Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Matthaeum, Liber Tertius, on Matthew 5:33-37.

Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Matthaeum, Liber Tertius, on Matthew 5:33-37.

Source: PL 120:253-256

Partial English translation, is found under Latin text.

____________________________________________

Iterum, inquit, audistis quia dictum est antiquis: Non peierabis, reddes autem Domino Deo tuo iuramentum tuum. Ecce hoc loco, sicut et ubique in istis cumulus iustitiae redintegratur. Nam per quod quisque iurat, aut veneratur, aut diligit, aut timet; idcirco carnali populo iurare per Deum ex lege licitum erat. (0253C) Et hoc quasi parvulis concessum erat, ut quomodo victimas immolabant Deo, ne idolis eas offerrent, sic et iurare illis in Deum permissum erat; non quod recte hoc facerent sed quia melius erat Deo id exhibere quam daemonibus. At vero illi per elementa iurandi semper pessimam consuetudinem tenuere, sicut a prophetis quam saepe arguuntur. Iurabant namque per angelos, iurabant et per urbem Hierusalem ac per templum; creaturas quoque resque carnales obsequio et honore Dei venerabantur. Idcirco superstitionem contumaciae veteris condemnat, et religionem iurandi per coelum, vel terram, aut caput, aufert, quia in contumeliam Dei sacramenti venerationem referebant. Porro Iudaei alia ex lege agebant, alia ex traditione et superstitione Pharisaeorum, alia falsitatis errore decepti. (0253D) Quae omnia Magister veritatis removens, ea quae legi deerant adimplebat. Hinc quoque ait: Ego autem dico vobis non iurare omnino per coelum, et addidit, quia thronus Dei est. Thronus utique Dei, et non Deus, quia creatura esse probatur. Porro in lege, Reddas, inquit, iuramentum tuum Domino Deo tuo. Illi vero e contrario, aut coelum plus aliquid suspicantes, aut forte si per eum iurarent, persuasum habebant non se iuramento teneri. Propterea providus arbiter sic sententiam temperat, ut et coelum Dei creatura credatur, et tamen quia secundum spiritalem intelligentiam thronus Dei est, se teneri iuramento, quisque per eum iuraverit, asseverat. Ita quoque et de terra sentiendum, per quam omnino iurare vetat, quia scabellum pedum eius est. (0254A) Non quod enormitate membrorum coelum praesideat, et hunc vasti aeris spatium cruribus interclaudat, veluti Anthropomorphitae suspicantur, quatenus scabellum terrae pedibus attingat: sed quia per terram sancta Dei Ecclesia figuratur, quae nimirum scabellum pedum: eius iure dicitur, quia subdita Creatori, gressibus eius prostrata, fideli devotione substernitur. Hinc quoque in psalmo: Donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum (Psal. CIX, 2) . Scabellum quippe inimici ponuntur dum reconciliati Deo ditioni eius devoti inclinantur. (0254B) Ipsa est enim terra viventium soliditate Christi super aquas fundata, quae longe alio visionis sacramento, a Moyse et Aaron, Nadab quoque et Abiu, una cum septuaginta senioribus, sub pedibus Dei Israel, quasi opus saphirinum cernitur, et quasi coelum cum serenum est. Nec mireris interea, si nunc terra, nunc scabellum pedum eius, sancta Dei Ecclesia nominatur, interdum vero quasi coelum, cum serenum est, sub pedibus eius cernitur; quia una eademque res variis figurarum aenigmatibus, ob meritorum efficientiam et significationem causarum luce clarius reseratur. Qua de causa iurare per terram aliquem vetuit, qui scabellum pedum eius, ac si coelum cum serenum est, firmitate perpetua, sancta Dei scilicet Ecclesia solidatur. Unde, si quis terram aut coelum vel Hierusalem illam magis aliquid existimat quam creaturam, errat. (0254C) Si quis vero non se teneri iuramento, quia creatura esse cernitur, cogitet quod in his omnibus praestantiora clauduntur et adumbrantur arcana. Quis enim ignorat quod Hierusalem illa terrena illius coelestis imaginem gerat? Et ideo quisquis per eam iurat, iusiurandum ei debet cuius est civitas, nec alteri quam illi reddendum recte putatur. Sed ut simplicius loquar argumentati sunt se non teneri iuramento, si per ea tantum ad litteram iurassent, quia dictum fuerat: Reddes autem Domino Deo iuramentum tuum. Idcirco docet nihil tam vile in creaturis Dei, ut per hoc quisque periurare debeat, quando, a summis usque ad infima quaeque divina Providentia cuncta creata reguntur. Hinc quoque incipit a throno Dei, quod sublimius est, et pervenit usque ad capillum album vel nigrum, quod vilius est. Et insinuat nec per caput debere nos iurare, quamvis nihil magis ad nos pertinere videatur. (0254D) Sed quomodo nostrum est, ubi potestatem faciendi vel commutandi colorem nigri aut albi non habeamus? Propterea ineffabiliter tenent omnia, et ubique praesenti iuramentum debetur veritatis. Unde quisque per caput iurat, illi utique debet iusiurandum, qui potestatem capitis habet, et cuius figuram caput tenet. Nam caput nostrum Christus, caput vero Christi Deus: et ideo quisque per caput iurat, illi utique debet iuramentum suum, cuius figura et potestas in eo manet. (0255A) Verumtamen quia ista de superstitione vel errore Iudaeorum venerant, resecat noxia et superflua, complet autem ad perfectionem, dum tollit iurandi occasionem, quae defuerant, Sed tamen quia videtur Apostolus quam saepe iurasse, et veritatis sacramenta inter Christianos pro satisfactione alterius, licet a malo sint, frequentius conceduntur, liquet quod Christus penitus iurare non prohibuit; sed propter occasionem periurii, docuit quod perfectius est; et ostendit quidquid ulterius fit, esto liceat veritatis obtentu, quod a malo est, dum quisque, pro dubietate alterius, ut fidem faciat qui non credit, iurare cogitur. Hinc est quod Apostolus saepe iurat, ut infirmis ad fidem persuadeat. Hinc est quod Ecclesia suos pro pacis foedere fideique assensu frequenter iurare concedit. Sed Dominus docuit quod perfectius est, indulsit quod infirmitatis, resecavit quod superstitiosum erat et noxium. (0255B) Quia profecto, sicut mentiri non potest qui non loquitur: sic periurare omnino non valet, qui nunquam iurat. Idcirco nemo sicut bonum appetat iusiurandum, sed pro infirmitate alterius quae a malo est, quia infirmitas mala est, utatur iuramento veritatis subsidio fretus, ut ei persuadeat quem iure necessaria fide viderit infirmari. Aliter autem.

Sermo vester, inquit, sit: Est, est; Non, non. Quia omnino evangelica veritas non recipit iuramentum, sed alterius infirmitas id cogit, dum quilibet simplicem non potest recipere veritatem. Verum quod omnis sermo fidelis recte pro iureiurando accipitur, et ideo in illo semper esse debet in affirmando, est, est, in negando, non, non; sufficit enim dicere ore, est illud, quod in corde est; non est autem, in ore, illud, quod in corde non est. (0255C) Quidquid vero extra hanc regulam secus est, certe aut ex mendacio est, aut ex infirmitate alterius, licet verum sit quod iuratur. Et ideo non dicit, quidquid amplius est, malum est, sed temperat sententiam, et ait, a malo est. Quia si quidpiam plus minusve subterfuerit, a malo esse convincitur. Quapropter quod est in corde, sit et in ore; quod vero non est in corde, nequaquam sit, quia non debet esse in ore. Unde, si quis verum loqui curat, calamum linguae prius necesse est intus in veritate tingat, deindidem ex eadem veritate foras in ore verum proferat. Omne quippe verum a veritate verum est, et omne quod est eo habet esse, quia est ab eo quod est. Sic itaque omnis veritas a vero habet ut omnino veritas sit, et ideo non simpliciter, sed geminate dictum est, Sit omnis sermo vester: Est, est; Non, non. (0255D) Neque enim vicissim ea confundere licet, ut sit in eo est, et non, quod Apostolus denegat, sed in ea quam corde gerimus essentia veritatis, est illud quod ore proferimus; veritas autem Deus est, et quisquis verum loquitur utique ex illo loquitur. Quia, sicut quidquid est, ab eo habet esse quod essentialiter est: ita ex illo, qui in nobis et in fide nostra Deus veritas est, debet ore proferri quod verum est. Alioquin, etiamsi verum videatur, nisi ex illo habeat esse, utique non est. Esse quippe Deo substantialiter est: nobis quidem et rebus, ac negotiis universis accidentaliter. (0256A) Idcirco, quodcunque nos sumus, quod in nobis vel ex nobis est, seu quodcunque circa nos est, ab eo constat esse, quod est. Sin autem ex eo non habuerit esse, utique non est. Propter quod mira dispositio rerum, omne quod non est, quia non habet esse ab eo quod est, non minus verum est, quia non est, quam quod est, et partitur esse ex eo quod est. Hinc igitur constat, quod in ore Christiani, non minus in negando, quam in asserendo semper veritas esse debet. Sed tamen talia quae tam ardua sunt et difficilia, quia peccandi via satis lubrica est, nemo sine spiritu fortitudinis custodit; nemo nisi esuriat et sitiat iustitiam, partes vitae perfectiores, et consummatam regni coelestis iustitiam adimplebit. (0256B)

---

Partial English Translation

Source: Hugo Eterianus, Janet Hamilton, Sarah Hamilton, and Bernard Hamilton. 2004. Contra Patarenos, p. 200-201. BRILL.

Since it is apparent that the apostle swore quite often, and oaths of truth are frequently granted between Christians for the satisfaction of one another however these may be the result of the evil one, it is clear that Christ did not totally forbid swearing, but because it might lead to perjury he taught what is the more perfect way, and showed that whatever is done beyond that, that though it may be permitted in search of truth it is from the evil one when anyone is compelled to swear on account of another's doubt, to create belief in one who does not believe. It is in this way that the Apostle often swears to confirm the faith of the weak; hence it is that the church frequently grants its members the right to swear oaths in order to make peace treaties and oaths of loyalty. But the Lord taught that which was more perfect; he allowed that which is superstitious and harmful should be excised from weakness. Because indeed, just as a man who does not speak cannot tell a lie, so it is completely impossible to commit perjury if you don't swear. So no-one should desire to swear as a good thing, but he should use an oath for another's weakness (which is from the evil one because weakness is an evil) relying on the help of truth, so that he may strengthen in faith him whom he sees to be weakened, by a necessary oath.

 

Clement of Alexandria on Swearing

Clement of Alexandria on Swearing

______________________________________

Paedagogus, 3.11

Source: Clement of Alexandria. Fathers of the Church, Volume 23 : Christ the Educator, p. 259. Baltimore, MD, USA: Catholic University of America Press, 1954.

Then, when buying or selling, let no one name two prices for the things he is purchasing or selling, but speak plainly and honestly. If he lose on something, he will at least gain in truth, and be the richer by an upright disposition. There should not be any intensive advertising of, or any oath about what is being sold (nor should there be any oaths about other things). Let the merchants and hucksters reason in this way: 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain; for the Lord will not cleanse him who takes His name in vain.'

Stromata 5,14

Written c. 203 CE 

Source: ANF02:468

Again, with the Lord’s saying, “Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay,” may be compared the following: “But to admit a falsehood, and destroy a truth, is in nowise lawful.” With the prohibition, also, against swearing agrees the saying in the tenth [11^th Plato] book of the Laws: “Let praise and an oath in everything be absent.”

Πάλιν αὖ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου ῥητῷ ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ ,  ἐκεῖνο ἀπεικαστέον· ἀλλά μοι ψεῦδός τε συγχωρῆσαι καὶ ἀληθὲς ἀφανίσαι οὐδαμῶς θέμις· τῇ τε περὶ τοῦ ὀμόσαι ἀπαγορεύσει συνᾴδει ἥδε ἡ ἐν τῷ δεκάτῳ τῶν Νόμων λέξις· ἔπαινος δὲ ὅρκος τε περὶ παντὸς ἀπέστω.  [PG 9:148-149]

Stromata 7.8

 

Written c. 203 CE

Source: ANF02:537-538

The man of proved character in such piety is far from being apt to lie and to swear. For an oath is a decisive affirmation, with the taking of the divine name. For how can he, that is once faithful, show himself unfaithful, so as to require an oath; and so that his life may not be a sure and decisive oath? He lives, and walks, and shows the trustworthiness of his affirmation in an unwavering and sure life and speech. And if the wrong lies in the judgment of one who does and says [something], and not in the suffering of one who has been wronged, he will neither lie nor commit perjury so as to wrong the Deity, knowing that it by nature is incapable of being harmed. Nor yet will he lie or commit any transgression, for the sake of the neighbour whom he has learned to love, though he be not on terms of intimacy. Much more, consequently, will he not lie or perjure himself on his own account, since he never with his will can be found doing wrong to himself.

But he does not even swear, preferring to make averment, in affirmation by "yea," and in denial by "nay." For it is an oath to swear, or to produce anything from the mind in the way of confirmation in the shape of an oath. It suffices, then, with him, to add to an affirmation or denial the expression "I say truly," for confirmation to those who do not perceive the certainty of his answer. For he ought, I think, to maintain a life calculated to inspire confidence towards those without, so that an oath may not even be asked; and towards himself and those with whom he associates good feeling, which is voluntary righteousness.

The Gnostic swears truly, but is not apt to swear, having rarely recourse to an oath, just as we have said. And his speaking truth on oath arises from his accord with the truth. This speaking truth on oath, then, is found to be the result of correctness in duties. Where, then, is the necessity for an oath to him who lives in accordance with the extreme of truth? He, then, that does not even swear will be far from perjuring himself. And he who does not transgress in what is ratified by compacts, will never swear; since the ratification of the violation and of the fulfilment is by actions; as certainly lying and perjury in affirming and swearing are contrary to duty. But he who lives justly, transgressing in none of his duties, when the judgment of truth is scrutinized, swears truth by his acts. Accordingly, testimony by the tongue is in his case superfluous.

Therefore, persuaded always that God is everywhere, and fearing not to speak the truth, and knowing that it is unworthy of him to lie, he is satisfied with the divine consciousness and his own alone And so he lies not, nor does anything contrary to his compacts. And so he swears not even when asked for his oath; nor does he ever deny, so as to speak falsehood, though he should die by tortures.

And so he swears not even when asked for his oath; nor does he ever deny, so as to speak falsehood, though he should die by tortures.

ταύτῃ δὲ οὐδὲ ὄμνυσιν ὅρκον ἀπαιτηθεὶς οὐδὲ ἔξαρνός ποτε γίνεται, ἵνα μὴ ψεύσηται, κἂν ἐναποθνήσκῃ ταῖς βασάνοις. [PG 9:473]

Quis Dives Salvetur, 40

Written c. 205 CE (after leaving Alexandria)

Source: ANF02:602

Perjurer, swear no more

ὁ ἐπίορκος; μηκέτι ὂμνυε

Tertullian on Oaths

Tertullian on Oaths

______________________________________

 

Apology 32:1-3

Written c. 197 CE.

Source: ANF03:42-43

There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth—in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes—is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome’s duration.

More than this, though we decline to swear by the genii of the Cæsars, we swear by their safety, which is worth far more than all your genii. Are you ignorant that these genii are called “Dæmones,” and thence the diminutive name “Dæmonia” is applied to them? We respect in the emperors the ordinance of God, who has set them over the nations. We know that there is that in them which God has willed; and to what God has willed we desire all safety, and we count an oath by it a great oath. But as for demons, that is, your genii, we have been in the habit of exorcising them, not of swearing by them, and thereby conferring on them divine honour.

 

On Idolatry, 11

Written c. 208-212 CE

Source: ANF03:67

Connection Between Covetousness and Idolatry. Certain Trades, However Gainful, to Be Avoided.

If we think over the rest of faults, tracing them from their generations, let us begin with covetousness, “a root of all evils,” wherewith, indeed, some having been ensnared, “have suffered shipwreck about faith.” Albeit covetousness is by the same apostle called idolatry. In the next place proceeding to mendacity, the minister of covetousness (of false swearing I am silent, since even swearing is not lawful)—is trade adapted for a servant of God? But, covetousness apart, what is the motive for acquiring? When the motive for acquiring ceases, there will be no necessity for trading.

On Idolatry, 23

Written c. 208-212 CE

Source: ANF03:75

Written Contracts in the Name of Idols. Tacit Consent.

But there is a certain species of that class, doubly sharpened in deed and word, and mischievous on either side, although it flatter you, as if it were free of danger in each; while it does not seem to be a deed, because it is not laid hold of as a word. In borrowing money from heathens under pledged securities, Christians give a guarantee under oath, and deny themselves to have done so. Of course, the time of the prosecution, and the place of the judgment seat, and the person of the presiding judge, decide that they knew themselves to have so done. Christ prescribes that there is to be no swearing.

Origen on Oaths

Origen on Oaths

---

De Principiis Book 4, Chapter 19

Written c. 230 CE. Greek no longer extant, from Rufinus' latin translation, though this excerpt also exists in the Philocalia.

Source: ANF04:368

And with respect to the precepts enjoined in the Gospels, no doubt can be entertained that very many of these are to be literally observed, as, e.g., when our Lord says, But I say unto you, Swear not at all.

---

Exhortation To Martyrdom, Chapter 7

Written c. 235 CE.

Source: Origen. 1979. Origen, p. 45-46. Translated by Rowan A. Greer. Paulist Press.

We must remember the One who taught, "But I say to you, Do not swear at all.” For if the person who swears by heaven transgresses against the throne of God, and if the one who swears by earth commits sacrilege by making what is called "the stool of God's feet" a god (cf. Is. 66:1; Mt. 5:35), and if the one who swears by Jerusalem sins though it is the city of a great king, and if the one who swears by his own head offends—how great a sin must we suppose it is to swear by someone's Fortune? We must then remember the saying, "For every careless word you will render account on the day of judgment" (Mt. 12:36). For what other word is as careless as the oath in denial?

---

Homily 5.12 on Jeremiah, 4:1-2

Written c. 240 CE.

Source: Origen. Fathers of the Church, Volume 97: Homilies on Jeremiah and 1 Kings 28, p. 53-54. Translated by John C. Smith. Baltimore, MD, USA: Catholic University of America Press, 2010.

If he removes his abominations from his mouth, and he is awed by my presence, and he swears, “May the Lord live in truth and in judgment and in righteousness.” Let us, those who swear, see for ourselves in what way we do not swear in judgment but without judgment, so that our oaths arise by habit more than by judgment. In fact we are carried away and when he reproves this the Word says: And if he swears: “May the Lord live in truth and in judgment and in righteousness.” We know what is said to the disciples in the Gospel by the Lord: But I say to you: do not swear at all, but let us also consider that word, and if God will permit, both views will be examined. For perhaps first it is necessary to swear in truth and in judgment and in righteousness so that after this, after having progressed, a worthy person may come not to swear at all, but to have a yes which needs no witnesses to be this, to have a “no” which needs no witnesses for it to be truly no.

And he swears, then, “May the Lord live in truth.” First, in the swearing, let not the false but the true live, so he may swear with truth— for we wretches also give false oaths. But suppose it is with truth, the oath is still not proper, but in judgment. For it may happen that I swear from habit, I do not swear in judgment. If one would need to take for some oath the witness of the God of the universe and his Christ with respect to some matter, how great must be the matter to get down on one’s knees and swear? To cure the unbelief which arises in some concerning my discourse I might at some point do this, but if it is a risk if I swear thus, I would sin. If, then, he swears, “May the Lord live with truth and in judgment,” not without judgment, and in righteousness, not with unrighteousness, and the nations will bless in him.

---

Origen’s Oath, in Homily 1.7 on the Song of Songs

Written c. 240 CE. Greek no longer extant. English translation based on Latin translation of Jerome, c. 383 CE. Origen uses an oath of the form "God is my witness" when recalling his mystical experiance.

Source: Lawson, Richard P., ed. The Song of Songs: Commentary and Homilies, p. 280. ACW No. 26. Paulist Press, 1957.

God is my witness that I have often perceived the Bridegroom drawing near me and being most intensely present with me; then suddenly He has withdrawn and I could not find Him, though I sought to do so.

---

Commentary on Matthew [Latin 17] on Mt. 23:20

Written c. 248 CE. 

Source: Origen. The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew. Translated by Ronald E. Heine, Oxford University Press, 2018.

One of the Pharisees traditions, therefore, was about such oath-taking, since some were swearing by the temple, but others by the gold of the temple; likewise some were swearing ‘by the altar’, and others by ’the gift on the altar;’ and they were saying that he is a debtor who has sworn 'by the gold of the temple' or 'by the gift on the altar; but he who has sworn 'by the temple' or 'by the altar' has no liability. On that account the Saviour, speaking to the Jews against traditions of that kind and wishing to turn them from human traditions to the divine commandments, says that they are 'blind and foolish' who hand on such traditions, not seeing that nothing placed in the temple is sanctified by itself, but by the temple. In the same way, what is placed 'on the altar’ is already judged to be a gift belonging to God because it has been received 'on' the altar. If, then, 'the temple' is the cause of the sanctification of the gold, and 'the altar' for the sanctification of the gift, how does it not appear foolish that this person who swears by the sanctifying object is not under obligation, but the one who has sworn by what has been sanctified is seen to be under obligation, as if what is sanctified is better than what sanctifies? Thus because the Jews also have the habit of swearing by heaven, he also adds this to the preceding words to reproach those who were more readily swearing 'by heaven' than by God, since he acts just as unreasonably 'who swears by heaven' as he 'who swears by the temple' or 'by the altar, because he who swears 'by heaven' also appears to swear 'by him who sits upon it, and he does not (as he thought) avoid danger because he does not swear by God himself, but 'by the throne of God: And he spoke these words to the Jews when he was prohibiting people from paying attention to the traditions of the Pharisees. Otherwise, above, he clearly forbid swearing at all.

---

Commentary on Matthew [Latin 110] on Mt. 26:63-64

Written c. 248 CE.

Source: Origen. The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew. Translated by Ronald E. Heine, Oxford University Press, 2018.

Indeed, we find the practice of adjuring several times in the Law. For example, in Numbers the Law says, ‘The priest shall adjure her’ (that is, that woman in whose husband there is a ‘spirit of jealousy’) ‘and he’ (that is, the priest) ‘shall say to the woman: If another man did not sleep with you, and if you have not transgressed so that you are defiled by a man who is not your husband, you will be unharmed by this water of reproach that has been cursed.’ It says a few lines later, ‘The priest shall adjure the woman with the adjurations of this curse’. Likewise, in the third book of the Kings, King Ahab says to Micaiah, ‘Now for the second time I adjure you to tell me the truth in the name of the Lord?’ Now a king adjures a prophet, and he does not adjure in the same way the priest does in Numbers, for the latter adjures on the basis of a precept of the Law, but the former adjures on the basis of his own will. In the present passage, a priest adjures Jesus ‘by the living God’. But I do not think it is necessary that a person who desires to live in accordance with the Gospel adjure another. For it is like what the Lord himself says in the Gospel, ‘But I say to you, Do not swear at all’ and do not adjure at all. For if it is not permitted to swear so far as it is contained in Christ's command in the Gospel, it is true that it is not permitted to adjure another. Therefore, the ‘chief priest’ unlawfully adjured Jesus, although he appeared to have adjured him ‘by the living God’.

Someone will ask if it is proper to adjure demons. The person who looks to the multitudes who have dared to do such things will say that this is not done for no reason; but the person who looks to Jesus *** who commands demons, but even when he gives authority to his disciples over all demons and the power to heal illnesses, will say that adjuring demons is not based on the authority given by the Saviour, for it is Jewish. This (although sometimes something similar occurs among us) is similar to the fact that demons used to be adjured by adjurations written by Solomon. But the people themselves who used to use those adjurations quite often did not use the properly appointed books for this, but adjured demons with formulas received from a Hebrew.

However, it did not seem appropriate that our Lord respond to the adjuration of the chief priest, as if, contrary to his own will, he experienced a power from the one adjuring him. For this reason, he neither denied that he was the Christ, the Son of God, nor did he admit it openly, but treating the one adjuring him as if he were a witness (since it was the priest who, in his interrogation, spoke the words, ‘Christ, the Son of God’) he says, ‘You said it’.

And because ‘everyone who commits sin has been born of the devil’ and the chief priest, who was baiting Jesus, also committed sin, and because he had been born of the devil, as it were, he was imitating his own father who twice dubiously asked the Saviour, ‘If you are the Son of God’, as it is written in the temptation narrative. For ‘If you are the Son of God’ and ‘If you are the Christ the Son of God’ are similar. For one can say correctly on this passage that doubting whether he is Son of God or whether he is the Christ is the work of the devil and of the chief priest who is questioning our Lord in a treacherous manner. Peter, however, ascertained nothing like this, for without any doubt he proclaimed, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. He did not preface his statement with ‘If’ He was pronounced ‘blessed’ because ‘flesh and blood’ had not revealed it to him, ‘but God the Father who is in heaven’. But those who say doubtfully, ‘If you are the Son of God’ are removed from all beatitude. For because that chief priest was not worthy of the doctrine of Christ, he does not teach him, nor does he say, ‘I am’. Instead, taking the expression of the priest's own mouth, he converts it to a refutation and says, ‘You said it’, so that, in this way he appears to be blamed, not taught.

---

Fragments on Matthew on Mt. 5:33-37

Reliability uncertain.

Source: Origen. The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St Matthew. Translated by Ronald E. Heine, Oxford University Press, 2018.

Fragment on Matthew 5:33 ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain’ is the third commandment of the Decalogue. But investigate if it has been said anywhere as it is written here.

Fragment on Matthew 5:33-7 But let the testimony of our life be a greater guarantee than an oath. But if some shameless person who is not put to shame by your life should dare to apply an oath to you, let your yes be yes and your no be no in place of an oath.

Fragment on Matthew 5:37 For if someone swears truly on any random thing, he errs, but one who has not sworn would never swear falsely. And you will discover that an oath is the unchangeable ‘confirmation’ of each person, as in the saying, ‘I swore and I established it’, and ‘The Lord swore and will not change his mind’.

---

Commentary on Matthew on Mt. 5:33-37

Source: Panayiotis, Tzamalikos. "Origen: New Fragments from the Commentary on Matthew: Codices Sabaiticus 232 & Holy Cross 104, Jerusalem." (2020). [p. 73-75]

Ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις. Τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐκ ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν κλοπὴν εὐθέως, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν ψευδοµαρτυρίαν, ὑπερβὰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἐντολήν; ῞Οτι ὁ µὲν κλέπτων ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ ὀµεῖται· ὁ δὲ µὴ ὀµνύναι µηδὲ ψεύδεσθαι εἰδὼς πολλῷ µᾶλλον οὐχ αἱρήσεται κλέπτειν. ῞Ωστε διὰ ταύτης κἀκείνην ἀνέτρεψε. Τὸ γὰρ ψεῦδος ἀπὸ τοῦ κλέπτειν.

Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑµῖν, µὴ ὀµόσαι ὅλως. Τὸ εὐορκεῖν ὁ παλαιὸς νόµος εἶχεν· ὁ δὲ Κύριος οὐδόλως ὀµνύειν βούλεται. ᾽Επειδὴ δὲ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ λέγοντος ἤκουον διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, ὁ οὐρανός µοι θρόνος ἡ δὲ γῆ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν µου, ὅρκιον ἐποιοῦντο τὸν οὐρανόν, θεῖον αὐτὸν ὀνοµάζοντες θρόνον, ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ πόδας Θεοῦ κειµένην, καὶ µετὰ τὴν ῾Ιερουσαλήµ. Πόλις γὰρ ἔφασκον ἐστὶ τοῦ πάντων κρατοῦντος Θεοῦ, καίτοι τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων ἁγίων τὸ ζῇ Κύριος ἐν ὅρκου χρείᾳ πεποιηµένων.

Διὸ τὴν ἠλιθιωτάτην αὐτῶν ἔννοιαν κατὰ κιβδηλεύων ὁ σωτήρ, µὴ δεῖν ἀπόµνυσθαι λέγει, µήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, µήτε ἐν τῆ γῇ ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστι τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ, µήτε εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυµα ὅτι πόλις ἐστι τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως. ῝Α γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ληροῦντες ἔφασκον, ταῦτα χρησίµως διεστέλλετο ὁ σωτήρ, πανταχοῦ ἐπίπλαστον καὶ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅθεν ἐξευρηµένον, ἐλέγχων αὐτῶν τὸ ἐν τούτοις εὐλαβές. Οἰχέσθω δὴ οὖν καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ τόδε πλάνησις. 

Ὁ γὰρ κατὰ τῶν κτισµάτων ὀµνύων τὸν Θεὸν τὸν πληροῦντα αὐτὰ ὀµνύει. Οὐ δι᾽ ἑαυτὰ γὰρ τιµᾶται τὰ στοιχεῖα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ποιήσαντα. Κωλύει δὲ καὶ ἄλλως κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ὀµνύειν, ἵνα µὴ δῷµεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν ἀξίωµα θεοποιοῦντες αὐτά. Θρόνος δὲ λέγεται Θεοῦ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ὑποπόδιον ἡ γῆ, οὐχ ὅτι περιέχεται ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἐπαναπαύεται τερπόµενος τῇ δηµιουργίᾳ αὐτῶν.

᾽Απαγορεύει δὲ τὸν κατὰ τῆς ῾Ιερουσαλὴµ ὅρκον, ὅτι τύπος ἐστὶ τῆς ἄνω ῾Ιερουσαλήµ, τῆς τῶν πρωτοτόκων ἐκκλησίας. Οὔτε δὲ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὀµνύειν κελεύει. Οὔτε γὰρ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ κύριος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἑτέρου ὢν ποίηµα, ὃς οὐδὲ τρίχα ἑαυτοῦ µεταποιῆσαι δύναται. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ὡς εὐτελοῦς οὔσης αὐτῆς ὀµνύειν δεῖ κατ᾽ αὐτῆς· τιµία γάρ ἐστιν οὕτως, ὡς καὶ αἱ τρίχες αὐτῆς ἠρίθµηνται παρὰ Θεῷ, αἵτινες δοκοῦσιν εἶναι παρά τισι περιτταί.

Μόνος δὲ ὁ Θεὸς ὀµνύει καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, τουτέστι κατὰ τῆς ἰδίας δόξης, ὡς µόνος ἐλεύθερος. Διὸ ὡς ὑπερβαινούσης ἡµᾶς τῆς ὁµοιότητος, οὐκ ὀφείλοµεν καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ὀµνύειν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅρκου κεχρῆσθαι. Διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἀξιόπιστον τῶν πιστῶν, τὸ ναὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅρκου ἐστί· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων, τουτέστι τὸ ὅλως κατά τινος ὁµνύναι, διαβολικόν ἐστι. Διὰ δὲ τὰς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀσθενείας τοῦτο συνεχωρήθη, ὡς καὶ αἱ δι᾽ αἱµάτων θυσίαι καὶ ὅσα ὅµοια.

µήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος. ᾽Επαίρει τὰ στοιχεῖα, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας φύσεως, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ περὶ αὐτὰ σχέσεως. ᾽Επειδὴ γὰρ πολλὴ ἡ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας τυραννὶς ἦν, ἵνα µὴ δόξῃ τὰ στοιχεῖα δι᾽ ἑαυτὰ εἶναι τίµια, ταύτην τέθεικε τὴν αἰτίαν, ἥτις εἰς τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξαν διέβαινεν. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ἐπειδὴ καλὸς καὶ µέγας ὁ οὐρανός, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ µέν ἐστι θρόνος, ἡ δὲ ὑποπόδιον. ῾Υποπόδιον δέ φησι τὴν γῆν, ὅτι ὑπὸ τὴν ἐξουσίαν εἰ καὶ µὴ τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ δεκτικὴ νῦν διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας.

Τὰ δὲ ῾Ιεροσόλυµα πόλιν τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως, πρὸς τὴν ὑπόληψιν τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων φησι. ῎Ετι δὲ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κωλύει κατὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς ὀµνύειν, ἵνα µὴ δῶµεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν ἀξίωµα θεοποιοῦντες αὐτήν. 

Οἱ γὰρ ὀµνύοντες, φησὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος, κατὰ τοῦ µείζονος ὀµνύουσιν, τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τοῦ ναὶ καὶ τοῦ οὔ, ὁ ὅρκος ἐστίν, οὐ τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν. ᾽Εκεῖνο γὰρ οὐδεὶς δεῖται µαθεῖν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι. Διὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ὁ ὅρκος νενοµοθέτητο, ἵνα µὴ κατὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ὀµνύωσι. Καὶ ὁ εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ ὀµνὺς τὸν αὐτῆς δηµιουργὸν διασύρει ὡς εὐτελῶν ποιητήν.

ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑµῶν. Εὐορκῶν µὲν γάρ τις τυχόν παρασφάλλεται, µὴ ὀµνὺς δὲ οὐκ ἄν τις ποτὲ ἐπιορκήσειεν. ῞Ορκον δὲ εὑρήσεις τὴν ἀµετάθετον ἑκάστου βεβαίωσιν, ὡς ἐν τῷ ὤµοσα καὶ ἔστησα καὶ ὤµοσε Κύριος καὶ οὐ µεταµεληθήσεται.

῎Εστω ἡ τοῦ βίου ὑµῶν µαρτυρία βεβαιοτέρα ὅρκου. Εἰ δέ τις ἀναιδὴς µὴ δυσωπούµενος ὑµῶν τῷ βίῳ τολµᾷ ὑµῖν ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅρκον, ἔστω ὑµῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί, καὶ τὸ οὒ οὒ ἀντὶ ὅρκου.