Two [things are] here to be explained: 1. what that glory of Moses is; 2. how it ought to be given from it to Joshua. As to the first, [there is] a fourfold opinion. For to some, “give of thy glory,” or “give of thy praise,” is the same as “praise [him]; commend him with thy own words” — which they narrate Moses to have done, as above (q. 15) [was] noted, [and] the Septuagint. But this would be a wondrous mode of speaking, neither approved by any Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin explainer. And when, in 1 Paralip., last, the Lord says He will give glory to Solomon, does He say that He will praise him? To some, it seems [that] “the glory of the body” is to be taken, which was in Moses — namely, that admirable splendor which rendered him, as it were, “horned” [cornutum], as I expounded in Exodus. To others, “the glory of the soul” pleases — [namely] virtue exceedingly, and the charism of prophesying and of ruling well; and hither can pertain that “descent and casting-down” of Oleaster, of which the previous question. A fourth [group] prefer [it] to be “the glory of power,” and of a certain, as it were, exterior honor and majesty — modest, however, and such as would by no means misbecome a most modest Prince: and to him [Joshua]—
(col. 201)
—and to it, [as] necessary, he [Joshua] might obey and defend [that authority]. Therefore Cajetan interprets “glory” [as] “insignia of glory.” To the first [opinions] I cannot assent, on account of those reasons which I said before. But the second I do not follow: 1. because nothing of this kind was ever brought forth concerning Joshua; 2. because that which brought splendor to Moses’s face — its cause was lacking to Joshua, namely the bringing of the tables in which the laws were contained (of which 2 Corinthians 3, [where] the Apostle [speaks]), and the repeated, most familiar and longest colloquy of 40 days with God; 3. because it is doubtful whether Moses retained that brightness up to this time, or whether it had long since ceased. Finally, how could he bestow that brightness on Joshua? For he would have had to put into his very face and body a certain fixed and constant quality. And by this same last argument I judge that Abulensis’s second opinion also is shaken. For who of men could effect in a soul the habit or the action of anyone’s virtue and grace? And on that account the Lord would not have said, “thou shalt give of thy glory,” but “I will give” — as also above (Num. 11) the same Lord, when He willed to give the spirit to the 70 elect, spoke. But two [things] could be answered: first, that God willed to use Moses for effecting those virtues and charisms, as [His] instrument — just as, for example’s sake, today He uses the baptizer, or some other minister of a Sacrament, for the effecting of grace in the souls of men. Secondly, that those virtues were to be given by Moses not by effecting, but by proposing and teaching — in which manner the Master excites knowledge in [his] disciples, and gives them all duty and integrity of life. For if the disciples are truly said to receive these from [their] teachers, [then] the teachers necessarily give them. And in this manner Oleaster understood his “descent and casting-down,” [as] to be given by Moses. For where he applies this chapter 27 to the instructing of morals: “Does it not seem to thee,” he says, “that the Lord said to Moses: ‘Tell Joshua that he learn from thee, because thou art meek and humble of heart’?” To me indeed this mode of giving smiles [pleases me] much more than that former one with its effecting — inasmuch as [that former], which is above the order of nature, is not to be posited unless some certain reason urge [it]; but this [giving] through doctrine and exhortation [is] most usual. Yet one [thing] strongly opposes it: that it would be the same [thing], “Moses to command Joshua,” and “to give of his own glory.” Which if it be conceded, that quaternary of Moses’s actions (of which q. 9) will indeed have to be diminished. But it is easily disposed of — [this] knot which was proposed in the previous little question: “Why,” I said, “was that donation of glory not written down again with the rest of Moses’s actions?” For it was in no way necessary, because this same [thing] would be one [and the same] action with the precept. Yet because, after it had been mandated to Moses by the Lord that he should give precepts to Joshua, [the command] is so distinctly subjoined that he should give the same [Joshua] “of his own glory” [as well] — let us indeed allow the actions to be distinct, and embrace the fourth mode of glory, which also pleased Abulensis. For that Moses had also several ministers, was said (ch. 4, quest. 1); and Scripture also calls that kind of exterior service and authority “glory,” as Genesis 45, v. 13: “Tell my father [of] all my glory, and all [the things] which you have seen in Egypt.” And this too signifies [that clause] which is subjoined [as] the cause of this giving: “that all the synagogue of Israel may hear him.” As to the second [point], it is to be known thus about the glory of Joshua—
(col. 202)
—that Moses gave [it] to Joshua in such a way that he himself neither lost anything at all, nor did this [Joshua] receive even a very little something. As, in bk. 1, St. Augustine notes: “For so,” he says, “it is to be taken, as if he said, ‘Thou shalt make him a partner of thy glory.’ But things of this kind are not, as it were, particularly divided [and thereby] diminished, but are whole to all, [and] whole to individuals — [those things] which have a fellowship of them” — as [is the case] concerning the communication of the spirit in Moses and the Seventy (of which before, ch. 7), [and] concerning teachers and disciples, [as Philo] rightly notes in the book On the Giants. And therefore the prince, as long as he should live, remained with dignity and with the fullest service — [namely] Moses; but a co-sharer of his dignity and service was Joshua: or [rather], “he received a part,” that is, was made a partaker — so that now, not as a minister (as of old), but as next in dignity, [as] the other prince, the new Moses, he should always either stand by Moses or sit beside [him]; [that] he should now give many responses, [and] command many [things] to many with authority — [with] only the one authority of the principate being always reserved to Moses himself. And so, in our text, “a part of glory [is] given” is to be taken; and it is to be thought that therefore, with the rest which Moses had done, [this action] recorded was not [placed] under the end of the chapter, because that communication of glory with Joshua was always being made, as long as [Moses] was among the living — and on that day of inauguration indeed [it] was begun, but begun only, and continued through the days that followed, perfected up to Moses’s death. And in this place [there is] indeed a type of that which [is] in John 12, v. 28: “Father,” said our JESUS, “glorify thy name.” There came therefore a voice from heaven: “I have both glorified [it], and will again glorify [it].” Rightly indeed the above-cited Oleaster: “Let princes learn,” he says, “from this place, when they institute ministers and officials for themselves, to hand over [something] of their own glory before all [men]; to honor [them] supremely, that the subjects, seeing how much the superior makes of him, may reverence him, obey him, and honor him. For when the Father had sent CHRIST, the heavenly Teacher, into the world, hear how He commends Him: ‘This,’ He says, ‘is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.’ So also CHRIST Himself, when He had sent the Apostles to preach, said: ‘I give you power to tread upon serpents.’”