Matteus 5:34

The next case (vers. 33-37) brings us into a different order of things: it is the use of the name of the Lord. Here the reference is not a judicial oath, i.e., an oath administered by a magistrate... But the matter here relates to communication between man and man. "Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black." They were simply the asseverations of common life among the Jews. If our Lord had meant to forbid the Christian from taking judicial oaths, would He not have instanced the oath that was usual in the courts of those days? But the oaths that He brings before us were what the Jews were in the habit of using when their word was questioned by their fellow-men, not what was employed before the magistrate.

It is below our calling, then, to indulge in affirmations beyond the simple statements of truth. "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (ver. 37). It is worthy of note, as a practical proof of the distinction here drawn, how our Lord acted when He was before the high priest. He was silent till the high priest put the oath to Him; then at once he answers. Who can doubt that He shows us the right pattern there?

Thus was now brought into the light of a true moral estimate, divorce — marriage being the divinely given basis of all human relationships — and swearing or vowing, the action of man's will in relationship to God; then patience of evil, and fulness of grace, His own blessed character, and carrying with it the moral title to what was His living place — sons of their Father who was in heaven.

It is important however to remark that there is no general spiritualisation of the law, as is often stated. The two great principles of immorality amongst men are treated of (violence and corrupt lust), to which are added voluntary oaths. In these the exigencies of the law and what Christ required are contrasted.

In Matthew, in the sermon on the mount, which is in fact the announcement of the kingdom as it will yet be when Israel shall receive their Messiah, heaven is God's throne, the earth His footstool, Jerusalem the city of the great King; and if on the one hand, there are meek ones (comp. Ps. 37) whose blessedness will be in an inheritance on earth, there are those whom the world has persecuted for Christ's sake, and whose reward will be great in heaven.

In the common intercourse of life there should be no oaths, the simple 'yea' and 'nay' should be enough, "swear not at all," Matt. 5:34-37; James 5:12; the context of these passages shows that they do not refer to judicial oaths: cf. also Heb. 6:13, 16; Heb. 7:21; Rev. 10:6.

Should there appear to the thoughtful reader a want of harmony between apostolic practice in this instance and the Lord's command (Matt. 5:34, sq.; cp. James 5:12), the true solution of the difficulty lies in the difference between a promissory oath and an oath of attestation... The moral foundation of the prohibition above referred to is the natural impotence of man. Power belongs to God, who, in grace to His chosen, has confirmed His promise by an oath (Heb. 6:13); but for the same reason it is fitting that conscious weakness and uncertainty should stay its assertions on a higher Name.

All righteous principles were set aside by vain casuistry, and they could so arrange the "Corban Oath" (see Mark 7) that they made their own gain out of the temple gold. To fill up the Corban treasure, men were taught to break the fifth commandment. His own teaching on vain swearing had already been given (Matt. 5:34), and it is well to compare it with what we have here.