Briefly, and as it were summarily, at v. 9, Joshua did “as the Lord had commanded him: he hamstrung their horses, and burned their chariots with fire.” Then indeed he happily prosecuted so great a victory, as is thereafter explained (v. 10 and following). But to “hamstring [subnervare]” horses is to cut their feet and legs, or — the sinews of the legs being cut, as if the bonds were loosened — to weaken them utterly and render them useless. For of what use [is] a horse whose legs and feet are either gone, or hamstrung? The Hebrew word means, as it were, “to take away the foundation and root,” because the legs of horses are their props and foundations. This the 70 called νευροκοπεῖν [neurokopein, “to cut the sinews”]; Josephus, ἵππους ἀχρήστους ποιεῖν [hippous achrēstous poiein, “to make the horses useless”]; some of the Latins, “to hamstring [suffraginare] horses,” and “to hough [subpernare]”; Masius, “to enervate”; our [Interpreter] here, and [in] 2 Kings [2 Samuel] 8:4, [and] 1 Chron. 18:4, always “subnervare” — as Apuleius too speaks (in the Apology, [bk.] 2). But why did Joshua do this? Because the Lord had commanded [it] (above, v. 6). But why did the Lord command [it]? Because he did not wish the Israelites to use horses. For otherwise the enemies’ flocks, cattle, and beasts of burden [they] could take for spoil — unless it were commanded otherwise by the Lord, or vowed to him by the Israelites — and indeed they did take [them]: as (Num. 31:32), after the victory of the Midianite battle, there was spoil which the army had taken — 67,000 sheep, 72,000 oxen, 61,000 asses. Since, therefore, the Lord commanded the hamstringing and destruction of the horses, he openly signified [that] it pleased him [that] the Israelites should not use them. In Josephus (bk. 12, ch. 3, [in the] Greek), the Jews are forbidden not only to eat the flesh of horses, and of wild and tame asses, but even to bring their skins into Jerusalem, and to rear any of them — which, however, concerning tame asses, is openly false, as Origen too teaches in this place (homily 15). St. Jerome, on that [passage] of Psalm 75[76]: “They have slept, who mounted horses”: “The Egyptians,” he says, “had horses, but they perished. Thence also it is commanded in the law that a Hebrew should not have horses. Finally, Solomon had no horse from Jerusalem or from Judaea, but bought [them] for himself from Egypt.” And on that [passage] of Isaiah 2: “His land is filled with horses, and his chariots [are] innumerable”: “It is not,” he says, “worthy of number [i.e. honorable], which is possessed against the command of God.” And on ch. 36,
(col. 1067)
“In that Rabshakeh, wishing to show the fewness of the besieged, promises two thousand horses, of which Hezekiah could not furnish riders — [this] comes not from the weakness of the Jewish people, who lacked the knowledge of riding, but from the observance of the commandments of God, who, through Moses, had commanded concerning the King of Israel: ‘He shall not multiply horses to himself’ [Deut. 17:16].” St. Basil, on those words of that same Isaiah (ch. 2): “There is no place in scripture,” he says, “where we have not observed the saints to shun the use of horses — nay, even [the use] of those which are drawn up in readiness for war, and [of those used] in the other needs of this life.” Origen, on this passage (homily 15): “The children of Israel are never related to have used horses; and the law commands nothing about horses, but about asses — inasmuch as [they are] animals which seem to exist for helping the labors of men, and for carrying their burdens; but horses [are] rather for the destruction of men, for this is what is waged through them in battles. [The horse] is taken [as] an animal of wanton motion, and of a proud neck.” But in this very opinion about horses, there are some [things] which can be inquired into. And, first indeed, “where in the law was the use of horses forbidden?” For in this place [the horses] are ordered to be hamstrung, and all their use is taken from the Israelites by God’s command. But neither is this [a general law] in the law, nor ought one, from a single deed, in a single matter, once commanded or forbidden, straightway to frame a law. We saw above (ch. 6), concerning the spoils of Jericho, [that] nothing of private property was to be taken by anyone [from them] — [is it] therefore [right that] it is nowhere lawful for any of the Israelites ever to take anything from the spoils of enemies? In the Amalekite war, how great an abstinence from all things — how promiscuous a slaughter of every sex and age — was commanded to King Saul (1 Kings [1 Samuel] 15:3)? Was that held [as] a law in all wars? St. Jerome, therefore, signifies (on the cited Isaiah, ch. 36) [that] horses were forbidden to the Israelites [in] Deut. 17; and Ribera thinks the same (on Hosea, ch. 14, n. 10), and [he] who ascribed the marginal scriptures to St. Jerome on Psalm 75, and — nearly in this place — Masius. But there [Deut. 17] it treats definitely of none but the King. And to him [the King] not simply “the use of horses,” but the “multitude” [of them] is forbidden — so that, according to that law of the King, it would seem [that] the use of horses is not taken from others, whether that they themselves ride, or that they carry any packs and burdens, or, finally, that they sell [them] to others, if indeed [it] pleased [them]. Secondly: “Was the multitude of horses forbidden to others besides Kings?” Because in the law it treats of Kings alone, someone might say [that] the multitude of horses seems to be conceded to others. But it is not. For if that multitude is not conceded [even] to those to whom it would seem most conceded, how much less to others? Thirdly: “Since a moderate use of horses was nowhere forbidden to the Israelites, did they at some time use them?” Before the Mosaic law, the Israelites seem to have had horses (Gen. 47:17). But after the promulgation of the law, before the times of Solomon, I read of no use of horses — neither among private [persons], nor among the nobles or Israelite Kings; but in his [Solomon’s] time the use began (3 Kings [1 Kings] 4:26; ch. 9:22; ch. 10:25 and following; 2 Chron. 1:16 and following). And thereafter it remained, and greatly prevailed (4 Kings [2 Kings] 3:7; ch. 7:13, 14; 1 Esdras [Ezra] 2:66; 2 Esdras [Neh.] 7:68), so that the Prophets reprehended the multitude and pomp [of them] (Isaiah 2 and 31; Jer. 6:23; Hosea 14:4; Amos 2:15; Zach. 10:5; Ps. 19[20]:8; Ps. 75[76]:7). Fourthly: “Did the multiplier of horses [Solomon], that multiplication being permitted, sin?” It is answered [in the commentary on] 3 Kings [1 Kings]. Fifthly: “Did his later imitators sin?” The divine law is not like the human; and therefore it cannot be abrogated or repealed even by the repetition of many — nay, of all — acts, since the right and authority of the supreme lawgiver does not depend on men, however many and united. And therefore, if Solomon sinned, how are these [imitators] excused? Sixthly: Since it was lawful to have a moderate number of horses, both for Kings and for private [persons], “why did the Lord will destruction to be brought upon these, captured from the enemy?” First: lest the divine glory be diminished. For since the horse is a warlike and combative animal — as [in] Job 39 it is graphically depicted, in almost Virgilian colors (Georgics 3 and Aeneid 4) — if the Israelites used it for wars, they would seem to conquer more by their own work than by God’s help. Secondly: lest their hope be fixed rather in the steed than in God (Prov. 21:30): “The horse is prepared for the day of battle; but the Lord gives safety.” Thirdly: lest, if they sold them back to the Canaanites, they should afterward again receive harm from the same. Fourthly: for mystical causes. For, first, the horse is an arrogant and proud animal; and therefore, when Plato had mounted a horse, he immediately dismounted, lest he become ἱππότυφος [hippotyphos, “horse-vain”], says Laertius. Secondly: it is φιλόδοξος [philodoxos, “fond of glory”], and very desirous of empty praise, so that it is wondrously excited even by light chirrupings [poppysmata]: “Keen, and, of himself, about to run for the honors of the palm — yet, if thou urge [him], the horse will go the more strongly.” Thirdly: [it is] fierce and battle-loving. “Fervent,” says Job (ch. 39), “and snorting, he swallows the ground, nor does he reckon that the trumpet sounds its blare. When thou shalt have heard the trumpet” (says the Rabbi), “from afar he smells the battle, the exhortation of the leaders and the shouting of the army.” Fourthly: it is salacious and lustful. Theophylact (on Acts, ch. 10) and Andreas of Caesarea (on Apoc. 14) [call such men] ἱπποθηλυμανεῖς [hippothēlymaneis, “mad after mares”]. And concerning the lustful [man], in the Latin Ecclesiasticus (ch. 23:30): “Like a horse-colt he shall be put to flight.” Fifthly: by some appearance or nobility of its own, it instills in very many too great a love of itself, so that — just as the avaricious [delight] in gold and great treasures — so these madly delight in horses: as [did] that schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, concerning whom [see] Curopalates. The Lord, therefore, wished to call us away from all pride, zeal for empty glory, ferocity, lust, and the insane love of creatures, by that destruction of the horses, as [it were] by a symbol. Lipsius has embraced many praises of the horse (in his 3rd Centuria, epistle 56); but those [things] which pertain here shall be said elsewhere later. See in Origen (homily 15), and in my q. 17 on ch. 6 of Tobit. But if, for these causes, the Israelites ought not to use horses, how [could they] use chariots, which are wont to be drawn by horses — [and those] more numerous and more noble? For the “chariots” which the Lord commanded to be burned (v. 6), and Joshua burned (v. 9), are not any chariots whatever — as wagons [plaustra], coaches [carrucae], [and] the like — but “armed” ones, and heavy with armed men, scythe-bearing, terrible — concerning which I speak in [my commentary on] Judges, ch. 1.