Latin original · 38 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 59:948–59:985 (1230 verses in all)
'But if this word be true, and the tokens of the girl's virginity be not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones, and she shall die, because she has wrought folly among the children of Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house: and you shall put away the wicked one from among yourselves.' From this it appears clearly enough in what manner the Law willed wives to be subject to their husbands and almost as handmaids; for when a man, speaking against his wife, gives testimony whereby she was to be stoned if it were shown to be true, yet he himself is not in turn stoned if it be established to be false, but is only chastised and fined, and is commanded to cleave forever to her whom he had wished to be rid of.
In other cases, however, one who has harmed anyone by false testimony, whereby, if it had been proved, he had ordered him to be put to death, he commands to be punished with the same penalty with which the other would have been punished had it been true. 'But if anyone find a virgin girl who is not betrothed, and, doing violence to her, lie with her, and be found, the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the girl fifty didrachmas of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he humbled her; he shall not be able to put her away for all time.' It is rightly asked whether this is a penalty — that he cannot put her away for all time — she whom he violated in a disorderly and unlawful manner. For if we wish to understand for this reason...
...understand that she cannot — that is, ought not — be put away for all time, because she has been made his wife, there will occur that which Moses permitted, namely to give a bill of divorce and to send her away. But in the case of those who unlawfully corrupt a woman, he did not wish it to be permitted, lest he seem to have acted for a mockery and rather to have pretended that he took her as a wife than to have truly and with willing consent taken her. This same thing is commanded also concerning her against whom a husband has falsely alleged that her tokens of virginity were not found. 'An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the church of the Lord, even to the tenth generation shall they not enter into the church of the Lord, even forever.' It is a question how Ruth entered, who was a Moabitess, from whom even the flesh of the Lord draws its origin.
Unless perhaps he prophesied that she, in a mystical sense, would enter — in that he says 'even to the tenth generation.' For the generations are reckoned from Abraham, when Lot too existed, who begot the Moabites and Ammonites from his daughters; and together with Abraham himself ten generations are found to be completed down to Salmon, who begot Booz, who was the second husband of Ruth. For these are they: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon. For Salmon begot Booz, who married the widow Ruth; and through this it appears that after the tenth generation she brought forth offspring in the church of the Lord by bearing sons to Booz himself. But why it was added 'even forever' is rightly still inquired into.
Is it because thereafter no soul from among the Ammonites and Moabites entered into that church of the Hebrew people, after the prophecy was fulfilled in this tenth generation? Or rather was it so said — 'even to the tenth generation' — that he wished it to be understood as always altogether, through a certain totality of the number ten, so that in a manner he expounded this by adding and saying 'even forever'? But if this is so, Ruth seems to have been admitted against the forbidding precept. Or did he forbid the Ammonite men to be admitted, not the Ammonite women — that is, the males from there, not the females?
Especially since, when the Israelites had overthrown that nation itself, they were commanded to kill all the males, but not the females, except those who had known the embrace of a man, since these had seduced the people into fornication; but they willed that the virgins be saved, not imputing to them the guilt for which that nation deserved to be overthrown. And this too he here mentioned, as if it were asked why he did not wish the Moabites and Ammonites to be admitted into the church of the Lord. For he added: 'because they did not meet you with loaves and water on the way, when you were coming out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Mesopotamia, to curse you.' These faults not even then, when that nation was warred down, did they impute to the women, whom they preferred to preserve safe.
'You shall not hand over a servant to his master, who has been set beside you by his master': not that his master had 'set' him, that is, entrusted him — for then he would rather have said 'a deposit' — but he said 'set beside you by his master,' that is, joined to this man, when he had departed from that one. He forbade, therefore, not that fugitives be received, but rather that they be given back. This indeed might be thought, unless we understand these things to be said to a nation and a people, not to one man. And so he forbade a man fleeing from another nation to that nation to which he was speaking to be given back by his master, that is, by his king: which even the foreigner Achish king of Gath observed, when David fled to him from the face of his master, that is, of king Saul. But he explains this most plainly when he says concerning the fugitive himself:
'He shall dwell among you in every place where it shall please him.' 'There shall not be a harlot among the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be a fornicator among the sons of Israel.' Behold where he plainly forbade both men and women to fornicate, showing that it is a sin even to be joined to those not one's own spouses, though they be not others' spouses, when he forbids both that there be harlots and that men resort to harlots, whose baseness is publicly for sale. In the Decalogue, however, under the name of adultery he does not seem to have plainly forbidden this, since adultery is usually understood as nothing but adultery. Whence what seemed to us on this point, we treated there. 'You shall not offer the hire of a harlot, nor the price of a dog, in the house of the Lord your God for any vow, because both are an abomination to the Lord your God:'
which is understood thus: 'because it is an abomination to the Lord your God' — and this not one of these two, but both. For concerning the dog he forbids the exchange of firstlings to be made, which he commands to be made in the case of other unclean animals, that is, horses and asses, and whatever there is of those which help man and are in Latin called 'iumenta' from 'iuvare' (to help). But concerning the dog he did not wish it; whether also concerning the pig, and why he did not wish it, must be inquired into; and, if he did not wish it concerning all such animals, why he made the dog alone an exception in this place. But as for his mentioning the hire of a harlot, the reason seems to be this: because he had above forbidden that there be a harlot among the daughters of Israel, or that any of the sons of Israel make use of a harlot;
and lest it creep into one's thought that this sin could be expiated if something from it were offered in the temple, it had to be said that it is an abomination to the Lord. 'That thief shall die' — that is, he who has stolen a man — 'and you shall put away the wicked one from among yourselves.' Scripture constantly says this when it commands the wicked to be put to death. The Apostle too used this manner of speech, when he said: 'For what have I to do to judge those who are without? Do you not judge those who are within? Put away the evil one from among yourselves.' For the Greek has τὸν πονηρόν, which is written here also; but this is usually rendered rather 'the wicked man' than 'the evil thing.' Nor does it say τὸ πονηρόν, that is, 'this evil thing,' but τὸν πονηρόν, which is 'this wicked man.'
From this it appears that he wished to be understood the man who has committed some such thing that he is worthy of excommunication. For this is what excommunication now does in the Church, which then killing did. Although that apostolic saying can also be understood otherwise, namely that each one was commanded to put away the evil or the wicked from his own self. Which sense would be more acceptable, if 'this evil thing' or 'this wicked thing,' and not 'this wicked man,' were found in the Greek; but as it is, it is more credible that it was said of a man than of a vice. Although it can also elegantly be understood that a man puts away from himself the evil man, in the manner in which it is said: 'Put off the old man,' which, expounding, he says: 'Let him who stole steal no more.'
'According to all the law which the Levitical priests shall teach (?) you.' Here it appears that every priest was a Levite, although not every Levite was a priest. 'If there be a debt in your neighbour, any debt whatsoever, you shall not enter into his house to take a pledge: you shall stand outside, and the man in whose keeping your debt is shall bring the pledge out to you. But if the man be needy, you shall not sleep in his pledge: by way of restitution you shall restore to him his garment about sunset, and he shall sleep in his garment and shall bless you, and it shall be to you a mercy before the Lord your God.' Not without reason does it seem to pertain to a work of mercy that the pledge-taker should not enter the house, lest disturbance befall the debtor;
but from this he also admonishes the debtor himself to bring the pledge outside to the creditor. But that he commands the pledge to be restored to the needy man on the same day, so that he may sleep in it who has nothing wherein to sleep, rightly moves us — so that it may be asked why he did not rather command the creditor not to take away the pledge, which he ought to restore on the same day. But if he wished this to be done in order to compel the debtor, how does he urge himself to repayment, when he knows he will get the pledge back the same day? Or perhaps he wished this to be done for the sake of memory, lest the creditor forget to return it, and then not return it if the debtor truly has nothing? Especially since he is overcome by his creditor's mercy, to whom he ought not to be ungrateful, if he has received back the pledge in which he may sleep;
and at the same time, the creditor too, when the debtor has not repaid, ought to believe that he does not have the means, seeing that he needs even this mercy — that the pledge be restored to him because he has nothing else wherein to sleep. 'The fathers shall not die for the sons, and the sons shall not die for the fathers: each one shall die in his own sin.' Behold, not only did the prophets say this, but the Law also says that each is to be put to death for his own guilt, not for that of his father or of his son. What then is it that is said elsewhere: 'God rendering the sins of the fathers upon the sons unto the third and fourth generation'?
Is that understood of sons not yet born, on account of original sin, which the human race drew even from Adam; but here a distinction has been made concerning sons already born, so that each may die in his own sin? For one who was already born, when his father sinned, does not draw anything from his father. But since there too it says 'to those who hate me,' it is manifest that even that condition can be changed, if the sons have not imitated the deeds of their parents. For that too which is derived from Adam is rendered temporally, since all die on account of this, but not eternally for those who have been spiritually reborn through grace and have persevered in it unto the end.
Although that too may rightly be asked: if the sins of the fathers are rendered upon the sons in the case of those who hate God, why unto the third and fourth generation — either the first and second being passed over, or not also unto the rest, if impiety and the imitation of wicked parents persists? Or did he, through this number, since it is understood as sevenfold, wish to signify totality, and therefore did not rather put the seventh itself, so as to say 'unto the seventh generation' and thus have it understood as every generation, because he intimated the ground of the perfection of this number in this manner? For it is held to be perfect for this reason: because it consists of these two, namely of three, the first odd number as a whole, and of four, the first even number as a whole.
Whence I judge that that prophetic saying too, which is repeated constantly, arises: 'For three and four impieties I will not turn away' — by which he wished all impieties, rather than three or four, to be understood. 'You shall not turn aside the judgement of the stranger and the orphan and the widow, you shall not take in pledge the garment of the widow.' Why did he not say: 'and you shall not take in pledge their garment'? For what is the reason that he forbade the judgement of these three to be turned aside, but the garment to be taken in pledge of the widow alone, and not of those others as well? Unless it be that he commended the judgements of all to be executed for this reason, that they have none by whom they may be defended — whether the stranger, because he is in a foreign land, or the orphan, that is, the ward, because he lacks parents, or the widow, because she has no husband:
but when he forbids the garment of a widow to be taken in pledge, I think he elegantly enough admonishes that those are truly to be called widows who are also poor. For this the Apostle too evidently shows, where he says: 'But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let her first learn to treat her own household piously and to render a mutual recompense to her parents; for this is acceptable before the Lord. But she who is truly a widow and desolate has hoped in the Lord and persists in prayers night and day.' Her he called truly a widow who has none by whom she may be sustained, since she is destitute not only of a husband but also of descendants and of all resources; for he would not call a rich woman desolate. To the poor woman, therefore, the garment is not to be taken in pledge;
for by this very thing, that he forbids the garment to be taken away, he shows her to be poor. For the creditor would not rather take away a garment than silver or anything else. Furthermore, if it should occur to the mind: What if she have many garments that are not necessary but superfluous — how is she understood to be truly a widow, that is, not only desolate but also one who does not live in delights? Her he subjoined, saying: 'But she who lives in delights is dead while living.' Her indeed he set as if contrary to the true widow, as though such a one is not a true widow. But whatever rich women have been unwilling to try other marriages, in them continence is praised, not desolation commended. For these are widowed of husbands only, not of other things.
As to what he admonishes — that in harvest no one should gather up a forgotten sheaf, and no one should more diligently go after the olive or the grape left behind, gathering up what has been neglected — and he says these are to be left for the needy: it perhaps occurs to the thought: What if these things which are left by the owners of the fields be gathered up not by the needy but by wicked men? But it must be considered, first, that he acts in mercy who leaves them with this mind, that the needy may have what is left. Then, when these things are enjoined upon the people, at the same time those who are not in want are admonished not to seek these things. But if they seek them, what else are they to be judged than invading the property of others and — what is graver — of the poor?
Both parties, therefore, are reminded by these precepts — both those whose fields they are, that they should mercifully leave these things, and those who are not needy, that they should abstain from them — since both are stated: both by whom things are to be left, and for whom they are to be left. 'But if there be a dispute between men, and they come to judgement, and the judges judge and justify the just man.' The judges are to be understood as judging, not those who were said to have the dispute. Then it follows: 'and condemn the wicked man; and it shall be, if he who acts wickedly be worthy of stripes, you shall set him in the sight of the judges, and they shall scourge him before them according to his wickedness. With forty stripes shall they scourge him, they shall not add more;'
'but if they add to scourge him beyond these stripes with more, your brother shall be disfigured before you.' It must strongly be noted that, although he prescribed that those sins be amended by stripes which are not worthy to be avenged by the penalty of death — and this with so few stripes — he nevertheless called the one who is beaten 'wicked' or 'acting wickedly,' so that we may know that the Scriptures have not spoken as very many say. These we read too carelessly, when we think adultery is not impiety, because he who has done this seems to have sinned against a man — whereas the Law commands that sin to be punished with death — and we say impieties are graver than these sins, whereas there are certain of them which are punished by forty stripes of the scourge. There is, therefore, a light impiety, which is worthy of a beating:
and there is a grave one which is worthy of death. So too those sins which seem to be committed not against God but against man — some are worthy of death, others of correction, whether by beating or by an easier pardon. For thus it is agreed that the seventy translators spoke, so that they called even the impiety of him who is worthy of stripes 'impiety.' 'But if brothers dwell together, and one of them die, and there be no seed to him, the wife of the deceased shall not be outside to one who does not draw near; the brother of her husband shall go in to her and shall take her to himself for a wife and shall dwell with her. And the child, whosoever be born, shall be established from the name of the deceased, and his name shall not be blotted out of Israel.'
The Law seems to have prescribed this concerning the taking of a brother's wife for no other reason than to raise up seed for the brother who died without children. But as to what it says, 'shall be established from the name of the deceased, and his name shall not be blotted out of Israel' — that is, the name of the deceased — from this it seems to be said that the one who is born should be called by that name by which the deceased was called, to whom in a manner he is propagated. Whence it seemed to us better, according to the custom of adoption, to solve in the Gospel the question about the two fathers of Joseph — of whom Matthew mentions one, namely the one who begot Joseph, and Luke the other, whose son Joseph was — since Joseph took the name of neither of them.
Unless perhaps this was said, 'shall be established from the name of the deceased,' not so that he should take his name, but so that from his name — that is, as the son not of him by whose seed he was begotten, but of that deceased man for whom seed was raised up — he should be established as heir. For as to what was added, 'and his name shall not be blotted out of Israel,' it can be so understood, not that the boy consequently takes his name, but that the deceased will be seen not to have died without posterity; and therefore his name — that is, his memory — endures. For not even if he himself had begotten a son would he have imposed his own name on him, so that his name should not be blotted out of Israel; but from this it would at any rate not be blotted out, because he would not have departed from this life without children.
And this his brother is commanded to fulfil from the deceased's wife — that which the other could not. For even if there had been no brother, a kinsman also would take his wife, who had died without sons, to raise up seed for his brother; just as Booz did in marrying Ruth, that he might raise up seed for his kinsman, whose wife she had been and by whom she had borne no child.
And yet he who was born of her was indeed established from the name of the deceased, because he was called his son — and thus it came about that the name of the deceased was not blotted out of Israel — nor yet was he called by his name. Since these things are so, the evangelical question can be solved more amply in two ways, so that one of those men whom Matthew and Luke mention as different was kinsman to the other for the taking of his wife, in such a way that the one could have some ancestors and forebears upward, and the other others. For if they had been the sons of brothers, they would have had one grandfather. Which is not so; for according to Matthew, Mathan is the grandfather of Joseph, but according to Luke not Mathan, but Mathath.
But if anyone thinks it to be only a similarity of name, so that a mistake was made by the scribes in one letter, so that there arose so slight and almost no difference — what will he say about the fathers of these men? For according to Luke, Mathath was the son of Levi, but according to Matthew, Mathan is found to have been begotten of Eleazar; and thus from there upward the fathers and grandfathers and then the forebears are different, all the way to Zorobabel, who is about the twentieth upward from Joseph in Luke, but in Matthew the eleventh. Who is on that account believed to be the same person, because his father in both evangelists is found to be Salathiel; although it could have happened that there was another man of the same name having a father of the same name that the former also had.
For from there upward too they are different; for Zorobabel has one grandfather in Luke, who is Neri, another in Matthew, who is Jechonias. And from there higher up there is nowhere any agreement, until one comes to David — in Matthew through Solomon, in Luke through Nathan. But it seems most difficult that there was no one nearer of kin to take the wife of his brother than one who was of the blood of David at so distant a degree, not joined by any nearer kinship below — since in Luke David is almost the fortieth from Joseph, but in Matthew about the twenty-seventh.
Or, if for the taking of the wives of the deceased those kinsmen too were sought who were related through the blood of women, it could have happened that there was someone so related, who begot Joseph from the wife of his kinsman who had died without children. And thus he would have had one father by nature, another by law. In whose fathers and grandfathers and then forebears no kinship would therefore appear, because they were related not through males but through females. But nevertheless, if it were so, not even David would at some point occur as one single father. Or if anyone contend that it could have been so, where do we place the fact that it is not the custom of Scripture to put women in a genealogy in place of males, just as no evangelist has inserted them?
For where mothers are mentioned, they are not placed except together with fathers. And through this, either the nearer kinsman was so lacking for the joining to himself of the deceased's wife, that the origin of the kinship had to be traced back to David; or adoption made the other father whom Joseph could have. What is it that, among those things which he commands a man to say — a man who in the giving of tithes, and whatever he was commanded to give or expend, has fulfilled all the commandments — he is commanded to say even this, with his own praise and commendation: 'I have not given of them to the dead'? Or does he by this forbid the funeral rites which the nations are wont to observe? 'You shall not pass aside from all the words which I command you this day, to go to the right or the left after other gods to serve them.'
It can be asked how it can be understood that one goes 'to the right' who has gone after strange gods to serve them, since the right is set in praise, but that can never be done praiseworthily; for even as to what is blamed in the way of life, in him who turns aside to the right, it is not there the things which are on the right that are blamed, but the one who turns aside into them — that is, who arrogates to himself the things that are God's. Therefore it is said in Proverbs: 'Turn not aside to the right or to the left; for the ways that are on the right the Lord knows, but perverse are those that are on the left.' Therefore good are the right-hand ways, which the Lord knows; for the Lord knows the ways of the just, as is read in the Psalm. Why, then, it was said, 'Turn not aside to the right,' he consequently shows by adding:
'for he himself will make your courses straight.' But far be it that we should deny the right-hand ways, which the Lord knows, to be straight; but, as I said, to turn aside into them is not of his grace, but to wish to attribute to oneself that which is straight. Finally, as I said, he adds and says: 'for he himself will make your courses straight, and all your journeys he will bring forth in peace.' Wherefore, as to what in this place of Deuteronomy, of which we are treating, is said — 'You shall not pass aside from all the words which I command you this day, to go to the right or the left after other gods to serve them' — it is not said for this reason, that other gods too can be received in the right-hand things; but either earthly places are signified, because both on the right and on the left they had nations worshipping other gods;
or this concerning other gods must be pronounced separately, so that there be two senses — one, namely: 'You shall not pass aside from all the words which I command you this day, to the right or the left,' according to that understanding which I expounded above; but let the other sense be: 'to go after other gods to serve them,' so that here too be understood: 'You shall not pass aside from all the words which I command you this day.' Which whole sense, if we wish to state it, we shall have to repeat the earlier words which are common to both senses, so that, as it is there said, 'You shall not pass aside from all that I command you this day, to the right or the left,' so here too it be repeated, 'You shall not pass aside from all that I command you this day, to go after other gods to serve them.'
For by passing aside from the words which have been commanded, this too comes about, that one goes after other gods. For it is not this alone that has been commanded, nor this alone that God does not wish to be passed by — namely, that men should not go after other gods — but all things which he commanded; yet this so especially that, after the generality of the precept whereby he admonished that there should be no passing aside from all the words of his commandments, he wished to commend this also separately.
That which he says, 'to the right or the left,' can also be understood thus: that he commanded them to go after other gods neither for the sake of those things which are sought for the sake of happiness, nor for the sake of those things which are fled for the sake of unhappiness — that is, that help is to be sought from other gods neither for the things that are loved nor against the things that are hated; or at any rate in this manner, that they be either conciliated so as to profit, or appeased so as not to harm. For concerning certain men too it is written in the Psalm: 'Whose mouth has spoken vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of iniquity,' for this reason: because they suppose a man to be made blessed by those things which both good and evil men can have; and therefore it is a right hand of iniquity, because they are iniquitous who think that to be the right hand.
For it is not a true right hand, but rather the right hand of those 'whose mouth has spoken vanity.' They called blessed the people that has these things, whereas rather, as he presently adds and teaches, 'blessed is the people whose Lord is its own God.' This is the true right hand of righteousness, not of iniquity. One must therefore not go after strange gods, neither to the right, so that a man should suppose himself made blessed by them, nor to the left, so that, imagining himself made wretched by them when they oppose him, he should worship them to this end, that he may turn them aside. Or else certainly, if by the right hand we understand things eternal and by the left temporal goods, let it be believed that in this passage sacred Scripture has warned that they are to be worshipped neither for the sake of the former nor for the sake of the latter.
'These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to establish for the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.' This shows why the book is called Deuteronomy, as it were a second law, wherein there is rather a repetition of the former than anything else; for few are the things there which were not in what was first given. Yet these are not called two covenants, although these words seem to sound thus; for each is one covenant, which in the Church is called the Old. For if on account of these words two covenants had to be spoken of, there would now be not two but more, besides the New. For Scripture speaks of a covenant in many places, as that which was made with Abraham concerning circumcision, or that earlier one with Noah.