Commentaria in Genesim
I answer: Judith here praises not the justice of Simeon but that of God, by which He permitted the impure Sichemites to be slain, using to this end the boldness and strength, even the crime and perfidy of Simeon and Levi. For so God is said to give the sword to the Chanaanites, Turks and other pagans, when He uses their forces and arms to punish the sins of the faithful. So in Isaias chapter 10 it is said: “The rod of my wrath is Assur.” So Attila said that he was the scourge of God. In like manner, therefore, God gave the sword, that is, strength, to Simeon and Levi for the vengeance of the ravishing of Dina, but not to be carried out in such a way and with perfidy: for so they abused it themselves; for although they did it from zeal, as Judith says, yet that zeal was against justice, because against the covenant made; yet all these things God permitted, and ordained to the punishment of the violation by the prince of the Sichemites. He is said, therefore, to have given Simeon the sword of vengeance for two reasons: first, because he gave him courage, strength and arms, which, however, he himself perfidiously abused; second, because He permitted this perfidy and, of set purpose, ordained it to the vengeance of the violation.
Again, by these words Judith intimates that their people favoured their prince in this crime, and helped, fostered and praised him in the ravishing and detention of Dina; and that therefore by the just judgment of God all were involved in this slaughter.
Third, note here the divine vengeance of lust and violation, which Judith rightly applies to herself and her deed, by which she beheaded Holofernes.
Fourth, Judith says that God gave all the spoil of the Sichemites to His servants, namely to Simeon and Levi, because they had a zeal for chastity, in so far, that is, as this zeal was a zeal for chastity, and not in so far as it was indiscreet, unjust, and mixed with perfidy and other crimes. So God built houses for the midwives in Egypt, who by a lie saved the little ones of the Hebrews, not on account of the lie, but for the pious affection and kindness shown to the little ones: for in one and the same work there is often something good, which God rewards, and something evil, which He hates and detests.
All the males. For most of them had applauded their prince the ravisher, and had helped him in the ravishing.
Note that violation and ravishing have almost never been accomplished without great slaughter or war. The destruction of Troy, on account of the ravished Helen, bears witness to this. The slaughter of Amnon, carried out by his brother Absalom on account of the defiled Thamar, bears witness to it. The slaughter of the whole tribe of Benjamin, on account of the corrupted wife of the Levite, Judges chapter 20, bears witness to it. Finally, these our Sichemites bear witness to the same. Wherefore St. Chrysostom, homily 59, wisely warns parents and teachers, and gives them prudent counsel: “Let us restrain,” he says, “the impulses of our boys, and take care of their chastity, etc.; knowing the fire of the furnace, before they are entangled in lust, let us strive to join them in marriage according to the law of God.” And toward the end: “Therefore I pray that a hand be held out to our boys, that we may not also suffer punishment for what they have sinned, as Heli did,” 1 Kings 4.
26. Taking Dina. Rupert, from Philo, relates that Dina afterwards married, and was the wife of Job, of whom Job 1. For Job was born a little after Dina, as will appear in the next chapter, verse 36. But this is little probable; nor is anything of the kind found in Philo or the other ancients.
Tropologically, Philo, On the Migration of Abraham: Dina is the curious soul, which is carried off by brutish nature to sensual things, which are dangerous; whence it is violated and loses the purity of the mind, and becomes carnal and wanton. For Sichem the violator is the son of Hemor, that is, of the ass; but Levi and Simeon, that is, prudence and fortitude of spirit, slay him, and so restore to the soul its integrity.
29. They led the wives captive. Since Jacob, as treacherous and rash, disapproves of this slaughter, verse 30, there is no doubt that he at once ordered all the captives to be sent back, and the plundered goods that remained to be restored.
30. You have troubled me. You have troubled my mind with fear and anguish, because you have made me anxious and afraid: for I greatly fear that the Chanaanites, in vengeance for their Sichemites, will rise against me and you. Second, you have troubled my reputation, because you have stained it by so infamous a slaughter, and because you have made me odious (literally, stinking) to the Chanaanites. Third, you have troubled the quiet of my family, because you have exposed it to the danger of reciprocal slaughter and spoliation, among the neighbouring Palestinians round about.
Note: Perfidy, like perjury, greatly disturbs the life and society of men, and therefore both God and men are wont to pursue and avenge it. Examples. So Sedecias, violating the covenant made with Nabuchodonosor, was taken by him, deprived of his kingdom and blinded. So Saul, afflicting the Gabaonites contrary to the pledge given them, became the cause of a common famine and of the destruction of his own, 2 Kings 21.
Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse, transgressed an oath given to his enemies, and, having slain the captives, said laughing to his friends: “Let us cast up the scruple of the oath”; but he paid dearly for this perfidy.
Tissaphernes, leader of the Persians, violated a treaty made with Agesilaus through fear, and declared war on him; which Agesilaus gladly seized, and said to the envoys that he was greatly obliged to Tissaphernes, because by his perjury he had made both gods and men hostile to himself and propitious to the opposite side, as Plutarch attests in the Laconian Sayings.
Alexander the Great, contrary to the pledge given, attacked on the march certain Indians who were hostile to him: hence a stain clung to him, and a short and sad end, as all know; Plutarch is witness in his Alexander.
The Carthaginian senate not only approved the destruction of Saguntum by Hannibal, contrary to the treaty which Hasdrubal had made with the Romans, but even defended it in the Roman senate-house. But this quibbling and this perfidy were avenged by the destruction of Carthage.
Theodatus, king of the Goths, pressed by war on every side, sent envoys to the Emperor Justinian, seeking peace, and offered him the whole dominion of the Gauls and Italians; but afterwards, encouraged by the death of Mundus, Justinian’s general, he broke faith and took up arms; but in them he fell, and was killed by his own in the third year of his reign. So Procopius and Blondus.
Aistulf, king of the Lombards, because he made war on Pope Gregory III contrary to the faith pledged, the Pontiff had a form of peace hung from the standard of the cross and carried before the army, all invoking God against the perfidious man: whence Aistulf, subdued by Pepin, at last perished miserably.
Charles of Burgundy, bold and unconquered, in Lorraine hanged and killed 250 Swiss who had been deceived by a pledge of faith, and soon killed another 300 at Granson in the year of the Lord 1476; but three days later the Swiss attacked Charles and put him to flight, and finally in the following year utterly cut him down and slew him.
Wherefore Valerius Maximus rightly says, book 9, chapter 6: “Perfidy brings as much harm to the human race as good faith brings of safety. Let it have, then, no less reproach than the other obtains of praise.” He adds an example of Tatius the Sabine: “In the reign of Romulus,” he says, “Sp. Tarpeius was in command of the citadel; his daughter, a virgin, who had gone outside the walls to fetch water for the sacred rites, was corrupted by Tatius, that she might receive the Sabines with him into the citadel, the bargained reward being what they wore on their left arms. Now they had bracelets and rings of great weight of gold. The troop, having gained the place, overwhelmed the girl, who was demanding her reward, with their shields, and killed her, as though they had paid what was promised, since they paid for what she had lightly carried. Let there be no blame; for the impious betrayal was avenged by swift punishment.” And Tacitus, book 1 of the Annals: “Traitors,” he says, “are hateful even to those whom they prefer”: for they love the deed, not the doer. Admirably says Augustus in Plutarch’s Apophthegms: “I love treason, I do not approve of traitors.” More acutely did Philip of Macedon say, in Stobaeus, sermon 52, that “he loved those who would betray, not the betrayers.”