Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
The bill of divorce is permitted. Second, verse 6, various laws concerning pledges and relief for the poor are ordained.
Vulgate Text: Deuteronomy 24:1-22
1. If a man takes a wife, and has her, and she does not find favor in his eyes because of some indecency, he shall write a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and dismiss her from his house. 2. And when she has gone out and married another husband, 3. and he too hates her, and gives her a bill of divorce, and dismisses her from his house, or indeed dies; 4. the first husband cannot take her back as wife; because she is polluted and has become abominable before the Lord; lest you cause your land to sin, which the Lord your God has delivered to you to possess. 5. When a man has recently taken a wife, he shall not go out to war, nor shall any public necessity be imposed on him, but he shall be free without blame at his home, that for one year he may rejoice with his wife. 6. You shall not take as a pledge the lower and upper millstone: because he has pledged his life to you. 7. If a man is found kidnapping one of his brothers from the children of Israel, and selling him for a price, he shall be put to death, and you shall remove evil from your midst. 8. Take careful heed lest you incur the plague of leprosy, but do whatever the priests of the Levitical line shall teach you, according to what I have commanded them, and fulfill it diligently. 9. Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam on the way, when you were coming out of Egypt. 10. When you demand from your neighbor something he owes you, you shall not enter his house to seize a pledge: 11. but you shall stand outside, and he shall bring out to you what he has. 12. But if he is poor, the pledge shall not remain with you overnight; 13. but you shall return it to him immediately before sunset, so that sleeping in his garment he may bless you, and you may have righteousness before the Lord your God. 14. You shall not deny the wages of the needy and poor, your brother, or the stranger who dwells with you in the land and within your gates: 15. but on the same day you shall pay him the price of his labor before sunset, because he is poor and supports his life from it: lest he cry out against you to the Lord, and it be counted to you as sin. 16. Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor sons for their fathers, but each shall die for his own sin. 17. You shall not pervert the judgment of the stranger and the orphan, nor take the garment of the widow as a pledge. 18. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the Lord your God delivered you from there. Therefore I command you to do this thing: 19. When you reap the harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf, you shall not go back to take it; but you shall let the stranger, the orphan, and the widow take it, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20. If you gather the produce of your olive trees, whatever remains on the trees you shall not go back to collect: but you shall leave it for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. 21. If you harvest your vineyard, you shall not gather the remaining clusters; but they shall go to the use of the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. 22. Remember that you too were a slave in Egypt, and therefore I command you to do this thing.
Verse 1: The Bill of Divorce
1. IF A MAN TAKES A WIFE, AND SHE DOES NOT FIND FAVOR IN HIS EYES BECAUSE OF SOME INDECENCY, HE SHALL WRITE A BILL OF DIVORCE. For "indecency" the Hebrew is eruat, that is, nakedness; hence Tertullian, Book 4 Against Marcion, chapter 34, reads: If in her an impure matter is found, and from this concludes that divorce was lawful for the Jews only on account of the wife's fornication. Burgensis holds the same in chapter 19 of Matthew.
But Origen, Chrysostom, and commonly the interpreters here and at Matthew 19:7, by "indecency" understand not fornication alone, but also other forms of disgrace, both of mind and body, and teach that divorce was lawful on these grounds, and the word "some" sufficiently indicates this; and the Hebrew, which has: the indecency of some thing. For in Hebrew eruat, that is, nakedness, is taken by metalepsis and by catachresis for any form of indecency, or any shameful and disgraceful thing: for nakedness is a very shameful and disgraceful thing. Such disgrace, therefore, or indecency, on account of which divorce of a wife was lawful, was, for example, leprosy, barrenness, witchcraft, perpetual quarreling, drunkenness, and other incorrigible bad habits. For in the case of fornication, or rather adultery, there seems scarcely to have been place for divorce; for if the crime were established, the adulteress was stoned, as is clear from Leviticus 20:10; but if she were suspected of the crime, she was exposed by the waters of jealousy, which she was forced to drink, as is clear from Numbers 5:27.
Note however: The Jews could not, for any trivial reason or slight defect, give a bill of divorce: for this is what Malachi, chapter 2, verse 16, reproving those who, allured by the beauty of foreign women, were divorcing their Hebrew wives, says: "If you hate her, put her away; yet iniquity shall cover his garment," that is, his body, which is as it were the garment of the soul, says St. Jerome — as if to say: If for this reason, namely because she is not beautiful enough, you hate and divorce your wife, you will sin, and the punishment of this sin will be derived from God upon your body. Then therefore the one divorcing sinned, but not the divorced woman, because she was compelled to depart.
HE SHALL WRITE A BILL OF DIVORCE. Hence more probable seems the opinion of those who teach that divorce was so permitted to the Jews that, God dispensing with them in this matter, those who divorced their wives did not sin. Moreover, by this divorce the bond of marriage was dissolved, so that the one divorcing could marry another, and the divorced woman could marry another man (although others feel otherwise, from the fact that in verse 4, such a divorced woman is called polluted and abominable, about which see verse 4). For first, the manner and rite of divorce is here prescribed; and by the very fact that a woman once divorced is forbidden to return to the husband who divorced her, it is sufficiently implied that she can marry another man: hence in practice most married another. For this is what is meant by what is said in verse 2: "And when she has gone out and married another husband"; therefore the first marriage was already dissolved by the divorce. Otherwise that old law would have permitted public and continual adultery; for such would have been all the unions of divorced women with new husbands, if the first marriage, formerly entered into with the divorcing husband, had not been dissolved by the divorce; and consequently the children born from them would have been adulterous and illegitimate, and thus the inheritances of many would have devolved to illegitimate children.
Second, because otherwise the condition of women would have been too unjust, who were often divorced without any fault of their own, if they would have had to live celibate thereafter, and could not have married without sin. This is confirmed, because in Exodus 21:4, it is established that in the seventh year the slave goes free, while the wife with children remains a slave with the master: therefore either this wife could marry another, and so the bond of the prior marriage was already dissolved; or she could not, and so against her will she would have had to remain continent for her whole life, which seems too harsh under that law. Similarly in Deuteronomy 21:14, if any Hebrew had taken a woman captured in war as his wife, and she afterward displeased him, the law permits him to divorce her and commands the marriage to be dissolved, says Theodoretus, Question 19, yet so that she obtains her liberty as the reward of the union.
Third, because in Hebrew it says: he shall write a document of cutting off; therefore by it the bond of marriage was severed: this permission therefore was not merely a dissimulation of punishment and impunity alone, but also made the thing permitted, namely divorce, lawful. So hold Abulensis, Burgensis, Cajetan, Oleaster, and very many others whom Sanchez cites and follows, Volume 3 On Matrimony, Book 10, disputation 1. It was otherwise with interest; for this, in chapter 23, verse 19, concerning foreigners, is merely permitted to the Jews, namely so that such usurers could not be punished by a judge, nor the interest reclaimed from them.
You will say: Christ, Matthew 19:8, says that Moses, because of the hardness of heart of the Jews, permitted them divorce; therefore this was merely a bare permission, which only fails to punish those who divorce.
I respond that this hardness was the reason why God granted divorce, namely lest the Jews should kill their wives, whom they could not divorce. This concession, however, made divorce lawful; because God, on account of the hardness of the Jews, dispensed with them in the law of marriage, and came to the aid of their weakness (for it is the mark of a good ruler to accommodate his laws to the character and disposition of the people), especially since this was done for a mystery. For by this divorce of the Jews it was signified that God, having set aside the Synagogue of the Jews, would betroth to Himself the Church from among the Gentiles. And for this reason it happened that the marriages of the Jews did not have the nature of a Sacrament, as the marriages of Christians do, nor did they signify the inseparable union of Christ with our nature and with the Church, as, the incarnation of Christ now having been accomplished, the marriages of the faithful signify, which are therefore entirely indissoluble.
Note: This right of divorce belonged only to husbands, not wives. So Josephus, Book 15, chapter 11, where he says that Salome, the sister of Herod, contrary to the law which permits divorce only to husbands, divorced her husband Costobarus: "For our law," he says, "permits the right of divorce only to husbands; and it is not lawful for women, not even those dismissed, to marry, except with the permission of the former husband." The former about husbands the law states; the latter about dismissed women, that they may not marry without the husband's permission, the law does not state; but if this is true, it was introduced by custom, by which husbands usurped this right. However, wives could obtain a separation from bed on account of the husband's adultery and other just causes. For natural law permits this to Christians and to any Gentiles.
A BILL OF DIVORCE. In Hebrew it is a bill of keritut, that is, of cutting off or separation. Note: This document is called letters of dismissal: for so we still call a petition letters of supplication. For the Hebrew sephar, that is, a book, signifies any kind of letters, a catalog, a narrative, a document, etc.
The Hebrews relate, and from them Vatablus, Oleaster, and others, that the formula of the bill of divorce was this: "I, Rabbi Simeon, son of Rabbi Abraham, son of Rabbi David, son of Rabbi Solomon, on the first day of the second month, in the year 5296 from the creation of the world, here and in this city, with the consent of my mind, and without any coercion, have divorced Rachel, daughter of Rabbi Moses, son of Rabbi Joseph, son of Rabbi Jacob; and I have given her a bill of divorce in her hand, a document of separation, and a seal of division, that she may be cast off from me, and may go wherever she wishes, and no one may forbid her, according to the ordinances of Moses and Israel."
The formula of the bill of divorce among the Romans, as is clear from the Civil Law, title On Divorces, was this: "Take care of your things, keep your things for yourself"; and the divorce had to be made before a judge in judicial form, as is clear from the same title. And it is likely that the Jews also did so. That the Medes and Persians also used divorce is clear from Esther 1:19, where Ahasuerus divorces Vashti. The same is clear of the Philistines from Judges 15:2.
Hear the reason for writing this document from St. Augustine, Book 19 Against Faustus, chapter 26: "God," he says, "interposed this delay, so that a mind rushing headlong into separation, held back by the writing of the document, might desist, and consider what an evil it was to dismiss a wife, especially because the scribes, whose task it was to write letters, being prudent men, were dissuaders of the separation." The other reason was that the matter might be done legitimately and juridically, lest the one divorcing afterward deny the divorce and take back the divorced woman against the law. Again, so that provision might be made for the divorced woman, and she might be able to enter into a new marriage. For by this document she demonstrated to all that she was free and released from her former husband and marriage; otherwise the matter would have been liable to adulteries and lawsuits, as we have seen happen in clandestine marriages.
Finally Christ, Matthew 19:8 and following, absolutely revokes the dispensation of God in the law of marriage, and takes away all right of divorce, and restores marriage itself to its primeval nature, institution, and indissolubility; so that now after Christ, divorce is lawful neither for Christians, nor for Jews, nor for Pagans, nor for any human beings. Paul Fagius therefore errs, and the heretics who teach that divorce is still lawful for Christians.
Verse 4: The First Husband Cannot Take Her Back
4. THE FIRST HUSBAND CANNOT TAKE HER BACK AS WIFE, BECAUSE (in Hebrew: after that) SHE IS POLLUTED AND HAS BECOME ABOMINABLE BEFORE THE LORD. He calls the divorced woman polluted, not because she committed a sin by entering a second marriage: for otherwise she would have to be forbidden from marrying any third person; but because she had been known by another, namely a second husband, and polluted by his seed, and therefore it was not lawful for her to return to the former husband, because with respect to him she was abominable — or, as the Hebrew has it, because this is an abomination before the Lord. Because, namely, the return to the husband who divorced her is abominable and absolutely forbidden by God, both because this circular return of marriages bears the appearance of adulterous intercourse, and the divorce seems to have been only feigned and cloaked; and because otherwise an easier path would have been given to separations and divorces, if after a second marriage it had been lawful to return to the first; but as it was, a husband divorced his wife more reluctantly, knowing he could never take her back. So Cajetan and Oleaster.
LEST YOU CAUSE YOUR LAND TO SIN — lest you defile your land. So the Septuagint, as if to say: Lest the land be polluted by the sin of disobedience against this law, and lest God impute this sin to it and punish it; because obviously the first husband, by taking back a wife contrary to the law, once divorced by him and polluted by another's seed, and therefore made abominable to him, rendered himself polluted, abominable, and infamous, and was considered such by all; by which deed the land itself was, as it were, polluted, because it allowed a foul and disgraceful thing to be done upon it. So in Genesis 38:7, Er and Onan polluted the land upon which they spilled their seed, and consequently made it liable to divine punishment, namely barrenness, locusts, caterpillars, famine, plague, etc., on account of the wickedness of its inhabitants. So Abulensis and Cajetan. See the discussion at Leviticus 18:28.
Verse 6: The Millstone as Pledge
6. YOU SHALL NOT TAKE AS A PLEDGE THE LOWER AND UPPER MILLSTONE (the millstone, that is, the milling stone, either both or one of them, with the result that he cannot grind. In Hebrew the lower millstone is called rechaim, because it breathes and blows out, as it were, the flour ground by it; for ruach means to breathe; hence ruach is spirit. The upper millstone is called recheb, because it rides, as it were, upon the lower; he adds the reason): BECAUSE HE HAS PLEDGED HIS LIFE TO YOU — that is, as the Hebrew and Septuagint have it, because he gives his life as a pledge. For, as the Chaldean translates, with these millstones food is made for every soul, as if to say: When you take the millstones as a pledge, you take the life of the miller and others: because by this mill the miller lives, and prepares sustenance for himself, and supplies flour and nourishment to many others.
Tropologically St. Gregory, Book 33 of the Moralia, 16, and from him Rupert and Rabanus: The pledge of the debtor is the confession of the sinner; the upper millstone is hope, the lower is fear. These are therefore forbidden to be taken as a pledge: because he who preaches to a sinner must compose his preaching with such balance that he neither takes away fear while abandoning hope, nor abandons hope while leaving the sinner in fear alone.
Verse 7: Kidnapping
7. SOLICITING HIS BROTHER — so that a brother, that is, a neighbor, may subject himself to him and follow him to foreigners, to whom he may sell him. Hence the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Septuagint for "soliciting" have "stealing," that is, kidnapping; for plagiarism is the theft of a human being, by which a person is snatched into slavery or sold, which is an enormous sin and injustice, and therefore is here punished with death.
Verse 8: The Plague of Leprosy
8. TAKE CAREFUL HEED LEST YOU INCUR THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY. So also the Chaldean translates: Take careful heed, he says, lest you fall into the plague of leprosy, so that you guard yourself well, and do according to all that the priests shall teach you — as if to say: You will observe and guard yourself so as not to incur leprosy, if you do what the priests teach you; but if you rebel against them, fear lest you be struck with leprosy, just as Miriam was struck because she had murmured against Moses. Hence it is clear that leprosy was a scourge that God sent upon those who rebelled against and despised their superiors, especially ecclesiastical ones. Hence also King Uzziah, wishing to burn incense against the will of the priests, was struck with leprosy, 4 Kings 15:5. See the discussion at Leviticus 13, at the beginning of the chapter.
Verse 10: Taking Pledges
10. YOU SHALL NOT ENTER HIS (your neighbor's) HOUSE TO SEIZE A PLEDGE — lest, namely, having entered his house, you seize as a pledge something necessary or very useful to your neighbor; therefore allow your neighbor to bring voluntarily to you as a pledge whatever he wishes, and what he can best do without.
Verse 12: The Pledge of the Poor
12. BUT IF HE IS POOR, THE PLEDGE SHALL NOT REMAIN WITH YOU OVERNIGHT. The wealthy are here commanded, when they have received from a poor man as a pledge a garment or some other necessary thing, to send this pledge home to him every evening, so that at night he may be warmed by his garment and use his property; but in the morning each day they are permitted to receive it again as a pledge, so that by this means the poor man is stimulated to quickly pay what he owes them.
Verse 13: Righteousness Before the Lord
13. THAT YOU MAY HAVE RIGHTEOUSNESS BEFORE THE LORD YOUR GOD — "righteousness," that is, mercy: so the Septuagint, that is, the merit and reward of mercy. So Daniel 4:24, where we have: "Redeem your sins with alms," the Chaldean, which in that book is the original, has: Redeem your sins with righteousness. Hence our interpreter also sometimes takes righteousness for mercy, as in Proverbs 11:4: "Righteousness (that is, almsgiving) delivers from death"; for it was preceded by: "Riches (greedily hoarded) will not profit in the day of vengeance"; and Psalm 111:9, which the Apostle cites, 2 Corinthians 9:9: "He has scattered, he has given to the poor; his righteousness (that is, almsgiving) endures forever." Therefore mercy is called righteousness, because mercy is the proper virtue of the just and holy, and the same person is both holy and merciful. Hence the holy one in Hebrew is called chasid, that is, pious; on the contrary, "the bowels of the wicked are cruel," as is said in Proverbs 12:10. See the discussion at 2 Corinthians 9:9.
Verses 14-15: The Wages of the Needy
14 and 15. YOU SHALL NOT DENY THE WAGES OF THE NEEDY, etc. BUT ON THE SAME DAY YOU SHALL PAY HIM THE PRICE OF HIS LABOR, etc., BECAUSE HE IS POOR AND SUPPORTS HIS LIFE FROM IT. The wage is here commanded to be paid to the poor on the same day they worked, before sunset; because from it they must live day by day and feed their family.
Verse 16: Fathers Shall Not Be Put to Death for Sons
16. FATHERS SHALL NOT BE PUT TO DEATH FOR THEIR SONS. Lyranus holds that punishment, not only of loss but also of the senses, namely torments and death, can be inflicted on children for the sins of parents, and this not only by God but also by men, namely by judges and rulers. But this contradicts this verse, and Gabriel Vasquez rightly refutes this, I-II, Question 83, article 4, disputation 135, chapter 3.
Verse 19: Gleaning for the Poor
19. WHEN YOU REAP THE HARVEST IN YOUR FIELD AND HAVE FORGOTTEN A SHEAF, YOU SHALL NOT GO BACK TO TAKE IT. Gleaning and grape-gathering after the vintage are here and in Leviticus 19:9 commanded to be left for the poor; the same is established concerning the produce, that is, the fruits, of the olive trees, remaining on the trees after the harvest. These are therefore precepts of mercy, not of justice.
Note in this chapter how God is the guardian and avenger of the poor, and how He wills them to be helped and not harmed: "Lest he cry out," says verse 15, "against you to the Lord, and it be counted to you as sin." A celebrated example, made famous by everyone's lips, exists in Holland: for the wife of the Count of Holland, pushing away a poor beggar woman and accusing her of adultery because she had so numerous an offspring, was cursed by her that she would bear as many children as there are days in a year. God heard the curse and caused the Count's wife to bring forth 365 children in one birth, all of whom were baptized and died shortly after baptism. A painting of this prodigy exists in a convent of nuns between Leiden and The Hague. Crantzius narrates in the History of Wandalia and the annals of Brunswick for the year of the Lord 1313 that exactly the same thing happened to Margaret, wife of the Count of Holstein. Whether this is the same prodigy as the former, so that they were deceived by the similar-sounding names of Holstein and Holland, I do not trouble myself, provided we do not doubt that the thing is most true.