The chief NT passages concerned are Mt 5''"", where Jesus gives the command, ' Swear not at all,' and the parallels in 23'*"^- and Ja 5'^ It is main- tained by Zahn and otiiers, with much probability, that St. James has here preserved the original words of Jesus in a purer form than St. Matthew (T. Zahn, ' Matt.,' in Kommentarzum NT, 1903 It'., p. 244). The chief grounds for this view are : — (1) that certain ancient writers quote the first part of Mt 533-37 as it now stands, but substitute Ja 5'^ for St. Matthew's ending ; (2) that some of these writers appear not to have known this Epistle, and therefore they and St. James will have derived these words from a common source, older and VOL. n. — 7
better than Mt S'" ; (3) that Ja 5'- is free from an apparent inconsistency which attaches to Mt S'", for Jesus has been urging that His followers should keep to the simplest possible form of artirmation, and ' yea, yea ' is not strictly that ; the second ' yea' seems almost a vain repetition. On the other hand, Ja 5'- may possibly be secondary ; for instead of ' Let your " yea " be (a reliable and un- adorned) "yea" and your " nay," " nay,"' it maj" be rendered : ' Let yours be the " yea, yea," " nay, nay" (enjoined in Mt.).' Further, while St. Matthew's double ' yea ' can scarcely be defended (but see H. H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, Eng. tr., 1892, i. 269) as securing clearness — for what illumination does the repetition convey ?— yet the emphasis added by the second word is by no means extreme, and Jesus may therefore have used it ; it falls short of the ' verily ' which He u.sed so often. However this may be, the two passages yield the common and unmistakable general prin- ciple of a characteristic Christian simplicity and moderation of speech. This is further enforced by the words, ' Swear not at all ' {/lii 6Xws). Any exceptions to this strongly exclusive phrase must bear the burden of proof, and to apply it strictly in the meantime is the only natural course, and the precise reverse of ' hair-splitting ' (T. Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr., iii. [1877] 314). This strictness is made still more binding by the parallel in St. James: 'nor by any other oath.' The for- bidden oaths specified in Mt 5'"'^'' are illustrations only — selected, not exhaustive. The ground of the prohibition is the link with God which in the thoughts of our Lord's hearers (ch. 5) and also in the teaching of the Pharisees (ch. 23) had been snapped ; this He replaces with reiterated em- phasis. These evasive or frivolous oaths are condemned expre.ssly because, in principle, the name of God is involved in them. The main appeal in both chapters is, as J. Kijstlin (in PRE^ V. 239 f.) has already maintained, an appeal to reverence, though this is indissociably combined with the demand for veracity. All false swearing amounts indirectly to profane swearing. Yox it must be irreverent either because God's presence is invoked in order to make a lie more credible, or else because men adopt a formula (as in Mt ^ and 23) which seeks to exclude Him while the lie is told. The ' evil ' which is the source of ' whatso-
ever is more than' a simple adirmation consists of casuistry and irreverence alike.
That Jesus is not attackiiij; untrutlifulness alone is further shown by this, that He oilers His teach- ing as a conscious correction of that which had been given to the ancients, viz. that vows or oaths by God must be kept (cf. \V. C. Allen, ICC, ' St. Matthew, '2 1912, p. 53). If Jesus meant that the oath by God should be left standing (so Kcini, op. cit. p. ;!llf.) in the interests of veracity. He only conlirmed the UT. Moreover, if that were His only object, then instead of ' Swear not at all ' (for one cannot evade the reference to God), He would have needed to say, ' Never let any matter of importance be settled without an oath, and that directly by the name of (Jod.'
Wendt (op. rit. p. 269 f.) and others hold that the oath is 'of the evil' because it implies that the truth need not be told on other occasions. But that .seems to imply that the oath itself is not 'of the evil,' but a highly commendable act of excep- tional virtue. It is true that oaths on special occasions encourage a double standard of truth- fulness. This is, indeed, denied in a vigorous article by \V. C. Magee (CR xlix. [1886] 1 «'.), in which it is maintained that oaths are only a forcible reminder of a duty which applies equally at other times ; but the oath actually uttered by witnesses always concerns itself quite specially with the particular case under trial. Yet this limitation of the veracity due outside the oath cannot be the cliief evil in the oath. That chief evil, so far as it is lying at all, must be lying which is committed in and under the oath ; and this is not merely nor chiefiy unveracity ; by it a despite is done to God which seems to have been, in the judgment of Jesus, an additional and greater sin. Now the admissions of writers of all views show that a very large proportion of those who have strong motives for untrutli will not be deterred by any oath that can be devised (cf. Magee, op. cit. p. 3). In any case, their testimony will be false, and thus a certain irreverence will be implied in it, but only remotely ; the requirement of an oath will simply make it far more pointed and direct ; for it is known beforehand that a large number, if they take an oath at all, will commit perjury ; moreover, few of these perjuries will be investi- gated, and the number punished will be negligible. At the other end of tlie scale are those who would tell the truth under any circumstances — the earnest Christians whom the oath only forces into a certain lowering of tone, and the higli-minded unbelievers who, when the case is over, will have been truthful in everything except in the oath by which their truthfulness is ' ensured.' And with both of the.se undesirable results the name of God will be con- cerned in a way which is at least indelicate.