Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

very plain and distinct, to make it safe to have recourse to it. The greater part of the oaths which prevail in society do nothing but mischief. The requiring them is a temptation to sin, in one of its most heinous forms, before which multitudes fall. They do not prevent the evil which they are intended to guard against. They increase it. If oaths were never imposed, and never taken, but with an enlightened and pure conscience, there would be but little swearing.

2

1

I apprehend that our Lord himself limits the reference of what he says to ordinary conversation, when he says, "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." He does not refer to judicial transactions at all, but to the ordinary intercourse of life. 3

3

The contrast between the law of the Scribes and Pharisees, and the law of the kingdom, is this-The first prohibits only false swearing in judgment by the name of God-the latter prohibits all vain unnecessary swearing in ordinary conversation, not only by the name of God, but "by any other oath," as the Apostle James expresses it. "I say unto you," says our Lord, "in your communication, swear not at all," -use

5

Bengel's note is good. "Multi veterum Christianorum simpliciter hanc literam acceperunt, eoque facilius juramenta ethnica declinarunt: vide tamen Ap. x. 6; Jer. xxiii. 8; Es. xlv. 23, qui locus tempora N. T. spectat : Contra hodie periculum est ne paucissima in tot juramentis vera sint; et in veris paucissima necessaria; et in necessariis, paucissima libera, fructuosa, sancta et læta. Multa ad pompam, ad calumniam, ad compescendas suspiciones justas, comparata sunt." "Màquires sponte, ultro, absque necessitate, in omni omnino casu, in communibus rebus."-EPISCOPIUS.

2 ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν.

3 Calvin has hit the point of contrast. "Deus non modo perjuriam damnavit, sed jurandi levitatem quæ nominis ejus reverentiæ derogat. Neque enim is solum accipit nomen Dei frustra, qui pejerat, sed qui in rebus frivolis, vel in communi sermone temeré et contemptim nomen Dei arripit." "The Saviour forbids absolutely such oaths only as are hostile to the reverence that is due to God."-THOLUCK, whose note deserves to be consulted.

[ocr errors]

4 James v. 12. 5" The at all,' which perplexes Augustine so much, and has perplexed so many, is doubtless to be interpreted and limited by what immediately follows. All these kinds of oaths which I specify are forbidden you. You do not, by using them, avoid taking God's name in vain. For why have these oaths anything binding? It is God's presence in these created things which gives them any hold over your consciences. Every oath is an awful thing, and, in its ultimate ground, rests upon God, though the lightness and frivolity of men cause them willingly to conceal this fact from their eyes."-TRENCH.

no oaths, no approximation to oaths, in your ordinary conversation—not merely do not swear by God, but do not swear at all, for all oaths, if they have any meaning, are in reality addressed to God. "Swear not by heaven, for heaven is the throne of God," and he that swears by heaven, if his words are not empty sounds, swears by that throne, and him who sits on it. "Swear not by the earth, for the earth is God's footstool," and he that swears by it, swears by the God whose footstool it is. "Swear not by Jerusalem," for if the oath have meaning, it is an oath by the God who has chosen Jerusalem as the seat of his worship. "Swear not by the temple," for that is to swear by him who dwells in it. "Swear not by your own head," for that too belongs to God—it is his far more than yours-you did not, you cannot, make one of its hairs-you cannot, by your will, even change the colour of one. An oath by your head, if it be not absolutely unmeaning, is an oath by the universal Creator and Proprietor. Every oath, just because it is an oath, is an ultimate reference to Deity. Carefully avoid everything like a profane or irreverent reference to God; abstain from all such unmeaning, or worse than unmeaning, asseverations.

"But let your communication," your ordinary conversation, "be yea, yea; nay, nay." These words, taken by themselves, seem most naturally to convey this idea-' Speak the truth at all times.' Even when not called solemnly to swear by God, let your yea be yea-let your nay be nay—according to the Jewish proverbial mode of describing a man, whose word and promise may be trusted-"His yes is yesand his no is no." The apostle uses the phrase in this sense when he states "the promises of God in Christ are yea and amen;" certain, infallible, truths.

2

At the same time, viewed in contrast with what goes before,

"His yea in word is a yea in deed, and his nay in word is a nay in deed." The word corresponds with the thought, and feeling, and purpose, and the deed will correspond with the word.

2 2 Cor. i. 20.

and with what follows after, it seems plain, that this is not our Lord's idea here. The meaning is 'Be content with simply stating the truth, whether you are affirming or denying, and if any person question the truth of your assertion, just repeat it, but do not confirm your assertions with anything in the form of an oath or asseveration. If you have an assertion to make, or a denial to make, do so simply, without any oath, or anything approaching to an oath.'

"For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." These words may be rendered "cometh of the evil one," but we prefer the rendering of our translators as more comprehensive. The use of strong asseverations, oaths, or approximations to oaths, can proceed from no good cause. It may proceed from the person's knowing that what he utters is false, and therefore stands in need of confirmation. He is conscious that he is saying what is not true, and therefore concludes that he may not be believed, as he knows he deserves not to be believed. For this reason he seals his word with his oath, in order to secure for it the credit he knows it does not merit. Surely, when it cometh from this cause, it "cometh of evil;" it were better to retract his word than to support it with an oath. To swear to a lie is a double sin— it is adding perjury to falsehood. Or it may proceed from a person's being suspected of falsehood. If the person is justly suspected of falsehood, then it cometh of evil. If he is justly suspected, it must be because he is addicted to falsehood; and the only way of getting a better character is not to make strong assertions, but henceforward scrupulously to speak the truth. Indeed, with all reflecting men, the use of unnecessary oaths and asseverations, will only make a man's testimony more and more suspected. If the person is unjustly suspected of falsehood-then in justice to himself, to

"I consider it as a maxim, in translating-that when a word is, in all respects, equally susceptible of two interpretations, one of which, as a genus, comprehends the other,—always to prefer the more extensive. The evil one' is comprehended under the general term 'evil.'"-CAMPBELL.

discredit such uncharitable suspicions, he should positively refuse to confirm his declarations by an oath. To swear in such a case, is an admission that his word is not sufficient. He who is known to be a liar, will not get credit even by his oath—and he who is a man of truth, voluntarily exposes his character to suspicion when he condescends in ordinary conversation to confirm his word by swearing. Or the practice may proceed from a principle of irreverence, a want of a due fear for that great and terrible name, the Lord our God; and I need not say this is evil-the root of all evil-the want of the fear of God. It cannot proceed from anything better than a reckless disregard of the Divine declaration, that "for every idle word that men speak, they must give an account in the day of judgment." It must be plain to every person, that all profane swearing, and even what are ordinarily termed minced oaths, are completely forbidden by the law of the kingdom of heaven. Such is our Lord's fourth illustration of the superiority of the righteousness of the kingdom of God, to the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees." 993

2

§ 6. The righteousness of Christians, and that of the Scribes and Pharisees, compared in reference to retaliation.*

We are presented with a fifth illustration in the thirtyeighth and succeeding verses. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;

1 Brewster.

2 Matth. xii. 36.

3 Since writing the above, a somewhat different exegesis has suggested itself to my mind, and though not so fully satisfied with it as to substitute it for the common one adopted in the text, I think it right to indicate it here, for the consideration of scholars. I have always felt it as odd to apply "these" to the particles "yea and nay." May the pronoun not refer to "oaths "--the subject of the whole paragraph? May not the clause be translated "for the superabundance of these comes of evil?" and may not the statement mean- All unnecessary oaths are wrong the undue multiplication of oaths is a great evil?' As Bengel, with his characteristic conciseness, says, "Nimietas viciosa."-Surely, if in anything, in solemn appeal to God-especially, as in oaths, with imprecation of his vengeance there should be "NEQUID NIMIS." It is a good advice though coming from a heathen :ὅρκον παραίτησαι εἰ μὲν οἷον τε εἰς ἅπαν, εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐκ τῶν ἐνόντων. “Avoid swearing altogether if you can; but if not, then as much as is possible."-EPICTETUS. 4"Lex talionis."

but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any manwill sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee; and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away."

99 1

4

In the law of Moses we meet with the following enactments:- “And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him." 2 "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." "And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you." It is evident, however, that this law was intended to guide the magistrate, and to show how far he might go in inflicting a penalty, or granting a compensation, for acts of cruelty and injustice. This lex talionis is the rule of justice which naturally suggests itself to every man, and is the basis of the ancient Greek and Roman legislation. As Tholuck well says, "it is an elastic law," in the good use of the term. It is not a rule or precept for the conduct of injured individuals. They were not authorised to take such vengeance themselves, nor were they required to insist on such strict retaliation in the laws of justice. It was intended, not to foster the spirit of revenge, but on the contrary, to prevent that spirit from breaking out into violations of law and order, by putting it in the power of the injured person to obtain legally an exact requital, so far as was possible, for what he had suffered.

But the Scribes had in this case, as in many others, per

1 Matth. v. 38-42.

3 Exod. xxi. 24, 25.

VOL. I.

2 Lev. xxiv. 19.
Deut. xix. 18, 19, 20.
Q

« VorigeDoorgaan »