28 (Dt 18,6-8). If a Levite comes from one of your cities, where he resides, from among all the children of Israel, according to what his soul wants, to the place that the Lord has chosen - that is, if he wished to go to the place where the Lord is invoked. Lord - and he will officiate in the name of the Lord his God, like all his brothers the Levites who are there before the Lord; will eat the distributed portion, in addition to the sale that corresponds by family. It is not clear what this sale refers to. Perhaps it is the tithes and the first fruits, which are sent to those who live far away, so that they are not forced to take many things to the place where the Lord is invoked or to take the cattle to buy them there again for the same price. The Lord had commanded him to have there the portion corresponding to the Levites who remained in that city in which the tithes and firstfruits were to be given. And the text says that this should be given to the Levites according to their family, because it is necessary to preserve what comes as an inheritance, for the fact of succeeding their parents, and this is what has been shown to the parents.

29 (Dt 18,10-11). As the Lord forbids there to be seekers of wonders in the people of God, it is necessary to investigate how these wonders, whose search is forbidden, can be distinguished from those that have divine origin and are given in a way that their meaning must be indicated. Thus, for example, all the miracles found in the Scriptures and mean something relative to the rule of faith. In this way we explain, for example, the meaning of the dry fleece, the era being full of dew, or the fleece full of dew, the dry era being (Cf Jdt 6,37-39), or the rod of Aaron that flourished (Cf Nm 17,8) and produced almonds, and other similar examples. Therefore, as divinations are distinguished, which are then forbidden, from the predictions and announcements of the prophets, so must we distinguish those searches from the wonders of the meanings of divine miracles.

30 (Dt 20,4). For the Lord your God, who goes before you, will fight with you against your enemies and save you. This is how we also have to wait in spiritual struggles and we must ask for God's help, not so that we do not do anything, but so that, helped, we cooperate with him. Well, the text says: You will win by your side. This shows that they too have to do what they show that must be done.

31 (Dt 20,5-7). And the scribes will speak to the people, saying: "Who is the man who has built a new house and has not released it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in battle and another man release it. Who is the man who has dug a vineyard and has not enjoyed it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in battle and another man enjoy it. Who is the man who has married a woman and has not taken her yet? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in battle and another man take her for a wife. " These affirmations can draw attention, as if those who already opened their buildings died and died in the battle more honorably and already enjoyed the recently planted vines and already married than those who did not do those things. But since these things retain human affection and men hold them in great esteem, it must be understood, starting from this passage, that this is said to those who go to war, so that whoever is held by these things in his mind appears , when he comes back, so that he does not act less courageously because of it, when he is afraid of dying before opening the house or enjoying his newly planted vineyard or getting married. Because, in fact, as far as women are concerned, a woman is married better to an intact woman than a widow. But these things are mentioned, as I said, to know the intentions of men.

32 (Dt 22,5). The objects of the man will not be on the woman. It is about the warlike objects, that is to say, the weapons, as some translators have already translated.

33 (Dt 22,13-21). If you marry a woman and cohabit with her, and you get an aversion and impose words of opportunity and spreads bad reputation and says: "I married this woman and, approaching her, I did not find her a virgin", then the father and the mother of the girl, taking the evidence of the virginity of the girl, will bring them out to the elders, at the door, and the girl's father will say to the elders: "This daughter of mine I gave as a woman to This man and he, taking hate, now imposes words of opportunity, saying: I have not found the virginity of your daughter. But here is my daughter's virginity. " And they shall take up the cloth before the elders of that city, and the elders of that city shall take the man and punish him and impose a fine of a hundred shekels, and give them to the girl's father, because he propounded a bad name to an Israelite virgin; and this will be his wife; he will not be able to repudiate her in all his life. But if this thing is true and the virginity of the girl is not found, then the girl will be taken out of the door of her father's house and the men of that city will stone her with stones, and she will die, because she committed an infamy among the you children of Israel, prostituting the house of its father, and thus you will remove the evil of in the middle of you. This text clearly demonstrates how the law wanted women to be subject to their husbands and that wives were almost like maids, because, while the woman was stoned if it was proven true that the husband's testimony was against her, the man was not stoned if it was shown that his testimony had been false. He was only punished and fined, and forced to remain for the rest of his life with the woman from whom he had wanted to separate. In other cases, the law mandates that the same penalty be applied to this man should be punished if it were true, to the one that the law ordered to be killed if the false testimony with which he had harmed someone was proven.

34 (Dt 22,28-29). Punishment of the man who has dishonored a virgin. "If a man finds a virgin who has not been betrothed, and does violence to him, he sleeps with her, and they are found; This man who slept with her will give the father of the daughter fifty silver didrachmas, and she will be his wife, because he has dishonored her, and he will never be able to repudiate her. It is rightly asked whether this is a punishment for the culprit of never being able to repudiate the one he has dishonored in a guilty and unlawful manner. Are we inclined to believe that the motive for which he can not, (Deut. XXIV, 1) that is, never send her away, is that she has become his wife? we immediately remember the permission given by Moses to make an act of divorce and to dismiss the wife, but it is precisely this right that he refuses to the one who has committed the crime to dishonor a virgin; he does not want anyone to play with her, and that one pretends to take her for a wife, instead of accepting it frankly and with good will. The law gives the same right to the woman wrongly accused by her husband of having married him, without finding her a virgin (Ib. XXII, 19).

35 (Dt 23,3). The Ammonite and the Moabitess will not enter the assembly of the Lord; they will not enter the assembly of the Lord even to the tenth generation or ever. The problem lies in how Ruth entered, who was a Moabite (Cf Rt 1,22), from whom the Lord even proceeds by natural means (Cf Mt 1,5). Perhaps it is necessary to understand that mystically prophesied that it would enter, in saying the text: until the tenth generation. Because the generations are counted from Abraham, when Lot also lived, who fathered the Moabites and the Ammonites of their own daughters (Cf Gn 19,37.38), and it is discovered that, counting Abraham himself, there are ten generations until Solomon, who fathered Boaz, husband second of Ruth. The generations are these: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon. Salmon fathered Boaz (Cf 1Cro 1.2), who married Ruth, who was a widow. That is why it is seen that after the tenth generation he left offspring in the Lord's assembly, giving Boaz children. But we can still ask with reason why it is added: never. Is it because after the prophecy was fulfilled with this tenth generation did not any other person of the Ammonites and Moabites enter the assembly of the Hebrew people? Or were these words rather said: not until the tenth generation, to mean, through a certain universality of the number ten, that they would never enter, in such a way that the author came to say this same, adding the following words: not ever? And if this is true, then it seems that Ruth was admitted against this prohibition. Or was it forbidden to admit the Ammonites and not the Ammonites, that is, men and not women? This solution would be understood above all because, when the Israelites defeated those people, they were ordered to kill all the males and not the women, except those who had had sexual relations with the men, (Cf Nm 31,17.18) since these women had dragged the people to fornication. But they wanted to spare the lives of the virgins, not imputing to them the guilt for which those people deserved defeat. And these people are also remembered here, as if they were wondering why the Lord would not have wanted to admit the Moabites and the Ammonites into the assembly of the Lord. To explain it, it is added: Because they did not come to meet you with bread and water when you were on the way out of Egypt, and because they brought Balaam, the son of Beor, of Mesopotamia, to curse you (Dt 23,4). These guilt, even then, when that town was defeated, they were imputed to the women, whom they preferred to keep alive.

36 (Dt 23,15-16). You will not surrender to your master the slave who has joined you, fleeing from his master. It is not that his master has united him, that is, entrusted to him -because he would say he would rather have placed him-, but that he has come together, coming from his master, that is, united with him after have moved away from him. The law does not prohibit, therefore, receive fugitives. It forbids rather to return them. It could be thought that way, if we did not understand that all this is said to the nation and the people, and not to a particular man. That is why it has been forbidden to return a man who fled from his master, that is, from his king, from another nation, and who seeks refuge in the nation to which he refers. Thus the foreigner Amman, king of Gat, kept David, when he took refuge in his territory, fleeing from the presence of his master, King Saul. The Scripture explains it clearly when it says about the one who seeks refuge: He will live among you, wherever he pleases.

37 (Dt 23,17). There will be no prostitute among the daughters of Israel and there will be no man prostituted among the children of Israel. This is the text in which it is expressly prohibited to fornicate, not only men, but women, even with their own spouses, demonstrating that it is a sin to mix with people other than the spouses themselves, since it is prohibited to have prostitutes and approach those whose sexuality is publicly sold. In the Decalogue it seems that this was not explicitly prohibited under the name of moechia, because under this name only adultery is usually understood. Therefore, I have already stated in that passage what I thought about this topic.

38 (Dt 23,18). You shall not offer a harlot's reward or a change of dog in the house of the Lord your God in relation to any vow, because both are abominable to the Lord your God. This must be understood in the sense that it is an abomination to the Lord your God not one of these things, but both. In relation to the dog, it is forbidden to make the change of the firstborn, which he orders to be made with the other impure animals, such as horses and donkeys and other similar ones, which serve as a help to man, and in Latin receive the name of iumenta ( jumentos), because it is derived from iuvando (help). In relation to the dog, he has not allowed it. It is necessary to investigate if it has not allowed it with respect to the pig and why, and if it has not been allowed regarding these animals why in this passage only the dog has been excepted. The reason for mentioning the reward of the prostitute seems to be because before it was forbidden that there were prostitutes among the children of Israel and it was forbidden for anyone of them to approach one of them (Cf Dt 23,17). And so that no one would think that this sin could be expiated by offering in the temple something of the obtained for that sin, it had to be said that it was an abomination to the Lord.

39 (Dt 24.7). That thief will die-he who has stolen a man-and you will drive the wicked from among you. The Scripture repeats this many times when it commands to kill the wicked. The Apostle used an expression like this, saying: Why do I have to judge the outsiders? Is it not to those within who you judge? Cast out the wicked one among you. Greek has ton put, a term that also appears here. But this word is usually translated as "malignant" rather than "bad." And the text does not say: to put, that is, the bad; but ton put, that is, the evil one. From this it follows that he wanted to refer to the one who does something for which he is worthy of excommunication. In effect, the excommunication now makes in the Church what then did the death penalty. In spite of everything, that saying of the Apostle could also be understood in another way, that is, in the sense that each one will receive the order to cast out of himself the evil or the evil one. This sense would be more acceptable, if the evil or evil, and not the evil one, was found in Greek. Now, it is more credible that this has been said of man than vice. Although it could also be understood very well in the sense that man should remove the bad man from himself, according to that text which says: You undress the old man. And to explain who it is, he adds: He who stole, who no longer steals (Ef 4,22.28).

40 (Dt 24,8). According to all the law that the Levitical priests have sworn to you. It is shown here that every priest was a Levite, although not every Levite was a priest.

41 (Dt 24,10-13). If your neighbor owed you something, whatever it is, you will not go into his house to take the pledge: you will be left out, and the man who owes you something will take the pledge out. But if the man is in need, you will not sleep in his garment. You will return her dress without fail to the sunset and sleep in her dress, and she will bless you and have mercy before the Lord your God. It is clear that it belongs to works of mercy that does not enter the house of the neighbor who makes a loan, so as not to cause a disturbance to the debtor. But for this very reason the debtor is also advised to take out the pledge to give it to the creditor. With respect to the mandate to return the pledge to the homeless on the same day, so that he can sleep on it who does not have anywhere to sleep, it is worth noting that the creditor has not been sent to take the pledge that must be returned. the same day. And if this has been preferred to do so to force the debtor, how are you urged to return a piece of clothing that you know you will receive the same day? Has the legislator perhaps intended to do so to remind you not to forget the return and not return when you do not really have the thing? And we say this especially because he is forced by the work of mercy of his creditor towards who should not be ungrateful, if he has received the pledge in which he can sleep. The creditor, for his part, when the other has not returned the pledge, must believe that he does not have it; for that man also needs that work of mercy so that the garment is returned to him, since he has no other place to sleep.

42 (Dt 24,16). The parents will not die for the children nor will the children die for the parents: each one will die in his sin. This is not only what the prophets have said (Cf Ez 18,18-20). The law itself says that each one will perish through his fault, not that of his father or that of his son. What does it mean what is said in another place: God who punishes the sins of the parents in the children until the third and fourth generation? (Ex 20,5) Is that understood perhaps from the unborn children because of original sin, that the gender Is human also dragged from Adam, and here, on the other hand, has the distinction of the already born children been made, so that each one dies for his sin? Well, it draws nothing from the father who was already born when his father sinned. But when it is also said there: to those who hate me, it is clear that that condition can also be changed, if the children had not imitated the actions of their parents. For even what comes from Adam is temporarily imputed, because everyone dies for it, but eternally imputed to those who have been regenerated spiritually by grace and have remained in it until the end. But if the sins of the parents in the children are imputed to those who hate God, it could also be asked with all reason why they are imputed until the third and fourth generation, leaving aside the first and second, or why not they impute also to the other generations, if the impiety and the imitation of the bad parents remain. Or did you want to indicate the totality with this number, because the seven is understood and the number seven itself has not been put to say: "until the seventh generation", and thus the totality would be understood, since in this way it was indicated more Well the cause of the perfection of this number? This number is considered perfect precisely because it consists of these two, that is, number three, odd in its entirety, and number four, even in its entirety. I think that this prophetic oracle is also derived from here, which is repeated many times: by the three, by the four iniquities, I will not throw myself back (Am 1,3). With this phrase it has been wanted to indicate all the iniquities, rather than to indicate that they were three or four.

43 (Dt 24,17). You will not twist the judgment of the stranger or the orphan or the widow. You will not take the widow's dress as a pledge. Why do not you say: And you will not take their clothes as a pledge? What is the reason why it has been forbidden to twist the judgment of these three and, on the other hand, have only been forbidden to take the garment of the widow as a pledge, and not that of the others? The reason why it is recommended to make the judgments of all is because they have no one to defend them, nor the stranger, because he is in a foreign land, nor the orphan, that is, the pupil, because he has no parents, nor the widow, because He has no husband. On the other hand, when it is forbidden to wear the widow's dress as a pledge, I think that she warns elegantly that only those who are poor should be called truly widows. To this the Apostle also clearly alludes, when he says: But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let her first learn to practice the duties of piety with those of her own house and to correspond with her parents; because this is pleasing to the Lord. But the one who is truly a widow and is desolate, has placed her hope in the Lord and perseveres in her prayers night and day (1Tm 5,4.5). She calls the widow truly the one who does not support her, because she is deprived not only of her husband, but of descendants and of all help. Of course I would not call a desolate woman rich. The poor one does not have to take off the dress he has in pledge; because the law states that he is poor because he forbids his dress to be taken away from him. For the creditor would rather remove the money or anything else from the dress. But if one thought to think: if she had many unnecessary dresses, but superfluous, how is it understood that she is a true widow, that is, not only desolate, but also alien to a life in the midst of delights? About this widow the Apostle adds: The one who lives in the midst of delights, even when living, is dead (1Tm 5,6). And this widow opposes her to the real widow, and says that she is not a true widow. In wealthy widows, who have not remarried, continence is praised, its desolation is not proclaimed. For these widows are only deprived of a husband, not of other things.

44 (Dt 24,19). In relation to what the Scripture says that in the collection nobody picks up the forgotten bundle and that nobody picks up the abandoned olive or grape again, doing the gleaning of the abandoned things, because that has to be left for the poor, it is presented Maybe the interrogation, and what should be done if what the owners of the fields leave is not picked up by the poor, but by the bad ones? In the first place, it is necessary to consider that the work moved by an act of mercy abandons those things with the intention that it is for the poor what it abandons. Secondly, when these things are sent to the people, at the same time those who do not need it are recommended not to look for those abandoned things. And if they seek them, what should we think they do but take control of things from others, and, what is even more serious, of the things of the poor? With these precepts alludes to two categories of people: to the owners of the fields, so that they leave those things mercifully; to those who are not poor, so that they refrain from collecting them. Both things are said in the text: that is, who should leave them, and for whom they should be left.

45 (Dt 25,1-3). If there is an altercation between two men, that they come to trial and judge and agree with the righteous. It is assumed that judges are the ones who must judge, not those who are said to have had the altercation. Then he goes on: And they will take it away from the wicked, and it will come to pass that, if he is worthy of stripes, who has done wrong, you will put him before the judges and scourge him according to his impiety. He will be flogged with forty lashes, no more. But if they continue to whip you with many more lashes, your brother will be debased before you. You have to pay attention. Although the Scripture has commanded to punish with scouring the sins that do not deserve to be punished with the death penalty and with so few, nevertheless the one who is scourged called him impious or worker of impiety, so that we know that the Scriptures do not speak as they do Many. We read the Scriptures with little attention, if we think that adultery is not an impiety, because it seems that whoever has committed it has sinned against man, while the law orders that sin be punished with the death penalty (Cf Dt 22,22) and we say that impiety they are more serious than these sins, because some of them belong to those who are punished with only forty lashes. So, there is a slight impiety worthy of the scourge, and there is another serious impiety that deserves the death penalty. In the same way, the sins that seem to be directed, not against God, but against man, some are worthy of the death penalty, and others, of a correction, which can be by whipping or by an easier forgiveness. It is evident that the Seventy have said the same thing, since they, too, have called impiety the sin of him who is worthy of the punishment of flogging.

46 (Dt 25,5-6). From the law on Levirate. "If two brothers live together, and one of them die without children; the wife of the dead will not be to another who is not near to him; her husband's brother will go to her, take her for a wife, and live with her. And the child who will be born will be admitted in the name of the deceased, and his name will not be erased from Israel. In wanting the widow to be married by her husband's brother, the Law seems to have had no other purpose than to raise a posterity to the one who died without children. Now, these words: "The child shall be admitted in the name of the deceased, and his name," that of the deceased, "shall not be removed from Israel," appear to mean that by taking the name borne by the deceased, the child will in a way form his posterity. Also, in the question raised by the Gospel, about the two fathers of St. Joseph, one of whom, quoted by St. Matthew, begot Joseph, and whose other, named by St. Luke, had Joseph as son, we have admitted adoption as the most plausible solution of this apparent contradiction (Accord des Evang. liv II, c. 3; Matt.I, 16; Luc, III, 23); since St. Joseph did not name either of them. But perhaps these words: "He will be admitted" in the name of the deceased, "do not they mean that he will take his name, but that he will be established by this heir, that is to say, as a son, not of him who begat him, but of the dead, to whom were raised children. Indeed, these expressions: "And his name will not be erased" from Israel, "may mean, not that the child will be required to bear the name of the deceased, but that the latter will seem not to be dead without posterity and that his name, that is to say, his memory will thus be saved from oblivion. Without a doubt,. if he had had a son himself, he would not have needed to give him his name, to render him imperishable in Israel; but by this alone that he would not have died without posterity, his name would not have perished: now, which was not in his power, the Law commands him to his brother, ordering him to marry the widow of the deceased. For the rest, in the absence of the brother, the nearest relative married the woman of the dead Israelite without children, in order to raise him a posterity: this is how Booz married Ruth, in order to raise children to a close relative, she had been the wife, without having children from him; the son who was born of her was admitted in the name of the deceased, since his son was called; and thus the memory of the deceased did not perish in Israel, though the child did not bear his name.

Continuation. The two genealogies of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke. - If this is true, then we have a second way of resolving the objection from the Gospel: one of the two fathers of St. Joseph, named by St. Matthew and St. Luke, would have been close relative of the another, whose widow he married, to such a degree that both could have ascendants and different ancestors. Indeed, if they had been children of two brothers, they would have had only one common ancestor; which is not: for according to Matthew, Mathan is Joseph's grandfather; and according to Luke, it is not Nathan, but Mathath. What if, by reason of the similarity of the names, we claim to see here a mistake of copyist, too small and too futile for it to be taken into account, what will be said about the names of their fathers? In fact, according to St. Luke, Mathath was the son of Levi; According to Matthew, Mathan had Eleazar as his father; and thus, going back, the names of the fathers and grandfathers vary; then the names of the ancestors to Zerubbabel, which is, according to St. Luke, almost the twentieth ancestor of Joseph, and according to St. Matthew, the eleventh only. What leads us to believe that there is here one and the same personage, quoted by the two Gospels, is cheerful, the one and the other lai give to father Salathiel; but it may happen that two persons bear the same name, and that their fathers are in the same case. In ascending above, indeed, the names differ again as follows St. Luke, Zerubbabel is grandson of Neri; following St. Matthew, of Jechonias. This diversity continues until we reach David, passing through Solomon, in Matthew, and in Luke, by Nathan. Now, it is very difficult to admit that, in order to marry the widow of a brother, there was no closer relative than the one who was descended from David in a degree so remote and had no contact with him. dead husband other related; since David, in St. Luke, is almost the fortieth ancestor of Joseph, and in St. Matthew, about the twenty-seventh. However, if relatives on the women's side were called to marry the widows of their brethren, it could have been that a relative on this side would have begotten Joseph from his union with the wife of his near relative who died without children; in this way, Joseph would have had a natural father and a legal father, which would explain the absence of kinship in fathers, ancestors and ancestors, because kinship would come from the side of women and not from men. But in this hypothesis, David would not be the only father of Joseph. If it is claimed that this hypothesis is not unacceptable, have we not noticed somewhere that Scripture does not have the custom of placing women in the genealogies instead of men, as well as can we see it by the Evangelists? There, indeed, where we find the names of the mothers, it is never except by the name of the fathers (II Rétr. c. 55, n. 3). As a result, one must go back to David to establish kinship, in default of a next of kin who married the wife of the deceased, where the adoption gave Joseph a second father.

47 (Dt 26,14). What does it mean that, among those things that are ordered to say to man, who was commanded to deliver tithes and give or consecrate anything else, thus fulfilling all the commandments, is ordered to say the following, praising and recommending : I have not given any of these things to a dead person? Are the so-called "parentalia" festivals that Gentiles usually observe banned?

48 (Dt 28,14). You will not turn away from any commandment that I command you today going to the right or to the left behind other gods to serve them. It may be asked how it could be interpreted that it goes to the right who goes after other gods to serve them, when the right is praised, and, on the other hand, the worship of the gods could never be considered worthy of it? Although those who lean to the right are also reprimanded in the path of life, however, in this text they do not criticize the things that are on the right, but those who lean to the right, that is, the one who arrogate what is of God. That is why it is said in the Proverbs: Do not deviate to the right or to the left, because the paths to the right are known by the Lord; however, those on the left are perverse. Therefore, the right that the Lord knows is good, for the Lord knows the ways of the just, (Ps. 1,6) as the psalm reads. The reason why it is said do not deviate to the right, it is explained with what is added next: For he will make your ways straight. God forbid I deny that the right hand known by the Lord is not right, but, as I said, to turn towards it is not to bow to the grace of God, but to want to attribute to oneself what is right. Finally, as I said, he adds and says: He himself will make your paths straight and all your travels will carry them forward in peace (Pv 4,27).

Therefore, what is said in this place of Deuteronomy that we are dealing with: You will not turn away from any commandment that I give you today to go to the right or to the left after other gods to serve them, it has not been said because the gods others can also be taken as the right; but they have meant earthly places, because the Gentiles who worshiped other gods had them on the right and on the left; or this must be read separately from the other gods, so that the phrase has two senses, one of which would be this: You will not depart from any commandment that I give you today to the right or to the left, understood naturally according to what I explained above. Another meaning would be: Going after other gods to serve them, so that you also understand here: You will not turn away from any commandment that I give you today. If we wanted to express all this sense, we should repeat the previous terms, which are common to both directions, so that, as it is said: You will not turn away from any commandment that I give you today to the right or to the left, as well also repeat here: You will not turn away from any commandment that I give you today by going after other gods to serve them. Leaving aside, then, the commandments that God has given, this is also done: to go after other gods. Because he did not send only this, or God does not want to be overlooked only that which he ordered: that no one go after other gods, but wants everything that he commanded to be fulfilled. But this he did so prominently that, after the universality of the precept, in which it was noticed that no one should depart from any word of his commandments, he also wanted to send this separately.

The following words: To the right or to the left, can be understood as well: that has not been commanded to go after other gods or because of what is desired, because of happiness, or because of what it shies away, to cause of unhappiness, that is, neither for what is loved nor against what is abhorred, you can ask for the help of other gods, nor in a way that either they are reconciled to lend their help or that they are placated so that they do not cause harm, for on some the following was also written in the psalm: The mouth of these said lying and their right is right of iniquity, precisely because it is believed that they make the man happy these things, which can have not only the good, if not bad, and that's why the right is proper to iniquity, because those who consider this is the right are wicked, when it is not the true right, but is the right of those whose mouth tells lies; they called happy the people who possess these things, when in reality, as soon as it is added and said: The people whose God is the Lord is blessed (Sal 143,8.15). This is the true right of justice, not of iniquity. One should not go, then, behind other gods or to the right, so that man believes that he receives happiness from them, nor to the left, so that, believing that if they are contrary to him, he will be an unhappy man, adore them for turn away misery. Or at least, if we think that the right is the eternal goods and the left the temporary goods, it must not be believed that the Sacred Scripture allows in this place to worship other gods or for those goods or for these.

49 (Dt 29,1). These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant that he made with them in Horeb. This text demonstrates why this book is called Deuteronomy, as if it were a second law. Actually, it is more a repetition of that law than something different. Well, there are few things that are not there, in which it occurred for the first time. And yet, this should not be called two alliances, although it seems that these words sound like this. Because both alliances are a unique alliance, which in the Church is called Antigua. Because if because of these words should speak of two alliances, there would be two, but many more, in addition to the New. For the Scripture speaks in many passages of covenant, like that which was made with Abraham about the circumcision (Cf Gn 17,4) or that older one with Noah.

50 (Dt 29.2-4). You have seen all the things that the Lord your God did in the land of Egypt before you with Pharaoh and all his servants and with all his land, great trials that your eyes saw, those great signs and wonders and the mighty hand, and the Lord God did not give you a heart to know, neither eyes to see, nor ears to hear to this day. How can you say above: You have seen the great trials your eyes saw, if the Lord did not give you eyes to see or ears to hear? Unless it is said that it is because they saw with the body and did not see with the heart, because it is also spoken of the eyes of the heart. This is why he began there: And the Lord God did not give you the heart to know. This is what the following two things refer to: Neither eyes to see nor ears to hear, that is, to understand and obey. Because what it says: And the Lord God did not give you, would not say in any way admonishing or blaming, unless he wanted to be understood that it also refers to their fault, so that no one thinks he is free of guilt in this issue. At the same time it shows that they, without the help of the Lord God, can not understand or obey with the eyes or with the ears of the heart; and, nevertheless, if God's help is lacking, the sin of man is not excusable, because the judgments of God, although secret, are just.

51 (Dt 29,5-6). And he led you for forty years in the desert. Your clothes did not age, and your skins were not broken by your feet. You did not eat bread; you did not drink wine or fermented drink, so that you would know that this is the Lord your God. From this it follows that the Israelites were able to carry in their impediment, when they left Egypt, the amount of wine they could consume immediately, because if they had not taken anything with them, where would that come from what has been said: The people sat down to eat and they got up to play? (Ex 32,6) Because this could not be said of the water, when the clear words of Moses are that this affirmation was not the beginning of a war, but the beginning of a party (Cf Ex 32,6.18).

52 (Dt 29,18-20). Is there among you man or woman, or family or tribe whose mind has departed from the Lord your God going to serve the gods of those people? Is there a root among you that grows in gall and bitterness? And it will happen that when someone hears the words of this curse and says in his heart, saying: "Holy things happen to me, because I walk in the error of my heart so that the sinner does not lose at the same time the one who is without sin", God He will not forgive him, but the anger of the Lord and his jealousy against that man will be kindled, and all the curses of this covenant that are written in the book of this law will fall on him. The text reads as follows: Is there anyone among you? You have to understand it, then, in the form of a question, in case there is one. If there had been, it filled him with terror, so that no one would say in his heart, upon hearing those curses: Be holy to me (curses be holy things to me), for I walk in the error of my heart, that is, I wish these things do not happen to me; that bad things do not happen to me, but holy things, that is, auspicious and favorable, because I walk in the error of my heart, following the gods of the Gentiles and giving them worship as with impunity. It will not be like that, therefore. That the sinner does not lose the one who is without sin at the same time. It means: make sure that no one of you convinces you to do these things who thinks them. God will not forgive him, both the one who thinks such things, and the one who has been persuaded by them, just as the other had thought when he said: Be holy to me, as if removing the force of that curse in this way. But then the wrath of the Lord and his jealousy will be kindled against that man, when he thinks that he will turn it away from himself, by saying those things in his heart. And all the curses of this covenant, which are written in the book of this law, will fall on him. All of them can not come on one man, because a man can not die so many times how many genera of deaths are announced here. The text says "all" by "any", so that he will not be free from all those to whom any of the curses that cause him to perish come to him. The words: So that the sinner does not lose at the same time the one who is without sin, it is not necessary to take them in the sense that the Greek word antarcton designates an absolutely clean and pure one of all sin, but the term anamárteton, literally « without sin ", refers to one who would be free from the sin that was being talked about. As when the Lord says in the Gospel: If I had not come and spoken to you, you would not have sin (Jn 15,22), where you do not mean that you would not have any sin, but that you would not have this sin if you did not believe in it. God also says to Abimelek, referring to Sarah, the wife of Abraham: I know that you did it with a clean heart. It is evident that the Lord did not mean to say that the heart of Abimelek was as clean as those of whom it is said: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Abimelek had his heart clean of that sin that was involved, because, as far as he had depended, he had not wanted the other woman's.

53 (Dt 30.6). And the Lord will purify your heart and the heart of your offspring around you to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul so that you may live. It is evident that it is the promise of grace. Well, God promises that he will do what he usually commands to be done.

54 (Dt 30,11-14). Because this precept that I am sending you today is not out of measure or far from you. He is not in heaven, saying-that is, for you to say- "Who will come up to heaven for us and bring it to us and hear it?" Nor is it on the other side of the sea, saying-that is, for You say: "Who will go for us across the sea and bring it to us and listen to it and put it to work?" This word is very close to you. It is in your mouth and in your heart and in your hands so that you put it to work. The Apostle says that this is the word of faith, belonging to the New Testament (Cf Rm 10,8). But we can ask why previously they are called commandments to the things that are written in the book of this law (Cf Dt 29,21). And the explanation is because they all mean the spiritual things belonging to the New Testament, if they are understood correctly. We can also ask why what is said here: Nor is it on the other side of the sea, for you to say: «Who will go for us to the other side of the sea and bring it to us?, The Apostle picks it up, saying:  Who will go down into the abyss? "And, in explaining these words, he adds: This is: bringing Christ up from the dead (Rm 10,7). The explanation is that the author calls sea to all the life that passes in this world, and that is crossed with death, so that in a certain way the sea ends and death is called the other side of the sea, as if was the other side of this life, which is indicated by the word sea. On the other hand, what the text says: And in your hands, the Apostle does not collect it, but only says: In your mouth and in your heart (Rm 10,8). And this he continued until the end, saying: For with the heart one believes to obtain justice, and with the mouth confession is made to obtain salvation (Rm 10,10). With good reason, then, the translated text of the Hebrew, as far as I could verify, does not have the words: in your hands. But I do not believe that the Seventy have added it uselessly. They want to say that the hands themselves, which signify the works, must also be received in the heart, where faith is, that works through love (Gal 5,6). Because if the things that God commands are done externally with the hands and are not made with the heart, there is no one so foolish that he thinks that this is how the commandments are fulfilled. For the rest, if love, which is the fullness of the law (Cf Rm 13,10), dwells in the heart, even though one can not work with the bodily hands, it naturally has peace with men of good will (Cf Lc 2,14).

55 (Dt 32,5). The vituperable children did not sin for him. What the Greek says: tékna mometá, some translate it as vituperable children, like the text that I quote; others for children stained; others for vicious children. From here a serious problem does not derive; There is no problem at all. But if those words were said in a general way: They sinned not for him -because the one who sins does not sin for God, does not harm God, but himself-, then the question of knowing how to understand what is that is read in the psalm: For you I have only sinned (Ps. 50,6). And in Jeremiah it is said: We have sinned for you, patience of Israel, O Lord! And again in a psalm it says: Heal my soul, because I have sinned for you (Ps. 40,5). And we want to know if it is the same thing to "sin for God" (peccare Deo) than to "sin against God" (peccare in Deum). In this respect the priest Eli says: If one sins against God, who will pray for him? (1R 2,25) Meanwhile, I will say what I think about the matter now. Maybe those who know these things better, or even myself at another time, as far as the Lord helps me, will understand a little better. "To sin against God" (in Deum) is to sin in that which is related to the divine worship. Because nothing else indicates the example I have just mentioned. So Eli's sons sinned, to whom his father had already told them this. In the same way we must think that sin is also committed against men who belong to God. Because we read that God said these same words to Abimelek about Sarah: That is why I have prevented you from sinning against me (Gn 20,6). On the other hand, "to sin for the Lord" (Domino), or rather "to have sinned for the Lord" - unless there is somewhere a text of Scripture that opposes this sense - it seems that it can be said, not without reason, of those who do not make a pious penance of their sins to give glory to God, who forgives them. David, explaining the reason why he said: For you only I have sinned and I have done wrong in front of you, add the following words: So that you may be declared fair in your words and expire when you judge (Ps. 50,6). And the same when God says: Judge between me and between my vineyard (Is 5,3). And the same when it is affirmed of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only one who could say with absolute truth: Because the Prince of this world is coming and against me he has nothing -no sin that is worthy of death-. But that I may know the world that I love the Father and that I work according to the command given me by the Father, rise up; let's get out of here (Jn 14,30.31). By this he means: Even if the Prince of the world pursues the smallest sins with the death penalty, he has nothing against me; but, get up; let's go from here, to suffer the passion, because suffering I fulfill the will of my Father; I do not pay the guilt of my sin. In relation to what Jeremiah says: We have sinned for you, patience of Israel, surely this is said in a supplicating way to the Lord in penance, waiting for salvation through forgiveness. The phrase: Heal my soul, because I have sinned for you, means the same, that is, that God be glorified forgiving, because his mercy is great for those who confess to him and turn to him, because he does not want death of the sinner, but to become and live (Cf Ez 33,11). He also answered like this, not only in the psalm, but also when God rebuked him through the prophet, not without the hope of the Lord's forgiveness: I sinned for the Lord (2R 12,13). For a person who puts himself in the hands of the doctor to cure him, is wounded to the doctor, so that the effectiveness of the medicine is fulfilled in it. Well, in this song the prophet predicted that there would be some who would sin by offending God with such great iniquities, that they would not be willing to do penance and return to God to be healed. Of these it is also said in another place: Because they are flesh; a breath that goes and does not return (Ps.77,39). The phrase: They sinned not for him, can also be understood in the sense that they did not hurt God with their sin, but themselves.

56 (Dt 33,1-5). And this is the blessing with which Moses, the man of God, blessed the children of Israel before they died. And he said: "The Lord has come from Sinai, and it has been shown to us from Seir. It has been hurried from Mount Farán with many thousands of Kadesh. On his right there are angels with him; and he forgave his people; and all the sanctified ones are under your hands and these are under you. And he took from his words the law, which Moses commanded us, inheritance for the assemblies of Jacob. And there will be a prince in the beloved, once the princes of the peoples gathered together with the tribes of Israel. " Do not overlook or neglect this prophecy. It is seen that this blessing refers to the new people, which Christ the Lord sanctified, and from whose person Moses says these things, not from Moses himself. And all this is evident from what is said below. If it is said: The Lord has come from Sinai, because on Mount Sinai the law was given, what does it mean next: And it has been shown to us from Seir, being that Seir is a mount of Idumea, where Did Esau reign? On the other hand, since Moses blesses the children of Israel with these words, as the Scripture predicts, how does Moses say: And he took from his words the law, which Moses commanded us? It is, without a doubt, a prophecy, as we have said, that announces in advance a new people sanctified by the grace of Christ under the name of the children of Israel, because this people is a descendant of Abraham, that is, they are the children of the promise. And it means "seeing God." Therefore, in the Lord, who has come from Sinai, one must see Christ, because Sinai means trial. Christ has come from the test of passion, of the cross, of death. And it has been shown to us since Seír. Seír means "hairy," and designates the sinner. That is how Esau, the abhorred, was born (Cf Gn 25,25). But as those who were sitting in the darkness and in the shadow of death a light appeared to them (Cf Is 9,2), that is why it appeared from Seir. At the same time, it is not absurd not to understand that it was predicted that the grace of Christ would come to the people of Israel from the Gentiles, meaning by the name of Seir, because it is a mountain belonging to Esau. That is why the Apostle says: So also they did not now believe in the mercy granted to you so that they too may obtain mercy (Rm 11,31). They say: It has been shown to us from Seir and it has been hurried from Mount Farán -from the fruitful mountain, for this means Farán, by which the Church is designated-, with many thousands from Cades. Cades means "changed" and "sanctity." So many thousands have been changed and sanctified by grace. With them Christ came to gather the Israelites later. Then he goes on saying: On his right there are angels with him. This does not need explanation. And he forgave his people, granting them the forgiveness of sins. Then the word returns to that people to say: And all the sanctified are under your hands and they are under you. They are not overbearing, and without wanting to establish their own justice. They recognize the grace to submit to the justice of God (Cf Rm 10,3).

Then he says: And he took the law from his words. Who receives it, of course, is the people of whom it was said: He forgave his people. He received, then, from his words the law, which Moses commanded us. His people received the law from his words, because of his teaching he understood the law that Moses commanded us. For Christ himself said in the Gospel: If you believed in Moses, you would also believe in me, for he wrote about me (Jn 5,46). The Jewish people did not receive a law that they did not understand. He received it when he understood it from his words without the ancient veil and once he converted the people to the Lord. He calls this law inheritance for the assemblies of Jacob. And it is an inheritance, not earthly, but celestial; not temporary, but eternal. And it continues: And there will be a prince in the beloved. The prince, of course, is the Lord Jesus, who will be in the beloved town. Once the princes of the peoples - of the Gentiles - gathered together with the tribes of Israel. And this is to fulfill what was said before: Rejoice, Gentiles, together with his people, because a partial blindness has come upon Israel, until all the Gentiles enter and thus all Israel will be saved.

57 (Dt 33,17). When Moses blesses Joseph, he says, among other things: Firstborn of the bull his beauty. This is not to be understood as if he had said: firstborn of the bull, but, being the firstborn, his beauty is that of the bull. It is understood as a figure of the Lord, because of the horns of the cross.