32—38.
οὐ δύνασαι µίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ἢ µέλαιναν ποιῆσαι. 37. Eorw? δὲ b 2 Cor. i. I
ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν, "ναὶ ναί, of οὔ: τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ
-19. James v.
πονηροῦ ἐστιν. 38. Ἡκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, *’OpPbadpdy ἀντὶ ὀφθαλ- i Bx. xxi. 24.
1 S8BL place ποιησαι before η µελαιναν.
‘scribes to give a smoother reading.
Lev. xxiv. 20. Deut. xix. 21.
The T. R. represents an effort by the
2 For εστω (SDL al.) BE have εσται, which expresses the injunction in the strongest way and is to be preferred (W.H. on margin).
but in the spirit as inculcating such a love of truth that so far as we are con- cerned there shall be no need of oaths. In civil life the most truthful man has to take an oath because of the untruth and consequent distrust prevailing in the world, and in doing so he does not sin against Christ’s teaching. Christ Him- self took an oath before the High Priest (Με, xxvi. 63). What follows (vv. 34- 6) is directed against the casuistry which laid stress on the words τῷ κυρίῳ, and evaded obligation by taking oaths in which the divine name was _ not mentioned : by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or by one’s own head. Jesus points out that all such oaths involved a reference to God. This is sufficiently obvious in the case of the first three, not so clear in case of the fourth.—Aevxhy ἢ µέλαιναν : white is the colour of old age, black of youth. We cannot alter the colour of our hair so as to make our head look young or old. <A fortiori we cannot bring on our head any curse by perjury, of which hair suddenly whitened might be the symbol. Providence alone can blast our life. The oath by the head is a direct appeal to God. All these oaths are binding, therefore, says Jesus; but what I most wish to impress on you is: do not swear at all. Observe the use of μήτε (not μηδέ) to connect these different evasive oaths as forming a homogeneous group. Winer, sect. lv. 6, endorses the view of Herrmann in Viger that οὔτε and pyre are adjunctival, οὐδέ and μηδέ dis- junctival, and says that the latter add negation to negation, while the former divide a single negation into parts. Jesus first thinks of these evasive oaths as a bad class, then specifies them one after the other. Away with them one and all, and let your word be vat vat, οὗ ov. That is, if you want to give assurance, let it not be by an oath, but by simple repetition of your yes and no. Grotius interprets: let your yea or nay in word be a yea or nay in deed, be as good sas your word even unsupported by ar
oath. This brings the version of Christ's saying in Mt. into closer correspond- ence with Jas. ν. 12--ἤτω τὸ Ναί vai, καὶ τὸ OU ov. Beza, with whom Achelis (Bevgpredigt) agrees, renders, ‘‘ Let your affirmative discourse be a simple yea, and your negative, nay”’.—tTo δὲ περισ- σὸν, the surplus, what goes beyond these simple words.—ék τοῦ πονηροῦ, hardly “from the evil one,” though many ancient and modern interpreters, including Meyer, have so understood it. Meyer says the neuter “ of evil’ gives a very insipid meaning. I think, however, that Christ expresses Himself mildly out of respect for the necessity of oaths in a world full of falsehood. I know, He means to say, that in certain circum- stances something beyond yea and nay will be required of you. But it comes of evil, the evil of untruthfulness. See that the evil be not in you. Chrysostom (Hom. xvii.) asks: How evil, if it be. God’s law? and answers: Because the law was good in its season. God acted like a nurse who gives the breast to an infant and afterwards laughs at it when it wants it after weaning.