This attempt to empty the SXus of its meaning does not commend itself. It is evidently inspired by fear of the consequences which seem to ensue from the absolute prohibition Chri.st lays down, and such a motive does not tend to sound exegesis. It fails to do justice to the original. The only permissible translation of ,^7; ofiocrai o\ws is that Avhich regards it as an absolute i)rohibition. Only tlius does Christ's position present a proper con- trast to that of the Law. The Law forbids swearing falsely ; Ciirist forbids swearing at all. Thus we have a sufficient contrast to, and advance beyond, the position of the Law. But on the present interpretation Christ sets over against the com- mandment against i>erjury in tlie name of God a jirohibition merely of frivolous swearing, and that qf a kind whicli does not mention the name of God at all, wliich is somewhat of an anti-climax. It is true, as tlie supporters of this interpretation point out, that Christ does not expressly mention the oatli by the name of God in the instances He ad- duces. But it is much more reasonable to suppose that He omits it because it is evident that it is included under the swearing He prohibits, while there may be doul)t as to these indirect oaths He specifies, than to argue tiuat, when He pi'o- hibits swearing oXcos, He includes under the prohibi- tion only those forms of oath which were hardly regarded as oaths at all by His contemporaries, and omits the one oath that was universally so esteemed.
We conclude, then, that Christ's woi'd in v.^^ is to be understood as an absolute prohibition of swearing, and that it cannot be restricted to the thoughtless, irrelevant oatiis of common life. And it remains to consider in what spirit tiiis absolute prohibition is laid down, and what are the con-
clusions that follow from it. Christ has Himself given the reason for His prohibition of swearing. Whatsoever goes beyond the distinct and forcible aftirmation and negation. He says, cometh of evil (v.'*'^). As we saw above, this saying maj' be inter- preted in different ways. It may be taken to mean that it is the presence of evil among our fellow-men that necessitates oaths, to convince them of the good faith of the speaker. So Augus- tine (Scniiun on ihc Mount) ■ ' Tu autem non malum facis, qui bene uteris juratione, qua^, etsi non bona, tamen necessaria est, ut alteri persu- adeas quod utiliter persuades, sed a malo est illius, cujus inlirmitate jurare cogeris.' But, as Tholuck (Sermon on the Mount, Eng. tr. p. 252 f.) remarks, this is open to a twofold objection — first, that in such a case the evil in question rests with him who requires the oath, whereas all the stress of the prohibition is directed against taking oaths ; and, second, that on this interpretation the fulfilment of our Lord's command would be deferred to the realization of that ideal state in which no evil exists, in which case the present command would stand on a different footing from the others of the Sermon on the Mouirt, which plainly apply to a world in Avhich evil is prevalent. For this reason we accept the other intei'pretation of the words given above — that whatever goes beyond the plain aftirmation and negation cometh of evil, in the' sense that behind it is the tacit assumption that, when our word is not confirmed by an oath, we are not bound to adhere strictly to the truth. This brings the present passage into harmony with the general spirit of the Sermon on the jNIount. The theme of that Sermon is righteousness of the heart. When Christ opposes His commands to those of the Law, it is to show that He requires more than the Law demanded, that He insists not only upon righteousness of outward conduct, but upon righteousness of the heart. The Law re- quired strict truth whenever an o.ath was taken. The tendency of the Pharisaic formalism of Christ's day was to keep the letter of the Law by strict fulfilment of one's promise and scrupulous adher- ence to the truth whenever the Divine name was invoked, but to break its spirit by assuming that whenever such an oath was not taken, greater latitude was allowed. Christ insisted upon such a regard for truth that the absence of the oath should make no difference. To feel that one is more bound by an oath th.an by ones simple word is to have the spirit of falsehood in one's heart. In such a case whatsoever is more than the direct yea and nay cometh of evil.
Once we realize what is the spirit in which Christ's luohibition is given, we are in a position to decide some of the questions raised as to the practicability of the observance of the command in existing social conditions. If the prohibition is absolute, on what ground can the practice of taking oaths in courts of law be defended ? The answer fs that the spirit in which the oath is t.aken in such a case is very different from that which our Lord condemns in the present instance. In a court of law we take the oath to convince our fellow-men, who cannot see our heart and judge of our regard for truth, of our good faith. That is a very dif- ferent thing from thinking that Ave are not re- quired to speak. the tr\ith unless bountl by an oath ; and it is the latter view th.at Clirist condemns in His dictiim upon swearing. We may still kee]i the spirit of our Lord's command though we break the letter of it by taking an oath in court, just as we may keep the spirit of many otiier injunc- tions of tlie Sermon on the Mount, e.g. that with regard to praying in j)rivate (Mt 6^), though we break them in the letter. Christ Himself, accord- ing to the Gospel in which the present passage