Lecture 10 Lectio 10 Against oaths Contra iuramenta ^5:33 You have heard it said to them of old: you shall not forswear yourself: but you shall perform your oaths to the Lord. [n. 516] ^5:33 Iterum audistis quia dictum est antiquis: non periurabis, reddes autem Domino iuramenta tua. [n. 516] ^5:34 But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God: [n. 518] ^5:34 Ego autem dico vobis, non iurare omnino: neque per caelum, quia thronus Dei est; [n. 518] ^5:35 nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king: [n. 520] ^5:35 neque per terram, quia scabellum est pedum eius; neque per Ierosolymam, quia civitas est magni regis. [n. 520] ^5:36 neither shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. [n. 522] ^5:36 Neque per caput iuraveris, quia non potes unum capillum album facere, aut nigrum. [n. 522] ^5:37 But let your speech be yes, yes: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil. [n. 523] ^5:37 Sit autem sermo vester: est, est; non, non; quod autem his abundantius est, a malo est. [n. 523] 516. You have heard it said to them of old: ‘you shall not forswear yourself.’ Above the Lord gave the fulfillment of one permissive precept, namely, about the bill of divorce. Here he fulfills another permissive precept, namely, about swearing. 516. Audistis quia dictum est antiquis: ‘non periurabis.’ Supra Dominus adimplevit unum praeceptum permissivum, scilicet de libello repudii; hic adimplet aliud permissivum, scilicet de iuramento. And concerning this he does three things: Et circa hoc tria facit: first, he sets down the words of the law; primo enim ponit verba legis; second, he gives their fulfillment; secundo adimplet; third, he answers a question. tertio quaestioni respondet. The second is at but I say to you; Secundum ibi ego autem; the third, at but let your speech be. tertium ibi sit sermo. 517. But it must be considered that there are two things contained in the words of the law, one of which was simply prohibitive, the other permissive. The prohibitive one: perjury, and this is you have heard, at, you shall not swear falsely (Lev 19:12), and almost the same meaning at: you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain (Exod 20:7). The permissive one: ‘perform your oaths to the Lord’, that is when it happens that you swear, you will swear not by creatures but by God, you shall fear the Lord your God, and shall serve him only and you shall swear by his name (Deut 6:13). And according to this it seems that this sacrament, namely, to swear by God, is not a sin, but rather the law permitted it because Jews were prone to idolatry, not as if it were licit, but that the worse thing might be avoided, namely, idolatry. 517. Est autem considerandum quod in verbis legis duo continebantur, quorum unum erat simpliciter prohibitivum, aliud permissivum. Prohibitivum: periurium, et hoc est audistis etc., Levit. XIX, et quasi in eumdem sensum Exo. XXX: non assumes nomen Domini Dei tui in vanum etc. Permissivum: ‘reddes Domino’, id est quando contigerit te iurare non per creaturas iurabis sed per Deum, Deut. V: Dominum Deum tuum timebis et ipsi servies ac per nomen illius iurabit. Et secundum hoc videtur quod hoc sacramentum, scilicet iurare per Deum, non est peccatum, sed quod permiserit lex hoc quia Iudaei proni erant ad idolatriam, non tamquam liceret, sed ut vitaretur peius, scilicet idolatria. But it is clear that it is in itself a good thing to show reverence to God; to swear by God is to show reverence to God. And this is clear because in the Gloss it is said each one, and, for men swear by one greater than themselves (Heb 6:16): therefore, to swear by God is a good thing in itself. Furthermore, to swear by God is to invoke God as witness; but this is good in itself: therefore to swear by God is good in itself. Sed constat autem quod reverentiam exhibere Deo secundum se bonum est; iurare per Deum est reverentiam exhibere Deo, quia in Glossa dicitur unusquisque etc., et Hebr. homines enim per maiorem sui iurant. Ergo iurare per Deum secundum se bonum est. Praeterea iurare per Deum est testem Deum invocare; sed hoc secundum se bonum est: ergo iurare per se bonum est. 518. And it should be known that swearing in itself is not something ordered, but on the contrary carries disorder in itself. Swearing by God is nothing other than invoking God as witness to human speech. But this can happen two ways. For either divine testimony is brought in to confirm human speech alone, and this is not evil; or else divine judgment is demanded, as though to say: if it is not so, may he be damned by God. But among the deeds of men, nothing is so fragile as a word, if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man (Jas 3:2). Hence to invoke God as witness in something in which man is so fragile, is to condemn the judgment of God, a man who swears much will be filled with iniquity (Sir 23:12). 518. Et sciendum quod iurare secundum se non est aliquid ordinatum, immo in se importat inordinationem. Nihil est aliud iurare per Deum quam invocare Deum testem super dicto humano. Hoc autem contingit dupliciter. Aut quia inducitur divinum testimonium ad confirmandum dictum humanum tantum: et hoc non est malum; aut quia expetitur divinum iudicium, quasi: si non ita est, condemnetur a Deo. In factis autem hominum nihil ita est fragile sicut verbum, Iac. III: si quis in verbo non offendit, hic perfectus est vir. Unde invocare testem Deum in hoc in quo homo est ita fragilis, hoc est contemnere iudicium Dei, Eccli. XXIII: vir multum iurans implebitur iniquitate. But the Lord fulfills this accordingly. Hence but I say to you not to swear at all. Therefore swearing in itself is illicit. Therefore since judges compel people to swear in court, it seems that they act against a precept; and this is the opinion of certain heretics who say that swearing is permitted to no one. And Jerome answers that the Lord here prohibits swearing by creatures, and this for the sake of the Jews who were prone to idolatry: hence he does not prohibit swearing simply. But this does not seem a good explanation, for then the Lord would add nothing to the words of the law which says ‘perform your oaths to the Lord.’ And therefore it should be said, according to Augustine, that the Lord prohibits swearing by God and by creatures. Dominus autem consequenter hic adimplet. Unde ego autem dico vobis nolite etc. Ergo iuramentum secundum se est illicitum. Cum ergo iudices compellant homines iurare in causibus suis, videtur quod faciant contra praeceptum; et haec est opinio quorumdam haereticorum dicentium quod nulli iurare licet. Et respondet Ieronimus quod Dominus hic prohibet iurare per creaturas, et hoc propter Iudeos qui proni ad idolatriam: unde non simpliciter prohibet iuramentum. Sed haec non videtur bona expositio quia tunc Dominus nihil adderet verbis legis quae dicit ‘reddes Domino iuramenta tua.’ Et ideo dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod Dominus prohibet iurare per Deum et creaturas. 519. But then there remains a twofold question. First, that our Lord would have destroyed the law which says render your vows to the Lord; second, because according to this it seems that swearing is illicit. And Augustine answers that just as the bill of divorce was not intended by the law, but permitted on account of the cruelty of the Jews, and the Lord fulfilled it; because in no way did he will that the law be given the same way here, he commanded that they not forswear, but if they swore they should swear not by creatures but by God. But the Lord fulfills it when he says not to swear. And just as no one who keeps silence can lie, so also someone who never swears is most removed from perjury. 519. Sed tunc remanet duplex quaestio. Prima, quod Dominus noster destrueret legem quae dicit reddes Domino iuramenta tua; secunda, quia secundum hoc videtur quod iuramentum sit illicitum. Et respondet Augustinus quod sicut libellus repudii non fuit intentus a lege sed permissus propter crudelitatem Iudaeorum, et Dominus adimplevit; quia nullo modo voluit quod daretur similiter hic lex, mandavit quod non periurarent, sed si iurarent non per creaturas sed per Deum. Sed Dominus adimplet cum dicit nolite etc. Et sicut qui tacet nullo modo est mendax, ita qui nullo modo iurat magis removetur a periurio. To the argument that swearing is illicit, it should be said, according to Augustine, that it is the same Holy Spirit who is spoken of in the holy Scriptures and who worked among the holy men. Hence whatever may be the understanding of the Scriptures is clear from the words of the holy men. Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit, and nevertheless he swore twice, for both in an oath of simple testimony: for God is my witness (Rom 1:9); and in an oath of imprecation, which is when someone pledges his salvation or his soul to God, but I call God to witness upon my soul (1 Cor 1:9). And if it is said that this is not an oath, this is ridiculous, for it is the same thing to swear by God and to swear upon my soul: I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren (1 Cor 15:31); and in Greek, the by is understood as may I swear. Therefore if Paul swore it seems that the Lord did not intend to prohibit swearing, but rather carelessness in swearing. And it shows that swearing is not in itself to be sought, but rather avoided except when necessary: and thus Augustine says that Paul never swore except in writing because it should not be done except with great caution and deliberation and out of necessity unless required for the benefit of others. Ad illud quod dicitur quod iuramentum est illicitum dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod idem Spiritus Sanctus est qui locutus est in Sacris Scripturis et qui operatus est in sanctis suis. Unde quis sit intellectus Scripturarum patet ex dictis sanctorum. Paulus motus est a Spiritu Sancto, et tamen iuravit dupliciter, quia et iuramento simplicis attestationis, Ro. I: testis mihi est Deus; et iuramento execrationis quod est quando quis impignorat salutem suam vel animam suam Deo, 1 Cor. ego testem Deum invoco in animam meam. Et si dicatur quod hoc non est iuramentum, hoc ridiculum est quia idem est per Deum et in animam meam, Cor.: cotidie morior per gloriam vestram, frates, quam habeo in Christo Iesu Domino nostro; et in graeco ly per intelligitur iurante. Ergo si Paulus iuravit videtur quod Dominus non intendat iuramentum prohibere, sed facilitatem iurandi. Et ostendit quod iuramentum non est secundum se appetendum immo non nisi propter necessitatem iurantis: et ideo dicit Augustinus quod Paulus nunquam iuravit nisi in scribendo quia non debet fieri nisi cum magna cautela et deliberatione et propter necessitatem nisi scilicet exposcit utilitas aliorum. 520. But it could be said that it is evil to swear by God, but not to swear by something less than God. And the Lord excludes this, hence neither by heaven. To swear by creatures can be either with idolatry or without idolatry. For if judgment is attributed to these things, namely by demanding judgment from created things, then that is idolatry, as with the ancients who said the sky was God. In another way it can be without sin or idolatry in two ways. First, inasmuch as a created thing is pledged to God by calling for judgment on it, as when men swear by their heads. Second, inasmuch as in any created thing there appears some evidence of divine majesty, as if it is sworn by the sky, his strength and power are manifest in the sky. Hence here he sets down more excellent created things by which someone could swear. 520. Sed posset dici quod iurare per Deum malum est, sed non per aliquid minus Deo. Et hoc Dominus excludit, unde neque per caelum etc. Iurare per creaturas potest esse vel idolatria vel absque idolatria. Si enim attribuatur iudicium rebus illis, scilicet exposcendo iudicium a creaturis, hoc est idolatrare, sicut antiqui qui dicebant caelum esse Deum. Alio modo potest sine peccato et idolatria dupliciter. Primum inquantum creatura impignoratur Deo exposcendo iudicium in ea, sicut quando homines iurant per caput suum. Secundo inquantum in aliqua creatura apparet aliqua evidentia divinae maiestatis, sicut si iuretur per caelum, eius virtus et potentia in caelo manifestatur. Unde hic ponit creaturas excellentes per quas aliquis posset iurare. And this excellence is manifest in three things, namely, the two elements: heaven and earth, under which are contained all other things as middles between extremes. And as to the fact that he says neither by heaven: heaven is my throne and earth my footstool (Isa 66:1). Chrysostom: he does not say neither by heaven because it is some kind of large body, or nor by the earth which is mother of all things, but he shows their excellence by their relationship to God. Et est ista excellentia in tribus manifesta, scilicet, duo elementa: caelum et terra, sub quibus continentur omnia alia sicut media inter extrema. Et quantum ad hoc dicit neque per caelum, Ps. ult. caelum mihi sedes et terra scabellum pedum meorum etc. Chrysostomus non dicit neque per caelum quia quoddam magnum corpus est, neque per terram quae mater est omnium, sed ostendit excellentiam istorum per comparationem ad Deum. 521. But does God have members and a position and that kind of thing? Hence this is explained in two ways. First, literally. For seat is said of that thing where someone rests, and he rests wherever he perfectly stands. For thus among corporeal created things the heaven participates more greatly in divine goodness and the earth less; thus heaven is called the seat, earth the footstool. Likewise men are accustomed to sitting at judgment. And heaven is said because the Lord sometimes judges by those things that come from heaven, by these he judges people (Job 36:31), namely by lightning and that sort of thing. 521. Sed numquid Deus habet membra, sicut et situm et huiusmodi? Unde dupliciter exponitur. Primo ad litteram. Illud enim dicitur sedes ubi aliquis requiescit, et ibi requiescit ubi perfecte stat. Quia igitur inter creaturas corporales caelum magis de divina bonitate participat et terra est minus, ideo caelum dicitur sedes, terra scabellum. Item homines consueverunt sedere ad iudicandum. Et quia Dominus per ea quae de caelo veniunt aliquando iudicat, Iob XXVI: per haec iudicat populos, scilicet per fulgura et huiusmodi, dicitur caelum. But mystically, by heaven holy men are understood, whose conversation is in heaven: but our conversation is in heaven (Phil 3:20). Through these God judges: the spiritual man judges all things (2 Cor 2:15). Earth represents sinners, because of their earthly affections, who mind earthly things (Phil 3:19); footstool, because if they do not fulfill the law that they are under, they will be punished. Mystice autem per caelum intelliguntur sancti viri, quorum conversatio est in caelis, Phil. III, 20. In his Deus iudicat, Cor. II: spiritualis iudicat omnia; terra, peccatores, propter affectum terrenorum, Phil. III, 20: qui terrena sapiunt etc.; et super scabellum, quia si legem sub qua sunt non implent punientur. 522. For man’s way of life, he sets the city, and among the other cities Jerusalem is preeminent because God is worshipped there; and this is nor by Jerusalem: glorious things are said of you, O city of God (Ps 87:3), and, Jerusalem, which is built as a city (Ps 122:3). 522. In conversatione hominum ponit civitatem, et inter alias Ierusalem excellit quia ibi colebatur Deus: et hoc est neque per Ierosolymam, Ps. gloriosa dicta sunt de te civitas Dei, et Ierusalem quae aedificatur ut civitas. And by members of the body. But because it could be said that we should not swear by the greater members, but by the lesser ones, for this reason he says nor by your head. For anyone can do what he wishes with what is his own; but man does not have power over his own head as to every least thing; therefore, he should not swear by it. And this is for you cannot make one hair white or black, according to nature, that is: no one can add to his stature one cubit (Matt 6:72). Et in membris corporalibus. Sed quia posset dici quod non debemus iurare per ista maiora sed per minora, ideo dicit neque per caput. Quilibet enim potest facere de eo quod suum est quod vult; sed homo non habet potestatem super caput suum quantum ad minima; ergo non debet iurare per illud. Et hoc est quia non potes capillum album facare aut nigrum, secundum naturam scilicet, infra, VI, 27: nemo potest adicere ad staturam suam cubitum unum. 523. But it may be said, how then will we speak? He answers and first satisfies the question, second, gives the reason. Therefore he says let your speech be. And this can be explained in three ways. The first in this way. If someone should ask, is this so? Let your speech be yes, yes; no, no. It is or it is not. Second, that the mouth not say something and the heart feel something else and the actions show something else again: who speak peace with their neighbors: but evils are in their hearts (Ps 28:3). The third is like this, and it is more literal. Let your speech be yes, yes: if a thing is, it is; if it is not, it is not; as though he were saying: you shall say one thing simply. For this is the definition of the true: to be what is and not to be what is not. And this is Hilary’s explanation, Christ Jesus . . . was not: it is and it is not. But it is, was in him (2 Cor 1:19). 523. Sed posset dici: quomodo ergo loquemur? Respondet et primo satisfacit quaestioni, secundo ponit rationem. Dicit ergo sit autem sermo. Et potest tripliciter exponi. Primo sic. Si aliquis quaerat: estne hoc, sit sermo vester: est vel non. Secundo ut non aliud dicat os et aliud sentiat cor et aliud demonstret opus, Ps. qui loquuntur pacem cum proximo suo, mala autem sunt in cordibus eorum etc. Tertio sic, et est magis litteralis. Sit sermo vester: vereque est, est, vereque non est, non est; quasi dicat: dicatis unum simpliciter. Haec est enim definitio veri: omne quod est, et non esse quod non est. Et ista est Hilarii, II Cor. I, 19: Christus Iesus non fuit est et non, sed est in illo fuit etc. 524. He does not say it is evil, but it is of evil, not from your own but from another, since to swear is of the body, although nevertheless it may be expedient that the other might believe; and this is how the Apostle swore. Or, according to Chrysostom, and that which is over and above these, by this it is clear that in the old law he prohibited one oath, namely, perjury, but he allowed another, namely, swearing out of necessity. He removes the third oath, namely, a superstitious one, which is when a created thing is shown reverence that is owed to the creator. 524. Quod autem etc. Non dicit malum est, sed a malo est, non tuo sed ab alio, quia iurare corporis, cum tamen expediret illi credere; et sic Apostolus iuravit. Vel, secundum Chrysostomum, quod autem his abundantius, per hoc apparet quod in veteri lege unum iuramentum prohibitivum, scilicet periurare, aliud permisit, scilicet ex necessitate iurare; tertium iuramentum removet, scilicet superstitiosum, quod est quando reverentia exhibetur creaturae quae debetur creatori. Lecture 11 Lectio 11 Against revenge Contra ultionem ^5:38 You have heard that it was said: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. [n. 525] ^5:38 Audistis quia dictum est: oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente. [n. 525] ^5:39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other. [n. 527] ^5:39 Ego autem dico vobis, non resistere malo; sed si quis te percusserit in dexteram maxillam, praebe illi et alteram. [n. 527] ^5:40 And if a man will contend with you in judgment, and take away your coat, let go your cloak to him also. [n. 532] ^5:40 Et ei qui vult tecum iudicio contendere, et tunicam tuam tollere, dimitte ei et pallium. [n. 532] ^5:41 And whoever will force you one mile, go with him the other two, [n. 534] ^5:41 Et quicumque te angariaverit mille passus, vade cum illo et alia duo. [n. 534] ^5:42 give to him who asks of you and from him who would borrow of you turn not away. [n. 535] ^5:42 Qui petit a te, da ei; et volenti mutuari a te, ne avertaris. [n. 535] 525. You have heard that it was said: ‘an eye for an eye.’ Above, the Lord fulfilled the law as to the permissive precepts that pertain to God; now, he does it as to those that pertain to our neighbor. And this in two respects: as to the act, and as to the emotion. The second is found at, ‘you shall love your neighbor’ (Matt 5:43). 525. Audistis quia dictum est: ‘oculum pro oculo.’ Supra Dominus adimplevit legem quantum ad praecepta permissiva quae pertinent ad Deum; nunc quantum ad ea quae pertinent ad proximum. Et hoc quantum ad duo: quantum ad actum et quantum ad affectum. Secundum, ibi ‘diliges proximum.’