The Pulpit Commentary — Deuteronomy — Section 105

tnking in R court of justice. "'e cherish nll respect for thoso who so regnnl them, but we cann0t 'l"icw them in this light, for the following rca,sons: (1) Tho occnslon on which our Lord uses the words seems to refer rather to habits in private life. (2) Christ and his apostles solemnly appenled to Heaven. (3) In Heb. vi. the oath of Goel is spoken of by t.he sacred writer, and we cannot suppose this would have been if all oath-taking were ,nong. \Ve cannot think that, even by way of nccommodation, the M0sl High would represent himself as doing that which it would bo always wrong for his creatures to do. (4) In prophetic language there is predicted a swearing by the Name of God, which is regarded as obviously right (lsn. xiv. 23; seo nlso eh. ,·i. 14). These reasons seem to us to set the matter entirely at rest. And the view that Christ was referring to men's ordinary conversation when ho said, "Swear not at all," is confirmed by Matt. v. 37; the meanin~ of which evidently is: "If it is needful for you to interlard your conversation with sundry adjurations, you are the victims of a spi1it of falsehood which has 'the evil one' for its father I" Further this precept co,·ers a far wider range than that of swearing. It forbids any" taking up" of the Divine Name which is not true as to loyalty of purpose, actual fact, and after-fulfilment. This precept manifestly prohibits: 1. .All scoffing at sacred thing~; not merely at the word "God," or at the doctrine of the Divine existence but ridiculing the Bible as the Book of God, the sabbath as the day of God: Christians as the people of God, and religion as obedience to God. The mild and supercilious scorn of modern scepticism is equally a violation of this precept.-it tramples nuder foot the Son of God. 2. Pei-jury is another form of violation of this comma1td. The idea of swearing is that of calling God to witness; and to invoke that great and awful Name to witness a lie is one of the most grievous breaches of this law. 3. Prefanity also is here forbidden, i.e. taking the Name of God on the lips on every trifling occasion. This is now thought, as indeed it is, ungentlemanly, to a far greater extent than was the case fifty years ag:,. So far well. Only let us take care that for a custom to be out of fashion, does not act with us more powerfully than its offensive- ness to Goel, in inducing us to gil'e it up! Some are more concerned at a hole in their rnanuers than at a brea.:h of morals. These things ought not so to be. 4. Frivolity in reference to Divine things is a transgression of this command. This is by no means to be confounded either with scoffing or with profanity. It may be found where there is great reverence for God, great kindness of heart, combined with an excessive fondness for raising a laugh. And where this is the case, even sacred things are but too seldom exempt from frirnlous treatment. \Ve recall some acquaintance whose chief, yea, whose only apparent fault, was the extreme tendency to turn everything into a joke, even things most sacred. Many were ready to excuse the frivolity for the sake of the talent it revealed. But they are" nowhere" now. Their levity was their ruin. Wit and humour have indeed a place of no mean value in social life. Social evils are often exposed more effecti,·ely in scorn and satire than in graver speeches. But there is no tendency of any man which needs to be more wisely cultured, more carefully and prayerfully guarded, and more conscientiously directed, than that to which we are now referring. Apart from this, there is exceedingly great danger of its leading to the" takini the Name of God in vain." 5. There may be a breach of this commaudmeut without frivolity (as usually understood), even where there is no sense of humour and no talent for witticisms, in the indulgence of a vicious habit, much more easily formed than broken off, of interlarding the conversation with certain well-known epithets. We know what these were in Christ's time (see Matt. xxiii. 16-22; v. 33-36). '!'his is conceited talk, and it is sinful talk. 6. Ji'alse teaching for God breaks this law (see Jer. xxiii. 21-24, 31). There are several ways by which, in teaching others, the Name of Goel may Le ta.ken fabely. Either (1) by declaring as God's what be has not said; or by (2) denying what he has said; or (3) by calling in question the truth of what he has spoken. The first was common in the days of Jeremiah; the second and third are at once more ancient and more modern. Whenever anya1,,bassador for God gives his own tl,oughts as if tl,ey were God's mes~age, he is taking the Name of G<Ml in vain. Or if a man, while professing to speak for God, is speaking wit.h the desire to exalt himself, ho is guilty of the same sin. 7. Hollowness and formality in the professed worsliip of God are breacl,ts of t!te third commandment. We take God's Name in vain if we sing "the songs of Zion" with a vacant heart, or outwaf"dl:)' join in the prayers of the sanctuary Oil, V, 1-38.] THE BOOK OF DEUTERON'OMY. 93