1 Maccabees — Chapter 10

Et anno centesimo sexagesimo ascendit Alexander

VERSE 1. ET ANNO CENTESIMO SEXAGESIMO ASCENDIT ALEXANDER ANTIOCHI FILIUS QUI COGNOMINATUS EST NOBILIS. — In the year 160 (Seleucid era = 152 BC) Alexander, the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was also called Epiphanes, arose and seized Ptolemais. Lapide discusses the identity of Alexander Balas (= Veles), arguing against Justin and others who claim he was a pretender: more likely he was the illegitimate son of Antiochus Epiphanes by a concubine named Bala. He seized Ptolemais (Acre/Akko) as his base to challenge Demetrius I for the Seleucid throne.

Constituimus te hodie summum Sacerdotem

VERSE 20. CONSTITUIMUS TE HODIE SUMMUM SACERDOTEM GENTIS TUAE ET UT AMICUS VOCARIS REGIS. — \"We appoint you today as high priest of your nation; you are to be called the king's friend, and you are to look after our interests and preserve friendship with us.\" Lapide discusses the constitutional status of Jonathan's high priesthood: he was already effectively functioning as high priest and political leader, but now receives formal royal confirmation from Alexander. He notes that Alexander's appointment of Jonathan mirrors the practice of later Roman emperors who appointed bishops — a practice Lapide regards as a usurpation, noting that the Church eventually reclaimed this right for the clergy.

Et induit se Jonathas stola sancta

VERSE 21. ET INDUIT SE JONATHAS STOLA SANCTA SEPTIMO MENSE ANNO CENTESIMO SEXAGESIMO. — So Jonathan put on the holy vestments in the seventh month of the year 160 (Seleucid era), on the feast of Tabernacles. Lapide notes the significance of the date: Jonathan's investiture as high priest took place on the feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), one of the three great pilgrimage feasts of Israel. This gave his assumption of the high priesthood a solemn public character and divine sanction — at least in the eyes of the people.

Et complacuit eis in Alexandrum

VERSE 46. ET COMPLACUIT EIS IN ALEXANDRUM QUIA IPSE FUERAT EIS PRINCEPS SERMONUM PACIS ET IPSI AUXILIUM FEREBANT OMNIBUS DIEBUS. — So they preferred Alexander because he had first spoken words of peace to them, and they had been with him all along. Lapide explains the political calculation of Jonathan: Demetrius I had been the historical enemy of the Maccabees, while Alexander had first offered peace. Even if Demetrius was now offering better terms, trust required a history of good faith. Political wisdom requires judging not only by current offers but by the track record of those who make them.

Et cecidit Demetrius in die illa

VERSE 50. ET CECIDIT DEMETRIUS IN DIE ILLA. — Demetrius fell on that day. Lapide discusses the battle in which Demetrius I was killed (161 BC Seleucid era = 150 BC). He notes the complex question of which of the two claimants had the better legal right to the Seleucid throne, and argues that Jonathan was justified in supporting Alexander because Demetrius had been the consistent persecutor of the Jews, and because Jonathan had a duty to defend his people even with the help of a pagan ally.

In anno centesimo sexagesimo quinto venit Demetrius filius

VERSE 67. IN ANNO CENTESIMO SEXAGESIMO QUINTO VENIT DEMETRIUS FILIUS DEMETRII A CRETA IN TERRAM PATRUM SUORUM. — In the year 165 (Seleucid era = 147 BC) Demetrius the son of Demetrius came from Crete to the land of his fathers. Lapide explains the historical context: Demetrius II (son of Demetrius I) had been hiding in Crete during his father's reign. When Alexander Balas became dissolute and unpopular, Demetrius II returned to claim his inheritance. Lapide quotes Justin (Book 35) at length on Alexander's moral collapse: \"He who had unexpectedly become rich, was held captive by the charms of prosperity and foreign pleasures, idling among troops of harlots in his palace.\"

Et succendit Jonathas Azotum et civitates

VERSE 84. ET SUCCENDIT JONATHAS AZOTUM ET CIVITATES QUAE ERANT IN CIRCUITU EJUS ET ACCEPIT SPOLIA EORUM ET TEMPLUM DAGON ET OMNES QUI FUGERANT IN ILLUD SUCCENDIT IGNI. — Jonathan burned Ashdod and the surrounding towns and plundered them; and the temple of Dagon and those who had taken refuge in it he burned with fire. Lapide defends the burning of the temple of Dagon as an act of righteous war against idolatry: those who fled into the idol's temple were seeking the protection of the idol, and so fell under the judgment of war. He draws the lesson that those who trust in idols (whether literal idols or the \"idols\" of money, honor, and pleasure) will perish along with what they trust in.