The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 174

Ver. 83.-By them of old f.ime (ver. 21, dwelletb not in temples made wilh hands" note). Thou shalt not forswear thyself ( ob,c as St. Stephen paraphrases it (Acts vii. 18). l'11'1op10/u«s). These two words are the sub- The great King is seated enthroned in the stance of Lev. xix. 12, which itself ( cf. heaven, with his feet touching the earth. RIIBhi, ln loo.) includes a reference to the Ver. 85.-Nor by Jerusalem. 'l'he Ho- third commandment. To them our Lord braistie l11 is here exchanged for the lee, joins but she.lt perform, etc., which is the unclaesice.l ,ls, the reason, perhaps, being substcmce of Dent. xxiii. 23 (cf. Numb. xxx. that definite direction of one's thought 2). (On our Lord's utterance representing the towards Jerusalem was, as it seems, insisted current form of teaching about oaths, of. ver. upon by some. "Rabbi Judah saith, He 21, note.) This current teaohing was the that saith, By Jerusalem, saith nothing, logical deduction from the statements of unless with an intent purpose he shall vow the Lim, and yet the Law bad a higher towards Jerusalem" (Tosipbt., 'Ned.,' i., in aim. Lightfoot,• Hor. Hehr.'). Bo Revised Version Ver. 8:1.-Swear not at all (cf. Jas. v. 12). margin, toward. For it is the city, etc. Yet, as St. Augustine points out, St. Paul (Ps. xl viii. 2). took oaths in his writings (2 Car. i. 23 .; Ver. 36.-For thou oanst not, etc. As xi. 31); and our Lord himself did not re• each of the other objects included a refer- fuse to answer when put upon his oath (eh. ence to God, so docs o.lso thy head. For xxvi. 63, 64). He, that is to se.y, and St. even that recalls to mind the power of God, Paul after him, accepted the fact that there since every hair of it bears the stamp of his are times when a solemn oath must be taken. handiwork. How, then, can we explain this absolute Ver. 37.-YourcommUllica.tion. Similarly, prohibition here? In that our Lord is not the Authorized Version in Eph. iv. 29, in here thinking at all of formal and solemn archaic usage for "to.lk." Yee., yea.; Nay, oaths, but of oaths as the outcome of im- nay. Christ permits as fill' ns the repetition patience and exaggeration. The thought- of the asseveration. The adoption here by leSBness of fervent asseveration is often a few authorities of the phrase in Jae. v. 12 betrayed into an oath. Buch an oath, or (" Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay,'' even any asseveration that passes in spirit .-b veil 11al, 1<•.-•.>..) is unsuitable; for here beyond •• yea, yea," "nay, nay," he.a its the question is not of truthfulness, but of origin "" .-oii -ro1'71poii; of. Chaucer," Bweryug fervency in assever11,tion. Whatsoever is sodeynly without avysement is eek e. gret more than these; "that which is over nnd synne" (' Parson's Te.le,' § • De Irll. '). Mar- o.bove these" (Rheims). There is a Emper- tensen, however(' Ethics, Individual,'§ 100), 11.uity (,r,p,uudv) in more fervent assevera- takes the prohibition of oaths as formally tions, which h11,s its origin ,,, ,-ou ,ro1171pov. unconditional and tote.I, in accordance with Cometh of evil So the Revised Version the highest ideal of what man will hereafter margin, "as in ver. 89; vi. 13." Revised be and require, o.nd he sees the limitation, Version, is of the evil oM ( vids eh. vi. 13, which he allows is to be given to these note: and cf. 1 John iii. 12). words, in the present conditions of human Vera. 38-48.-The two remaining ex- sooiety. We have an ideal auty towards amples of the current teaching of the Law God, but we have e.lso n practice.I duty to those among whom we live, and the present are very closely connected together, anJ, in state of human affairs permits and necessi- fact, our Lord's corrections of them o.re tates oaths. Hence it was that even Christ intermingled in Luke vi. 27-3G. Yet the submitted to them. Neither by heaven, etc. subjects are reo.lly distinct. In the first Our Lord further defines what he meo.ns by (vers. 38-42) our Lord speo.ks of the an oath. It does not mean only an ex- pression in which God's Ne.me is mentioned, reception of injuries, in the second (vers. but any expreBBion appealing to ony object 43-48) of the treatment of those who do at all, whether this be supro.terrestrial, ter- them. r~strie.l, national, or personal. Although Godet's remarks (in his summary of Luka God's Ne.me is often omitted in·such cases, vi. 27-45) on the llile m11,de by St. Luke from a feeling of reverence, its omission does not prevent the asseveration being an oath. of these examples are especially instructive. Heavfl'II; Revised Version, the heaven; for "These last two antitheses, which terminate the thouaht is clearly not the immaterio.l in Matthew in the lofty thought (ver. 4S) tro.nscend°ente.l heaven, the abode of bliss, of m11n being elevated by love to tho p~r- but the pbysico.l hooven ( cf. ch.:vi. 26, Revi110d feotion of God, furnish Luke with the lead- Version). Heaven . . . footstool. Apapted ing idea. of the discourse as ho presents it, from Is11. lxvi. 1, where it forms pnrt of the gloriou~ declaro.tiou that no me.terinl temple no.moly, chnrity ns the law of tho new lifo.'' cian contain God, tluc.t "the Most High Vera. 38-42.-The reception of iujurfra.  166 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [on. v. 1-48.