Commentaria in II Machabaeorum
AND THEY LIVED IN COMMON,—namely Judas and Nicanor were familiar with each other. Serarius otherwise renders the Greek: He led a common life, or lived in common, namely Judas, as if to say, Judas had nothing of his own; but like an Assidean or Essene he lived in common with his companions, as religious now live.
26. BUT ALCIMUS, etc., as if to say, (Alcimus, the rival of Judas, accused Nicanor before King Demetrius of having made a covenant with his enemy Judas, and that he) HAD DESTINED JUDAS, THE TRAITOR TO THE REALM, FOR HIS SUCCESSOR (in Greek diadochon, that is, deputy) (who should command the camp in his place). Whence Demetrius, angered, ordered Nicanor to take Judas and send him to him a prisoner; for Judas was plotting against his kingdom.
30. HE (Judas) BRAVELY (in Greek nobly) PREVENTED BY THE MAN.—For it is the mark of a noble man prudently to foresee future snares and dangers, and guard against them, and place himself and his in safety, as Judas did here.
37. NOW THERE WAS ACCUSED TO NICANOR ONE RAZIAS, A SENATOR (that is, one of the Senators and chief men of Jerusalem), WHO FOR HIS AFFECTION (for love of his fellow citizens and country) WAS CALLED THE FATHER OF THE JEWS:
38. FOR A LONG TIME HE HAD HELD FAST HIS PURPOSE OF KEEPING HIMSELF PURE—whether from a wife, that is of chastity or celibacy: so some. Or rather of continence, namely in the true faith and worship of God, as if to say, Razias always, even in persecution, kept himself in Judaism and the ancestral religion, and did not mingle with the many who under Epiphanes apostatized from it to Gentilism: for this the Greek signifies, “of non-mixture”; and this “purpose of continence in the Jews’ religion” marks, namely constant perseverance in Judaism to death; whence, explaining this very thing, he adds: READY TO EXPOSE HIS BODY AND LIFE, THAT HE MIGHT PERSEVERE in the strict religion of the Jews. Gorionides adds that Razias was by profession an Assidean.
40. FOR HE THOUGHT, IF HE DECEIVED HIM.—Salian thinks we should read “took”; for the Greek is “if he seized him.”
42. CHOOSING NOBLY (in Greek, nobly) TO DIE RATHER THAN TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE WICKED, AND TO SUFFER ABUSES UNBECOMING HIS NOBLE BIRTH (Razias was therefore born of noble parents).—The Greek: And to be treated unworthily with insults against his own nobility. This was the mind of Razias, as of other nobles of this age, who think it noble to die rather than suffer unworthy mockery. But the mind of the faithful and Christians, especially of the Apostles and martyrs, is different, of whom it is therefore said in Acts v: “And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus.”
44. HE FELL UPON THE MIDDLE OF THE NECK.—The Greek: upon the middle of the belly, as if to say, he fell to the ground not head foremost, but on his belly, so that he dashed the middle of his neck against the ground. Razias therefore despatched himself with a threefold death: first, he stabbed himself with the sword; second, he threw himself from the wall; third, with both hands he cast his bowels among the crowd.
You will ask whether Razias sinned by killing himself. I lay down as a thesis, from the common opinion of St. Augustine, Lactantius, St. Thomas and the other Doctors of the Church, that it is not lawful for a man to kill himself to avoid infamy, violation of chastity, danger of sinning, or any other cause. The reason a priori is that God alone is lord of our life, who as he gave it, so he takes it back and receives it when he pleases. Wherefore he who kills himself does an injury to God, because he snatches from God a thing proper to God, namely his own life. See St. Augustine, Book I of the City of God. So much for the thesis; now let us come down to the hypothesis, and inquire whether Razias here and now sinned by killing himself, or not.
First, St. Augustine, Book II Against the epistle of Gaudentius, chapter xxiii, rather inclines to judge that he sinned, especially on account of the Circumcellions, who imitating the example of Razias killed themselves, as if this were honourable, nay a kind of martyrdom. Wherefore Razias is indeed here praised for probity, continence, authority and love of country, but not for killing himself: “Not being able,” he says, “to bear humiliation at the hands of enemies, he gave an example not plainly of wisdom but of folly, to be imitated not by the martyrs of Christ, but by the Circumcellions of Donatus.” And below: “Whence impatience of humiliation crept upon him as a man, so that he wished to die rather than be subjected to enemies. It is said that he chose to die nobly; he would better have wished to die humbly, for so usefully. Those words, however, the history of the Gentiles is wont to use in praise, but of brave men of this age, not martyrs of Christ. It is said that he manfully threw himself from the wall among the crowd, nor do we say that he did this womanishly, although you who have profited much by this example have taught even your women to do it. But we confess that even these do it not womanishly but manfully; not, however, wholesomely, because not faithfully.” Secondly, Francis de Victoria, Relection on Homicide, and St. Thomas answer that Razias did not sin, because he resolved on a voluntary death by the instinct of the Holy Spirit. But no spark of this instinct appears here, especially because the Holy Spirit is not wont to inspire a man to kill himself to avoid the infamy of mockery, as Razias did here; for this is in itself dishonourable and unlawful.
Thirdly, therefore, I say that Razias is here excused from sin by inculpable ignorance, by which he did not know that killing himself in such a case was unlawful, nay he himself judged it lawful, honourable, noble and generous, as is said in verse 42. For as many of the ancients, both philosophers and Doctors of the Church, once thought a lie sometimes lawful, so they thought the same of killing oneself. For this was the opinion of the Stoics, which Seneca followed, Epistle 78. Cicero indicates the same, Book I, Epistles 12 and 92, and Pliny. The same was the opinion of some Hebrews in Josephus, Book XII, chapter v, and Book XV, chapter viii. The same was that of St. Jerome on chapter i of Jonas, near the end, where he says: “Whence in persecutions it is not lawful to perish by one’s own hand, except where chastity is in danger;” where he plainly indicates that in danger of chastity it is lawful to kill oneself. So St. Ambrose, Book III On Virgins, before the middle, and Eusebius, Book VIII of the History, chapters xii and xvii, and Palladius in the Lausiac History, chapter cl, praise women who killed themselves lest they be violated. Nor do they ascribe this to divine inspiration, but praise the deed as honourable for such an end. In like manner D. Soto excuses St. Apollonia, Book V. To kill oneself for the safety of one’s country, or the guarding of chastity, is not so evidently evil that it cannot be inculpably ignored and thought lawful, as the most learned men already cited thought, whom Cato, the wisest of the Romans, following, killed himself, lest, surrendering to the victor Caesar, he should be an object of mockery. So then Razias also seems to be excused from sin by ignorance, especially because he himself was as it were head of the senate and prince of Israel; whence the mockeries to be inflicted on him by Antiochus would have been inflicted on the senate and all Israel; he preferred therefore to die rather than expose himself and all Israel to the insults and mockery of an idolatrous king. Add that the king could have pretended that Razias had apostatized from Judaism and apostatized to his idolatry; a thing which would have moved many of the Jews to follow his example and apostatize. Besides, Razias could fear lest, overcome by the bitterness of torments, he should yield to Antiochus and truly apostatize from the faith, which would have been a huge scandal to all Israel. Wherefore he seemed to himself to act prudently if he cut off all these dangers and harms by a voluntary death.
So in the Indian Histories, in Jerome Osorius, Book VIII On the Deeds of Emmanuel, shortly after the beginning, we read that John Machiad, a Portuguese, a faithful man, out of piety killed his two little sons to rescue them from the danger of Mohammedanism and thence of eternal damnation. For they were about to be taken by the Mohammedans and brought up by them in their perfidy. So Lessius excuses Razias by ignorance, Book II On Justice, chapter ix, doubt 6, number 23; and this is confirmed from the fact that Razias is here commended for eminent virtue and probity, who certainly would not have killed himself unless he had thought it lawful, nay honourable and noble. Whence also, expiring, verse 46, he elicited an act of faith and hope in God, “calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to restore them to him again” in the blessed resurrection. This ignorance of Razias supposed, this act of his was heroic fortitude, by which he killed himself for the honour of his country, and to preserve the ancestral religion, and therefore, verse 42, it is said of him: “Choosing to die nobly.” For it is far harder to kill oneself than to endure death inflicted by another; wherefore, supposing the ignorance that in that case it was lawful to kill oneself, Razias elicited a supreme act of fortitude by striking and destroying himself not once but three times. For nature supremely loves itself and its life; wherefore it is a most generous fortitude to transcend this affection of nature and of one’s own will lay down life for God.