Marriage and the Household in the Old Law; Is the New Law Written? (ST I-II q.105 a.4 – q.106 a.1)

Orientation #

He picks up in the middle of q. 105, a. 4, at the sixth objection, finishes the article, and then says “now we can set aside the old law” and begins q. 106 on the law of the Gospel. He stops after the reply to the third objection of q. 106, a. 1. The previous class had worked through q. 105, aa. 3–4 on outsiders and domestic persons, breaking off near the fifth objection.

The class, in order #

1. Obj. 6 and reply: marriage with aliens (“danger of seduction, lest they be led into idolatry”) #

Objection: aliens are not to be married, yet Deuteronomy concedes taking captives as wives. Reply: the prohibition was on account of the danger of seduction into idolatry, as happened to Solomon; it bore especially on the nearby nations, about which it was more probable they would retain their own rites. If the woman set aside idolatry and transferred herself to the worship of the Law, she could be married — as is clear with Ruth, who said “your people are my people, your God is my God” (Ruth 1:16). Hence the captive was not permitted as wife until she shaved her hair, cut her nails, put aside her clothes, and mourned her father and mother — signifying the perpetual casting off of idolatry.

• Aside: the story of Aristotle ridden about the room by Alexander’s woman — “if she can do this to me, who am old and wise, what can she do to you, who are young and foolish?” He suspects “some ancient author made these stories up” but thinks it has a point.
• Aside: at Laval they used to read the passage in Albert on woman, ending “if I told the whole world all I know about woman, the whole world would be stupefied.”
• Aside (joke): “he killed his daughter Ruth, therefore he is ruthless” — a fallacy from Aristotle’s logic; a student adds that this is exactly what Boaz was before he married.

2. Obj. 7 and reply: levirate marriage (“a certain mitigation of death”) #

Objection: certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity are forbidden, so it is unsuitable that a brother take the wife of a brother who died childless. Reply (Chrysostom on Matthew): among the Jews, who did everything for the present life, the evil of death was immitigable; that a son be born from the brother was a certain mitigation of death. Only the brother or next of kin was ordered to do it, (1) because otherwise the child would not be believed to be the son of the dead man, and (2) because a stranger does not have the same duty to establish the dead man’s house as the brother does from his relation. Hence the brother taking his brother’s wife exercised the person of the dead man. He notes the reason is closeness of origin, not of age — and that this answers why we need not do it now.

3. Obj. 8 and reply: the bill of divorce (“not because it was just simpliciter”) #

Objection: between man and wife there should be firmest faith, impossible if matrimony is dissoluble; yet Deuteronomy 24 permits dismissing a wife by a written bill (libellum) of repudiation, and then the man cannot take her back. Reply: the law permitted repudiation not because it was just simply, but on account of the hardness of the Jews. He notes Thomas defers fuller treatment to the treatise on matrimony (the Supplement / third part), the third part being about Christ, who as man is the way to God, and then about the sacraments as instruments.

• Aside: a pope who resigned the papacy to marry, then came back to the cardinals saying he would rather be pope — they refused.

4. Obj. 9 and reply: the sacrifice of jealousy (“does not proceed from the concupiscence of pleasure”) #

Objection: a servant can break faith with his master and a son with his father, yet no sacrifice is instituted for investigating those injuries; so the sacrifice of zeal (jealousy) for the wife’s adultery is superfluous — “obviously another form of sexism,” he jokes. Reply: wives break matrimonial faith through adultery easily, on account of pleasure, and secretly, “for the eye of the adulterer observes darkness” (Job 24). The son’s or servant’s infidelity does not proceed from concupiscence of pleasure but rather from malitia, and cannot be hidden in the same way. (A student mentions Iago and his master’s unawareness.)

5. The body of a. 4: three domestic combinations (“the daily acts which are ordered to the necessity of life”) #

Sed contra: Psalm 18 — judicia Domini vera, justificata in semetipsa. Argument of the corpus:

1. Domestic communion, as the Philosopher says in Politics I, is according to daily acts ordered to the necessity of life.
2. Human life is conserved in two ways: (a) as regards the individual, the same man in number living, for which he needs exterior goods — food, clothing, other necessities — and in administering these he needs servants; (b) as regards the species, by generation, for which he needs a wife, that he may generate a son.
3. Hence three combinations in the household: master–servant, man–wife, father–son; and the Old Law gave suitable precepts for each.

• Servants: treated modestly as regards labours (Deut. 5: the manservant and maidservant rest on the Sabbath as you do); as regards punishments, one who mutilates a servant must dismiss him free; a maidservant may be taken as wife; Hebrew servants go free in the seventh year with the goods they brought, and are given provision for the journey — “how generous.”
• Wives: marry within one’s own tribe (Numbers), lest the divisions of the tribes be confused; the levirate, so that one unable to have successors according to the origin of the flesh does a certain adoption, and the memory of the dead is not wholly lost — “it’s a real concern about immortalizing yourself; you don’t have quite that appreciation now.” Some are prohibited: aliens, on account of danger of seduction; near relations, on account of the natural reverence owed them. On treatment: wives not lightly given over to infamy — he who falsely imposes a crime on his wife is punished (Deut. 22); the son is not to suffer detriment from hatred of the wife; a wife is not to be afflicted from odium but dismissed with a written bill; and a newly married man is not to be enjoined any public duty, that he may freely rejoice with his wife — so that a greater love be contracted from the beginning.
• Sons: fathers are to give them discipline, instructing them in faith (Exod. 12: “when your sons say, what is this religion? — the victim is the passing over of the Lord”) and in morals; the fathers say of the bad son that he despises to listen to their warnings (monita) and gives himself to eating, drinking and lust (conviviis).
• Asides on the married soldier: a friend called up from the reserves a month after his wedding; the beautiful woman at West Point whose husband had been killed in battle, nervous again at talk of war; his son Paul as an officer dealing with the wives of absent men — “it takes a real strong woman to be a good army wife”; a young man back from Afghanistan met at the airport by a wife who was leaving him.

6. Opening q. 106: the division of the question (“the law of the gospel, which is called the new law”) #

Two names: the law of the Gospel, and the new law. Division into three questions: (1) it in itself — q. 106; (2) in comparison to the old law — q. 107; (3) what is contained in it — q. 108. Four articles in q. 106: (a) whether it is written or instilled; (b) its power, whether it justifies — “we sometimes hear that the old law does not justify; does the new law justify?”; (c) its beginning, whether it should have been given from the beginning of the world; (d) its end, whether it should endure to the end or another law succeed it. “He’s looking before and after.”

7. The three objections and the sed contra of a. 1 (“the unwritten law”) #

Obj. 1: the new law is the Gospel itself, and the Gospel is written — “these things are written that you might believe” (John 20). (He notes scriptum/descriptive: “it’s kind of changed its meaning; it doesn’t mean necessarily written down.”) Obj. 2: the instilled law (lex indita) is the law of nature — Romans 2, those who do naturally the things of the law have the work of the law written on their hearts; so if the law of the Gospel were instilled it would not differ from natural law. Aside: the Greeks spoke of the unwritten law — Sophocles, Antigone, to bury her brother. Obj. 3: the law of the Gospel is proper to those in the state of the New Testament, but the instilled law is common to those in the Old too — Wisdom 7, divine wisdom transfers itself into holy souls, making friends of God and prophets. Sed contra: Hebrews 8, citing Jeremiah 31 — “behold the days will come… a New Testament upon the house of Israel and the house of Judah… by giving my laws in their mind, and I write them on their heart.” Therefore the new law is an instilled law.

8. The corpus of a. 1 (“chiefly the new law is the grace of the Holy Spirit”) #

He stresses first the art of beginning: “you can tell how much a man understands by his knowing where to begin,” and knowing what a beginning is.

1. Each thing seems to be that which is most powerful in it — as the Philosopher says in Ethics IX, reason more than anything else is man.
2. What is potissimum in the law of the New Testament, in which its whole power consists, is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given through faith in Christ.
3. Therefore chiefly the new law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful of Christ. He remarks this is very unusual: Thomas began by distinguishing law and grace, meaning to take up law and then grace, and here already says the new law is principaliter grace — “he’s stretching my mind”; a student: “it’s a transition, he’s already looking ahead.” Confirmations: Romans 3, “where is your glorying? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No, but by the law of faith” — here the Apostle calls grace itself the law of faith. A discussion with students over whether legem goes with fide or with gratiam, “we’ve got three different translations.” More expressly Romans 8: “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death.” Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter: as the law of deeds was written on tablets of stone, so the law of faith is written on the hearts of the faithful; and elsewhere, what are the laws of God written by God in hearts, except the very presence of the Holy Spirit? Secondarily: the new law has some things dispositive to that grace and pertaining to the use of it, about which the faithful must be instructed by words and writings (a footnote: tradition and scripture), both about what is to be believed and what is to be done. Hence chiefly it is an instilled law, secondarily a written law.

• “This is very hard for us to understand, Thomas. Is this what you give us as your birthday gift or birthday cake?”
• Aside: a newly translated hymn on the fountain in Paradise, source of four rivers — “this is Christ and the four evangelists.”

9. Reply to obj. 1, and the division of the Bible (“chew it up into little pieces”) #

“We’ve got to chew on this body of the article” — he reads the reply, then repeats it whole, saying “my guardian angel says you must chew this way; don’t swallow this without chewing it.” Reply: the writing of the Gospel contains only what pertains to the grace of the Holy Spirit, either as disposing for it or as ordering one to its use. As disposing, on the side of understanding through faith (through which the grace is given), the Gospel contains what pertains to manifesting the divinity and humanity of Christ; on the side of affection, it contains what pertains to contempt of the world, through which a man becomes capable of the grace — for the world, that is, the lovers of the world, cannot grasp the Holy Spirit (John 14). The use of spiritual grace is in the works of the virtues, to which the New Testament in many ways exhorts men — he flags the importance of exhortation. He asks: how does Thomas divide the Bible? Answer given: from John, “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” — the Old Testament is called the law, the New is about grace (and truth).

10. Replies to obj. 2 and 3 (“added above his nature, through the gift of grace”) #

Reply 2: something is instilled in man in two ways — (a) as pertaining to human nature, and thus the natural law is instilled; (b) as it were superadded above his nature, through the gift of grace, and in this way the new law is instilled, not only indicating what is to be done but also aiding to fulfil it.

• A student brings in Bonaventure on the two lights in John’s Prologue: the lumen inditum, the light that enlightens every man coming into the world (the natural light), and the lumen infusum — the superadded light which men rejected when they loved darkness more than the light; they did not love unreason more than reason. Reply 3: no one ever had the grace of the Holy Spirit except by faith in Christ, explicit or implicit; but by faith in Christ a man pertains to the New Testament; hence whoever had the instilled law of grace belonged to the New Testament. He calls this “very subtle” — the men of old were expecting; as is said of Abraham, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day.”

His words #

• immitigable — of the evil of death among the Jews, who did all for the present life.
• “exercised the person of the dead man” — of the brother in levirate marriage.
• libellum — the “little decree,” the bill of repudiation.
• malitia — malice, source of the son’s or servant’s infidelity, as against concupiscence of pleasure.
• “combinations” — the three pairings of the household (master/servant, man/wife, father/son).
• monita — the father’s warnings, despised by the bad son; conviviis, feasting.
• “the law of the Gospel” / “the new law” — the two names of q. 106’s subject.
• lex indita — “instilled law,” rendered also “law instilled in us,” “in-writ” [ed.: the law written on the heart].
• potissimum — “most potent,” most powerful in a thing; the criterion for what a thing is.
• principaliter / secondarily — chiefly grace, secondarily written.
• lex fidei, “the law of faith” — Paul’s name for grace itself (Rom. 3).
• dispositiva and ordinativa — what disposes for grace, and what orders one to its use.
• lumen inditum / lumen infusum — a student’s pair from Bonaventure: the natural light, and the superadded infused light.

Texts #

Read in class

• Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 105, a. 4: obj. 6–9 with replies; sed contra (Ps. 18) and corpus.
• Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 106, prologue and division; a. 1: obj. 1–3, sed contra, corpus, replies 1–3.
• Ruth 1:16; Job 24; Deuteronomy 5, 22, 24; Exodus 12; Numbers (tribal marriage, locus not given).
• Hebrews 8 / Jeremiah 31; Romans 2, 3, 8; Wisdom 7; John 14; John 20.
• Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter (two passages, loci not given).

Mentioned

• Aristotle, Politics I (domestic communion); Nicomachean Ethics IX (reason more than anything is man); the logic book (fallacies).
• Chrysostom on Matthew.
• Albert, on woman (Laval reading).
• Sophocles, Antigone.
• John’s Prologue, with Bonaventure’s comment (raised by a student).
• Thomas’s treatment of matrimony in the Supplement/third part.

His questions #

• Why were marriages with aliens forbidden, and why could Ruth be married? Because of the danger of seduction into idolatry; Ruth had transferred herself to the worship of the Law.
• Why must it be the brother, and not a stranger, who raises up seed to the dead man? Otherwise the child would not be held to be the dead man’s son, and only the brother has the duty of establishing his house.
• Was the permission of divorce just? Not simply just; it was permitted on account of the hardness of the Jews.
• Why a sacrifice of jealousy for the wife but none for son or servant? Because the wife’s infidelity comes from pleasure and is hidden; theirs comes from malice and cannot be hidden so.
• What are the three combinations of the household, and why just three? Master/servant, man/wife, father/son — from the twofold conservation of life, individual and specific.
• Where is Thomas going to begin in a. 1? From what is most powerful in a thing being the thing itself — “you can tell how much a man understands by his knowing where to begin.”
• Does the new law justify? Left open (article 2, not yet read).
• Is the instilled new law the same as the natural law? No: the natural law is instilled as pertaining to nature, the new law as superadded above nature by grace, and it aids as well as indicates.
• Did those under the Old Testament have the instilled law? Whoever had it had faith in Christ explicit or implicit, and so pertained to the New Testament — “very subtle.”
• How does Thomas divide the Bible? By John’s words: the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.