“Emulation” — or, [to use] for it the word of our Interpreter, in Greek ζῆλος [zēlos] — is shown in the Scriptures to be twofold: good and faulty. Good: Ps. 67 [68]; John 2:17; [1 Cor.] 2:31 [?], ch. 14:1, 12, 39; 2 Cor. 7:11, ch. 9:2, ch. 11:2; Gal. 4:8; Titus 2:14. Faulty: Ps. 36 [37] and 72 [73]; Acts 5:17, ch. 7:9, ch. 13:45, ch. 17:5, ch. 21:20, ch. 22:3; Rom. ch. 10:2, ch. 13:13; 1 Cor. 3:3, ch. 13:4; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 1:14, ch. 4:17, ch. 5:20; Phil. 3:6; James 3:14, ch. 4:12. But whether the zeal be good or faulty, by that name there is always signified a certain force and greatness of the soul’s heat. Whence here too the verb “to emulate” is in the vehement [intensive] conjugation of the Hebrews. There are, then, [those] to whom this emulation of Joshua’s seems faulty and joined with sin — as Abulensis (q. 67) will have it to have been envy; yet not joined with great sin (q. 68). To be noted: 1. that both envy, and zeal and emulation, arise from a good — either [a good] which is in someone in whom it is judged it ought not to be, or [a good] which is not in someone in whom it is judged it ought to be. 2. That good is either “truly good” — as God’s sanctifying grace, and every virtue — or “indifferent” [adiaphorum] — as the goods of fortune, of the body, and certain [goods] of the mind, such as knowledge, and those divine charisms which can be even in sinners, as the gift of miracles, of prophecy, and the like. 3. That judgment — why in this or that [person] this or that good ought or ought not to be — can arise from various causes. (1) namely from this, that [a person] is worthy or unworthy of that good. And this, both by Aristotle (Rhetoric 2) and by St. Thomas (2a2ae, q. 36), is properly “Nemesis.” (2) That we lack that good, and this by the same [authorities] is properly called “zeal.” (3) That from another’s good there seems likely to come good or ill, either to us or to others — for instance, to the Church, the city, or to those rightly joined to us in any way — and by the same [authorities] this is called “fear.” (4) That another, who ought to seem our equal or even inferior, should by that good surpass us: from—
(col. 143)
…and by the same authors [“envy”] is properly established. All that kind of motions — whether good or bad — I now recall to the more vehement straining and impulse toward zeal or emulation, together with Scripture; and about Joshua’s zeal itself I thus determine: “that it was not a sin, if it be looked at precisely in itself; but that by some circumstance perhaps it was a sin — yet nonetheless not a great one.” The former part is proved. The good that ought to be present in Eldad and Medad was in itself indifferent [adiaphoron]; nor did he grieve precisely that it was present in them. For who, without any conjecture, would blurt that out about him — since not even the least fault is to be suspected in anyone without reason? But only [he grieved] that from it some harm might be created for Moses, as was set forth in q. 4. But this had nothing of vice. For look at the several members of that expanded cause. Is it faulty to take it with an unfair mind, if inferiors do not obey superiors? if their authority is called into peril? if, with reason, these [superiors] are charged with vanity in speaking, or imprudence in commanding, or levity in promising? What sin, moreover, is it, if there was fear that the eminence of glory — which was required in so great a governor and prince of so great a people, and had hitherto been procured by God in so many ways — should grow cheap and become common? What fault [is it], if one bears it hard that [others] do not preserve the mode and order which God had prescribed in the bestowing of His gifts? that those whom He had bidden be ministers of His grace are forsaken? that His charisms are sought by another way and through others? Then, Moses’s words contain no rebuke or reprehension by which Joshua is censured, but only the richness and abundance of Moses’s own modesty. For he thinks himself unworthy to be held more excellent than the rest; and therefore, if any be made equal to him, he neither bears it [ill] himself, nor wishes others to bear it grievously — nay rather he wishes all made equal to himself. And it not rarely happens that two conduct themselves well about the same matter: the one by asserting the other’s right, the other by yielding his own right. Nay indeed, even apart from that “chastisement” of Joshua, in these same words one might behold Moses’s most modest soul in another way. For since in Greek it is “art thou not zealous for me?” this sense could be taken in them: “What doest thou, my Joshua? Why wilt thou have these forbidden to prophesy? Dost thou not love me? Dost thou not rejoice that I, while very many are moved and stirred by the Spirit of God, am in some measure lightened of the most burdensome load of governing? For the more wise men there are in the people, the easier will governing be. The more sailors help [the master] in a ship, the lighter will it be for him to sit at the helm. Would that all in the people were prudent and wise! Would that all prophesied and were breathed upon and stirred by the Spirit of God! Then indeed the burden of command, which is now most heavy, would be to me most light. If then thou love me (as thou truly lovest me), wish not that not-very-many be divinely moved: let these two — and, if God willed, more than they, and so the whole multitude — prophesy. For this, otherwise than perhaps thou reckonest, is to me both most useful and most delightful.” Whichever way we take these words — whether for a zeal that is a grief, an emulation, and a certain ardor of anger, or for a zeal that is love, nay the very heat and flame of love — with the highest praise of modesty and lowliness always—
(col. 144)
—Moses is adorned, and Joshua is cleared of all fault and offense; which St. Cyril, to be cited not long hereafter, also sufficiently indicates. I add that it is given not to vice but rather to praise, when, concerning the honor of masters, parents, teachers, [and] superiors, the servants, disciples, [and] inferiors labor even a little more zealously and keenly than those [superiors] themselves. For a greater care, and one somehow less perilous, lies upon them. Gladly here would I ask — concerning the disciples of Christ the Lord, when they saw [someone] casting out demons and forbade him to do that very thing (Luke 9:49) — what Joshua’s accusers would think. But of this in the next question. — I gird myself to prove the other part of the opinion, in which I said, first, that Joshua “sinned by some circumstance perhaps,” [and] then, that “the sin, however, was small.” The former is proved: 1. because perhaps he had, about Eldad and Medad, a suspicion of some blemish. For they seem to have not come when summoned out of a certain modesty of soul — because they shrank from the honor, because they judged themselves unequal to so great a burden, because they thought others worthier than themselves; not because they spurned Moses’s command or authority, judgment, or promise. St. Jerome (mansio 13): “Not neglectful of the command, but submissive through humility, while they deem themselves unworthy of the honor.” And St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 16) says they were absent “to show forth the grace and power of the Holy Spirit,” as his words, cited below (q. 10), will show. Then, even if these two — or even many more — prophesied, still Moses’s preeminence, by reason of his many other and greatest virtues and divine attestations, remained safe and whole. Third: he judged them to be prophesying either feignedly and in pretense, or truly. If feignedly — he was too suspicious toward such great men, approved a little before by Moses’s own judgment and chosen for this office. If truly — he ought to acknowledge the divine gift, and not wish to withstand it. Yet that this fault, whatever it is, was light, is understood from this: 1. that this whole utterance of Joshua’s proceeded from a good soul and a great love toward God’s servant Moses and toward God Himself — but with a certain small ignorance of those men’s mind, and an inconsideration of the divine munificence. 2. because that motion, like a spark, suddenly both flashed out and vanished. The boy had said that Eldad and Medad were prophesying in the camp; and at once he said, “My lord, forbid them.” Moses said [a word] lest he be swept away by so great a zeal of his; and at once, not so much as a [further] word. And therefore those words of Calvin are immoderate — “that Joshua’s jealousy was foolish and preposterous, and that he followed Moses with an excessive study and love.”