John Maldonatus on Matthew 5:33-37

John Maldonatus on Matthew 5:33-37

Written c. 1580 CE.

Source: John Maldonatus, On the Holy Gospels. Vol I, Matthew1-14, Second Edition, p. 171-176. Trans.: George J. Davie. London: John Hodges. 1888

Verse 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself.

It has been asked why Christ went back from the commandments of the second table to those of the first? He did not choose to keep the order of words, but to speak of subjects as they occurred. Christ here gives not the words, but the meaning of them. For to take the name of God in vain, which is forbidden in the verses following, is the same as to forswear, because שוא in Hebrew, like in vanum in Latin, means both what is unnecessary and what is false.  

But thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord.

Numbers xxx. 3 contains the same doctrine though at greater length, and Psalm xxiii. 4. "The innocent in hands and clean of heart, who hath not taken his soul in vain." His soul, that is, God’s He who has not sworn falsely by the living God. But as there are two kinds of oaths, one of confirming the past, the other by which we promise for the future, Christ has here put one kind for both, as has been observed on verse 29.

Verse 34. Not to swear at all.

Some have understood these words wrongly, as if Christ had forbidden all oaths whatever, as the Baptists of these times hold, and the followers of Wicliff held in the times of our fathers. The heresy is an ancient one. S. Augustin (Epistle Ixxxix., Quaest. 5 to Hilary of Syracuse] shows that some Syracusans, a sort of Pelagians, held it, and Origen does not seem to have been far from it (Tract, on S. Matth. xxxv.). The cause of the error is their not having seen that the words "at all" (omnino) means not the kind but the form (non genus sed formam). Christ does not forbid us to swear at any time or under any circumstances, but in any way or any form we please neither by God, nor by the heavens, nor by the earth, nor by the holy city, nor by our head; and He immediately adds, in explanation, "at all". In the same way S. James (v. 12) sets it out at length. "At all" (omnino) has another meaning, as shall shortly be explained.

We are taught, both by the use of the Church and by the example of the saints, that it is lawful to swear, and where, when, and how we ought to swear. For S. Paul used an oath to the Romans (Rom. i. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 23 ; Philipp. i. 8 ; I Thess. ii. 5, 10) and the angel in the Apocalypse (x. 6). What then did Christ add to the Law? He added merely what had been omitted by the Law. In the Law it was only said, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". Christ added not only the name of God, but that of the heavens and the earth, or any other creature. He added also that as, by these words, perjury alone was forbidden, He disallowed not only this, but every oath which even if true was not necessary.  But why He forbade an unnecessary oath, but suffered men to swear truly, is a question worthy of consideration. Many ancient writers have thought that this was not expressly prohibited by Him, because to swear a true oath unnecessarily was sin; but, lest by frequently swearing they might sometimes swear falsely (Wisdom xxiii. 9-12; Prov. x. 19). So S. Clement (Strom, vii.), S. Chrysostom (Hom. xvii. on Matt), The Author, S. Basil (Hom, on Psalm xiv.), S. Ambrose (Serm. xiv. on Psalm cxviii.), S. Augustin (i., De Serm., Dom., and Psalms Ixxxviii., cix.), S. Jerome (On Zach. viii.) ; and their opinion seems, from S. James v. 12, to be correct ; as if He had said, "Lest by frequent taking of oaths you sometimes commit perjury, and fall into a sin for which you will be condemned".

But the sense of the Church is different, and it is clear that Christ forbade unnecessary oaths, not for the avoidance of the great danger of sin, but because unnecessary swearing is ipsum per se in itself, and of itself, a sin. For He gives the reason why He would have us swear neither by the heaven nor the earth not lest by frequent oath-taking we should commit perjury, but because the one is His throne and the other His footstool: and it is irreverent "to set their mouth against heaven, and their tongue through the earth " (Psalm Ixxii. 9). This, although said here in another sense, we may apply to this subject, and this seems the sense of the words "at all"; as if it were said: "You have heard that it has been said to them of old, Thou shalt not foreswear thyself, but thou shalt perform thy oaths unto the Lord. But I say to you not to swear at all:" that is, not to swear even truly; though the words, "without necessity," are understood, because Christ alludes to the other sense of the word לשוא in vanum, that is, in vain, without cause, without necessity.

Neither by heaven; for it is the throne of God.  

From this reason we may conclude that even to creatures, as far as they have reference to God, something of the honour, not only of urbanity, as modern heretics say, but also of religion, is due. For, as it is contrary to religion to swear by anyone when and how we ought not, so, to swear when and how we ought is an act of religion. God has also commanded us not to swear by the names of false gods, but by His own name (Deut. vi. 13, and Psalm Ixii. 12). If, then, it is in accordance with religion to swear by the heavens and the earth, because the one is His throne and the other His footstool, how much more so is it to swear by Peter or Paul or others of the saints and blessed, who are the temple of God? If this honour is due to them, other honours also of the same kind are due to them: that we should venerate them and worship them (veneremur et colemus), as being under God, as the servants of God, as the temples of God. For we give honour neither to heaven nor earth as they are God, but as they are some part of God. The error, then, of the followers of Luther and Calvin is impious, as giving nothing of the honour of religion to any but God.

Verse 35. Nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great  King.  

The great King that is, God who is the King of kings and the Lord of lords (S. Tim. vi. 14; Apoc. xix. 26). The Evangelist says King, rather than Lord or God, because he alludes to the king of Judah, who had his palace there. He adds the word "great" to distinguish God from the king, as the city was the "holy" city (chap, iv., verse 5).

Verse 36. Neither by thy head.

As Christ had said of heaven it is the throne, and of the earth it is the footstool, of God, so He says of Jerusalem, " It is the city of the great King". Lest we should think that we may swear by our head, because it is our own, He added, Neither by thy head; He also gives an additional and peculiar reason for this. For He forbade them to swear by the other objects, because they had some portion of the service of sanctity which they show to God. The head is ours, and not ours: ours, as we have received it from God to use and possess for a time ; not ours, because we not only did not make it, but we cannot make one hair of it white or black.

Verse 37. But let your speech be yea, yea; no, no.  

Christ is not speaking here of our truthfulness or faith in the performance of our promises, but of our abstinence from every species of oath, and therefore the words, "Yea, yea ; no, no," are necessarily opposed to oaths, not to false hood or want of faith. The meaning is that when we have to say a "yea" (est) that is, to affirm, we should not do so with an oath, but by a simple affirmation, "It is so," and when we deny a thing, we should not swear that it is not so, but simply say "Nay" (non) (S. Chrysostom, in loc.; S. Jerome, Ep. to Celantius ; Rabanus, In S. Thomam).

That which is over and above these is of evil.

The meaning of these words has proved a great difficulty and different explanations have been offered. Some say that "of evil" means that it proceeds from the person who is evil in his not believing the one who simply affirms the thing, but compels him to add an oath ; and thus the wickedness of his unbelief extorts an oath from the speaker (S. Augustin, i., De Serm. Dom.) Others say that the words allude to the infirmity of the Jews, to whom it was permitted to swear by the creature as they might not do so by God (S. Chrysostom). This has been answered on verse 34. Theophylact says that the reference is to the devil, who introduced the custom of swearing. This seems the true meaning; both because Christ does not say ἐκ τοῦ κάκου [sic], but ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the malignant one, by which name the devil is called (vi. 13 ; xiii. 19); and also because of the addition of the article, as much as to say, It is of the evil one, and because Christ introduces a tacit antithesis between Him self and the devil. For He had said, " But I say to you not to swear at all," but simply to use the words, "Yea," "No," "for what is more," that is, the oath in addition to the simple affirmation or negation, I would not have you to add. It is the devil who teaches and instigates you to swear, for such frequent and rash oaths are his invention.