28 SERMON ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
all the married to strive for the attainment of this ideal. He did not enter into the casuistry of the matter, but fixed the principle. How far in actual ecclesiastic or civic legislation, at any given period or place, the ideal can _ be practically formulated and demanded, He left for the decision of those upon whom the ad- ministration of such matters devolved. Marriage and divorce regulations, upon which the welfare of society so largely depends, must embody the Divine ideal to the fullest extent made possible by the stage of spiritual, moral, and social pro- gress concerned. And Christian people must never fail to apply to themselves this Divine marriage ideal ; however low the current conception of mar- riage may be, or whatever laxity the civic laws may permit, the disciples of Christ can never con- duct themselves according to any standard but that set by Him. Not that they must regard His teaching as statutory and divorce as never per- missible ; but that the act of divorce would be a confession of complete failure to attain His ideal, so that the highest degree of effort, patience, endurance, and self-sacrifice should be used in order to accomplish the permanence and the per- fection of a marriage union when undertaken. In addition, Christian people must uphold Jesus’ mar- riage ideal in the world, striving by every means to secure its increasing recognition and realization in society at large. For only in these ways can the Kingdom of God fully come.
The next subject dealt with in the Sermon is the use of Oaths (Mt 5**-87), The oath or vow was a frequent type of expression in all antiquity, and its use has diminished little with the passing of centuries. In its origin the oath was a solemn religious act, in which God—or some object sacred to Him or through Him—was invoked as a witness of the truth of an utterance or the sincerity of a promise, and as an avenger of falsehood and of non-fulfilment of the promise. The use of the oath and vow is recognized and approved in the OT (cf. Ex 22", Dt 6% 10”, Ps 634, Is 4573, Jer 4?, and He 6!*-15), and the commands concerning them look towards the preservation of their religious character and solemn function. This was the intent of the Third Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain’ (Ex 207, Dt 5"), in which all misuse of the oath is forbidden, as where an oath is taken thoughtlessly or maliciously, or to cover falsehood.* In the same tenor are Ly 19” ‘Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God,’ and Nu 302‘ When a man voweth a vow unto the Lord, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.’ + The form of Jesus’ expression in Mt 5** takes up the substance, though not the exact form, of these OT teachings. The Jews of Jesus’ day made most extravagant use of the oath, both in frequency and in variety ; some oaths were regarded as binding and some as not binding, the difference of form being purely technical.+
Christ denounced this casuistry as perverse in the extreme (Mt 231-*2), And in this passage of the Sermon He has the intention of sweeping away the whole system of oaths as resting upon a false theory, namely, that a man might use two qualities of statement: one with the oath, which pledged him to truth or fulfilment; and one without the oath, which required neither truth nor fulfilment. As against this. double-dealing and authorization
* On the interpretation of the Third Commandment, see Coffin, Journal of Bib, Lit. 1900, pp. 166-188 ; art. DECALOGUH in vol. i.
+See, further, Lv 54, Nu 301-16, Dt'2321-23, Je 112989, Jer 79, Ezk 1718, Zec 53.4 817, Mal 35,
t See Wiinsche, Erlduterung der Evangelien, pp. 57-60, 288- 292; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. 17-21.
of falsehood, Jesus demands that a man shall speak only the truth, and implies that an oath is not only unnecessary, but harmful. This interpretation of Mt 5-7 is that of the early Fathers and of the majority of modern commentators.* We find the same teaching, with close similarity of words, in Ja 52 *But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.’ That Jesus submitted to the high priest’s oath at His trial (Mt 26-4), as a matter of the moment’s necessity, isin no way against this interpretation. +t Jesus forbids oaths not as statutory legislation, so that the taking of an oath is sinful; but in prin- ciple, on the ground that a man is accountable to God for every utterance (Mt 12%’), He sets forth the ideal of truthfulness which is to be striven for and ultimately accomplished. A Christian can have no need of an oath. If in the present stage of civilization oaths are still necessary for civic purposes, then Christians must seek to establish a higher standard of honesty in speech, according to which a man’s simple word will be the best possible guarantee of the truth and performance of what he says.