Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 5:34 - 5:36
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_5:34-36. Μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως ] to swear not at all (the adverb placed emphatically at the end, compare Mat_2:10), dependent upon λέγω ὑμῖν (comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 59 E, Menex. 240 A), in which the command is implied (Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 200; Kühner, ad Anab. v. 7. 34; Wunder, ad Soph. O. C. 837), interdicts all kinds of swearing in general;[415] not merely that of common life, which is at variance with reverence for God (Luther, Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, Fritzsche, Ewald, Tholuck, Harless, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and others), nor even merely oaths regarded “ex Judaeorum sensu” (thus Matthaei, doctrina Christi de jurejur. Hal. 1847). The simple prohibition,—given, however, to the disciples, and for the life of fellowship of true believers,—and in so far not less ideal than the requirements that have preceded, appears from the words themselves (comp. Jam_5:12), and also from Mat_5:37. Christianity as it should be according to the will of Christ, should know no oath at all: τὸ μὴ ὀμνύειν ὅλως ἐπιτείνει μάλιστα τὴν εὐσέβειαν , Euth. Zigabenus. To the consciousness of the Christian, God should always be so vividly present, that, to him and others in the Christian community, his yea and nay are, in point of reliability, equivalent to an oath. His yea and nay are oath enough. Comp. on ὅλως , prorsus (= παντελῶς , Hesychius), Xen. Mem. i. 2. 35: προαγορεύομεν τοῖς νέοις ὅλως μὴ διαλέγεσθαι , Oecon. Mat_20:20. Accordingly, it is only in the incomplete temporal condition of Christianity, as well as in the relation to the world in which it is placed, and to the existing relations of the department of public law, to which it conforms itself, that the oath has its necessary, indeed (comp. Heb_6:16), but conditional and temporary existence. Christ Himself has sworn (Mat_26:63 f.); Paul has frequently sworn (Rom_1:9; 2Co_1:23; 2Co_11:3 f.; Gal_2:20; Php_1:8); nay, God swears to His own people (Gen_22:16; Gen_26:3; Num_14:23; Isa_45:23; Luk_1:73; Act_7:17; Heb_6:13). Therefore Anabaptists and Quakers are wrong in rejecting an oath without any exception, as was already done by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and other Fathers. The various but altogether arbitrary explanations of those who here recognise no absolute prohibition may be seen in Tholuck. The direct oath, by God, is not indeed expressly mentioned along with others in what follows; its prohibition, however, is implied, just as a matter of course, and entirely, first of all in the general μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως , as it is the reference to God which constitutes precisely the fundamental conception and nature of the oath, and, as in the doctrine here discussed, Mat_5:33, the direct oath is contained not only in οὐκ ἐπιορκ ., according to Lev_19:12, but also expressly in ἀποδώσεις τῷ κυρίῳ , etc. If Christ, therefore, had intended to forbid merely the oaths of common life, He would, instead of the altogether general statement, μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως , have made use of a form of expression excluding oaths to be taken in relation to the magistracy (probably by a παρεκτός , as in Mat_5:32). It is true, indeed, that in the special prohibitions which follow, He mentions only indirect oaths,—consequently not those that are valid in a court of justice,—but just because the prohibition of the direct oath was already contained in μὴ ὀμός . ὅλως , first of all and before all other kinds of oaths; and His object now is simply to set forth that even indirect swearing fell under the general prohibition of swearing. And He sets this forth in such a way, that in so doing the prohibition of the direct oath forms the presupposition of His demonstration, as it could not otherwise be expected after μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως . What a scanty πλήρωσις of the law—and one altogether out of keeping with the ideal character of the points which preceded—would it have been had Jesus only intended to say: I forbid you “the wanton oaths of the streets, of the markets” (Keim), in all their forms!
μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρ ., κ . τ . λ .] not to swear in general, nor (specially) by heaven, nor by earth. See on μὴ … μήτε , Klotz, ad Devar. p. 709; Kühner, II. 2, p. 828 f.; Winer, p. 454 [E. T. 612]; also Baeumlein, Part. p. 222.
The kinds of swearing censured by Jesus were very common amongst the Jews; Philo, de Spec. Legg. p. 770 A; Lightfoot, l.c.; Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. illustr. p. 58.
θρόνος θεοῦ and ὑποπόδιον … αὐτοῦ ] (Isa_66:1; Mat_23:22).
τοῦ μεγ . βας .] of Jehovah (Psa_48:2; Psa_95:4; Job_13:18 ff.; therefore the holy city, Mat_4:5).
μήτε [416] ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ ] Not merely the Jews (Berachoth, f. 3. 2; Lightfoot, Hor. p. 281), but also the heathen (Eur. Hel. 835), swore by their head. Dougtius, Anal. II. p. 7 f.; Wetstein on the passage. Comp. the exposition of Virg. Aen. ix. 300.
ὀμνύειν is by the Greek writers connected with κατά τινος , or with the accus. (Jam_5:12). Here, as in Mat_23:16 ff., Jer_5:7, Dan_12:7, with ἐν (in harmony with the idea that the oath cleaves to the object appealed to, comp. on ὉΜΟΛΟΓΕῖΝ ἘΝ , Mat_10:32), and with ΕἸς (directing the thought; comp. Plut. Oth. 18), after the Hebrew ðÄùÑÌÀáÌÇò á× .
ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι , κ . τ . λ .] for thou art not in a condition to make one single hair (if it is black) white or (if it is white) black. There is, of course, no allusion to the dyeing of hair. Wolf, Köcher, Kuinoel, and others incorrectly render it: thou canst not produce a single white or black hair. On such a signification, what means the mention of the colour? The meaning of the whole passage is: “Ye shall not swear by all these objects; for all such oaths are nothing less than the oath directly by God Himself, on account of the relation in which those objects stand to God.” In the creature by which thou swearest, its Creator and Lord is affected.
[415] Comp. West in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 221 ff.; Nitzsch, christl. Lehre, p. 393 ff.; Werner in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 711 ff.; Wuttke, Sittenl. II. § 277; Achelis in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 436 ff. Jerome had already remarked, with striking simplicity: “evangelica veritas non recipit juramentum cum omnis sermo fidelis pro jurejurando sit.” The emphatic ὅλως forbids, however, the limitation only to the forms of the oath that are afterwards mentioned (Althaus in d. Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 504, and already Theophylact, 1), so that the oath by the name of God would remain unaffected; in like manner, the restriction of the prohibition to promissory oaths (Ficker in the same Zeitschr. 1870, p. 633 ff., and already Grotius).
[416] If μηδέ were here the reading (Fritzsche), then the meaning would be: not even by thy head; see Hartung, Partik. I. p. 196. But this reading is neither critically admissible—as it has only à ** in its favour—nor exegetically necessary, since the series of negations is symmetrically continued with μήτε ἐν τ . κεφ . ς ., which symmetry is not interrupted by ὀμόσῃς , because the latter does not stand before ἐν τῇ κεφ . ς . Matthew might have written μηδέ (comp. also Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 27; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 123), but he was not obliged to do so.