Again, ye have heard that it has been said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt render to the Lord what thou hast sworn.
Jesus returns to a rule the crowd knew well: keep your oaths and never swear falsely. He does not soften it — He raises the standard so high that the oath itself becomes unnecessary.
The rule Jesus quotes rests on older ground:
The moral basis for the command not to swear falsely — that is, not to commit perjury — lay in two commandments. The third says, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." The ninth says, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." But other passages in the Old Testament warn the people of Israel about thoughtless swearing. Leviticus 19:12 says: "You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God."
The same writer shows the other side. Under the law, some occasions called for an oath:
On the other hand, the law required an oath on several occasions. In such cases God asked His people to swear by His name. The oath then did more than confirm the truth. It was also a solemn vow, made in the knowledge that Jehovah was present — the Jehovah who had once Himself taken an oath before Abraham.
The second half of the verse speaks plainly of vowing — promises made to God. Those promises had a long and unhappy history:
There had been great abuse of vowing, as Israel's history makes clear. Men did not hesitate to vow recklessly to God at the prompting of their pride and passion and self-will. Then they found themselves trapped by what now seemed their duty. Careless profanity followed close behind, and people profaned God's name with casual appeals to it on every occasion.
Swearing by heaven, earth or Jerusalem was not extra reverence. It was a way of sounding solemn while staying free:
So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word there is to be Yes, yes, or No, no. Anything more than these has no sanction from God... All the strong affirmations the Lord illustrates from Jewish habit arose from men's constant experience of deceiving and evading. So they resorted to such means of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. A reliable Jewish writer from New Testament times tells us that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars and the whole universe were not counted binding. Only oaths that used God's name outright bound the conscience. Others could be broken.
So does this rule out an oath in a court of law?
The question here is not in the least a judicial oath. The Lord is dealing with how His disciples behave as individuals, not with their relation to the governing authorities. It is a matter of ordinary conversation, not an oath before the magistrate. Heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and a man's own head were ways of swearing in the everyday talk of Jews. They were not the kind of oath used when someone brings in God's authority to bring out the truth in matters of fact. That is why the Lord Himself, though silent before, answered when the high priest put Him under oath by the living God.
The distinction turns on where the oath comes from:
The same principle that stops me swearing on my own makes me take an oath before a magistrate. In one case I bring in God lightly. In the other I own Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self... I judge a man to be wholly at fault if he does not take the oath a magistrate imposes. He disowns God's authority in the magistrate.
Piling up assurances weakens what is said:
Whatever is uncalled for gives no strength to an assertion, but is simply a fruit and proof of weakness. Where there is simple truth, nothing is needed but the quiet statement of the fact.
If the vow was a promise of my strength, grace removes the need for it:
To bring the vow into Christianity is out of place, and worse. Talk of covenant-vows or baptismal vows goes against the simplicity of Christ's arrangements for us, and against the grace which we know is our only strength. The vow has wholly passed away, but it has gone to make room for Christ's strength to rest on us, and for our very weaknesses to be gloried in for that reason. God's oath is sworn to us, that His abundant grace shall be our sufficiency.
- Root — The ban on false swearing rests on God's name and honest witness. Casual oaths profane both.
- Ruin — Reckless vows trapped those who made them, and dragged God's name into everyday talk.
- Ruse — Swearing by heaven, earth or Jerusalem was a loophole. It sounded solemn, but no one counted it binding.
- Range — The target is voluntary swearing in daily talk. An oath before a magistrate is different: there you own God's authority.
- Remedy — The vow gives way to grace. God swears to us; our part is a yes that means yes.
But *I* say unto you, Do not swear at all; neither by the heaven, because it is [the] throne of God;
Jesus has just quoted the old rule about oaths: don't swear falsely, and keep what you vow to the Lord. Now He sets a higher standard. How far does "do not take an oath at all" reach? And why does swearing "by heaven" fail as a way of leaving God out?
The old command dealt with false oaths. Jesus deals with the whole habit. His hearers had already sorted their oath-formulas into binding ones and non-binding ones.
So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word there is to be, Yes, yes, or No, no... The Lord draws His examples from Jewish habit. All such strong assertion grew out of men's constant experience of deceiving and evading. So they used these means to guarantee the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. We know from a reliable Jewish writer of New Testament times that no one counted oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, or the whole universe as binding. Only an oath that named God outright bound the conscience. Men might even break the rest.
"By heaven" was one of those safer-sounding formulas. Jesus gives a reason: heaven is God's throne. That one reason pulls down the whole system of substitutes.
It was wrong to think a man could freely use these substitute phrases, as long as he did not mention the name of God. Heaven is God's throne, the earth is God's footstool (Isa. 66:1) and Jerusalem is the city of God and of His King (Psa. 48:1-2). A man who swore by his head was offering his own life as security for the oath. He should remember well that God alone is Lord over life and death. He does not even have the power to change the colour of one hair of his head.
The ban rests partly on what a man cannot do. God's own oath stands in a different class.
Man cannot even change the colour of a hair. That shows his utter weakness fully and simply, and it forms (at least in part) the basis of the prohibition. God might swear, for He could carry it out, and He knew all the consequences of what He pledged Himself to. We see Him do this beautifully when He wants to reassure His creature, who is so quick to doubt even the perfect faithfulness of his God.
If the oath goes, something must hold the weight of a promise. The commentators put that weight on ordinary speech lived out in God's presence.
It is quite enough that in our dealings with fellow believers or with other people, our yes should be yes and our no, no. "Anything more than this comes from evil." The believer is as responsible to speak as to act as in the presence of God. This is his regular privilege and safeguard... The evil one is a liar and the father of lies. He would gain a real opening if the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed such extra words before people believed him.
Some have read this verse as a ban on testifying under oath in a courtroom. Commentators here draw a line between an oath a man volunteers and an oath a lawful authority puts to him.
The same principle that stops me swearing on my own account makes me take what is called an oath before a magistrate. In the one case I bring God in lightly; in the other I acknowledge Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self... When a magistrate imposes an oath, he is putting me under oath by his authority. I judge a man to be wholly at fault if he refuses that oath. He disowns God's authority in the magistrate.
Jesus' own trial shows the same distinction. He stayed silent until the high priest put Him under oath.
Notice how our Lord acted before the high priest. It is practical proof of the distinction drawn here. He was silent until the high priest put the oath to Him; then at once He answers. Who can doubt that He shows us the right pattern there?
- Throne — Heaven is not a neutral thing to swear by; it is where God sits, so the oath reaches Him whether or not His name is said.
- Dodge — The graded oath system let men swear and still feel free to break their word; Jesus cancels the whole ladder of substitutes.
- Weakness — God can swear because He can deliver what He promises; a man who cannot change one hair's colour has no such standing.
- Word — What replaces the oath is speech spoken as in God's presence, where a plain yes and no need no reinforcement.
- Court — Commentators read the ban as covering oaths that come from self, not the oath a lawful authority puts to you — the pattern being Christ, silent until adjured, then answering.