Our JESUS [Joshua] the Lord named. “Take,” says [the Lord] to Moses himself, “Joshua the son of Nun, in whom is the spirit: and put thy hand upon him.” In the Hebrew it is said, “Take to thee”; and in the Seventy, “take to thyself” — as though a benefit were bestowed on Moses himself, in that he was made partaker of [his] wish, and a successor was named by the Lord, and [one] very fit. For that dative [“to thee”] sometimes signifies advantage. But because, as was also said above elsewhere, that same dative often produces merely a Hebrew pleonasm, therefore it has now been passed over by our translator. And perhaps it seems to be nothing other than to take [him], to join him to one’s own side, and to lead [him] out. For below (v. 22) it is said that Moses “took him to himself,” or “brought” [him], without that dative. But it is to be considered that the successor is so named, that [the naming] is effected at the same time with a certain eulogy and praise of a sign — and that a twofold [praise]. The prior is drawn from the stock, and from his parent — of which [see] ch. 1 above. For assuredly, as it is said in Horace (Satire 6):
Whoever promises [to guard] the citizens, [and takes] the city [as] his care…
(col. 191)
…[that] there will be empire, and Italy, and the shrines of the gods — by what father he was born, whether base of an unknown mother, [it] compels all mortals to care and to ask. [Horace, Sat. 1.6]
But because, as another [poet] says to Piso:
…[in that man] perishes all the honor of race, whose praise is in its origin alone;
and another [Juvenal, Sat. 8]:
Nobility is the sole, and only, virtue;
therefore Joshua’s latter praise — both the greater, and more to be observed — is [this]: namely, that in him there is “the spirit.” But that this [spirit] is exceedingly manifold, was already made plain above, in question 1 of this same chapter. What, then, is that spirit in Joshua? Certain Greek books (as is gathered from Origen, hom. 21 on Numbers), and most of the Latins, read “the spirit of God.” But since this [phrase] too, as is thence plain, is manifold, what [is] that “spirit of God” in the same Joshua? Some define [it] threefold. First, that it be “a good spirit,” by which the mind of man is made subject to God in all things for His own sake, and is referred to His law. And assuredly he [such a one] is a spirit very consonant to the Lord, and necessary. To some it is “the spirit of fortitude,” by which anyone is rendered — against all dangers and adversities, however great and difficult — brave, constant, [and] unbroken. And ought not a prince, above all, to be such? Thirdly, the Chaldee paraphrast said “the spirit of prophecy,” and this Abulensis greatly approves (last, question 41): “That spirit,” he says, “was exceedingly fitting for the prince of so great a people, and most of all for [one] about to war against so great a multitude of enemies. For in certain [matters] thou wouldst not know the way of acting prosperously, unless God should tell [it] — most of all because the Jews were very scrupulous, and doubted about single [matters], unless they were certified by God; as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 1): namely, ‘the Jews ask for signs, but the Greeks [ask] wisdom.’ And it is true that Joshua had that spirit; for very often God spoke to him after the death of Moses, as is plain in the progress of his book.” And after the two spirits enumerated above, again he [Abulensis] concludes the “prophetic spirit” [to be] more necessary for a prince, to rule so great a multitude. “And this,” he says, “appears in the 70 elders, who were given to Moses as coadjutors. For immediately they began to prophesy, and never ceased, as seems [shown] above, ch. 11.” Masius (in the second preface) seems to say that “spirit” [means] industry of mind, perspicacity, [and] prudence, as [in] Malachi 2, v. 15. Cajetan calls “the spirit” zeal for spiritual things — for those, I say, which are of God, to be preferred to all which are of the flesh and which are of the world. I indeed think that all these spirits were in Joshua; but not that those alone, or any one of them, is definitely signified by that word; but that generally is signified—
(col. 192)
—every spirit which might constitute such a prince and shepherd as Moses had asked: [one] who might go out before the people and go in religiously and wisely, might lead them in and lead them out justly and bravely, with great glory of God, with great advantage of the people, [and] with great fruit and desert of his own [people]. St. Ephrem (book On the Virtues, ch. 2, vol. 2, fol. 42): “JESUS [Joshua] the son of Nun, by his perfect obedience, merited so great a gift, that he became the successor of Moses.” And therefore [he is] a most beautiful type, in that Joshua, of that true Joshua of ours [Christ]: in whom Isaiah (ch. 11) first generally says “the spirit of the Lord rests,” and then distributes this same [spirit] into six special [gifts] — he attributes [to Him] the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of piety. For that which is wont to be added, “the spirit of the fear of the Lord,” is one and the same with the “spirit of piety,” as is shown in that place. These [six], therefore, and very many others delivered elsewhere in Scripture — of all which the multitude and universality is wont to be comprehended in the one septenary number — the Hebrew [text] hands down to have been in Joshua; and [so does] the corrected Latin, when it says universally that “the spirit” was in Joshua. Or, if definitely some one [spirit] ought to be taken, that would be understood [to be] the most excellent of all. For just as, by way of excellence [κατ’ ἐξοχήν], “the Poet” [means] Virgil, “the Orator” Cicero, “the Apostle” St. Paul, so also “the spirit” [means] that [one] which is the most excellent of all. But which [is] that? Long would be the disputation, if a contention were to be instituted of the single spirits and of those divine gifts, and one were to be preferred to another — nay, one set before all. Here let Palaemon, my like, say [with Virgil, Eclogue 3]:
It is not for us to settle so great disputes between you.
And therefore let us take that very true Spirit — and the author and giver of all those gifts — the Holy Spirit; by which Joshua, filled, was at the same time full and stuffed with all these His gifts. O great man, in whose praise even this one [thing] is found: “in whom is the spirit”! If in him [is] the spirit, he is spiritual. If spiritual, not carnal. If not carnal, he does not the works of the flesh, which [are] (Gal. 5, v. 20): “fornication, uncleanness, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like.” If in him is the spirit, he lives by the spirit, is moved, walks, is led — “he judges all things, but himself is judged by no one.” If in him is the spirit, he plucks the most delightful fruits of the same Spirit, which are: “charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, meekness, faith, modesty, continence, chastity.” If in him is the spirit, in him [is] the fount and origin of all graces, the encyclopedia of all divine gifts, the world [mundus] of all the most beautiful virtues, the most certain and most delightful token of the heavenly goods.