17. Did I use fickleness? There are two things, more especially, that prevent the purposes of men from being carried into effect, or their promises from being faithfully performed. The one is that they make changes upon them almost every hour, and the other is that they are too rash in forming their plans. It is a sign of changeableness to purpose or promise what you almost immediately afterwards regret. With that fault Paul declares he had not been chargeable. “I have not,” says he, “through fickleness drawn back from the promise that I made.” He declares also that he had been on his guard against rashness and misdirected confidence; for such is the way in which I explain the expression — purpose according to the flesh For it is, as I have stated, the common practice of men, as though they were not dependent on God’s providence, and were not subject to his will, to determine rashly and presumptuously what they will do. Now God, with the view of punishing this presumption, defeats their plans, so as to prevent them from having a prosperous issue, and in many instances holds up themselves to ridicule.
The expression, it is true, according to the flesh, might be extended farther, so as to include all wicked schemes, and such as are not directed to a right end, as for example such as are dictated by ambition, avarice, or any other depraved affection. Paul, however, in my opinion, did not intend here to refer to any thing of that nature, but merely to reprove that rashness which is but too customary on the part of man, and in daily use in the forming of plans. To purpose, therefore, according to the flesh, is not owning God as our ruler, but, instead of this, being impelled by a rash presumption, which is afterwards justly derided by God, and punished. The apostle, with the view of clearing himself from these faults, proposes a question, as if in the person of his opponents. Hence it is probable, as I have already said, that some unfavorable report had been put in circulation by wicked persons.
That with me there should be yea, yea Some connect this statement with what goes before, and explain it thus: “As if it were in my power to perform whatever I purpose, as men determine that they will do whatever comes into their mind, and order their ways, as Solomon speaks, (Proverbs 16:1,) while they cannot so much as govern their tongue.” And, undoubtedly, the words seem to imply this much — that what has been once affirmed must remain fixed, and what has been once denied must never be done. So James in his Epistle (James 5:12) says,
Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into dissimulation.
Farther, the context would in this way suit exceedingly well as to what goes before. For to purpose according to the flesh is this — when we wish that, without any exception, our determinations shall be like oracles. (276) This interpretation, However, does not accord with what immediately follows — God is faithful, etc., where Paul makes use of the same form of expression, when he has it in view to intimate, that he had not been unfaithful in his preaching. Now it were absurd, if almost in the same verse he reckoned it as a fault that his yea should be yea, and his nay nay, and yet at the same time laid claim to it as his highest praise. I am aware of what could be said in reply, if any one were disposed to sport himself with subtleties, but I have no relish for anything that is not solid.
I have, therefore, no doubt, that in these words Paul designed to reprove fickleness, although they may seem to be susceptible of another meaning, for the purpose of clearing himself from that calumny — that he was accustomed to promise in words what he failed to perform in deeds. (277) Thus the reiterating of the affirmation and negation will not have the same meaning as in Matthew 5:37 and in James, but will bear this meaning — “that yea should with me be in this instance yea, and on the other hand, when it pleases me, nay, nay ” At the same time it is possible that it may have crept in through the ignorance of transcribers, as the old translation does not redouble the words, (278) However this may be, we ought not to be very solicitous as to the words, provided we are in possession of the apostle’s intention, which, as I have said, clearly appears from what follows. (279)
(276) “ Que nos deliberations et conseils soyent comme oracles et reuelations Diuines;” — “That our purposes and plans shall be like oracles and Divine revelations.”
(277) “He (the apostle) anticipates and repels a reproach of ἰλαφρία, or ‘ lightness of purpose, ’ in that change of mind, as if he was ‘ a yea and nay man, ’ (Shaksp.), on whose word no secure reliance could be placed. In the next verse he calls God to witness that his word to them was not, ‘ both yea and nay; ’ and in the beginning of the following chapter, he explains to them, that it was for their sakes that he abstained from executing his first intention.” — Penn. — Ed.
(278) The rendering of the Vulgate is as follows: “ Ut sit apud me est et non;” — “That with me there should be yea and nay. ” This reading — τὸ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὔ, (yea and nay), is found in one Greek MS., as stated by Semler. Wiclif, (1380,) following the Vulgate, reads — “that at me, be it is and it is not. ” — Ed.
(279) “It was a proverbial manner among the Jews (see Wet.) of characterizing a man of strict probity and good faith, by saying, ‘his yes is yes, and his no is no’ — that is, you may depend upon his word; as he declares, so it is; and as he promises, so he will do. Our Lord is therefore to be considered here (Matthew 5:37) not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny; in which case it would have suited better the simplicity of his style to say barely ναὶ καὶ οὔ ( yea and nay,) without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexible regard to truth, as would render swearing unnecessary. That this manner of converting these adverbs into nouns, is in the idiom of the sacred penmen, we have another instance, (2 Corinthians 1:20,) ‘For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen. ’ ( ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ναὶ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀμὴν) — that is, certain and infallible truths. It is indeed a common idiom of the Greek tongue, to turn by means of the article any of the parts of speech ‘into a noun.” — Campbell on the Gospels, volume 2. — Ed.