Swear no oath

[Christofer]

I would like to ask for opinions on the following two passages…

Matthew 5
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

and

James 5
12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

After reading several commentaries on these two passages that claim that Jesus and James meant swear no oath that you won't keep…

There is no reason to consider that solemn oaths in a court of justice, or on other proper occasions, are wrong, provided they are taken with due reverence. But all oaths taken without necessity, or in common conversation, must be sinful, as well as all those expressions which are appeals to God, though persons think thereby to evade the guilt of swearing. The worse men are, the less they are bound by oaths; the better they are, the less there is need for them. Our Lord does not enjoin the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, but such a constant regard to truth as would render oaths unnecessary. (Mt 5:38-42)

The commentator stated “There is no reason to consider that solemn oaths in a court of justice, or on other proper occasions, are wrong, provided they are taken with due reverence.” But I think that the fact Jesus said do not swear at all is the exact reason to not swear oaths! Am I alone with this?

and I actually read one that equated James 5:12 to cussing! – I am left wondering why these two passages are generally ignored by the churches.

Most churches perform marriage ceremonies that are oaths. Many churches demand that new members swear an oath to a statement of faith. As a 'Christian' nation – we outright ignore the passages with our 'Pledge of Allegiance', swearing before giving testimony in court, etc.

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated…

Blessings!

Christofer

[epistemaniac]

Hey Chris…. my favorite commentator on Matt is biblical scholar DA Carson… here is what he has to say on this passage in Matt 5:33ff… hope it helps out…

4) Oaths and truthfulness (5:33-37)

33 “Again” probably confirms 5:31-32 as an excursus to the preceding antithesis rather than a new one. Matthew now reports an antithesis on a new theme. What the people have heard is not given as direct OT quotation but as a summary statement accurately condensing the burden of Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2, and Deuteronomy 5:11; 6:3; 22:21-23. The Mosaic law forbade irreverent oaths, light use of the Lord's name, broken vows. Once Yahweh's name was invoked, the vow to which it was attached became a debt that had to be paid to the Lord.
A sophisticated casuistry judged how binding an oath really was by examining how closely it was related to Yahweh's name. Incredible distinctions proliferate under such an approach. Swearing by heaven and earth was not binding, nor was swearing by Jerusalem, though swearing toward Jerusalem was. That an entire mishnaic tract (M Shebuoth) is given over to the subject (cf. also M Sanhedrin 3.2, Tosephta Nedarim 1; SBK, 1:321-36) shows that such distinctions became important and were widely discussed. Matthew returns to the topic with marvelous examples in the polemical setting of 23:16-22. The context is not overtly polemical here but simply explains how Jesus relates the kingdom and its righteousness to the OT.

34-36 If oaths designed to encourage truthfulness become occasions for clever lies and casuistical deceit, Jesus will abolish oaths (v. 34). For the direction in which the OT points is the fundamental importance of thorough and consistent truthfulness. If one does not swear at all, one does not swear falsely. Not dissimilar reasoning was found among the Essenes, who avoided taking oaths, “regarding it as worse than perjury for they say that one who is not believed without an appeal to God stands condemned already” (Jos. War II, 135 [viii.6])–though they did require “tremendous oaths” of neophytes joining the community (ibid., 139 [viii.7]; cf. 1QS 5:7-11; CD 15:5).
Jesus insists that whatever a man swears by is related to God in some way, and therefore every oath is implicitly in God's name–heaven, earth, Jerusalem, even the hairs of the head are all under God's sway and ownership (v. 36). (There may be allusions here to Ps 48:2; Isa 66:1.) Significantly, Matthew breaks the flow to say (in Gr.) “toward Jerusalem” rather than “by Jerusalem” (on the distinction, cf. on v. 33). The “Great King” (v. 35) may well be God, but see on 25:34.

37 The Greek might more plausible be translated “But let your word be, `Yes, Yes; No, No.'” The doubling has raised questions: according to some rabbinic opinion, a doubled “yes” or “no” constitutes an oath; and Broadus suggests this is an appropriate way to strengthen an assertion. This sounds like casuistry every bit as tortuous as that which Jesus condemns. The doubling is probably no more than preacher's rhetoric, the point made clear by NIV (cf. James 5:12). Tou ponerou could be rendered either “of evil” or “of the evil one” (“the father of lies,” John 8:44). The same ambiguity recurs at 5:39; 6:13; 13:38.
Many groups (e.g., Anabaptists, Jehovah's Witnesses) have understood these verses absolutely literally and have therefore refused even to take court oaths. Their zeal to conform to Scripture is commendable, but they have probably not interpreted the text very well.
1. The contextual purpose of this passage is to stress the true direction in which the OT points–viz., the importance of truthfulness. Where oaths are not being used evasively and truthfulness is not being threatened, it is not immediately obvious that they require such unqualified abolition.
2. In the Scriptures God himself “swears” (e.g., Gen 9:9-11; Luke 1:68, 73; cf. Ps 16:10 and Acts 2:27-31), not because he sometimes lies, but in order to help men believe (Heb 6:17). The earliest Christians still took oaths, if we may judge from Paul's example (Rom 1:9; 2Cor 1:23; 1Thess 2:5, 10; cf. Philippians 1:8), for much the same reason. Jesus himself testified under oath (26:63-64).
3. Again we need to remember the antithetical nature of Jesus' preaching (see on 5:27-30; 6:5-8).
It must be frankly admitted that here Jesus formally contravenes OT law: what it permits or commands (Deut 6:13), he forbids. But if his interpretation of the direction in which the law points is authoritative, then his teaching fulfills it.” (Expositors)

[epistemaniac]

here are a few more tidbits for you….

“do not swear at all. Cf. James 5:12. This should not be taken as a universal condemnation of oaths in all circumstances. God Himself confirmed a promise with an oath (Heb. 6:13–18; cf. Acts 2:30). Christ Himself spoke under oath (26:63, 64). And the law prescribed oaths in certain circumstances (e.g., Num. 5:19, 21; 30:2, 3). What Christ is forbidding here is the flippant, profane, or careless use of oaths in everyday speech. In that culture, such oaths were often employed for deceptive purposes. To make the person being victimized believe the truth was being told, the Jews would swear by “heaven,” “earth,” “Jerusalem,” or their own “heads” (vv. 34–36), not by God, hoping to avoid divine judgment for their lie. But it all was in God’s creation, so it drew Him in and produced guilt before Him, exactly as if the oath were made in His name. Jesus suggested that all our speech should be as if we were under an oath to tell the truth (v. 37).” (MacArthur's Study Bible)

“above all. Or “especially.” As he has done repeatedly in his epistle, James stressed that a person’s speech provides the most revealing glimpse of his spiritual condition (cf. 1:26; 2:12; 3:2–11; 4:11). do not swear … any other oath. As Jesus did before him (Matt. 5:33–36; 23:16–22), James condemned the contemporary Jewish practice of swearing false, evasive, deceptive oaths by everything other than the name of the Lord (which alone was considered binding). “Yes” be “Yes.” Again echoing Jesus (see note on Matt. 5:37), James called for straightforward, honest, plain speech. To speak otherwise is to invite God’s judgment.” ibid

“do not swear. Some have understood Jesus’ prohibition of oaths to be universal, but Jesus Himself submitted to oath (26:63), and Paul invoked God as his witness in Rom. 1:9. God Himself takes an oath so that we might be encouraged (Heb. 6:17). Jesus is addressing a narrow and misleading legalism that required a specific oath to make spoken words binding. The implication of such an approach to honesty is that we do not need to be truthful except under oath. Jesus demands an integrity of speech as though everything were under oath. He also prohibited the implicit idolatry of swearing by anything less than God.” (New Geneva Study Bible)

“James 5:12 do not swear. This is not a prohibition against cursing or the use of vulgarity. It concerns taking oaths by appealing to objects as witnesses (which in biblical terms is a form of idolatry). Only God has the power to be an omnipresent, omniscient witness to oaths and vows. Just and godly vows are not prohibited because they form a vital part of all covenants.” (ibid)

“In taking oaths various means (Gn. 24:2; Dt. 32:40) and formulae (Gn. 31:50; Nu. 5:22; Jdg. 8:19; 2 Ki. 2:2; Je. 42:5; Mt. 5:34-36; 23:16) were adopted. Frequently the dire effects of non-fulfilment were not expressed (2 Sa. 3:9, but see Je. 29:22).
The seriousness of oaths is emphasized in the laws of Moses (Ex. 20:7; Lv. 19:12). Israelites were forbidden to swear their oaths by false gods (Je. 12:16; Am. 8:14). Ezekiel speaks as if perjury were punishable by death (17:16ff.), but in the law the false swearing by a witness, and the denial on oath regarding something found or received (Lv. 5:1-4; 6:1-3), could be atoned for by a sin-offering (Lv. 5:5ff.; 6:4ff.).
Christ taught that oaths were binding (Mt. 5:33). The Christian’s daily conversation is to be as sacred as his oaths. He is not to have two standards of truth as certain Jews had when they introduced a sliding scale of values in regard to oaths. In the kingdom of God oaths will finally become unnecessary (Mt. 5:34-37). Christ himself accepted the imprecatory oath (Mt. 26:63ff.), and Paul also swore by an oath (2 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20).
Scripture also testifies that God bound himself by an oath (Heb. 6:13-18). What the Lord bound himself to perform was his promises to his covenant people: e.g. his promises to the Patriarchs (Gn. 50:24), to the Davidic dynasty (Ps. 89:19-37, 49), to the Messianic Priest-King (Ps. 110:1-4). The Guarantor of all these promises is Jesus Christ in whom they find the answering ‘amen’ (2 Cor. 1:19f.; cf. Is. 65:16, rvmg.). In his advent Jesus Christ fulfilled God’s ancient oaths to Patriarchs (Lk. 1:68-73; 2:6-14), to David (Acts 2:30), and to the OT priest-king (Heb. 7:20f., 28).
Bibliography. TWBR, pp. 159f.; M. R. Lehmann, ZAW 81, 1969, pp. 74-92; THAT, 2, pp 855-863. ” (The New Bible Dict., full article by JGSS Thompson BA, MA, BD, PhD Minster at Wigtown Scotland and GI Davies BD. PhD Lecturer in Old Testament and Intertestamental Studies Cambridge)

I can dig up more on this siubject if you like Chris… just let me know…

blessings

[Christofer]

Dear epistemaniac
Well – here's the thing… why don't these commentators simply accept His words on the subject? Let me take one example cited above – I will look at them all more closely – but notice how things don't add up the way they say they do….

“Some have understood Jesus’ prohibition of oaths to be universal, but Jesus Himself submitted to oath (26:63),

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

64 “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The priest charged Jesus with an oath – but notice He didn't 'swear' anything – He simply said – yes it is true just as He taught in Mt 5:34 (yes be yes – no be no)…

I believe most everything Jesus taught is really simple – dumbed down so that we mortals can grasp some aspect of it. I don't see how the commentators can come to anything contradicting His words – of why – except to protect the age old practice of men to swear oaths which the world refuses to give up despite His testimony (and James) on the subject.

I'll be reviewing everything you added and let ya know if I can see what they see – God bless -and thanks!

[epistemaniac]

seems the “Yes, it is as you say” qualifies for the submitting to the oath… but oh well…. just was offering some info for you, if you don't agree thats cool….

blessings

[Dianalevich]

Hello Everyone! It seems to me that a simple statement in which Jesus expresses His teachings on swearing oaths has again become so complicated. It's like cooking – too many chefs in the kitchen can ruin a good meal. I believe that too many commentaries that attempt to “read” deeper then what Jesus specifically said is something we should all learn to avoid. Let your yes be yes and your no be no -seems simple enough to me. Perhaps I am missing some message that the Holy Spirit is giving to others – the beautiful thing is, only God knows our hearts, our motivations and it is He that will be my Judge. GBU, Peace, Diana

[Author]

Posts