Lecture 9
Lectio 9
Against divorce
Contra libellum repudii
5:31 It has been said: whoever will put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. [n. 512]
5:31 Dictum est autem: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det ei libellum repudii. [n. 512]
5:32 But I say to you, that whoever will put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery: and he who will marry her who is put away, commits adultery. [n. 515]
5:32 Ego autem dico vobis, quia omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam, excepta fornicationis causa, facit eam moechari; et qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat. [n. 515]
512. It has been said: ‘whoever will put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ After the Lord has fulfilled the prohibitive precepts of the law, now he fulfills the permissive precepts of the law.
512. Dictum est autem: ‘quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det illi libellum repudii.’ Postquam Dominus adimplevit praecepta legis prohibitiva, nunc adimplet praecepta legis permissiva.
And this part is divided into two parts:
Et dividitur pars ista in partes duas:
first, he fulfills the law as to the permissive precepts which pertain to God;
primo adimplet legem quantum ad praecepta permissiva quae pertinent ad Deum;
second, as to the precepts that pertain to one’s neighbor, at you have heard that it is said: ‘an eye for an eye’ (Matt 5:38).
secundo quantum ad praecepta quae pertinent ad proximum, ibi audistis quia dictum est: ‘oculum pro oculo.’
The first is in two parts: first, he fulfills the permissive precept concerning the bill of divorce;
Prima in duas: primo adimplet praeceptum permissivum de libello repudii;
second, concerning swearing, at you have heard it said to them of old: ‘you shall not forswear yourself’ (Matt 5:33).
secundo de iuramento, ibi audistis quia dictum est antiquis: ‘non periurabis.’
513. As to the first he does two things:
513. Quantum ad primum duo facit:
first, he sets down the words of the law;
primo ponit verba legis;
second, their fulfillment: but I say to you, that whoever will put away his wife.
secunda ipsorum adimpletionem: ego autem dico vobis quia omnis etc.
514. Therefore he says it has been said: (Deut 24:1). A question. If ‘whoever will put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce’: this is commanded. But to put away one’s wife is a permission: for Moses permitted, he did not command.
514. Dicitur ergo dictum est etc.: Deut. XXIV. Quaestio. Si ‘dimiserit uxorem suam det illi libellum repudii’: hoc est praeceptum. Sed dimittere est permissio: Moyses enim permisit, non praecepit.
But there are many kinds of permission, namely: a concession, when permitted things are conceded, as when a monk is allowed to leave the abbey to visit his father;
Est autem multiplex permissio, scilicet concessionis, quando licita conceduntur, ut monacho conceditur visitare patrem ab abbate;
a dispensation, when things that are not permitted become permitted by dispensation, as when it is permitted dispensatively for a monk to eat meat when he is with others;
dispensationis, quando non licita fiunt licita per dispensationem, ut cum aliis dispensative permittitur monachum comedere carnes;
an indulgence, when something permissible, whose opposite is better, is allowed, like the Apostle’s permission for second marriages, even though the continence of the widowed is a better thing: and according to this you resolve what the Gloss says here, namely that the apostles commanded second marriages, i.e., they allowed them by way of indulgence, or it was commanded unless you were willing to remain continent: otherwise it would not oblige like a precept.
indulgentiae, quando permittitur aliquid licitum cuius oppositum melius est, ut permissio Apostoli de secundis nuptiis, et tamen melior est continentia vidualis: et secundum hoc solvas quod hic dicit Glossa, scilicet quod apostoli praeceperunt secundas nuptias, id est indulserunt, vel praeceptum est nisi velis continere: alias non obliget ut praeceptum;
Then there is a forbearance, as when God permits certain evils to happen, although he always draws some good out of them; and a tolerance, when some evil is tolerated lest something worse happen, as here.
sustinentiae, sicut quando Deus permittit mala aliqua fieri, licet ex eis semper aliquod bonum eliciat; tolerantiae, quando aliquod malum toleratur ne peius fiat, sicut hic.
‘Whoever will put away his wife’. Is the indissolubility of marriage not from natural law? But it is in the law of Moses by dispensation that here ‘let him give her a bill of divorce’ in which the reasons for the divorce are recorded, according to Josephus. Or, according to Augustine: it was written down like this so that there would be an intervening delay, and on the advice of the scribes dissuading him, the man might cease his divorce proceedings. But according to Jerome on this subject, the reason for permitting the divorce of one’s wife was to avoid uxoricide.
‘Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam’. Numquid inseparabilitas matrimonii est de lege naturae? Sed numquid per dispensationem est quod in lege Moysi fuit hic ‘det illi libellum repudii’ in quo causae repudii scribuntur, secundum Iosephum; vel secundum Augustinum: ideo scribebatur ut mora interveniente et consilio scribarum dissuadente vir a proposito repudiandi desisteret. Secundum Ieronimum super hoc, causa autem permissionis repudiandi uxorem fuit vitatio uxoricidii.
515. But was the divorced wife allowed to marry? But I say to you . . . makes her commit adultery. But it is a question. Was it not permitted for a husband to put away his wife on account of fornication? And it seems that evil should not be rendered for evil. It must be said that the Lord conceded divorcing one’s wife for fornication as a penalty to the one who broke faith. But is he bound to this by the precept? It must be said that putting away one’s fornicating wife was introduced for the correction of the wife’s crime. But can someone put her away by his own judgment? He who will marry her who is put away, commits adultery, for the man is intruding on an existing marriage.
515. Sed numquid repudiatae licebat nubere? Ego autem dico: facit eam mechari. Sed est quaestio. Numquid propter fornicationem licet viro uxorem dimittere? Et videtur quia non est malum pro malo reddendum. Dicendum quod Dominus concessit dimittere uxorem propter fornicationem in penam illius qui fidem fregit. Sed numquid tenetur ad hoc ex praecepto? Dicendum quod dimissio uxoris fornicantis introducta est ad corrigendum uxoris crimen. Sed numquid proprio iudicio potest eam dimittere? Et qui dimissam duxerit adulterat, quia vir adveniens supra matrimonium.
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.