Aquinas Commentary on Matthew 5:33-37

Aquinas Commentary on Matthew 5:33-37

 _______________________________________________________________

Source: St. Thomas Aquinas. 2012. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. Chapter 5, verse 33-37, p. 200-206 (EBook). Translated by Paul Matthew Kimball. Dolorosa Press, New York, U.S.A.

Excerpt from Lectura super Matthaeum, delivered as a series of lectures by Thomas Aquinas, in Paris between 1268-1272. Translated from: Renard, J.P., 1983. La lectura super Matthaeum V, 20-48 de Thomas d'Aquin (Edition d'après le ms. Bâle, Univ. Bibl. BV 12). Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale Louvain, 50, pp.145-190. The manuscript is based on that found in Basel in 1955, likely the reportatio of Peter of Andria.

 _______________________________________________________________

Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, thou shalt not forswear thyself. Above, the Lord fulfilled one permissive precept, namely, concerning the bill of divorce. Here, He fulfills another permissive precept, namely, concerning oaths. And about this He does three things. For firstly, He cites the words of the Law; secondly, He fulfills the precept; and thirdly, He answers a question. The second part is where it is said, But I say to you not to swear at all; and the third part is where it is said, But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no.

Now it ought to be considered that two [kinds of moral precepts] are contained in the words of the Law, of which one was simply prohibitive, and the other permissive. There was a prohibitive precept regarding forswearing, namely, You have heard that it was said to them of old, thou shalt not forswear thyself, etc. “Thou shalt not swear falsely by my name, nor profane the name of thy God. I am the Lord” (Lev. 19, 12), and with almost the same meaning, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” etc., (Ex. 20, 7). Regarding swearing, there was a permissive precept, namely, Thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord, meaning, when you have occasion to swear, you will not swear by creatures, but by God; as it is written “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt serve him only, and thou shalt swear by his name” (Deut. 6, 13). And according to this, it seems that this sacrament,[118] namely, to swear by God, is not a sin, but that the Law permitted this because the Jews were prone to idolatry, not as though this thing were right, but so that something worse might be avoided, namely, idolatry.[119]

But it remains, however, that to show reverence to God is good in itself. To swear by God is to show reverence to God, because everyone [swears by his god][120] and “For men swear by one greater than themselves: and an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy” (Heb. 6, 16). Therefore, to swear by God is good in itself. Furthermore, to swear by God is to invoke God as a witness. But this is good in itself. Therefore, to swear is good in itself.

And it ought to be known that in itself swearing is not something ordered, nay, in itself it implies a disorder. To swear by God is nothing other than to invoke God as a witness to a human assertion; now this happens in two ways. It is either because the divine witness is adduced to confirm a human assertion, or because divine judgment is sought, as though it were said: ‘If it be not so, may the swearer be condemned by God.’ Among men’s deeds, however, nothing is so fragile as their words; “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man” (Jam. 3, 2). Hence, to call upon God as a witness in these deeds in which man is so fragile, is to contemn God’s judgment; “A man that sweareth much, shall be filled with iniquity” (Eccli. 23, 12).

The Lord, however, afterwards fulfills this precept here. Hence, He says, But I say to you not to swear at all, etc. Thus, an oath in itself is unlawful. Therefore, when judges compel men to swear in their lawsuits, it seems that they act contrary to this precept, and this is the opinion of certain heretics, saying that no one is allowed to swear. And Jerome[121] replies that the Lord here forbids a man to swear by creatures, and He does this on account of the Jews, who were prone to idolatry. Hence, He does not simply forbid oaths. But this does not seem to be a good exposition, because then the Lord would have added nothing to the words of the Law, which says, Thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord. And therefore, it ought to be said, according to Augustine, that the Lord forbids men to swear by God and by creatures.

But then there remains a twofold question. The first is that our Lord would have destroyed the Law, which says, Thou shalt perform thy oaths; and the second is that according to this, it seems that an oath would be unlawful. And Augustine replies that just as a bill of divorce was not intended by the Law, but was permitted on account of the cruelty of the Jews, and the Lord fulfilled it because He in no wise wanted it to be given; similarly, here the Law commanded that they would not swear, but if they swore, they would swear not by creatures but by God; but the Lord fulfilled this when He said, Not to swear at all, etc. And just as he who is silent is in no wise a liar, so he who in no wise swears is further removed from perjury.[122]

Regarding that which is said, namely, that an oath is unlawful, I answer, according to Augustine,[123] that the same Holy Ghost is He who spoke in Sacred Scriptures and who also worked in the saints. Hence, what is the meaning of Scriptures appears in the sayings of the saints. Paul was moved by the Holy Ghost and yet he swore twice, for he swore with an oath of simple attestation; “For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you” (Rom. 1, 9). And he swore with an oath of execration, which is when someone pledges their salvation or their soul to God; “I call God to witness upon my soul that to spare you, I came not any more to Corinth” (II Cor. 1, 23). And if it be said that this is not an oath, this is absurd, because to swear “by God” and “upon my soul” are the same; “I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord” (I Cor. 15, 31), and in Greek, the word “by” is so understood that one is swearing.[124] Therefore, if Paul swore, it seems that the Lord did not intend to forbid swearing, but rather swearing easily. And Augustine shows that an oath is not something to be desired in itself, but on the contrary, only on account of the need of swearer. And therefore he says that Paul never swore except in writing, because it ought not to be done except with great caution and deliberation and on account of a need, that is to say, unless the good of others calls for it.[125]

But someone could say that to swear by God is evil, but not by something less than God. And the Lord excludes this; hence, it is said, Neither by heaven for it is the throne of God, etc. To swear by creatures can be either from idolatry or without idolatry. For if judgment is attributed to those things, namely, by entreating judgment from creatures, then this is idolatry; just as the ancients did, who were saying that the heavens are a God.[126] In another way, swearing by creatures can be without sin and idolatry in two ways. Firstly, insofar as a creature be pledged to God by entreating justice upon it, as for example, when men swear by their heads;[127] secondly, insofar as in a creature there appears a reflection of the Divine Majesty, as for example, when an oath is sworn by heaven, Whose power and potentiality is shown in the heavens. Hence, here He sets forth superior creatures by which someone might swear.

And this superiority is shown in three things, namely, in two elements, heaven and earth, and under which all other things are contained as means between extremes. And in regard to this, He says, Neither by heaven; “Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool,” etc., (Is. 66, 1). Chrysostom[128] says that He does not say, not to swear at all, neither by heaven,because it is a great body, nor by the earth, which is the mother of all things,[129] but He shows the excellence of these things in comparison with God.

But does God have limbs and posture and the like? Hence, this passage is expounded in two ways. Firstly, it is expounded literally. For that is called a seat where someone rests, and one rests where he abides perfectly. Therefore, because among corporeal creatures the heavens share the most in the divine goodness, and the earth the least, heaven is called God’s seatand earth His footstool. Likewise, men are accustomed to sit for judging, and because the Lord sometimes judges by means of those things which come from the heavens; “And lighten with his light from above, he shall cover also the ends of the sea. For by these he judgeth people, and giveth food to many mortals” (Job 36, 30-31), namely, by means of lightning and the like, and so heaven is called His seat.

Mystically, however, by heaven, holy men are understood, whose conversation is in heaven; “But our conversation is in heaven” (Phil. 3, 20). God judges in these men; “But the spiritual man judgeth all things” (I Cor. 2, 15). By the earth, sinners are understood, on account of their affection for earthly things; “They are enemies of the cross of Christ… who mind earthly things” (Phil. 3, 18-20). And [God’s feet are] upon this footstool, because if men do not fulfill the laws to which they are subject, they will be punished.[130]

In human society men establish cities, and Jerusalem excels among other cities because God was worshipped there, and so these words are said, nor by Jerusalem; “Glorious things are said of thee, O city of God” (Ps. 86, 3), and, “Jerusalem, which is built as a city, which is compact together. For thither did the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord: the testimony of Israel, to praise the name of the Lord” (Ps. 121, 3-4).

And then the Lord speaks concerning bodily members. But since it could be said that we ought not to swear by these greater things, but by lesser things, He says, Neither shalt thou swear by thy head. For anyone can do what he wishes with that which is his, but man does not have power over his head as to smallest matters. Therefore, one ought not to swear by that member and this is what is said, because thou canst not make one hair white or black, naturally speaking, namely, “And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature one cubit?” (below 6, 27).

But it could be said: How then will we speak? He replies, and firstly, He answers the question; and secondly, He gives the reason. He says, therefore, But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no. And it can be expounded in three ways. Firstly, it is expounded as follows. If someone were to ask, ‘Is it so?’ let your speech be yea, yea: no, no. Secondly, it is expounded as follows. Let not your mouth say one thing, and your heart feel another thing, and your deed show yet another thing. “With the workers of iniquity destroy me not: Who speak peace with their neighbor, but evils are in their hearts” (Ps. 27, 3). Thirdly, it is expounded as follows, and it is more literal. Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no, as though He were to say: ‘May you say both simply.’ For this is the definition of truth,[131] namely, everything that is, is said to be; and what is not, is said not to be. This is Hilary’s exposition;[132] “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ… was not: It is and It is not. But, It is, was in him” (II Cor. 1, 19).

And that which is over and above these, is of evil. He does not say, ‘is evil,’ but, ‘is of evil,’ and it is not from your evil but from another’s evil, because you are forced to swear, although nevertheless it would be beneficial for him to believe your oath; and the Apostle swore in this way. Or it is expounded, according to Chrysostom, as follows. And that which is over and above these, is of evil.[133] By this it appears that in the Old Law one oath was prohibitive, namely, to perjure; it permitted another, namely, to swear out of necessity; it rejected a third oath, namely, a superstitious oath, which is when reverence is shown to a creature which is owed to God.
_______________________________________________________________

Notes 

---

[118] “Even an oath has a certain relation to sacred things, insofar as it consists in calling a sacred thing to witness. And in this sense it is called a sacrament: not in the sense in which we speak of sacraments now; the word sacrament being thus used not equivocally but analogically, i.e. by reason of a different relation to the one thing, viz. something sacred” (III, q. 60, a. 1 ad 3um).

[119] St. Jerome (Com. in Mt., I), where this quotation continues: “The Gospel truth, however, does not receive an oath, since every word of the faithful takes the place of swearing.” “As Augustine says (ad Publicam, Sermone 47), ‘though we are forbidden to swear, I do not remember ever to have read in the Holy Scriptures that we must not accept oaths from others.’ Hence, he that accepts an oath does not sin, except perchance when of his own accord he forces another to swear, knowing that he will swear falsely” (II II, q. 98, a. 4 ad 2 um).

[120] The text here gives a reference to a Gloss which is unknown. Hence, this sentence has been completed based on a similar passage from St. Thomas’ commentary In Isaiam, chap. 45.

[121] Comm. in Mt., I.

[122] “It is also written, ‘But I say unto you, Swear not at all.’ But the Apostle himself has used oaths in his Epistles (Rom. 9, 1; Phil. 1, 8; and Gal. 1, 20). And so he shows how that is to be taken, which is said, ‘I say unto you, Swear not at all’: that is, lest by swearing one come to a facility in swearing, from facility to a custom, and so from a custom there be a downfall into perjury.” (St. Augustine, On Lying chap. 15, n. 28).

[123] “The things that in the New Testament were done by the saints, where there is a most evident commending of morals to be imitated, avail as examples for the understanding of the Scriptures, which are digested in the precepts” (On Lying chap. 15, n. 26).

[124] St. Augustine, De serm. Dom.I, 17, 51; “AUG. It is ridiculous to make such a distinction; yet the Apostle has used even this form, ‘I die daily, by your glory.’ That this does not mean, ‘your glory has caused my dying daily,’ but is an oath, is clear from the Greek texts, in which what is written: ni tin kauchisin himeteran, meaning, ‘by your glory,’ is only said by one who is swearing” (Catena Aureaon St. Matthew, chap. 5, lect. 19).

[125] “And therefore he is not found to have sworn except in writing, where there is more wary forethought, and no precipitate tongue withal.” (On Lying chap. 15, n. 28).

[126] “Since the heaven is such as to have been called ‘God’ by the ancients, not indeed because it is the supreme God, but because its body is something divine by virtue of being ungenerated and indestructible, as was previously explained; consequently it possesses a circular body in order that it may be moved forever and in a circular way” (De coelo et mundo, bk. 2, lect. 4, n. 5).

[127] “The other way of swearing is by cursing, and in this kind of oath a creature is adduced that the judgment of God may be wrought therein. Thus, a man is wont to swear by his head, or by his son, or by some other thing that he loves, even as the Apostle swore (2 Corinthians 1:23), saying: ‘I call God to witness upon my soul’” (II II, q. 89, a. 6).

[128] In Mt. hom. XVII (PG 57, 260-261): “But mark, I pray thee, on what ground He magnifies the elements; not from their own nature, but from God’s relation to them, such as it had been in condescension declared. For because the tyranny of idolatry was great, that the elements might not be thought worthy of honor for their own sake, He hath assigned this cause, which we have mentioned, which again would pass on to the glory of God. For He neither said, ‘because Heaven is beautiful and great,’ nor, ‘because earth is profitable’; but ‘because the one is God’s throne, the other His footstool’; on every side urging them on towards their Lord.”

[129] “Earth, the mother of all” (Hesiod, Works and Days). “The power of the earth takes the place of a mother, as the Philosopher says” (In II Sent. dist. 14, q. 1, a. 4 ad 5um).

[130] “The enemies of Christ are now under His power, but in two ways: either because they are converted by Him, as Paul, whom he caused to fall on the ground” (Acts 9, 3); or inasmuch as Christ does His own will, even in regard to those who act here against Christ’s will. So He puts His enemies under his feet by punishing them; but in the future He will put them under His feet, i.e., under Christ’s humanity” (Comm. on I Cor., chap. 15, lect. 3).

[131] “The Philosopher says that in defining truth we say that truth is had when one affirms that ‘to be which is, and that not to be which is not’” (De Veritate, q. 1, a. 1).

[132] Com. in Mt., IV (PL 9, 940B).

[133] “CHRYS. Or, of evil, that is, from their weakness to whom the Law permitted the use of an oath. Not that by this the Old Law is signified to be from the devil, but He leads us from the old imperfection to the new abundance” (Catena Aureaon St. Matthew, chap. 5, lect. 19): cf. St. John Chrysostomerstitious oath, which is when aor us. Perhaps Fr. Summers would like to offer the Mass, as I think I will need to offer a Mass , In Mt. hom. XVII (PG 57, 262).