Latin original · 38 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 59:910–59:947 (1230 verses in all)
not because true swearing is evil, but lest one fall into perjury through readiness to swear. For he who swears can swear not only truly but also falsely; whereas he who does not swear at all walks far from perjury. 'And you shall remember all the way by which the Lord your God led you in the desert, to afflict you and to test you and to make known what things are in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.' Here it is said more openly what is obscure elsewhere by a manner of speaking, where it is read: 'The Lord your God tests you, that he may know whether you love him.' For it is understood that 'that he may know' is put for 'that he may make it known,' which is now said plainly: 'that he might test you and make known what things are in your heart.'
For it does not say 'and that he might come to know'; which indeed, had it said so, would have had to be understood as 'that he might make it known.' 'And you shall know today that it is not on account of your righteousnesses that the Lord your God gives you this good land to inherit, for you are a people of stiff neck.' Surely these are the very ones who therefore did not deserve to perish in the desert, because they knew nothing to right or to left. Behold, they are now called stiff-necked. Whence it is to be seen that this was said in a mystery, not that their merits were commended. For lest anyone suppose these to have been suddenly made blameworthy who had shortly before been praised, a little after it is said to them: 'Remember, do not forget how greatly you provoked the Lord your God in the desert:'
'from the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place, you persisted in your unbelief toward the Lord.' But if some of them were such, while others indeed were faithful and good, even so the land of promise is by no means given to those who know nothing to right or to left in the sense that we should understand it as though they had not offended God. For their fathers too, who died and were not permitted to enter into that same land, are found to have been such that among them there were some who were even good. On account of which the Apostle says that not all, but certain of them, offended, among whom he recalls their sins. That these are like their parents this Scripture of Deuteronomy teaches yet more evidently, in that it consequently adds and says:
'And at Horeb you provoked the Lord.' There certainly those provoked him who, on account of these same evil merits of theirs, were not led into the land of promise. 'At that time the Lord said to me: Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the former ones, and go up to me on the mountain; and you shall make for yourself an ark of wood. And I will write on the tablets the words which were on the former tablets, which you broke; and you shall put them into the ark. And I made an ark of incorruptible wood, and cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and went up onto the mountain, with the two tablets in my two hands. And he wrote on the tablets, according to the former writing, the ten words which the Lord spoke to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire; and the Lord gave them to me.'
It is not without reason asked how these things are said in Deuteronomy, with Moses recalling and repeating what was done, when in Exodus, where these things said and done are first narrated, it is thus written: 'And the Lord said to Moses: Write for yourself these words; for in these words I have established a testament with you and with Israel. And Moses was there in the sight of the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the testament, the ten words.' Since therefore in Exodus Moses himself is narrated to have written the ten words of the law on the tablets, how is it here in Deuteronomy recalled that God wrote the same words on the tablets?
In short, that passage which is in Exodus, when we treated it in passing and committed to writing what appeared to us in that difference—namely, why the former tablets, which were broken, are reported as written by the finger of God, whereas Moses himself is said to have written the second ones, which were to remain so long in the ark and the tabernacle—we said that by this difference the two testaments were signified: so that in the Old Testament the law was commended as the work of God, where man did nothing, for the reason that the law could not be fulfilled by fear, since when the work of the law is truly done it is done by charity, not by fear—which charity is the grace of the New Testament.
Therefore on the second tablets man is read to have written the words of God, because man can do the work of the law through the charity of righteousness, which he cannot do through the fear of punishment. Now therefore, when it is read in Deuteronomy that concerning the second tablets it is thus said: 'And I cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and went up onto the mountain, with the two tablets in my two hands. And he wrote on the tablets, according to the former writing, the ten words'—for it does not say 'and I wrote,' but 'he wrote,' that is, God, just as a little before he had said the words of God spoken to him: 'Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the former ones, and go up to me on the mountain; and you shall make for yourself an ark of wood;'
'and I will write on the tablets the words which were on the former tablets'—a question arises that must be shaken out: that both sets of tablets, that is both the former and the second, are here read to have been written by God, not man. But if in Exodus too the words of God are read, where he commands the same second tablets to be cut by Moses, nothing else is found than that God himself promised that he would write them; for it is thus written: 'And the Lord said to Moses: Cut for yourself two tablets of stone, like the former ones too, and go up to me on the mountain. And I will write on the tablets the words which were on the former tablets, which you broke.' Excepting therefore the book of Deuteronomy, the book of Exodus alone also contains this question, how God said:
'And I will write on the tablets the words which were on the former tablets,' when a little after it is read: 'Write for yourself these words; for in these words I have established a testament with you and with Israel. And Moses was there in the sight of the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the testament, the ten words.' For if what is said above—'Write for yourself these words; for in these words I have established a testament with you and with Israel'—pertains to the things above, when God was giving these commands, that they should be written not on the two tablets of stone but in that book of the law where many things are written down, then certainly what follows:
'And Moses was there in the sight of the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the testament, the ten words'—this makes it sufficiently manifest that the same Moses wrote these ten words on the tablets, not God. Unless perhaps we are forced, violently indeed but by a sure necessity, where it is said 'and he wrote on the tablets the words of the testament, the ten words,' to understand not Moses but the Lord—for above it is set down: 'And Moses was there in the sight of the Lord'—so that by the Lord, in whose sight Moses was for forty days and forty nights, eating no bread and drinking no water, these ten words are understood to have been written on the tablets, as he had promised before.
But if this is so, then indeed that difference of the two testaments which appeared to us cannot be commended in these words, since both the former and the second tablets were written not by man but by God; yet nonetheless that distinction certainly admits no doubt, namely that the former tablets both God made and God wrote. For it was not then said to Moses, 'Cut for yourself two tablets,' but rather it is thus read: 'And Moses, having turned, came down from the mountain, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hands: tablets of stone written on both their sides, on this side and on that they were written; and the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets.'
For already above it had said that the same tablets were written by the finger of God, thus speaking: 'And he gave to Moses, as soon as he ceased to speak to him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written by the finger of God.' There, therefore, both the tablets were the work of God and their writing was made by the finger of God. But the second tablets Moses himself is commanded to cut, so that at least they may be understood to have been cut out by human labor, even though God himself wrote them, as he promised when he commanded them to be cut.
Furthermore, if we attend more diligently to why both things were said concerning the second tablets—namely because both God works the work of the law in man through his grace, and man, receiving the grace of God through his faith and belonging to the New Testament, is a co-worker of God who helps him—while on the first tablets the work of God alone is recalled, because the law is spiritual, and the law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good; and yet no work of man is there recalled, because unbelievers are not blended in with the help of grace, but, being ignorant of the righteousness of God and wishing to establish their own, are not subject to the righteousness of God:
whence to them the law avails unto condemnation—which the breaking of the tablets signifies—then assuredly we are not compelled by a violent interpretation to understand tacitly that God wrote, where Scripture said: 'And Moses was there in the sight of the Lord forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the testament,' where it strongly rings that Moses wrote. But the reason God above promised that he would write, and in Deuteronomy is narrated not only to have so promised but even himself to have written, is that there might be signified what the Apostle says: 'For it is God who works in you both to will and to work.'
For a good will, that is, in those who receive grace from faith and do not wish to establish their own righteousness but are subject to the righteousness of God, so that they themselves may be in Christ the righteousness of God. For there too the Apostle says both things—that God works and that they themselves work. For if they themselves were not working, how did he say to them: 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling'? He therefore works, and we co-work; for he does not take away, but assists the choice of good will. 'At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the testament of the Lord, to stand before the Lord, to minister and to pray in his name until this day. On account of this there is no part and lot for the Levites with their brethren;'
'the Lord himself is his portion, as he said to him.' Unless by this tribe there were signified the whole royal priesthood which pertains to the New Testament, in no way would a man who was not of that same tribe have dared to say: 'The Lord is my portion,' and in another psalm: 'The Lord is the portion of my inheritance.' What is it that Moses commanded, commending the words of the Lord, and said: 'And you shall write them upon the lintels of your houses and of your gates,' when according to the literal sense no one of the Israelites is recalled or read to have done this, since no one even can—unless perhaps he were to divide them across many parts of his house? Or is it a hyperbolic commendation, as many things are said?
It must be asked how he commands that the tithes of all fruits and the firstlings of the flocks be not eaten except in the city where the temple shall be, when in the law he had commanded them to be given to the Levites. 'But if there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder comes to pass of which he spoke to you, saying: Let us go and serve other gods whom you do not know—you shall not hear the words of that prophet or that dreamer of that dream, for the Lord your God tests you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul.' This certain Latin translators have not rendered thus—'to know whether you love'—but 'that he may know whether you love.'
Although the same meaning seems present, yet that which is said 'to know' is more easily referred to them; so that we take 'he tests you to know' as if it were said: 'by testing he makes you know.' Where indeed he wished it to be understood that even those things which are said by diviners not according to God—if the things they say should come to pass—are not to be received as though what they enjoin should be done or what they worship should be worshiped. Nor does God show that these things happen beyond his own power, but, as if it were asked why he permits them, he set forth the cause of the temptation: for the acknowledging of their love, whether they have it toward their God—to be acknowledged indeed by themselves rather than by him who knows all things before they come to be.
'After three years you shall bring forth all the tithe of your fruits; in that year you shall lay it up in your cities, and the Levite shall come, because he has no part nor lot with you, and the stranger and the orphan and the widow who are in your cities, and they shall eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the works of your hands whatsoever you shall do.' Of this tithe he did not say that a man should eat of it with his own; and by this he commanded it to be expended on the Levites and strangers and orphans and widows. But it is obscurely put, because this tithe is not distinguished from that which he wished to be eaten with the Levites in that place which the Lord had chosen for his temple. But in that translation which is from the Hebrew we find this more openly distinguished. For it says:
'In the third year you shall separate another tithe out of all things which are born to you at that time, and you shall lay it up within your gates; and the Levite shall come, who has no other part nor possession with you, and the sojourner and the orphan and the widow who are within your gates, and they shall eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the works of your hands which you shall do.' First, this very thing is plainer which it says, 'in the third year'; for it is understood 'with one year intervening'; but in the Septuagint, since it said 'after three years,' it is uncertain whether it meant those three to be intervening years, so that it should be done every fifth year. Then when it says:
'you shall separate another tithe,' it sufficiently shows that this is apart from that which he wished the very one who offers to eat with his own and with the Levites in that place which the Lord had chosen; for this other tithe he commanded him to lay up within his own gates, not to carry to that place where the Lord wished to be invoked. 'And the Levite shall come,' it says, 'who has no part nor possession with you, and the sojourner and the orphan and the widow who are within your gates, and they shall eat.' Hence certainly it is manifestly true that God did not wish this tithe to be made common to him who offers and to those to whom it is to be expended; but he commanded it to be disbursed to those alone who had nothing else, among whom he placed the Levite especially. 'After seven years you shall make a remission.'
Here certainly it is made manifest how above too it said: 'after three years.' For he did not wish these seven either to be intervening years: he commanded it to be done every single year, as a sabbatism of years. 'Attend to yourself, lest a hidden word arise in your heart, an iniquity, saying: The seventh year draws near, the year of remission; and your eye be malignant toward your brother in need, and you give him nothing; and he will cry out against you to the Lord, and there will be in you a great sin.'
Magnificently he called this a hidden word, since no one dares to say this who could think it: that a loan is not to be given to the needy because the year of remission draws near, when God for mercy's sake commanded both—both that a loan be given when anyone is in need and that it be remitted in the year of remission. How then shall he mercifully remit in that year in which remission is to be made, if he cruelly thinks that at that very time nothing is to be given at which it ought to be given? 'But if your brother, a Hebrew man or Hebrew woman, be sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh you shall let him go free from you.' These bought ones he did not wish to be released in the year of remission, which every seventh year had to be observed by all;
but in the seventh year of his purchase, in whatever year of those this seventh year should fall. 'Every firstling that is born among your cattle and among your sheep, the males you shall sanctify to the Lord your God.' It must be asked whether the things which in Greek are called prototoka, and could not be said in Latin except as primogenita ('firstborn'), are to be understood only of those which are born of mothers; for these are properly brought forth (pariuntur) rather than begotten (gignuntur). For to bring forth is tiktein, which is from the female—whence it is called prototokon—but to beget is a different act, whence in Latin one is properly called primogenitus ('firstborn').
Now from the females were given the firstlings, that is, those which were first brought forth, not those which were first begotten by males, if perchance they were begotten of widows who had already given birth. For otherwise they would not be those which open the womb, which the law wished to be proper to those things which, being first born, were owed to the Lord. If therefore there is in these words a sure distinction, it is not without cause that the Lord is not called by the Father monotokos, but monogenes—that is, only-begotten, which is 'unique'—but from the dead he is indeed in Latin called primogenitus ('firstborn'), because a Latin word could not be so composed according to the custom of speaking; but in Greek he is called prototokos, not protogenes: as though the Father begot one equal to himself, but the creature brought forth. For also that which is said:
'the firstborn of all creation,' which there too is read in Greek as prototokos, can be understood thus according to the new creation, of which the Apostle says: 'If therefore anyone is in Christ, a new creature'—from which he is the firstling, because he first so rose again that he now dies no more, nor does death any longer have dominion over him, which is promised to be in the end for the new creature that is in him. But this distinction is not to be rashly affirmed but to be more diligently searched out in the Scriptures. For it stirs a difficulty how it could be said in Proverbs: 'My firstborn, I say to you, son'; that is, from whose person it is to be understood as said.
For if it is said from the person of God the Father to Christ—whether the sequel is consonant with this opinion is scarcely to be affirmed—he calls the same one firstborn whom he calls only-begotten: firstborn, because we too are sons of God; but only-begotten, since he alone is of the substance of the Father and equal to the Father and coeternal with the Father. But it is a wonder whether Sacred Scripture distinguishes between bringing forth and begetting by the most evident testimonies. 'And you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, sheep and oxen.' What does this mean, that he added 'oxen,' when he commended the immolation of the Passover only from the sheep, which he commanded to be taken from the sheep and the kids or from the goats? This is taken mystically on account of Christ, whose carnal origin is from the just and from sinners.
For he does not say 'from the sheep or the goats,' although properly a sheep cannot be understood from goats; but lest perhaps the Jews should say that a goat is to be understood, if it had been said 'or from the goats,' it is said: 'from the sheep and the goats.' What then do the oxen mean here? Is it on account of the other sacrifices which are to be immolated on those very days of unleavened bread? It must be asked how he commanded to be observed what he says: 'You shall number for yourself seven full weeks; when you begin to put the sickle to the harvest you shall begin to number seven weeks. And you shall keep the feast day of weeks to the Lord your God, according as your hand avails, whatsoever the Lord shall have given you, according as the Lord your God shall bless you; and you shall feast before the Lord your God.'
For if this Pentecost was commanded to be observed by the whole people, are we to believe that all were commanded to put the sickle to the harvest on one day? But if each one observes this fiftieth for himself, numbering from that day on which he puts in the sickle, it is not one and the same for the whole people; whereas that one is the same which is reckoned from the immolation of the Passover unto the day of the giving of the law on Sinai. 'But if you shall enter into the land which the Lord your God gives you as an allotment, and you inherit it and dwell in it, and you say: I will set over myself princes like also the other nations which are around me—in setting one you shall set over yourself a prince whom the Lord your God shall choose; from among your brethren you shall set a prince over yourself;'
'you shall not be able to set over yourself a foreign man, because he is not your brother.' It can be asked why the people displeased God when they desired a king, since here it is found to be permitted. But rather from this it is to be understood that it deservedly was not according to the will of God, because he did not command this to be done, but permitted it to those desiring it. Yet nonetheless he commanded that it should not be a foreigner, but a brother, that is, a native of the same people, not one of foreign birth. But as to what he says, 'you shall not be able,' it is to be understood as 'you ought not.' When he was speaking of the king, he said: 'And he shall not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not depart; and silver and gold he shall not greatly multiply for himself.' Whence it is asked whether David did not act against this precept;
for he did not have one wife. But concerning Solomon it is manifest that he transgressed this precept both in women and in gold and in silver. But from this it is rather to be understood that it was permitted to kings to have more than one; for they were forbidden to multiply. And this prohibition has no transgression if they were few, as David's were; but not many, as Solomon's. Although when he added, 'that his heart may not depart,' he rather seems to have commanded this: that by multiplying he should not come to foreign women, through whom it came to pass in Solomon that his heart departed from God.
Yet the multiplication was in general so forbidden that, even if he had multiplied them from Hebrew women alone, he could deservedly be convicted of having acted against this precept. 'But if a Levite come from one of your cities out of all the sons of Israel, where he himself dwells, according as his soul desires, into the place which the Lord shall choose'—that is, if he desired to go to the place where the Lord is invoked—'and he shall minister to the name of the Lord his God like all his brothers the Levites who stand there before the Lord; he shall eat a portion apportioned, besides the sale which is according to the family.' What he calls the 'sale' is obscure;
unless perhaps because he commanded the tithes and firstborn to be sold by those who dwelt far off, lest they be compelled to carry many things to the place of the Lord's invocation or to lead the cattle, so that there they might be bought back from them again at the same price; and he had commanded the Levite who remained in that city, from which those tithes and firstborn were owed, to have a portion there. And therefore he said that this was owed to the Levite according to the family, since by the succession by which he succeeds his parents, this ought to be observed concerning him which was rendered to his parents.
Since he forbids there to be inspectors of portents among the people of God, it must be asked how these portents, which are forbidden to be inspected, are to be distinguished from those which are given divinely in such a way that what they signify ought to be told. As are all the miracles which are found in the Scriptures, signifying what pertains to the rule of faith; as we say what the fleece signified—dry on a rain-soaked threshing-floor, or rain-soaked on a dry threshing-floor—or the rod of Aaron which blossomed and brought forth nuts, and other things of this kind. And just as the divinations which he consequently forbids are distinguished from the predictions or announcements of the prophets, so those inspections of prodigies are to be distinguished from the significations of divine miracles.
For the Lord your God, who goes before you together with you, will himself do battle at your side against your enemies and will save you. Behold in what manner, even in spiritual conflicts, we ought to hope for and to ask the help of God, not that we ourselves should do nothing, but that, being helped, we should cooperate. For thus it says: 'He will do battle at your side,' so as to show that they too were to do what was to be done. 'And the scribes shall speak to the people, saying: What man is there who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in war and another man dedicate it. And what man is there who has planted a vineyard and has not feasted from it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in war and another man feast from it.'
'And what man is there who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in war and another man take her.' These words may disturb us, as though those die under a better condition in war who have already dedicated their buildings, and have already feasted from the new vines, and have already led home their brides, than those who have not yet done so. But since human affection is held fast by these things, and they are highly esteemed by men, it must be understood that these things are said with a view to those going forth into war, so that whoever is held in soul by such things may show himself when he turns back, lest on this account he act less bravely, while he fears that he may die before he has dedicated his house, or drunk of his new vine, or led home his bride.
For certainly, as far as the woman is concerned, it is better that she, still untouched, marry another than as a widow; but these things, as I have said, were appointed for the sake of testing the minds of the men. 'The weapons of a man shall not be upon a woman': he means military weapons to be understood, that is, arms; for some have interpreted it even thus. 'But if anyone has taken a wife and has dwelt with her and comes to hate her, and lays against her occasions for words, and brings upon her an evil name, and says: I took this woman, and drawing near to her I did not find her tokens of virginity — then the father of the girl and her mother, taking the girl's tokens of virginity, shall bring them out to the elders at the gate, and the father of the girl shall say to the elders:'
'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, and now, hating her, he lays against her occasions for words, saying: I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity; and here are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread out the garment before the elders of that city, and the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him and fine him a hundred shekels and give them to the father of the young woman, because he brought forth an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife, and he shall not be able to put her away all the days of his life.