Question IX. Whether the land ought to have been divided into twelve portions, and why?

Abulensis (following ch. 14, q. 4) says this was not necessary. And indeed it was not — if there had not been twelve sons of Jacob, or if some had been disinherited for a just cause and none adopted, or if, finally, more than two had been adopted. But since the sons of Jacob himself were twelve, and only one, Levi, disinherited, and two adopted, it was necessary for the land to be divided into twelve portions. But if it be asked why the Lord willed Jacob himself [to have] twelve sons, to me indeed no cause is discerned besides the mystical: that by those twelve the [twelve] Patriarchs of the Israelite people might be signified, [and] the twelve first Fathers and Masters of the Christian Church — namely, the twelve Apostles. And hence another reason of the duodenary section is drawn: that, namely, it might be premonstrated [that] the globe of the lands [was] to be traversed by twelve, as it were, parts, by the twelve Apostles, and to be imbued and illustrated with the true knowledge of God — [this] division. For, explaining that [passage] which is read in Isaiah ch. 61 among the 70 — “Secondly they shall possess the land” — B. Cyril says: “Once,” he says, “Jesus [son of] Nave divided among the Israelites the regions of the nations of the Amorrhites and Idumaeans; but after CHRIST came — of whom that [Jesus] was the type — he divided not only Judaea, but the whole earth, among his ministers; which was the second division after that [former one]. For those very divine Mystagogues — that is, dispensers of the mysteries, and Doctors — distributed among themselves the regions and cities by the divine suffrage.” Thirdly, moreover, some bring forward a reason of this same duodenary partition from the nations which, before the Israelites came out of Egypt, were occupying that land, in number. For they gather [that] these were twelve, from Gen. 10, vv. 15, 16, 17, where twelve authors of peoples in that land are indicated — if Canaan their father too be numbered with [his] eleven sons, and the Transjordanian [nation] be reckoned in:

This reasoning, moreover, is confirmed from Deut. 32, v. 8: “When the Most High was dividing the nations, when he was separating the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.” The Seventy indeed read “κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ [kat’ arithmon angelōn theou],” “according to the number of the angels of God”; and with these [agree] nearly [all] the Greek Fathers — Dionysius the Areopagite (Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 9), Origen (bks. 4 & 5 Against Celsus, [and] homilies 11 & 28 on Numbers), St. Epiphanius (heresy 51), St. Chrysostom (homily 3 on Colossians), St. Justin (with Trypho), the Author of the Imperfect Work on Matthew, Euthymius, Pantaleon On St. Michael, [and] some Latins too, as St. Jerome (bk. 2 on Micah, & on Ephesians), St. Gregory (homily 34), Rufinus (in the exposition of the Creed), [and] Novatian (bk. On the Trinity, which is falsely ascribed to Tertullian). But with our text agree the Hebrew, the Chaldee, and the Greek of Aquila and Symmachus; and Origen (cited hom. 28 on Numbers) and Justin (in the cited place) make mention of it. And indeed [that] opinion is much clearer and more ready; and it can agree with the 70, if we say [that] those called by them “Angels of God” are “sons of Israel.” And why should it not be permitted to say [so], since pious and holy men are called “sons of God” (Gen. 6), and the very “Angels of God” [are called] “pious” too (Job 2 & 4)?

(col. 1113)

…[Job 2 &] 4, [Psalm] 38, [and] Psalm 88 — shall we look [at them]? And if we take these words of truly and properly-called Angelic minds, do not too many and discrepant expositions arise? For some take [it] of the good Angels only, others of the evil (as the author of the Imperfect Work); and [of] those who [take it] of the good, some [take it] of all (as the ordinary Gloss, from St. Gregory), others [take] only some — namely, the presidents of regions and nations (as the Areopagite, [and] Euthymius). There is, therefore, in this third reasoning something of probability — which, in a matter of this kind, is to be esteemed enough. Otherwise one cannot conquer a resisting adversary. First: because, as I said, the reading and understanding concerning “Angels” and “sons of Israel” is various. Secondly: because there are not lacking [those] too who think [that] the division of the nations, as to languages and idioms, is treated of in those [words]. Thirdly: [those] who understand [it] of the division of lands and of the sons of Israel expound that [phrase], “according to the number of the children of Israel,” again variously. For some simply consider the proportion of the magnitude of this land, and of the multitude of men, which would suffice for taking and enriching the number of the Israelites — [namely] that as many and as great nations were in that land as would be enough for the Israelites, to be afterward received and most benignly kept, whether those [nations] were two, or three, or four, or of any other number — as Aben Ezra interprets concerning the seven peoples (Exod. 3; Deut. 7, v. 1); [and] others can equally explain [it] of the ten (Gen. 15). Fourthly: [those] who gather [that] twelve nations (Gen. 10) correspond, as [it were], to the sons of Israel, seem to join the father with his sons not very aptly — for thus one would have to number Jacob too with his own children; and then not twelve, but thirteen, nations would have to make up the number of the children of Israel. Fifthly: finally, [it would] not so [much] seem [that] the whole “as” [unit] of this land [was] divided into twelve ounces because those twelve nations had been, as [rather] because the sons of Israel had been twelve — for whose number that definite number of twelve nations, placed in that land, had once been [set]. And so this third [reasoning] would revolve back to the first; yet it can be severed [from it], because that land can be said [to be] so divided, that [that] which once — when the Lord was distributing the globe of lands among the nations — had been established by him and, as it were, adumbrated, should now in fact be explored and made manifest. But these [things are] enough. [Let us pass] to the efficient cause thereof.