Homilies on Acts, Homily 9

“And when Peter saw it, he responded to the people: Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this, or why do you stare at us so intently, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man walk?” This speech shows more boldness than the earlier one. It is not that he was afraid on that earlier occasion; rather, the people he was addressing there were jesters and scoffers, and they would not have put up with it. That is why, at the beginning of that address, he also asks for their attention in his opening words: “Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.” (ch. ii. 14.) But here there is no need for this kind of preparation. (κατασκευἥς.) His hearers were not indifferent. The miracle had stirred them all up; they were even full of fear and amazement. So there was no need to begin at that point either. He began instead with a different topic, and by it he won them over powerfully: he turned down the glory they were ready to give him. Nothing is so helpful, and nothing is so likely to calm the hearers, as saying nothing honorable about oneself and, on the contrary, heading off any suspicion of wanting to. And in truth, the Apostles increased their glory far more by despising glory. They showed that what had just happened was not a human act but a work of God, and that their role was to join the onlookers in wonder rather than to receive wonder from them. Do you see how free he is of all ambition, and how he pushes away the honor paid to him? The ancient fathers did the same. Daniel, for instance, said, “Not because of any wisdom that is in me.” (Dan. ii. 30.) And again Joseph said, “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Gen. xl. 8.) And David said, “When the lion and the bear came, in the name of the Lord I tore them apart with my hands.” (1 Sam. xvii. 34.) So likewise the Apostles say here, “Why do you stare at us so intently, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man walk?” (v. 12.) No, not even this, for it was not by our own merit that we drew down the Divine influence. “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers.” See how persistently he presses close (εἰσωθει) to the fathers of old, so that he will not seem to be introducing a new doctrine. In the earlier address he appealed to the patriarch David; here he appeals to Abraham and the rest. “Has glorified His Servant Jesus.” Again this is a lowly expression, just as in the opening address. But at this point he goes on to dwell on the outrage and to heighten the enormity of the deed. He no longer draws a veil over it as he did before. He does this because he wants to affect them more powerfully, for the more he proved them guilty, the better his purpose would be accomplished. “Has glorified,” he says, “His Servant Jesus, Whom you handed over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to let him go.” The charge is twofold: Pilate wanted to let Him go, and you refused when he was willing. “But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you; and you killed the Prince (or Author) of Life, Whom God has raised from the dead; of this we are witnesses.” (v. 14, 15.) You wanted a robber instead of Him. He shows how much worse the deed was made by this. Since he has them in his grip, he now strikes hard. “The Prince of Life,” he says. With these words he establishes the doctrine of the Resurrection. “Whom God has raised from the dead.” (Acts 3:15.) “How is this shown?” He no longer refers to the Prophets but to himself, since he now has a right to be believed. Before, when he declared that He had risen, he brought forward the testimony of David. Now, having said it, he cites the College of Apostles. “Of this we are witnesses,” he says. “And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know; yes, the faith that comes through Him has given him this complete health in the presence of you all.” Seeking to state the matter (ζητὥν τὸ πρἅγμα εὶπεἵν), he immediately brings forward the sign: “In the presence,” he says, “of you all.” He had pressed hard on them and had shown that the One they crucified had risen. Now he eases off again by giving them the power of repentance: “And now, brothers, I know that you did it in ignorance, as your rulers did also.” (v. 17.) This is one ground of excuse. The second is of a different kind. It is like what Joseph says to his brothers: “God sent me ahead of you” (Gen. xlv. 5). In the earlier speech he had said this briefly, in the words, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken.” Here he develops it: “But what God had foretold by the mouth of all His Prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.” (v. 18.) At the same time he shows that it was not their own doing, if this is proved, namely that it took place according to God’s counsel. He alludes to the words they had used to revile Him on the Cross: “Let Him deliver Him, if He wants Him; for He said, I am the Son of God. If He trusts in God, let Him now come down from the cross.” (Matt. xxvii. 42, 43.) You foolish men, were these idle words? It had to happen this way, and the prophets bear witness to it. So if He did not come down, it was not out of any weakness of His own, but out of sheer power. Peter puts this forward as a kind of defense of the Jews, hoping that they may also accept what he says. “He has thus fulfilled,” he says. Do you see now how he traces everything back to that source? “Repent, then,” he says, “and turn back.” He does not add, “from your sins.” But “that your sins may be blotted out” means the same thing. Then he adds the gain: “So shall the times of refreshing come from the presence of the Lord.” (v. 19.) This indicates that they were in a sad state, brought low by many wars, for the expression fits the case of someone who is burning and longs for relief. And see now how he moves forward. In his first sermon he only slightly hinted at the resurrection and at Christ’s sitting in heaven. Here he also speaks of His visible coming. “And He shall send Jesus the Christ, appointed (for you), Whom the heaven must (i.e. must of necessity) receive until the times of the restoration of all things.” The reason He does not come now is clear. “Which God has spoken,” he continues, “by the mouth of His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said to the fathers, The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brothers, like me; you shall listen to him in all things whatever he says to you.” Before, he had spoken of David; here he speaks of Moses. “Of all things,” he says, “which He has spoken.” But he does not say, “which Christ has spoken.” He says, “which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” (v. 20, 21.) Then he turns to the reason for believing, saying, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brothers, like me; you shall listen to Him in all things.” And then comes the severity of the punishment: “And it shall come to pass that every soul that will not listen to that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people. Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold these days.” (v. 23, 24.) He was right to draw the distinction here, for whenever he says anything great, he appeals to the people of old. He found a text that contained both truths, just as in the other discourse he said, “Until He puts His enemies under His feet.” (ch. ii. 35.) The remarkable thing is that the two things stand together: subjection and disobedience, and the punishment. “Like me,” he says. Then why are you alarmed? “You are the children of the prophets” (v. 25). So it was to you that they spoke, and it was for your sakes that all these things have come to pass. They thought that their outrage had cut them off (and indeed it was not to be expected that He Who was now crucified should now cherish them as His own). So he proves to them that both the one and the other are in keeping with prophecy. “You are the children,” he says, “of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ To you first,” he continues, “God, having raised up His Son (τόν Παἵδα), sent Him.” “To others too, indeed, but to you first, who crucified Him.” “To bless you,” he adds, “in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (v. 26.) Now let us look again more closely at what has been read. (Recapitulation.) First, he establishes the point that the miracle was performed by them, saying, “Why are you amazed?” He will not let this claim be doubted, and to give it more weight he anticipates their judgment. “Why do you stare at us so intently,” he says, “as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man walk?” (v. 12.) If this troubles and confounds you, learn Who did it, and do not be amazed. And notice how, whenever he refers to God and says that all things come from Him, he rebukes them fearlessly, as he did above when he said, “A man approved by God among you.” (ch. ii. 22.) On every occasion he reminds them of the outrage they had committed, so that the fact of the Resurrection may be established. But here he also adds something else. He no longer says, “of Nazareth.” What does he say? “The God of our fathers has glorified His Servant Jesus.” (v. 13.) Notice also his restraint. He did not reproach them. Nor did he say at once, “Now believe, then: look, a man who has been lame for forty years has been raised up through the name of Jesus Christ.” He did not say this, because it would have provoked opposition. On the contrary, he begins by commending them for admiring the deed, and again he calls them by the name of their ancestor: “Men of Israel.” Moreover, he does not say, It was Jesus who healed him. He says, “The God of our fathers has glorified,” etc. But they might have said, How can this make sense, that God should glorify a lawbreaker? So he reminds them of the trial before Pilate, showing that, if they would only consider it, He was no lawbreaker; otherwise Pilate would not have wanted to release Him. And he does not say, “when Pilate wanted to,” but, “had decided to let Him go.” “But you denied the Holy One,” etc. (v. 13, 14.) The man who had killed others, you asked to have released; the One Who gives life to those who have been killed, you did not want! They might ask again, How can it be that God now glorifies Him, when before He gave Him no help? So he brings forward the prophets, who testify that it had to be this way. “But those things which God had foretold,” etc. (infra v. 18.) Then, so that they would not suppose God’s dispensation was their own excuse, he first rebukes them. He also shows that denying Him “to Pilate’s face” was no ordinary thing, seeing that Pilate wanted to release Him. And you cannot deny this: the man you asked for in preference to Him is a witness against you. This too is part of a deep dispensation. Here it shows their shamelessness and effrontery. A Gentile, someone who was seeing Him for the first time, would have released Him, though he had heard nothing remarkable, while they, who had been brought up among His miracles, did the very opposite! He has said, “When he (Pilate) had decided to let Him go.” So that no one would imagine Pilate did this out of personal favor, we read, “And he said, It is your custom to release one prisoner: do you want me, then, to release this man to you?” (Matt. xxvii. 15.) “But you denied the Holy One and the Just.” (Mark xv. 6.) He does not say, “You handed over,” but everywhere, “You denied.” For they said, “We have no king but Caesar.” (John xix. 15.) And he does not say only, You did not ask for the innocent man to be set free, and, “You denied” Him. He says, “You killed” Him. While they were hardened, he held back from such language. But when their minds are most stirred, he strikes home, now that they are in a state to feel it. When people are drunk we say nothing to them; but when they are sober and have recovered from their intoxication, then we rebuke them. That is what Peter did. When they were able to understand his words, he too sharpened his tongue and brought many charges against them: that they had handed over the One God had glorified; that they had denied, to Pilate’s face, the One Pilate would have acquitted; that they preferred the robber to Him. Notice again how he speaks covertly about Christ’s power, showing that He raised Himself. In his first discourse he had said, “Because it was not possible for Him to be held by it” (ch. ii. 24); here, in the same way, he says, “And you killed the Prince of Life.” (v. 15.) It follows that the Life He had was not from another. The prince (or author) of evil would be the one who first produced evil; the prince or author of murder would be the one who first originated murder. So too the Prince (or Author) of Life must be He Who has Life from Himself. “Whom God raised up,” he continues. Once he has said this, he adds, “And His name, on the basis of faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know; yes, the faith that is by Him has given him this complete health. [The faith which is by Him ἡ δι᾽ αὐτοὕ πίστις.] And yet it was ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστις, “the faith that is in Him” (as its object), that did it all. The Apostles did not say, “By the name,” but, “In the name,” and it was in Him (εἰς αὐτὸν) that the man believed. But they did not yet dare to use the expression, “The faith that is in Him.” So that the phrase “By Him” would not sound too lowly, notice that after saying, “On the basis of faith in His name,” he adds, “His name has made him strong,” and only then does he say, “Yes, the faith that is by Him has given him this complete health.” Notice how he implies that in the καὶ ἐκεἵνο earlier expression too, “Whom God raised up,” he was only stooping to their limited understanding. That Person, Whose Name raised up a lame man who was as good as dead, did not need Another’s help to rise again. Notice how on every occasion he brings forward their own testimony. Above he said, “As you yourselves also know,” and, “In your midst”; and here again, “Whom you see and know: in the presence of you all.” (ch. ii. 22.) Now, they did not know that it was “In His name.” But they did know that the man had been lame, and that he stands there whole. Those who had performed the deed confessed themselves that it was not by their own power but by Christ’s. If this claim had been groundless, if they had not been truly convinced themselves that Christ had risen again, they would not have tried to establish the honor of a dead man instead of their own, especially with the eyes of the crowd on them. Then, when their minds were alarmed, he immediately encourages them by calling them Brothers: “And now, brothers, I know,” etc. In the earlier discourse he foretold nothing, and only says about Christ, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain.” Here he adds an admonition. There he waited until the people spoke. Here he knew how much they had already accomplished, and that the present assembly was more favorably disposed toward them. “That you did it in ignorance.” And yet the things mentioned above could not be put down to ignorance. To choose the robber, to reject the One Who had been judged worthy of acquittal, even to want to destroy Him—how could this be attributed to ignorance? Nevertheless, he gives them room to deny it and to change their minds about what had happened. “Now this much you knew, that you were putting an innocent man to death; but that you were killing ‘the Prince of Life,’ this perhaps you did not know.” And he excused not only them but also the chief contrivers of the evil, “you and your rulers,” for no doubt it would have stirred their opposition if he had launched into accusation. When you accuse a wrongdoer of some wickedness he has done, he becomes more vehement in his effort to clear himself. And he no longer says, “You crucified,” “You killed,” but, “You did it,” leading them to seek pardon. If those rulers did it in ignorance, then much more did the people present here. “But these things which God had foretold,” etc. (v. 18.) But it is remarkable that in both the first and the second discourse he speaks to the same effect—in the former, “By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” and in this one, “God had foretold that Christ would suffer”—and yet in neither does he cite any particular text as proof. The fact is that each of these passages comes with many accusations and with mention of the punishment in store for them [as]: “I will deliver up,” says one, “the wicked in requital for His grave, and the rich in return for His death.” (Is. liii. 9.) And again, * * * “Those things,” he says, “which God had foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.” It shows how great that “counsel” was, since all of them spoke of it, not just one. It does not follow that, because the event happened through ignorance, it took place apart from God’s ordinance. See how great the Wisdom of God is, when it uses the wickedness of others to bring about what must be. “He has fulfilled,” he says, so that they will not imagine anything at all is lacking, for whatever Christ had to suffer has been fulfilled. But do not think that, because the Prophets said this and because you did it in ignorance, this is enough to clear you. He does not put it this way, however; he says in milder terms, “Repent, then.” (v. 19.) “Why? It was either through ignorance or by the dispensation of God.” “That your sins may be blotted out.” I do not mean the crimes committed at the Crucifixion; perhaps those were through ignorance. I mean so that your other sins may be blotted out: this only. “So shall the times of refreshing come to you.” Here he speaks of the Resurrection, obscurely. Those are indeed times of refreshing, which Paul also looked for when he said, “We who are in this tabernacle groan, being burdened.” (2 Cor. v. 4.) Then, to prove that Christ is the cause of the days of refreshing, he says, “And He shall send Jesus Christ, Who was appointed for you beforehand.” (v. 20.) He did not say, “That your sin may be blotted out,” but “your sins,” for he hints at that sin as well. “He shall send.” And from where? “Whom the heaven must receive.” (v. 21.) Is it still that the heaven [“must”] “receive” Him? Why not simply, Whom the heaven has received? He says this as if speaking from the standpoint of former times. So, he says, it is divinely ordered; so it is settled. There is not a word yet about His eternal subsistence.—“For Moses indeed said to the fathers, The Lord will raise up a Prophet for you”; “You shall listen to Him in all things that He says to you.” Having said, “All things which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy Prophets,” (v. 22) he now does bring in Christ Himself. If He foretold many things, and it is necessary to listen to Him, one would not be wrong to say that the Prophets have spoken these things. But besides this, he wants to show that the Prophets foretold the same things. And if anyone looks closely into the matter, he will find these things spoken in the Old Testament—obscurely, it is true, but spoken nonetheless. “Who was purposely designated,” he says: in Him there is nothing new. Here he also alarms them with the thought that much remains to be fulfilled. But if so, how can he say, “Has fulfilled”? (v. 18.) What was necessary, “that Christ would suffer,” has been fulfilled; what must still come to pass has not yet been fulfilled. “The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me.” This would do the most to win them over. Do you notice how lowly and lofty matters are sprinkled side by side—that He Who was to go up into the heavens should be like Moses? And yet that too was a great thing. In fact He was not simply like Moses, if indeed “every soul that will not listen shall be destroyed.” One could mention countless other things that show He was not like Moses, so it is a mighty text that he has handled. “God will raise Him up for you,” says Moses, “from among your brothers,” etc. So Moses himself threatens those who would not listen. “Yes, and all the prophets,” etc.: all this is meant to draw them in. “Yes, and all the prophets,” says the Apostle, “from Samuel.” He refrains from listing them one by one, so as not to make his discourse too long. Having cited that decisive testimony of Moses, he passes over the rest. “You,” he says, “are the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God made.” (v. 25) “Children of the covenant”; that is, heirs. So that they would not think they had received this offer as a favor from Peter, he shows that it had long been owed to them, so that they may all the more believe that this is also God’s will. “To you first,” he continues, “God, having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him.” (v. 26.) He does not say simply, “To you He sent His Son,” but adds that He did so after the resurrection, and after He had been crucified. And so that they would not suppose that he himself was granting them this favor, and not the Father, he says, “To bless you.” If He is your Brother and blesses you, the matter is a promise. “To you first.” That is, far from having no share in these blessings, you are the ones He wants to become their promoters and authors for others as well. You are not to feel like castaways. “Having raised up”: again, the Resurrection. “In turning away,” he says, “every one of you from his iniquities.” This is how He blesses you, not in a general way. And what kind of blessing is this? A great one. Of course, turning a man away from his iniquities is not in itself enough to remit them as well. And if it is not enough to remit them, how could it be enough to confer a blessing? It is not to be supposed that the transgressor immediately becomes blessed as well; he is simply released from his sins. But this “Like me” would not apply in any way. “Listen to Him,” he says. Not only this, but he adds, “And it shall come to pass that every soul that will not listen to that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.” He has shown them that they had sinned, granted them forgiveness, and promised good things. Then indeed, then he says, “Moses also says the same thing.” What sort of connection is this: “Until the times of the restoration,” and then he brings in Moses, saying that all that Christ said shall come to pass? Then, on the other hand, he also speaks by way of praise (so that for this reason too you ought to obey): “You are the children of the prophets and of the covenant”: that is, heirs. Then why do you treat what is your own as if it belonged to someone else? True, you have done deeds that deserve condemnation; still, you may yet obtain pardon. Having said this, he is now rightly able to say, “To you God sent His Son Jesus to bless you.” He does not say, To save you. He says something greater: that the crucified Jesus blessed His crucifiers. Let us, then, imitate Him too. Let us drive out that spirit of murder and hostility. It is not enough not to retaliate (for even under the Old Dispensation this was practiced). Let us do everything for those who have injured us as we would for our closest friends, as we would for ourselves. We are His followers and His disciples. After being crucified, He sets everything in motion on behalf of His murderers, and sends out His Apostles for this purpose. And yet we have often suffered justly, while those people acted not only unjustly but impiously. He was their Benefactor, He had done no wrong, and they crucified Him. And why? For the sake of their reputation. But He Himself made them objects of respect: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; so whatever they tell you to observe, do it, but do not follow their works.” (Matt. xxiii. 2.) And again in another place: “Go, show yourself to the priest.” (ib. viii. 4.) Besides, when He could have destroyed them, He saves them. Let us, then, imitate Him, and let no one be an enemy, no one a foe, except to the devil. The habit of not swearing helps a great deal toward this end, by which I mean not giving way to anger; and if we do not give way to anger, we will not have an enemy either. Cut off a man’s oaths, and you have clipped the wings of his anger and smothered all his passion. Swearing, as the saying goes, is like the wind to anger. Lower the sails; there is no need for sails when there is no wind. If, then, we do not shout and do not swear, we have cut the sinews of passion. If you doubt this, just try it. Make it a law for the hot-tempered man that he must never swear, and you will not need to preach moderation to him. That settles the whole business. For even if you do not perjure yourselves [yet], by swearing at all, do you not realize what absurd consequences you entangle yourselves in? You bind yourselves to an absolute necessity, as if with a rope. You resort to every kind of expedient, like people trying to work out how to rescue their soul from an evil that cannot be escaped. Or, failing that, you are forced [by that self-imposed necessity] to spend the rest of your life in vexation and quarrels, cursing your anger. But it is all in vain and to no purpose. Threaten, be emphatic (διόρισαι), do everything, whatever it may be, without swearing; [so]: it is in your power to undo (ἀναλὕσαι) both what you have said and what you have done, if you want to. So today I have to speak to you more gently. Since you have listened to me, and you have accomplished the greater part of the reform, come now, let us see why the taking of oaths was introduced, and why it was allowed. We will tell you their first origin—when they were conceived, and how, and by whom—and give you this account as a reward for your obedience. It is fitting that someone who has set his practice right should be taught the philosophy of the matter. But someone who is not yet doing what is right does not deserve to be told the history. In Abraham’s time people made many covenants, slaughtered victims, and offered sacrifices, and there were still no oaths. Where, then, did oaths come from? When evil increased, when everything was in confusion and turned upside down, when people had turned aside to idolatry, then, when people no longer seemed worthy of being believed, they called God as witness, as though this gave adequate security for what they said. That, in fact, is what an oath is: security where people’s character cannot be trusted. So the first charge in the indictment against the one who swears is this: he cannot be trusted without a guarantor, and a great guarantor at that. Their faithlessness is so extreme that they do not ask for a man as guarantor, but insist on having God! Second, the same charge lies against the one who receives the oath: in a matter of agreement, he has to drag God in as a guarantee, and he refuses to be satisfied unless he gets Him. Oh, the extreme stupidity and insolence of such conduct! You, a worm, earth and dust, ashes and vapor, drag in your Lord as guarantor, and force the other person to drag Him in too! Tell me: suppose your servants were arguing with one another and exchanging assurances, and one of them declared that for his part he would not be satisfied until he had their common master given to him as guarantor. Would he not be given countless lashes and be made to understand that the master is there for other purposes and is not to be put to any such use as this? But why do I speak of a fellow servant? Even if he chose some respectable person, would that person not take it as an insult? But you say, I do not want to do this. Well, then, do not force the other person to do it either. Where only men are involved, this is how it goes: if the other party says, “I offer so-and-so as my guarantor,” you do not allow it. “What then,” you say, “am I to lose what I have given?” That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about your allowing him to insult God. That is why the one who forces the oath on another will inevitably receive a greater punishment than the one who takes it; and the same holds for the one who gives an oath when no one asks him. What makes it worse is that everyone is ready to swear for one obol, for some petty item, for his own injustice. All this can be said even when there is no perjury; but if perjury follows, both the one who imposes the oath and the one who takes it have turned everything upside down. “But there are some things,” you will say, “that are unknown.” Well, take these into account, and do nothing carelessly. But if you do act carelessly, accept the loss as your punishment. It is better to lose in this way than in a very different way. Tell me: you force a man to take an oath, but with what expectation? That he will perjure himself? This is utter insanity, and the judgment will fall on your own head. Better that you lose your money than that he be lost. Why act this way, to your own harm and to the insult of God? This is the spirit of a wild beast and of an impious man. Or do you do this expecting that he will not perjure himself? Then trust him without the oath. “No,” you reply, “there are many who would dare to defraud without an oath, but who would refrain once they had taken the oath.” You are deceiving yourself, man. Once a man has learned to steal and to wrong his neighbor, he will dare again and again to trample on his oath. If, on the contrary, he shrinks from swearing, he will shrink much more from injustice. “But he is swayed against his will.” Well, then, he deserves pardon. But why am I talking about this kind of oath while passing over the ones in the marketplace? With those, you cannot offer any of these pleas. There, for ten obols, you have swearing and perjury. In fact, because the thunderbolt does not actually fall from heaven, because everything is not overturned, you stand there holding God in your bonds, calling Him to witness to get a few vegetables, a pair of shoes, a little bit of money. What does this mean? Let us not imagine that we do not sin just because we are not punished. That comes from God’s mercy, not from our merit. Make your oath a curse on your own child, on yourself. Say, “If not, let the executioner lash my ribs.” But you do not dare. Is God worth less than your ribs? Is He less precious than your head? Say, “If not, let me be struck blind.” But no. Christ spares us so much that He will not let us swear even by our own head; and yet we spare the honor of God so little that we drag Him in on every occasion! You do not know what God is, or with what kind of lips He ought to be called upon. Why, when we speak of some man of outstanding worth, we say, “First wash your mouth, and then mention him.” And yet that precious Name which is above every name, the Name which is marvelous in all the earth, the Name which demons hear and tremble, we drag around as we please! Oh, the force of habit! It has made that Name cheap. No doubt, if you make someone come into the sacred building to take his oath there, you feel that you have made the oath an awesome one. And yet why does it seem awesome this way, if not because we are in the habit of using the one carelessly but not the other? Should we not feel a shudder of awe when God is merely named? Among the Jews, His Name was held to be so sacred that it was written on plates, and no one but the high priest was allowed to wear the characters. But now we toss His Name around like any ordinary word. If not everyone was allowed simply to name God, what audacity it is to call Him to witness! No, what madness! If it were necessary to throw away everything you have (rather than do this), should you not gladly part with it all? Listen: I solemnly declare and testify: reform these oaths of the marketplace, these superfluous oaths, and bring to me all those who want to take them. Listen: in the presence of this assembly I charge those who are assigned to look after the Houses of Prayer. I urge them and give them this order: no one is to be allowed to take such oaths on his own initiative. Or rather, no one is to be allowed to swear in any other way; the person, whoever he is, must be brought to me, since even for these matters nothing less will do, and they must come before us, as if we were dealing with little children. May there be no need for it! It is shameful still to need to be taught some things. Would you dare to touch the Holy Table if you were unbaptized? No. But what is even worse, you who are baptized dare to lay your hand on the Holy Table, which not even all ordained persons are allowed to touch, and to take your oath that way. You would not go and lay your hand on your child’s head, and yet you touch the Table and do not shudder, do not feel afraid? Bring these men to me. I will judge, and send them away rejoicing, both the one and the other. Do whatever you choose; I lay it down as a law that there is to be no swearing at all. What hope of salvation is there when we make everything we have done count for nothing like this? Is this the outcome of your bills and your bonds, that you should sacrifice your own soul? What gain do you get that is as great as the loss? Has he perjured himself? You have ruined both him and yourself. Has he not? Even so, you have ruined (both), by forcing him to break the commandment. Let us drive this disease out of the soul. At the very least, let us drive it out of the marketplace, out of our shops, out of our other workplaces; our profits will only be greater. Do not imagine that success in your worldly plans is secured by breaking the Divine laws. “But he refuses to trust me,” you say. In fact, I have sometimes heard people say this: “Unless I swear countless oaths, the man will not trust me.” Yes, and you have yourself to thank for that, because you are so quick with your oaths. If it were not so, and on the contrary it were clear to everyone that you do not swear, take my word for it, you would be believed at a mere nod more readily than those who swallow oaths by the thousands. Look at it this way: whom do you believe more readily—me, who do not swear, or those who do swear? “Yes,” you say, “but you are a ruler and a bishop.” Then what if I prove to you that it is not only for that reason? Answer me truthfully, I beg you: if I were in the habit of constantly swearing, would my office do that for me? Not at all. Do you see that it is not for this reason? And what do you gain at all? Answer me that. Paul endured hunger; so you too should choose to go hungry rather than break one of God’s commandments. Why are you so unbelieving? Here you are, ready to do and suffer anything for the sake of not swearing; and will He not reward you? Day after day He sustains both those who swear and those who swear falsely. Will He give you over to hunger when you have obeyed Him? Let everyone see that among those who gather in this Church, not one is a swearer. Let us become known by this too, and not by our creed alone. Let us have this mark as well, to distinguish us both from the Gentiles and from all people. Let us receive it as a seal from heaven, so that everywhere we may be seen to be the King’s own flock. Let us be known first of all by our mouth and tongue, just as the barbarians are known by theirs: just as those who speak Greek are distinguished from barbarians, so let us be known. Answer me: the birds called parrots—how are they known to be parrots? Is it not by speaking like humans? Let us, then, be known by speaking like the Apostles, by speaking like the Angels. If anyone tells you to swear, tell him, “Christ has spoken, and I do not swear.” This is enough to open the way for every virtue to come in. It is a gateway to religion, a highway leading to the philosophy of piety, a kind of training school. Let us observe these things, so that we may also obtain the future blessings, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, and honor, now and always, forever and ever. Amen.