Of the seven days on which the Israelites circled Jericho, there is, as to the first, a twofold opinion. One, of Josephus (book 5, ch. 1): that it was the paschal [day], or the first [day] of the feast of unleavened bread — which, as was expounded above (ch. 5, q. 28, ch. 31), was the 15th day of the month Nisan itself. The other, of the Hebrew Chronicles which are called Seder Olam Rabbah (ch. 11): that it was the day after the last day of unleavened bread, the 22nd day of the same month. But as to the last of those same seven days, there is one concordant opinion of all the Rabbis: that it was the Sabbath, as R. Joses and Radak assert on this passage, the Seder Olam in the cited chapter, and the Jerusalem Talmud in the tractate On the Sabbath, ch. 1. And it is certain that, however and from wherever we reckon these seven days, one of them was a Sabbath. For if we wish the first day to have been, say, the Lord’s Day [Sunday], the seventh was the Sabbath; if the first day [was]…
(col. 781)
…[if the first day was that] of the Moon [Monday], the sixth was the Sabbath, and so on. But as to the first day, the latter opinion [the 22nd of Nisan] seems the more to be embraced — not only because it is [the opinion] of many Rabbis against Josephus alone, but also because it is more consonant with reason. For since the Hebrews had recovered from the circumcision they had undergone, they had business enough on the 15th day of Nisan to carry out their Passover, and on the following day likewise to gather the manna [the omer] and offer the sheaf. How, then, could they on those days have gone in the morning to Jericho, and circled it with the ark? Then, this first Passover celebrated after a long interval, these first days of unleavened bread, this first festival of the Lord in the land of promise, seems to have demanded a religious ceremony and rest, and a remaining, each in his own tabernacle, by no means occupied [with other business] — so that all might the better recall God’s benefits and mighty works, and the parents themselves might the more aptly teach these same [things] to their children; especially since the new occupation of the new business — however pious and divine — would [otherwise] have called away [their] minds from the consideration of the Lord’s ancient works, and would have drawn to itself alone the minds and tongues of all. For what, during those amburbal days [of solemn circling], could the Israelites either say or think, other than what this new manner of fighting meant for them? to what end so many periods [circuits], prescribed in such a manner and reason, were going to come out? When, therefore, the seven days of unleavened bread had been completed, it is nearer the truth that these periods were [only then] begun.
But as to the last day of those same periods, whether it was a Sabbath, Abulensis (ch. 7, q. 65) says [is] uncertain, and calls [it] a divination [guess]. But I have no cause to wish to dissent from all [the Rabbis]. For the rest, from that so great consensus of the Rabbis concerning the Sabbath, [some things are] to be learned. First, generally: Radak rightly writes, in this passage, “He who commanded the Sabbath, also commanded that they should profane it.” Secondly, specifically, [there are] several [things]. First: on a Sabbath it is permitted to walk over some space of ground. For from the camp, which was 10 stadia distant from Jericho (as was shown, ch. 4, q. 4), they came up to the city; and, besides, they surrounded the city in a circle. And the larger the city was, and the farther they [kept] from it, beyond a dart’s throw, the larger were the circles. Then they returned into the camp by the same length of journey. Secondly: it is likewise permitted, on a Sabbath, to perform, for the honor of God, certain ceremonies, even laborious and toilsome ones. For these seven circuits — besides the others of the previous days, and the daily going-out from the camp — had something of work and labor. Thirdly: it is permitted, on a Sabbath, to wage war with enemies, to invade, ravage, and slaughter them. For all these [things] were done here. Whence, in the book against the Jews, ch. 4, Tertullian [says]: “The Jews will say that, from [the time] this precept (concerning the Sabbath) was given through Moses, it was thenceforth to be observed. It is manifest, therefore, that the precept was not eternal nor spiritual, but temporal, and [was] such as would at some time cease — since, finally, so [far is it] that this solemnity [was] to be celebrated in the rest of the Sabbath, that is, of the seventh day, [that rather] Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun, in his time, when he was subduing the city of Jericho, said that a precept [was given] to him by God, that he should command the people that the priests should carry around the ark of the testament of God for seven days in the circuit of the city; and that thus, when the circuit of the seventh day was completed, the walls of the city should fall of their own accord. Which was so done, and, the space of the seventh day being finished, as had been foretold, the walls of the city fell. From which it is manifestly shown that in the number of those seven days there fell the Sabbath day. For seven days, from wherever they take [their] beginning, necessarily include the Sabbath day with them — on which day not only did the priests labor, but the city was made a spoil, by the edge of the sword, by all the people of Israel. Nor is there doubt that they did servile work, since they carried off the spoils of war by God’s precept. For also in the times of the Maccabees they did valiantly by fighting on the Sabbaths, and stormed the foreign [Philistine] enemies, and, by fighting on Sabbaths, recalled the ancestral law to its former state of life. Nor would I think they defended any other law than that in which they remembered [it] to have been prescribed concerning the Sabbath day. Whence it is manifest that [the law] had force for a time and for the necessity of the present cause, [and] that God had not given a law of this kind to them for the observance of perpetual time.” But when the impious Marcion objected that the God of the Old Testament had contradicted himself, in that he had introduced a cessation from all works on the Sabbaths, and yet the same [God], in this passage, had commanded the carrying-around of the ark, [Tertullian] answers him (book 2 against him, ch. 21): “So also, among the rest, you reproach him with contrarieties of precepts, as [being] fickle and unstable — [the God] who forbids [them] to work on Sabbaths, and [yet] commands the ark to be carried around for eight days [across a week], that is, on the Sabbath too, in the storming of the city of Jericho. For you do not look into the Sabbaths’ law, [which] forbids human, not divine, works. Since he says: ‘Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy works; but the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt not do in it any work’ — which of course [is] thine own. For it follows that he should take away, on the Sabbath, those works which, over the six days, he had above enjoined — namely, thine own, that is, human and daily works. But to carry around the ark can be seen neither as a daily work, nor a human one, but both a rare and sacrosanct [one], and — from that precept of God then [given] — certainly a divine one. And what this signified, I would explain, were it not long to unfold the figures of all the arguments of an orator — which perhaps you do not even admit. But it is more, if you are refuted from things plain, by the simplicity of truth, not [by] curiosity: as also now there is a certain distinction, of the Sabbath forbidding human, not divine works. And therefore he who had gone to gather wood on the Sabbaths was put to death. For he had done his own work, forbidden by the law. But those who had carried the ark around on the Sabbaths did [it] with impunity — for they had administered not their own work, but God’s, namely by his own precept.” And when the same heretic, with the same audacity of impiety, charged CHRIST the Lord with having violated the Sabbath against the precepts of the God of the Old Testament, the same Tertullian meets [him] excellently (book 4, ch. 12): “If CHRIST set aside the Sabbath, he did [so] according to the example of the Creator. Since, in the siege of the city of Jericho, the ark of the testament, carried around the walls for seven days — on the Sabbath too — by the Creator’s precept, ‘destroyed’ the Sabbath by [that] operation — as those think who so judge of Christ too, ignorant that neither did Christ destroy the Sabbath, nor the Creator, as we shall soon teach. And yet through Jesus [Joshua] the Sabbath was then too shaken, so that from this [the charge might be] proclaimed against Christ — [namely] that, even if he pursued the most solemn day of the Jews with hatred, [it was] as Christ [belonging] not to the Jews. Having professed the Creator’s hatred also of the Sabbath — as Christ, being his, followed him — crying out through the mouth of Isaiah: ‘Your new moons and sabbaths my soul hates’ [Isa. 1:13–14].” Again afterward: “Even if [Christ] had destroyed [the Sabbath], [he did so] deservedly, because he [is] rather that Lord who instituted [it]; but he did not destroy [it] altogether, inasmuch as [he is] Lord — so that from this it can now appear that not even then, in the carrying-around of the ark at Jericho, was the Sabbath destroyed by the Creator. For that too was a work of God, which he himself had commanded, and which he had arranged for the sake of the souls of his men, set in the crisis of war.” St. Epiphanius, heresy 66, against the Manichaeans: “When,” he says, “not for the sake of good…”
(col. 783)
…”[When, he says, not] for the sake of a good [cause], was the Sabbath loosed? But when [was it] not bound (or forbidden), by [the standard of] malice — not only the Sabbath, but every day? For Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun, the successor of Moses — who is numbered among the Prophets, who was chosen by God, who by [his] prayer held back the Sun and the Moon, when he said, ‘Let the Sun stand near Gibeon, and the Moon near the valley of Aijalon’ [Josh. 10:12] — is at once found to loose the Sabbath, on account of a good action. For for seven days JESUS [Joshua] himself goes around the walls of Jericho; and it was not permitted to go, on Sabbaths, beyond the defined measure of six stadia. But the measure of the circuit of Jericho exceeds 20 stadia. And since for seven days they surrounded the city, the Sabbath altogether fell on one of these days. But this was God’s precept, that he might show the will of his production of miracles. For there were no frauds, nor engines, no rams, no military instruments for laying cities waste — but one voice of the horned trumpet, and the prayer of the just man; and they prostrated the collapsed walls of the adversaries. For it behooved them to be punished, since the sins of the Amorites had been filled up. For the law was a judge against injustice, and rendered to each according to his works; and since the Amorites were established in sins, in transgression, and [in that] they had denied the oath which they had sworn.” And not long after: “In the times of Nahshon, the prince of Judah, and in the times of Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun, the sons of Shem received their own land, no injury being [done] in the midst, but by a just judgment. The walls of Jericho, therefore, fell of their own accord. For justice avenges injustice. For seven days they surrounded the walls, and the Sabbath was loosed, that justice might be fulfilled.” But, if it please [you], see what I have noted [in] book 1 of Maccabees, ch. 2, fol. 631, and following. Fourthly: that the same is permitted on other feasts can be gathered even from Josephus’s opinion. For if the first [day] of unleavened bread was also the first of the circuits, the last of unleavened bread would also have to have been the last of the circuits. But these were feast-days, as was shown, ch. 5, q. 31, Num. 4. Fifthly: the same, if we consider [it], it will be permitted to say of the seventh day of this month Nisan. For since on it Joshua ordered the provisions to be prepared, who would doubt that all [the circuits] began on that day? [see] above, ch. 2, q. 5, and below, this ch., q. 31.