3). The Disciples' Approach To Oath-Taking And Reliability (5:33-37).
In Jesus' day the taking of oaths was popular and often somewhat hypocritical. Going by what was written later they were divided into oaths which must be observed, and those which could be broken because they did not involve the Lord. Much time and effort was expended in deciding which was which, and which could therefore be avoided (which removed any purpose behind making an oath and rendered it worse than useless). Sometimes the result was hair-splitting. Thus an oath sworn ‘towards Jerusalem' was considered binding whereas an oath sworn ‘by Jerusalem' was not (compare also Matthew 23:16). So by wording an oath carefully a person could seem to be binding himself, and could then later plead that it was not so. This all demonstrated a lack of concern for truth as such, the suggestion being that it only mattered when the Lord's Name was somehow involved. Thus it was truth that became the victim. And it made a false distinction between what did involve the Lord and what did not. Jesus will by His words both falsify that distinction, by showing that in fact the Lord was even involved in determining the colour of a man's hair, and thus could not be left out of anything, and will also reinstate the importance of being truthful. He was concerned that His disciples recognise that what they said or promised should always be able to be relied on.
His citation is a free rendering (possibly Jesus' own reconstruction, although He may have had it quoted at Him) of part of Leviticus 19:12 and part of Deuteronomy 23:21, combined with part of Psalms 50:14. ‘You shall not swear by my Name falsely' (Leviticus 19:12), ‘when you make a vow to the Lord your God you shall not be slack to pay it' (Deuteronomy 23:21), but ‘shall pay your vows to the Most High' (Psalms 50:14). Consider also ‘you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain' (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11). And also ‘when you vow a vow to God do not delay paying it, --- it is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay' (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5; and see). His purpose in citing it was in order to bring out the current thinking on oaths.
The Old Testament can be seen as dividing oaths into two main types. The first type was those which were made in connection with a solemn covenant made under God's instructions (Exodus 24:3-8; Ezekiel 17:19), which even God would involve Himself in (Genesis 22:16), and this included those made as part of a testimony in court (Exodus 20:16), when the court was acting in God's Name. Such testimony on oath was often legally required by God Himself (e.g. Exodus 22:11; Numbers 5:19; 1 Kings 8:31). It is probable that Jesus does not refer to that kind of oath here, for He would not have set aside the legal requirement for an oath laid down in such circumstances by God Himself, and He Himself would later respond to such an adjuration on oath (Matthew 26:63-64). Compare how Paul also makes use of mild forms of oaths in solemn matters (2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8; etc.). Furthermore He also makes it clear that the oaths that He is speaking of here were ambiguous, they may or may not have been intended to invoke the Lord's Name. He is probably therefore not referring to legal oaths, which would necessarily directly invoke the Name of the Lord, but to oaths in the common course of life.
The second type were oaths that were made voluntarily. God never required men to make such oaths, but men regularly chose to do so in order to support their word, or in order to bind others under the oath, simply because men were seen as untrustworthy. In such cases all oaths taken in the name of the Lord were to be seen as binding (Numbers 30:2), for it would have been dishonouring to God if His name was called in and used as surety and then the oath was reneged on, with the result that His Name had been taken in vain (Exodus 20:7; compare Jeremiah 5:2; Hosea 4:2; Zechariah 5:4; Malachi 3:5). Provision was, however, made for someone to redeem something that he had ‘dedicated' to the Lord, while in the case of persons they always had to be redeemed (Leviticus 27:1-25). The exception to the inviolability of an oath was where a wife or unmarried daughter had made an oath before the Lord. In that case a husband or father could rescind it as long as he did so immediately on hearing of it. If he did not, it then became binding, as though he had made it himself (Numbers 30:3-15). But in the Old Testament it was not only oaths made in the Name of the Lord that were binding. All oaths were considered to be binding (Psalms 15:4; Hosea 4:2; Malachi 3:5).
However, it is important to note that none of them were in the first place demanded by the Lord for He made it quite clear that He did not require oaths in the normal course of life (Deuteronomy 23:22). On the other hand, if oaths were taken they must not be in the names of other gods. If they must swear them, then they must use the Name of the Lord (Deuteronomy 10:20). Thus the use of oaths (apart from those required before courts) was not demanded by God in the Old Testament, and Jesus was not therefore here changing something that the Scriptures had originally required. He was dealing with the current attitude towards oaths.
The more popular interpretation concerning oaths in Jesus' day was that only those sworn to the Lord were specifically binding. That could be very convenient if someone regretted making an oath. But that then raised the question as to which oaths were binding because made in the name of the Lord and which were not. The Mishnah (record of Rabbinic teaching) would later spend a good deal of time over the question. Jesus, however, swept all these arguments away. As far as He was concerned the Scriptures, and therefore the Law, had made quite clear that making oaths was never a necessity for anyone outside the law court, and therefore His disciples should be so honest and reliable that they did not need to make them. In the Kingly Rule of God this should not be necessary. Their word should be their bond. Josephus tells us that the Essenes also considered that to make oaths simply demonstrated the dishonesty of the person making them, ‘they say that one who is not believed without an appeal to God stands condemned already' (although it should be noted that they did make initiation oaths and bound themselves in a covenant, so they were not fully consistent). Philo was also concerned about the prevalence of oaths and discouraged their being connected with God's Name. If men had to make oaths, he said, let them connect them with something else. Jesus in fact declares that that is not viable, because everything outside man's control is connected with God.
Analysis of Matthew 5:33-37.
a Again, you have heard that it was said to those of old time, “You shall not swear falsely (or ‘break your oath'), but shall perform to the Lord your oaths” (Matthew 5:33).
b But I say to you, swear not at all (Matthew 5:34 a).
c Neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God (Matthew 5:34 b).
d Nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet (Matthew 5:35 a).
c Nor towards Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King (Matthew 5:35 b).
b Nor shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black (Matthew 5:36).
a But let your speech be, “Yes, yes; No, no,” and whatever is more than these is of the evil one (Matthew 5:37).
Note that in ‘a' what is said by others is described, and in the parallel what Jesus says is described. In ‘b' there is the command not to swear at all, and in the parallel the command not to swear by their heads. In ‘c' Heaven and the throne of God are mentioned, and in the parallel Jerusalem and the city of the Great King. Centrally the earth is the footstool of His feet. As regularly in this sermon there is also a sequence.
We remind ourselves again that in Matthew 5:33-37 we have firstly that they are not swear by any of three things connected directly with God (Matthew 5:34-35), secondly that they are not swear by their heads (with two alternative possibilities described, their hair being white or black) (Matthew 5:36), and thirdly the need for them only to say one of two possibilities, ‘yes' and ‘no' (Matthew 5:37).