord: Inflated Zoob and the torrents of the Arnon, and caused the torrents to dwell in Er. It is not said in what book this is written. There is no book so called among the books of divine Scripture that we call canonical. The men who try to introduce the apocryphal books into the ears of the unwary and curious find motives in such books to spread fabulous impieties. Here it is said that it is written in a book. It is not said in the holy book of such a prophet or patriarch. It can not be denied that there were books, or among the Chaldeans, from which Abraham left, or among the Egyptians, where Moses had learned all the wisdom of the Egyptians, (Ga 1,9) or in any other town, in one of whose books this could have been written. However, this does not mean that this book should be placed among the Scriptures that enjoy divine authority. Nor does that authority have that Cretan prophet who is mentioned by the Apostle (Cf Hch 7,22), nor the Greek writers or philosophers or poets of whom the Apostle himself says that they said something truly great and truly manifest, speaking thus to the Athenians: For in him we live, we move and we are (Cf Tt 1,12). In effect, the divine authority can take anywhere from a testimony that has found true. But that does not confirm that you have to accept everything that is written in that place. In spite of everything, it is not clear why this has been mentioned in this passage. Perhaps it means that a war was waged to establish the borders between two nations there. And to that war, because of its magnitude, the people of the place began to call it the war of the Lord, in such a way that in one of their books these words were found written: The war of the Lord inflamed Zoob, or because this city burned in that war, or was inflamed for war, was excited, or anything else that is hidden in the darkness of this passage.
43 (Nm 21,16). This is the well about which the Lord said to Moses, "Gather the people together and give them water to drink." The Scripture mentions this fact as if in some previous place it had been said that the Lord said this to Moses. But since it is not found anywhere else, it must be understood here that the people who complained of thirst also drank there.
44 (Nm 21.24.25). But Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and seized his land from the Arnon to the Yabboq, even to the children of Ammon; for Yazer are the bounds of the children of Ammon. And Israel took all those cities. And Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites in Esebon. According to this, Israel certainly possessed the cities of the Amorites, which he conquered through war, because he did not anathematize them. If he had anathematized them, he would not have been allowed to own the cities or use any of the loot for private uses. You have to pay attention to how fair wars were made. Because in the concrete case that concerns us, the peaceful step had been denied, which should have been opened by the very just right of human society (Cf Nm 21,21-23). But, for God to fulfill his promises, he helped the Israelites here, to whom it was convenient that the land of the Amorites be given. As Edom had also denied them transit, they did not fight with those people the Israelites, that is, the sons of Jacob against the sons of Esau, the two twin brothers. As God had not promised that land to the Israelites, that's why they went another way.
45 (Nm 21.27). That's why the troubadours will say: "Come to Esebon," etc. It is not known who the troubadours are, because they are not habitual characters of our literature and in the own divine Scriptures this name almost never appears in other places. But, since it seems that they sing as a kind of song in which they extol the war between the Amorites and the Moabites, during which Seon, king of the Amorites, defeated the Moabites (Cf Nm 21,27-30), it does not seem unlikely that he would be called then troubadours to whom we call poets, because it is the custom and license of poets to mix in their pages enigmatic fables through which we think of some meaning. Because they would not be enigmas if there were not in them a figurative expression, with whose explanation one will come to understand what is hidden in the enigma.
46 (Nm 22,2-6). The Scripture says that, after Israel had conquered the Amorites and conquered all their cities, Balak, king of the Moabites, sent messengers to seek Balaam, to curse Israel. This clearly shows that not all the Moabites had fallen under the rule of Seon, king of the Amorites, when he defeated them in war, for there were Moabite people until the time when Balak king of Moab reigned. With regard to what Moab said to the elders of Midian, that is, what the Moabites said to the elders of the Midianites, namely: Now he will devastate this crowd to all those around us (Nm 22,4), we must avoid believing that it's about a single town, but a neighboring town told those other neighboring people. For Moab was the son of Lot on the part of one of his daughters. And Midian was a son of Abraham on the part of Quetura (Cf Gn 25,2). Therefore, it was not a single town, but two neighboring towns with common borders.
47 (Nm 22.7). What does it mean: And the divinations in your hands, when you speak of those sent by Balaq to lead Balaam to curse Israel? Were they perhaps fortune tellers? Or did they have something that Balaam acted on so that he could guess, as, for example, something that was burned in the sacrifices or used in any other way and is called divinations, because through those things Balaam could guess? Or what else could it be? It is something dark. It is necessary to notice, in the first place, that God came to Balaam and said to him: What are those men who are in your house? (Nm 22,9), etc. It is not said if this happened in dreams, although it is evident that it took place at night, since the Scripture says next: Balaam rising early in the morning (Nm 22,13). It can be a problem to know how God could speak with such a bad man. And this problem would not stop considering for the own indignity of the subject, although it will be confirmed that it was carried out in dreams. Our Lord Jesus Christ also says the following about the rich man who was about to destroy his old granaries and make new ones bigger: God told him: "Fool! Tonight the soul will be reclaimed; and the things you have prepared, for whom will they be? "Let no one boast that God speaks to him in the way he knows how to speak to such people, because he can also do so with the reprobate, since when God speaks through a angel, speaks God himself.
48 (Nm 22.18). Balaam says the following to the most illustrious messengers that were sent to him: Even though Balaq gave me his house full of silver and gold, I can not prevaricate the command of the Lord God to do it in my mind, little or much. These words do not suppose any sin. But what follows, is not without a great sin. Because Balaam must have been aware once he heard what the Lord had told him: You will not go with them or curse that people, because it is a blessed town (Nm 22,12). And he should not have given them any hope that the Lord could change his mind against his people, which he had said was a blessed people, as Balaam had done for gifts and honors. Balaam was overcome by greed when he wanted the Lord to speak to him again about the matter, about which he already knew the divine decision. Therefore, what need did he have to add what follows: And now stay here tonight also, and I will know what the Lord will say to me again? (Nm 22,19) When the Lord saw that the covetousness of Balaam had been conquered and overcome by the gifts, marching to dominate his greed by means of the ass that transported him, confusing his dementia for the very fact that the donkey did not dare to transgress the prohibition that the Lord made him through the angel, a prohibition that he would try to transgress driven by his greed , although out of fear avoid that same greed. The text continues: God came to Balaam at night and said, "If men have come to call you, get up and follow them; but you will fulfill the word that I tell you ». And Balaam rose up early in the morning, and prepared his donkey, and went with the commanders of Moab. Why did he not consult God again after this permission and thought that he should consult him again after that prohibition, but because his evil greed appeared, even though he was tormented by fear of the Lord? Finally, the Scripture continues: And God was inflamed with anger because he was going; and the angel of God rose up not to let him go on the road, (Nm 22,22) and the rest that is said there, until the donkey spoke. Here, certainly, there is nothing more admirable than the fact that Balaam was not terrified to see the donkey speaking. Before, on the contrary, as if he were accustomed to such prodigies, and continuing in his anger, he answered the donkey. Then the angel also speaks to him and corrects him and reprimands him for having embarked on the journey. But, seeing the angel, he falls on terrified ground and worships him. Then he is allowed to go so that a clear prophecy could be made by his means. He was not allowed to say what he wanted, but what he was forced to say by the power of the Spirit. He, however, remained a reprobate. The holy Scripture speaks after him, saying that some men worthy of reproach and reprobates have followed the way of Balaam: They have followed the way of Balaam, son of Beor, who loved a payment of iniquity (2P 2,15).
49 (Nm 22.22). The Scripture says the following about the angel who spoke with Balaam on the way, when the donkey, seeing him, did not dare to walk: And God was enraged because he was going; and the angel of God stood up not to let him go on the way. Here we must pay attention in the first place to how the Scripture says that the angry God said: And the angel of God arose, without saying that God, irritated, sent the angel; but in a certain way it symbolized in the angel God irritated, because the truth and the justice of God made him irritated. The expression: rose (insurrexit) must be understood in the sense of a jolt. Then he says: to delay him on the road. The Greek has the verb diabalein, and then the angel says: I have left for your delay (Nm 22,32). This in Greek corresponds to diabolén. In this case perhaps it means more properly accusation. And so the phrase: to delay him on the road may mean: "to accuse him." From this Greek term derives the word "devil", which in Latin could be called "accuser", not because no one could accuse well and correctly, but because the devil is pleased to accuse, moved even by the stimuli of envy, as it says in the Apocalypse about him (Cf Ap 12,9-10). This word also appears in comedy. Therefore, there is no doubt that it is a Latin word with the same meaning or at least similar to the Greek one, when the son is said on the part of the father, angry: "He hopes to have found a speech by means of which change your mind ». The word differat is usually understood here in the sense of "carry from one part to another by the impetus of words," something like "tear and dissipate"; thing that he seemed like he was going to carry out, accusing. But although the phrase: to delay him on the road, we understood in the sense that the angel differed his haste, delaying it, to show him and tell him what he should do, it is not absurd to use this word, even with this meaning.
50 (Num 22,23-24). And as the donkey saw the angel of God planted on the road with the sword unsheathed in his hand, and the donkey turned off the road and went through the field. This field was still outside the fences of the vineyards. And hit the donkey with the stick, to make it return to the road. And the angel of God stood in the furrows of the vineyards, with a fence on one side and another on the other. We can rightly ask why it is said that the angel was standing there in the furrows of the vineyards, if the fences, located on either side, left a path in the middle, as is usually the case, since the furrows of the vines could not be on the road between the fences. The order of words is as follows: To make it return to the road, with a fence on one side and another on the other. According to this, Balaam wanted to return the donkey to this road, so that it could walk among the fences. But the text interjects these words: And the angel of God stood in the furrows of the vineyards, that is, one of the vineyards that left a path in the middle. And as the donkey saw the angel of God, he came to the wall, to the fence of that vineyard in which the angel was not, because on the other hand he was in the furrows of the vineyards. And he squeezed Balaam's foot against the wall. And he hit him again. And the angel of God returned to change places and stood in a narrow place - not in the furrows of the vineyards, but between the fences themselves, that is, on the road - where he could not deviate to the right nor to the left. And as the donkey saw the angel of God, she lay down with Balaam on top of her. As the donkey did not turn back, even if it hit her, she did not lean against the wall, because she was not afraid of the other part, but the angel was in the middle of the road in a narrow place, the donkey only had to lie down . But Balaam became angry and hit the donkey with the stick. And God opened the mouth of the donkey and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to hit me for the third time?" And Balaam answered the donkey, "Because you have mocked me. And if I had a sword in my hand, I would have killed you with it"(Nm 22,27-29). This man was dragged, evidently, by such greed that he was not terrified by such an extraordinary miracle and responded as if he were talking to a man, when in reality God had not changed the soul of the donkey into a rational nature, but had produced through it the sound that had seemed good to him to inhibit Balaam's Vesania, perhaps prefiguring the fact according to which God had to choose the foolish things of the world to confuse the wise (1Co 1,27), in favor of that spiritual and true Israel, that is, in favor of the children of the promise.
51 (Nm 23.6). And the spirit of God was made over him, over Balaam. The spirit of God was not made, as if the spirit of God were something that is done. It was done on him, that is, it happened that he was on him. In the same way, in another passage it is said: He who comes after me has been made before me, that is, it happened before me, that he put himself before me, because he existed before me (Jn 1,30). And the same in another text: The Lord was made, my help (Ps. 29,11). The Lord is not something that is done, but it happened to help me. And in another passage it is said: The Lord has taken shelter of the poor, (Ps. 9,10) that is, the poor came to him. And in another passage it is said: And the hand of the Lord was made upon me, (Ez 1,3; 3,22) that is, it happened that that hand was upon me. And many other similar passages that are in the Scriptures.
52 (Nm 25,1-4). And the Lord said to Moses: "Take the leaders of the people and show them to the Lord in front of the sun; and the fierce anger of the Lord will depart from Israel. " The Lord being angry because of the fornications of Israel, not only carnal but also spiritual - for they had unjustly joined themselves with the daughters of Moab and had consecrated themselves to the idols (Cf Nm 25,1-3) he told Moses to present the Lord to the chiefs of the people facing the Lord. Sun. In this sentence it is understood that God commanded that they be crucified. Therefore, the phrase: show them to the Lord in front of the sun, means: do that publicly, in the light of day. The Greek says: paradeigmátison, that could be translated by: «put them as an example», because paradeigma means «example». Outside the Seventies, it is said that Aquila translated: "clávalos" or, rather, "clávalos arriba", which corresponds to anápexon. And Symmachus translates it by an even clearer word: "hang them." It is really strange that the Scripture has stopped telling if this was carried out according to the commandment of the Lord. I believe that this has not been stopped, or if it was stopped, it was not stopped doing it with impunity. But if the thing was fulfilled and the text silenced him, why does the Scripture say that the Lord was appeased and the punishment ceased because Phinehas son of Eleazar crucified the adulterers? It seems that, crucified the chiefs, as the Lord had commanded, and continuing the wrath of God, should be placated in another way, not being false what the Lord had foretold and promised with these words: Take the leaders of the people and show them to the Lord in front of the sun; and the fierce anger of the Lord will depart from Israel. If the punishment was carried out, who could doubt that the wrath of the Lord departed from Israel? What need was there for Phinehas to take his revenge even in this way on the adulterers and the Scripture gave testimony that he had so appeased the Lord? Unless we understand that God, in ordering that what he had commanded Moses about the leaders of the people be fulfilled, I would also like to punish according to the law such sins and that sacrilegious audacity. And in that way he would have ordered anyone to kill his neighbor unworthily consecrated to the strange gods, and in the meantime Phinehas would have done that, and thus appeased the wrath of the Lord, it would not have been necessary to crucify the heads of the people. This severity, appropriate to those times, shows quite clearly to the faith of the prudent the gravity of the sin of fornication and idolatry.
53 (Nm 27,13-14). The Lord tells Moses that the cause of his death is the same as that of his brother. He had also predicted to both of them that they would not enter the land of promise with the people of God because they had not sanctified him before the people by the water of contradiction, that is, because they had doubted his gift, that water could come out of it. the rock, as we have explained in the corresponding place of Scripture. The mystery of this fact makes us understand that neither the priesthood, instituted before, whose function Aaron performed, nor the law itself, whose figure Moses represented, introduced the people of God into the land of eternal inheritance, but Joshua, who was a type of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, grace by faith (Cf Ef 2,8). Aaron, certainly, died before Israel entered any part of the promised land. As for Moses, while he was still alive, he conquered and dominated the land of the Amorites, but God did not allow him to cross the Jordan with the Israelites. On the one hand, the law is observed in the Christian faith. In effect, there are also the precepts that Christians should keep today. On the other hand, that priesthood and those sacrifices today have no importance for the Christian faith, except that they were made and passed as a shadow of future things. When both brothers, Aaron and Moses, are told to meet their people, it is clear that the wrath of God does not fall upon them, separating them from the peace of eternal holy society. That is why it becomes clear that not only their offices, but even their deaths, were signs of future things, not punishments originated in the indignation of God.
54 (Nm 27,18.19). And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Take to you Joshua the son of Ship, a man who has the spirit in him, and lay your hands on him, and you shall place him before Eleazar the priest and give him orders in the presence of all the assembly ", etc. It is necessary to notice that, in spite of the fact that Joshua Nave already had in himself the spirit, as the Scripture says-for what else can be dealt with except the Holy Spirit ?, because he would not say this if it were the spirit of man, since there is no one who does not have it, Moses was ordered to impose his hands on Joshua, and so no one can dare to reject the mysteries of the consecration, however powerful it may be in any kind of grace.
55 (Nm 27.20). What do the words that God says to Moses mean, when, among other things, he sends the following in relation to Joshua Nave: And will you give him of your glory? The Greek has the expression tes doxes, which is equivalent to the Latin phrase of glory, in Greek: apo tes doxes. Some Latin translators have translated: You will give him your glory, not your glory. But even if it were that your glory had been said, it was not for that reason that Moses was not to have it. Nor has it diminished what I had by the fact that it is said: of your glory. The text must be interpreted like this: You will become a member of your glory. Things of this nature do not diminish, as if they were divided into parts, but belong to each and every one of those who make up society.
56 (Nm 30.3). Whoever makes a vow to the Lord or pronounces an oath, or compromises himself against his soul, will not profane his word. He will fulfill everything that has come out of his mouth. This does not refer to any oath, but to the oath in which one has promised over his soul to deprive himself of something that he could use according to the law, but that the vote makes it not lawful for him to use it.
57 (Nm 30.4-6). If a woman makes a vow to the Lord or commits herself to something in her father's house, in her youth, and her father finds out about her vows and the commitments made against her soul, and her father is silent, and all will be firm. your vows and will remain all the commitments made against your soul. But if his father, on the same day he finds out, of all his vows and of the commitments made against his soul, he disapproves of them, they will not be firm. And the Lord will purify it, because his father has disapproved. As the text speaks of the woman who, because of her youth, is still in her father's house, we can rightly ask ourselves here about the vow of virginity. It is well known that Scripture often calls women to virgins. And it seems that the Apostle also speaks of the father, when he says: Keep your virgin and Case to your virgin (1Co 7,37.38), and other similar expressions. Some understand that in these cases their virgin equals their virginity. But this can not be proved by any similar expression of the Scriptures, as it is very little used. The expression: against his soul is not to be understood in the sense that the person harms his soul with such vows. Against his soul means against his animal delight, as before, when speaking of fasting, he said: And you will afflict your souls (Nm 29,27).
58 (Nm 30.6). In the phrase: And the Lord will purify her, because her father has disapproved, the word purify means "will deliver" from the sin of not fulfilling his vow. It is the same thing that is said in many passages: And the priest will purify him (Lv 13,6), that is, he will declare him pure, he will judge him pure. And the same in that sentence: You will not purify the accused, that is, you will not declare pure to the one who is impure.
59 (Nm 30.7-19). But if she had married, being bound by her vows according to the distinction of her lips, all the things to which she committed herself against her soul, and her husband would know and be silent the same day he found out, and his vows and the commitments made against your soul will remain. But if her husband totally disapprove of it on the day she finds out, none of her vows or commitments against her soul will remain, because her husband disapproves and the Lord will purify her. With regard to the woman who is under the authority of the father, before marrying, and under the authority of the husband, after marriage, the law has not wanted him to make any vow to God against his soul, that is, abstaining from some things licit and permitted, so that the authority of the woman prevails in those vows, but that of the man prevails. And this is so much so that, if the father had already granted her to fulfill her vows when she was still single, if she marries before fulfilling them, and the husband, knowing it, does not agree, the woman has no obligation to fulfill them and remain completely free of sin, because the Lord will purify it, as the text says, that is, declare it pure. And we must not think that this is done against God, since God himself has commanded it and he has wanted it that way.
He continues speaking after the widows or the disowned, that is, women who are not under the authority of the husband or father and says they are free to fulfill their vows with these words: As for the vow of the widow and the repudiated one, everything that has promised with vote against her soul will be firm (Nm 30,10). Then talk about the married woman, if she makes a vow when she is already at her husband's house. He had previously spoken of the woman who had made a vow in her father's house and had married before he had done it. Of the one who made a vow in her husband's house, she says: But if she made a vow in her husband's house or acquired some commitment against her soul with an oath and her husband knows her and keeps quiet and does not disapprove, and all will be firm. his vows and will remain against it all the commitments made against his soul. But if her husband completely annuls them the day he finds out, none of the things that have come from his lips, whether vows or commitments against his soul, will be firm. Her husband has annulled them and the Lord will purify her. Every vow and every oath of bond to afflict the soul shall be established for her by her husband and her husband shall be annulled. But if the husband is totally silent from one day to the next, then he confirms all his vows and confirms the commitments he has, since he kept quiet the day he found out. But if her husband annuls them completely after the day he found out, then he will bear his sin (Nm 30,11-16).
It is evident that the law has wanted the woman to be subject to the power of the husband in such a way that she is not obliged to fulfill any vow she has made for reasons of abstinence, if the husband is responsible for them with his permission.
For if the law has wanted the husband to commit a sin, if he first allows and then forbids these vows, it is not said here that the woman does what she vowed, because before her husband allowed it. The text says that the husband commits a sin because he forbids what he had previously authorized. But the husband did not give permission to the woman precisely so that later she would be despised, if she had been forbidden, when she had allowed it before.
For the rest, it is fair to ask whether these vows are also vows of continence and abstinence from intercourse, lest it be understood that the vows against the soul are only the vows related to food and drink. It seems that that phrase of the Lord also refers to this: Is not the soul worth more than food? (Mt 6,25) And when he sends the fast, he sends it with these words: You will afflict your souls (Nm 29,7). But I do not know if in some other place the affirmation could be found that the vote of abstinence from intercourse was a vow against the soul, especially considering that the law here gives authority to the husband, not to the woman subjected to the husband , so that the vows of the woman have to be fulfilled when the husband approves them, and they should not be fulfilled if he disapproves of them. On the other hand, the Apostle, when speaking of the coitus of married women, does not give more authority to the husband than to the wife, but says: Let the husband give his wife what he owes, and the same to the husband . The woman does not have her body, but the husband; and in the same way, the husband does not have his body either, but the woman (1Co 7,3.4). When it has been wanted that in this matter the power of one and the other is the same, I think that we are implied that the rule of intercourse or non-coitus does not belong to those votes in which the husband and wife do not have the same power , but the husband's power is greater and almost exclusively his. For the law does not say that the husband should not fulfill his vows if the wife forbids him. On the other hand, the woman should not keep them if the husband forbids them. Therefore, it does not seem to me that in the vows, commitments and obligations of this nature that are made against the soul, we must also include these things that the husband and wife wanted to do with each other about sexual intercourse or abstinence.
On the other hand, as also these things are called justifications, and we remember that among those justifications mentioned in the Exodus under this name are many things that could not be taken at face value or kept in the New Testament -like, for example, piercing the ear of the slave (Cf Ex 21,6) and the like-it does not seem absurd to think that here too something has been said in a figurative sense. Because there are many cases in which to renounce ceremonies is irrational and sometimes even contrary to the truth, perhaps we wanted to indicate here that those deprivations have been ratified when they are rational, that is, when the reason has approved, that of husband should govern all animal performance, which takes place not only when something is desired, but when one abstains from something. And so, if the mind and reason determine it, then that thing is done. And if the advice of reason disapproves, it is not done. And if the reason then disapproves of what he had previously decided to do rightly, there is a sin of advice, although this way too, that action is not consistent with reason.
60 (Nm 31.6). What does it mean: And Moses sent them a thousand from one tribe and a thousand from another with their power? Does their power mean "their princes"? Or is it about the power that God gave them or that Moses reached them? Or is it called their power rather that through which the power of them is sustained?
61 (Nm 31.8). We can pay attention to the question of why the Scripture says that when the Israelites defeated the Midianites, Balaam died, who had gone to curse the people of Israel, even though a little earlier, when Balaam was forced to bless, the Scripture ends by describing that action with these words: And Balaam stood up and went back to his place, and Balak returned to himself (Nm 24,25). If Balaam had returned to his place, how did he die here, having come from so far away, nothing less than from Mesopotamia? Did he perhaps return to where Balaq and this did not say the Scripture? Although it could also be understood that he returned to his place, because, from the place where he made the sacrifices, he returned to the place where he had left, that is, where he had his home as a pilgrim. Because the text does not say that he returned "to his home" or "to his homeland", but to his place. Because any pilgrim also has his place in the place where he temporarily lives. Of Balaq, who had invited him, it is not said that he returned to his place, but that he returned to himself, that is, to where he lived as a ruler. It could be said: He returned to his place as ruler and pilgrim. To return to itself, on the other hand, I do not see how it could be equivalent to "pilgrim", having come to his place of lodging.
62 (Nm 31.9). And they carried away the women of Midian captive, and took as a spoil their goods and their cattle, and all that they possessed, and their power. After mentioning the women, the goods, the cattle and everything they had, why is it added next: they took all their power as booty? It is undoubtedly about power, about which it was also said before that they had sent a thousand from each tribe with their power. Or perhaps its power is called the food that sustained them, with which the forces grow and without which they decay? Therefore, when God threatens the people, he says through the prophet: I will take away the power of bread and the power of water (Is 3,1). Therefore, he had also sent those thousands of men with provisions, for the text says: with their power. And the Israelites, after defeating the Midianites, had also seized this sustenance from them, among other things.
63 (Nm 31,15-16). Why have you left all the women alive? They were precisely for the children of Israel, as Balaam had said, which made them turn away and despise the word of the Lord, because of Fogor. The Scripture does not say when Balaam gave them this lousy advice for women to tempt them to fornicate, not only bodily, but also spiritually, by worshiping the idol. However, it appears as really happened, when the Scripture remembers it here. Thus, Balaam himself was able to return, he who had already left his place. Therefore, its place should not be understood as a pilgrim's lodge, although this has not been said in Scripture.
64 (Nm 35.12). What does it mean: These cities will serve as a refuge against the avenger of blood and will not the murderer die until he is before the community to be played? As we speak here of those who have involuntarily committed a homicide, and in another place it is said that those who flee for that reason leave the city to which they fled when the high priest has died, why is it said here: And the murderer will not die until he is before the community to be tried, but because he is judged precisely so that he can then be in the city of refuge, if in the trial he is proven to have committed the murder involuntarily?
65 (Nm 35,19). What it means: The one that comes the blood, that same one will kill the murderer; When it is presented to you, will it kill you? To those who misunderstand this passage it seems to them that usually and without any judgment the avenger of the death of his neighbor was given the license to kill the murderer. But the Scripture wants to affirm that the murderer, according to what has been said above, must flee to one of the cities of refuge until he appears in judgment, so that he does not kill him before the neighbor that finds him. Because, although he committed an involuntary homicide, outside those cities, they will kill him if they find him. But when he has appeared in court in one of those cities and has been condemned as a murderer in one of those to which he may flee, he is not allowed to stay there. Finally, then, once judged, wherever the nearest relative finds you, he can kill you. In this case, it is not necessary to take him to trial, since he has already been convicted as a homicide and, therefore, has been expelled from those cities.
|