Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:33

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:33” utilice nuestra app.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

( ) Oaths, 33 37.

33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself ] The special reference may be to the third commandment. Cp. also Lev 19:12, “Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” In the kingdom of God no external act or profession as distinct from the thought of the heart can find a place. But such words as those of the Apostle, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not” (2Co 11:31), will prevent Christians observing the letter rather than the spirit of our Blessed Saviour’s words.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Thou shalt not forswear thyself – Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Lev 19:12, and Deu 23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.

Perform unto the Lord – Perform literally, really, and religiously what is promised in an oath.

Thine oaths – An oath is a solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favor if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury, or, as in this place, forswearing.

It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things. To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt. It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mat 26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Rom 1:9; Rom 9:1; Gal 1:20; Heb 6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exo 22:11; Lev 5:1; Num 5:19; Deu 29:12, Deu 29:14.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 5:33-34

Swear not.

I. Profane swearing is always the evidence of a depraved heart.

II. No man is believed any sooner in common conversation because he swears to a thing.

III. It is no mark of a gentleman to swear.

IV. Profaneness does no man any good. It is degrading, etc.

V. God will not hold the profane swearer guiltless. There is not in the universe more cause of amazement at Gods forbearance. (Dr. A. Barnes.)

I. It is mean to swear.

II. It is rude to swear.

III. Swearing is the sign of an empty head.

IV. Swearing is wicked. (J. N. Norton.)

In order to keep us at the greatest distance from all profanation of the sacred name, Christ warns us here to avoid oaths of every kind.

(1) Except in cases of necessity.

(2) How trifling soever they may seem to us.

(3) As implying an appeal to God contrary to the reverence we owe Him, and to that simplicity of speech which becomes those who fear Him.

II. Let the general probity of your character and known regard to the truth be such that your bare word may be credited. Whether it is or not, resolve to go no farther, for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil. (Thomas Admire.)

The lawfulness and obligation of oaths

I. This precept does not absolutely forbid all use of oaths. An oath is a solemn appeal to God, as a witness of the truth of what we declare, and of our sincerity in what we promise. Oaths are assertory and promissory.

1. It is not uncommon for Scripture to use general expressions, which are to be understood in a qualified sense.

2. From the reasons of the charge and other passages of Scripture. Oaths are necessary in civil society: they are of Divine institution; St. Paul used them; God swears by Himself.

II. Christ condemns-

1. Perjury.

2. Customary swearing in common conversation.

3. As we may not use the Divine name wantonly so neither may we swear by any of Gods creatures.

4. He forbids all rash imprecations.

5. All scoffing at religion, contempt of the writings of God, and all sporting with Scripture. Profane language is a sure evidence of a bad disposition of mind. It tends to produce greater hardness and to extinguish all reverence: it is most pernicious in its consequences:it is unreasonable yet infectious; it heaps guilt upon the soul. (J. Lathrop, D. D.)

I. The Christian Jaw in regard to oaths (Lev 19:12; Num 30:2).

II. The Christian law of retaliation.

III. Practical lessons. The sin of perjury is said to be growing appallingly frequent. Whilst technical vows are no longer in harmony with the liberty of the new dispensation, still the spirit of the vow by which one dedicates himself to Divine service is as sacred and as useful as ever. Avoid using expressions that are in the nature of an oath without having its technical form. Outright profanity is a terrible sin, as useless as it is hardening. What a confession of mans proneness to lie, is his habitual appeal to God as a witness of the truth! The law of retaliating love laid down by Christ shows Him to be the one and supreme Teacher. (J. S. Doolittle, D. D.)

Language

1. Language should be the simple expression of the heart.

2. Christianity seeks to simplify human communications.

3. Exaggerated expressions lead to an untrue life.

4. Christs law of speech will regulate our social intercourse. (W. W. Whythe.)

Profane Swearing

This sin is awfully prevalent.

I. The excuses usually made for it. Ignorance, custom, example, surprise, passion, confirmation of what is said, meaning no harm, inconsistencies of professors, etc. (2Sa 12:14; Eze 36:20; Rom 2:24; 2Pe 2:2).

II. The evil consequences of it. Destroys the little remains of the fear of God. Leads to the disobedience of all His commands. Such a horrid example to others, especially to the young, etc.

III. The powerful arguments against it. God hears. He is holy and jealous. Before His bar the swearer must appear. He is able to punish, and declares He will (2Ki 19:22; 2Ki 19:28; Isa 37:23; Isa 37:36; Isa 37:38; Eze 20:27; Eze 20:33; Eze 35:12-14). (A. Tucker.)

The Sin of Swearing

I. Explain the sin in question.

1. One branch of this sin is cursing and swearing.

2. Another branch is the familiar introduction of oaths into common conversation.

3. A mingling religious language in our common discourse without any corresponding feelings in our heart.

II. Its aggravated guilt.

1. It is a gratuitous sin.

2. It is a wilful sin.

3. It is a presumptuous sin.

III. The awful state of those who practise this sin.

1. Awful because God has denounced His vengeance against them.

2. It is a state of fitness for destruction.

3. It is a sure sign of an unregenerate condition. (E. Cooper.)

Profane exclamations

Charlie Harold, speaking to his grandmother about something he did not like, exclaimed, By thunder I Hush I said the old lady, you must not swear, my dear. Dont you know that Jesus said, Swear not at all! . Did:He? Well, I didnt know it was swearing to say By thunder, or By golly. Is it, grandma? All such expressions, my dear, in which by is used, partake of the nature of swearing, and a boy who wishes to be good will never let them fall from his lips. Charlie sat silent for several minutes, in grave thought, and then said, Grandma, what makes the newspaper swear every morning? Does it, inquired the old lady, looking over the top of her spectacles with curious eyes. Yes, it says, By telegraph. The old lady could not help laughing, but she explained to Charlie the difference between an exclamation such as By thunder, used to give emphasis to a remark, and an incomplete sentence such as By telegraph. The little boy determined that he would not offend in this way again, and I have told you the story, hoping that you may make the same wise rule. (J. N. Norton.)

Keep from Swearing

A lad in Boston, rather small for his years, worked in an office as errand boy for four gentlemen who did business there. One day the gentlemen were teasing him a little about being so small, and said to him: You never will amount to much, you never can do much business, you are too small. The little fellow looked at them. Well, said he, as small as I am, I can do something which none of you four men can do. Ah, what is that? said they. I dont know as I ought to tell you, he replied. But they were anxious to know, and urged him to tell what he could do that none of them were able to do. I can keep from swearing! said the little fellow. There were some blushes on four manly faces, and there seemed to be very little anxiety for further information on the point.

Swear in the Gaelic tongue

A lady travelling from Edinburgh to Glasgow was much annoyed by a young officers conversation in the carriage being interspersed with oaths. She sat uneasy till she could no longer keep silence. Sir, she said to the officer, can you talk in the Gaelic tongue? To this he replied in the affirmative, seemingly with great pleasure, expecting to have some conversation with the lady in that dialect. She then politely requested that if he wished to swear any more, it might be in that language, as the practice of swearing was very offensive to herself and the rest of the company. The officer was confounded at this reproof, and no more oaths were heard from him during the remainder of the journey.

The tongue and the temper

1. The language of irreverence.

2. The language of retaliation.

3. The language of revenge. (Sermons by Monday Club.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself] They dishonour the great God, and break this commandment, who use frequent oaths and imprecations, even in reference to things that are true; and those who make vows and promises, which they either cannot perform, or do not design to fulfil, are not less criminal. Swearing in civil matters is become so frequent, that the dread and obligation of an oath are utterly lost in it. In certain places, where oaths are frequently administered, people have been known to kiss their thumb or pen, instead of the book, thinking thereby to avoid the sin of perjury; but this is a shocking imposition on their own souls. See Clarke on De 4:26; “De 6:13“.

Perform unto the Lord thine oaths] The morality of the Jews on this point was truly execrable: they maintained, that a man might swear with his lips, and annul it in the same moment in his heart. Rab. Akiba is quoted as an example of this kind of swearing. See Schoettgen.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

This was said Exo 20:7, and more plainly Lev 19:12; the substance was there said, though the words be not verbatim recited.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

33. Again, ye have heard that ithath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswearthyselfThese are not the precise words of Ex20:7; but they express all that it was currently understood tocondemn, namely, false swearing (Le19:12, c.). This is plain from what follows.

But I say unto you, Swear notat allThat this was meant to condemn swearing of every kindand on every occasionas the Society of Friends and some otherultra-moralists allegeis not for a moment to be thought. For evenJehovah is said once and again to have sworn by Himself and our Lordcertainly answered upon oath to a question put to Him by the highpriest; and the apostle several times, and in the most solemnlanguage, takes God to witness that he spoke and wrote the truth; andit is inconceivable that our Lord should here have quoted the preceptabout not forswearing ourselves, but performing to the Lord ouroaths, only to give a precept of His own directly in the teeth of it.Evidently, it is swearing in common intercourse and on frivolousoccasions that is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed severelycondemned in the teaching of the times. But so narrow was the circleof them that a man might swear, says LIGHTFOOT,a hundred thousand times and yet not be guilty of vain swearing.Hardly anything was regarded as an oath if only the name of God werenot in it; just as among ourselves, as TRENCHwell remarks, a certain lingering reverence for the name of God leadsto cutting off portions of His name, or uttering sounds nearlyresembling it, or substituting the name of some heathen deity, inprofane exclamations or asseverations. Against all this our Lord nowspeaks decisively; teaching His audience that every oath carries anappeal to God, whether named or not.

neither by heaven; for it isGod’s throne(quoting Isa66:1);

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said,…. Besides what has been observed, in ver. 21 and 27 you know it has also been said,

by, or to them of old time, what is written in Le 19:12. “And ye shall not swear by my name falsely”; which seems to be referred to, when it is said, “thou shalt not forswear thyself”: and is the law forbidding perjury, or false swearing; and was what the Jews were chiefly, if not only concerned about; little regarding the vanity, only the truth of an oath: for they took swearing vainly, to be the same as swearing falsely; wherefore so long as what they swore was truth, they were not careful whether it was of any importance or not: moreover, these men sinned, in that they swore by the creatures, which they thought they might do, and not sin; and when they had so done, were not under obligation to perform; because they made no use of the name of God, to whom only vows and oaths were to be performed, “but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths”, Nu 30:2 which they understood of vows only made to the Lord, and not to others; and of oaths, when in his name, and not by others; which they did do, and yet thought themselves not obliged by them.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Sermon on the Mount.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 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.

We have here an exposition of the third commandment, which we are the more concerned right to understand, because it is particularly said, that God will not hold him guiltless, however he may hold himself, who breaks this commandment, by taking the name of the Lord in vain. Now as to this command,

I. It is agreed on all hands that it forbids perjury, forswearing, and the violation of oaths and vows, v. 33. This was said to them of old time, and is the true intent and meaning of the third commandment. Thou shalt not use, or take up, the name of God (as we do by an oath) in vain, or unto vanity, or a lie. He hath not lift up his soul unto vanity, is expounded in the next words, nor sworn deceitfully, Ps. xxiv. 4. Perjury is a sin condemned by the light of nature, as a complication of impiety toward God and injustice toward man, and as rendering a man highly obnoxious to the divine wrath, which was always judged to follow so infallibly upon that sin, that the forms of swearing were commonly turned into execrations or imprecations; as that, God do so to me, and more also; and with us, So help me God; wishing I may never have any help from God, if I swear falsely. Thus, by the consent of nations, have men cursed themselves, not doubting but that God would curse them, if they lied against the truth then, when they solemnly called God to witness to it.

It is added, from some other scriptures, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths (Num. xxx. 2); which may be meant, either, 1. Of those promises to which God is a party, vows made to God; these must be punctually paid (Ecc 5:4; Ecc 5:5): or, 2. Of those promises made to our brethren, to which God was a Witness, he being appealed to concerning our sincerity; these must be performed to the Lord, with an eye to him, and for his sake: for to him, by ratifying the promises with an oath, we have made ourselves debtors; and if we break a promise so ratified, we have not lied unto men only, but unto God.

II. It is here added, that the commandment does not only forbid false swearing, but all rash, unnecessary swearing: Swear not at all,Mat 5:34; Jas 5:12. Not that all swearing is sinful; so far from that, if rightly done, it is a part of religious worship, and we in it give unto God the glory due to his name. See Deu 6:13; Deu 10:20; Isa 45:23; Jer 4:2. We find Paul confirming what he said by such solemnities (2 Cor. i. 23), when there was a necessity for it. In swearing, we pawn the truth of something known, to confirm the truth of something doubtful or unknown; we appeal to a greater knowledge, to a higher court, and imprecate the vengeance of a righteous Judge, if we swear deceitfully.

Now the mind of Christ in this matter is,

1. That we must not swear at all, but when we are duly called to it, and justice or charity to our brother, or respect to the commonwealth, make it necessary for the end of strife (Heb. vi. 16), of which necessity the civil magistrate is ordinarily to be the judge. We may be sworn, but we must now swear; we may be adjured, and so obliged to it, but we must not thrust ourselves upon it for our own worldly advantage.

2. That we must not swear lightly and irreverently, in common discourse: it is a very great sin to make a ludicrous appeal to the glorious Majesty of heaven, which, being a sacred thing, ought always to be very serious: it is a gross profanation of God’s holy name, and of one of the holy things which the children of Israel sanctify to the Lord: it is a sin that has no cloak, no excuse for it, and therefore a sign of a graceless heart, in which enmity to God reigns: Thine enemies take thy name in vain.

3. That we must in a special manner avoid promissory oaths, of which Christ more particularly speaks here, for they are oaths that are to be performed. The influence of an affirmative oath immediately ceases, when we have faithfully discovered the truth, and the whole truth; but a promissory oath binds so long, and may be so many ways broken, by the surprise as well as strength of a temptation, that it is not to be used but upon great necessity: the frequent requiring and using of oaths, is a reflection upon Christians, who should be of such acknowledged fidelity, as that their sober words should be as sacred as their solemn oaths.

4. That we must not swear by any other creature. It should seem there were some, who, in civility (as they thought) to the name of God, would not make use of that in swearing, but would swear by heaven or earth, c. This Christ forbids here (&lti>v. 34) and shows that there is nothing we can swear by, but it is some way or other related to God, who is the Fountain of all beings, and therefore that it is as dangerous to swear by them, as it is to swear by God himself: it is the verity of the creature that is laid at stake; now that cannot be an instrument of testimony, but as it has regard to God, who is the summum verum–the chief Truth. As for instance,

(1.) Swear not by the heaven; “As sure as there is a heaven, this is true;” for it is God’s throne, where he resides, and in a particular manner manifests his glory, as a Prince upon his throne: this being the inseparable dignity of the upper world, you cannot swear by heaven, but you swear by God himself.

(2.) Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool. He governs the motions of this lower world; as he rules in heaven, so he rules over the earth; and though under his feet, yet it is also under his eye and care, and stands in relation to him as his, Ps. xxiv. 1. The earth is the Lord’s; so that in swearing by it, you swear by its Owner.

(3.) Neither by Jerusalem, a place for which the Jews had such a veneration, that they could not speak of any thing more sacred to swear by; but beside the common reference Jerusalem has to God, as part of the earth, it is in special relation to him, for it is the city of the great King (Ps. xlviii. 2), the city of God (Ps. xlvi. 4), he is therefore interested in it, and in every oath taken by it.

(4.) “Neither shalt thou swear by the head; though it be near thee, and an essential part of thee, yet it is more God’s than thine; for he made it, and formed all the springs and powers of it; whereas thou thyself canst not, from any natural intrinsic influence, change the colour of one hair, so as to make it white or black; so that thou canst not swear by thy head, but thou swearest by him who is the Life of thy head, and the Lifter up of it.” Ps. iii. 3.

5. That therefore in all our communications we must content ourselves with, Yea, yea, and nay, nay, v. 37. In ordinary discourse, if we affirm a thing, let us only say, Yea, it is so; and, if need be, to evidence our assurance of a thing, we may double it, and say, Yea, yea, indeed it is so: Verily, verily, was our Saviour’s yea, yea. So if we deny a thing, let is suffice to say, No; or if it be requisite, to repeat the denial, and say, No, no; and if our fidelity be known, that will suffice to gain us credit; and if it be questioned, to back what we say with swearing and cursing, is but to render it more suspicious. They who can swallow a profane oath, will not strain at a lie. It is a pity that this, which Christ puts in the mouths of all his disciples, should be fastened, as a name of reproach, upon a sect faulty enough other ways, when (as Dr. Hammond says) we are not forbidden any more than yea and nay, but are in a manner directed to the use of that.

The reason is observable; For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil, though it do not amount to the iniquity of an oath. It comes ek tou Diabolou; so an ancient copy has it: it comes from the Devil, the evil one; it comes from the corruption of men’s nature, from passion and vehemence; from a reigning vanity in the mind, and a contempt of sacred things: it comes from that deceitfulness which is in men, All men are liars; therefore men use these protestations, because they are distrustful one of another, and think they cannot be believed without them. Note, Christians should, for the credit of their religion, avoid not only that which is in itself evil, but that which cometh of evil, and has the appearance of it. That may be suspected as a bad thing, which comes from a bad cause. An oath is physic, which supposes a disease.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

1) “Again, ye have heard,” (palin ekousate) “Again you all heard,” have heard, have been taught by interpreters of the law, included in traditions of the elders.

2) “That it hath been said of them of old time,” (hoti errethe tois archaiois) “That it was said to the ancients,” to those even before the law was given, and passed down by word of mouth, as a general principle of behavior, from generation to generation.

3) “Thou shalt not forswear thyself,” ((ouk epiorkeseis) “You shall not perjure yourself,” involve yourself in breaking promises or pledges, talking two ways about a matter, especially breaking a vow, by making some pretence for release, some empty excuse, Exo 20:7; Deu 15:11; Lev 19:12; Num 30:2.

4) “But shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:” (apodoseis de to kurio tous orkous soul “But you shall repay or give back to the Lord what you have pledged,” what you have committed by oath to do; Those who break such oaths, pledges, or vows are to be known as fools, Ecc 5:4-5; Psa 50:14; Psa 66:13-14; Psa 76:11. Even free-will offerings, “faith promises,” once made, were moral and ethical obligations that were to be paid, Deu 23:21-23.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

33. Thou shalt not perjure thyself This also is not a correction of the law, but a true interpretation of it. For God condemned in the law not only acts of perjury, but lightness in swearing, which lessens the reverence for his name. The man who perjures himself is not the only person who takes the name of God in vain, (Exo 20:7.) He does so, who idly and contemptuously pronounces the name of God on trivial occasions, or in ordinary conversation. While the law condemns every kind of profanation of the name of God the Jews imagined, that the guilt of it lay entirely in acts of perjury. Christ reproves this gross error of supposing that they might, without danger, abuse the name of God, provided they did not swear falsely. We are, no doubt, strictly enjoined to perform to the Lord what we have sworn: for he who, after employing the name of God, cheats and deceives his neighbors, does an injury to God as well as to man. But it is improper to confine to a single part that which has a wider reference. Some consider the word perform as applying to vows, when any thing has been promised to God on account of religion. But this mode of expression applies very well to all promises and engagements, which have been sanctioned by the use of the name of God: for in such cases God is appealed to as guarantee between the parties, to secure their fidelity.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

C. THE WISE AND GODLY MAN IN RELATION TO THE LAW
4. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD TRUTH.
TEXT: 5:33- 37

33. Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34. but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God;
35. nor by the earth. for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why should one avoid the use of oaths as much as possible?

What are some modern means of evading the responsibility for being truthful?

How may we oppose the use of oaths which obviously profane the name of the Lord? What are some effective ways to react to anothers profane swearing, in such a way as to register the solemnity in which we hold an oath. the majesty in which we revere God, the sacredness with which we regard every word, as well as our suspicion of all who feel that their feeble word cannot stand alone without the deception of a false oath? How may we do this so as to be truly helpful to him who swears habitually, casually, and thus, profanely? (Cf. Col. 4:6) Self-righteous indignation will only close his mind.

Why is it particularly important that Jesus disciple be careful about what he says?

How does lack of sincerity profane Gods name when invoked in an insincere oath?

How does insincerity in swearing affect ones relations with others?

How far should Jesus prohibition (Swear not at all) be taken? Is it an absolute prohibition of all oaths, swearing, pledges, vows, etc.? Or is it relative, referring only to frivolous and hypocritical ones? Or both?

HOW does the example of Paul and Jesus help us to understand whether we are permitted to swear?

Is the taking of a solemn oath to assume a public office hereby forbidden?

What is the relation of the teaching of Jesus to the Mosaic Law, as to how that relationship reveals itself in this context? Is Jesus abrogating the Mosaic permission to swear? Is He revealing a higher standard?

PARAPHRASE

Another thing you have heard that was said to the ancients was, You must not perjure yourself by swearing falsely, but you must hand over to the Lord what you have promised with an oath. However, I tell you, do not use an oath at all. Do not back up your word by saying, By heaven , . . , for that is Gods throne, or by saying, By the earth . . . , for that is His footstool, nor By Jerusalem . . . ) for Jerusalem is the city of God, the Great King. Do not even swear by your own head, since you cannot turn a single hair white or black (to demonstrate the truth of your affirmations)! Let your word be a plain Yes or No. Anything beyond this proceeds from an evil desire to deceive.

SUMMARY

The Law of Moses required that men abide by that to which they bind themselves by their oath. Jesus counsels against all oaths as basically unnecessary when a simple affirmation is sufficient, as basically evil, when the desire is to deceive.

NOTES

I. THE SUBTLE SACRILEGE OF SPECIOUS SWEARING

Mat. 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time: Apparently, Jesus uses this formula to indicate that what He is about to say is not an exact quotation of any one law, but rather a correct summation of several laws. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. The basic principle to which Jesus refers in this summary of the Mosaic legislation is the use of Gods name to guarantee the inviolability of some promise made to Him, or to attest the truth of ones word by appeal to Him to witness. This principle responds to a psychological need of man for such guarantees:

The inner truthfulness of the speaker cannot be verified on other grounds (except by his generally-known character).

The assumption that no one would have the temerity to back a false statement by so solemn an appeal to the Deity as an oath.

The prevalence of falsehood in common speech creates suspicion concerning all words not thus guarantee by an oath.

The Mosaic Law, in governing the use of oaths, regulated them negatively: Exo. 20:7 prohibited the employment of the name of God for unworthy objects, as in swearing in the ordinary business of life; Lev. 19:12 prohibited swearing by the Name in order to cover fraud, thus profaning Gods Name. It also governed oaths by positive regulations: Deu. 6:13 commanded that oaths be made in the Name of God as evidence of loyalty to Jehovah on the same level with fearing and serving Him; Deu. 10:20 commands oaths in His Name as a manifestation of true reverence towards God; Deu. 23:21-23 teaches to pay what is vowed to God, lest the broken oath be considered sin; it is not sin if one does not vow; Num. 30:2 requires any oath to be kept. Therefore, the Jews were permitted to take oaths in the Name of God, but He could not permit men to use His Name falsely or irreverently without punishment, God considered swearing as a necessary measure until mens false hearts could be converted and satisfied just to tell the truth without backing it up with oaths, In certain cases, the Law even required oaths (Exo. 22:11; Num. 5:19).

For a fuller understanding of the use of oaths in actual practice, the following Scriptures may help: Gen. 14:22-24; Gen. 24:2-9; Gen. 24:37; Gen. 32:50, 53; Gen. 47:29-31; Gen. 50:5; Gen. 50:25; Jdg. 8:19; Jdg. 21:5; Rom. 1:17; Rom. 3:13; 1Sa. 1:26; 1Sa. 17:55; 1Sa. 19:6; 1Sa. 20:3; 1Sa. 20:17; 1Sa. 25:26; 2Sa. 2:27; 2Sa. 3:9; 2Sa. 3:35; 2Sa. 11:11; 2Sa. 15:21; 2Sa. 19:23; 2Ki. 2:23-24; 2Ki. 18:10; 2Ki. 2:2; 2Ki. 6:31; Ezr. 10:3-5; Jer. 4:2; Jer. 12:16; Jer. 29:22-23; Jer. 38:16; Jer. 42:5; Amo. 8:14, Note that a number of the examples precede the Law. Swearing was used in the commonest affairs of life, some trivial, However, such common swearing arises more from that religious attitude which reveals itself in every facet of life, than from a careless one. Originally, the oath was the truest, most natural expression of a mans conviction of a right awe of God. With the passing of the fervency of the convictions, there arises that contemptible familiarity with sacred things that is seen in frivolous, hypocritical swearing.

We should certainly expect to find NT examples of oaths rightly taken. God swore by Himself (Heb. 3:11; Heb. 3:18; Heb. 4:3; Heb. 6:13-18; Heb. 7:20-21; Luk. 1:73; Act. 2:3 O; Cf. Deu. 32:40). Jesus confessed under oath to being the Christ, Gods Son (Mat. 26:63-64). Paul often called God to witness to the truth of his affirmations (Rom. 1:9; 2Co. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Php. 1:3; see also Act. 18:18). God will send His angel to sweat (Rev. 10:5-6). Thus, whatever Jesus may command in regard to swearing must be interpreted in light of these examples which throw light on how His word was intended.

Mat. 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all. What is Jesus intention behind this prohibition? To forbid all oaths, judicial and otherwise, or only common, profane wearing? Jesus is not giving a corrected interpretation of the Law, since, as we have seen, the Law commanded swearing by the Name of God. (Deu. 6:13). His counsel, which requires such common truthfulness, soars so high above the concepts of the Law that even the oaths permitted therein would become unnecessary. Nor is He abrogating the legal permission until He establishes His kingdom of truth in the heart.

Jesus is not MERELY correcting scribal interpretations and evasions, although He does this. To illustrate the compelling need for His infinitely more satisfactory principle of personal integrity, He uses the abuses to which swearing, even ideally, is prone.

Jesus general purpose, running through this whole discourse on the nature of true righteousness, as opposed to legal righteousness, is to reveal a heart rectitude which is unconditionally and consistently observable in the simplest, outward acts. This injunction (Swear not at all.) is at least relative to the nature and motive of the oath. A solemn affirmation to convince those who are unable to know ones genuine, inner truthfulness, is permitted. Any oath or confirmatory additions to ones simple word are forbidden if intended to deceive the hearer, or if the user does not feel absolutely pledged to truth and faithfulness by his simple promise! What irony: those that need oaths are forbidden to use them, while those that can best use them do not need them!

Before examining the specific examples of the oaths which are proscribed by Jesus, let us see His wisdom in counselling His followers to steer clear of all oaths. Why should one not swear?

Because of what human swearing does to God:

It calls upon Him to be witness to, to justify, or to guarantee the truthfulness of relatively unimportant declarations. This borders on presumption.

It often profanes His holy Name to the level that it becomes unworthy of respect, since it calls upon God to witness what is later discovered to be false. Those who call a curse upon themselves if what they say is not true, are daring God to act in a way dictated by their whim.

Because of what swearing does to the one who swears:

The necessity to guarantee the veracity of some declaration by means of an oath immediately puts in question the truthfulness of all other statements not made under oath.

Swearing tacitly justifies lying when not under oath. since it destroys the sanctity of every word. We must not weaken the obligation for speaking the truth. by rendering our simple affirmation somehow less sacred than our oath.

Because rash or wrong vows must be broken when inconvenient or impossible circumstances render their fulfilment absurd or illegal, they become a useless binding of the conscience. The failure to fulfil the vow or oath becomes a demoralizing kind of perjury, (See Lev. 5:4-6) However, some promises must be broken (cf. Jephthah, Jdg. 11:30-34; Herod, Mat. 14:7), although the ideal is to keep an oath at ones personal damage (Psa. 15:4).

Because of what swearing does to others: Careless, unnecessary, frequent and hypocritical taking of oaths practically destroys any respect for oaths and proceeds to undermine the highest bonds of faith and truth among men.

Swear not at all is Jesus criticism of all the perversions of Gods permissive legislation, created by the rabbis because they honored certain oaths and ignored other cleverly-worded promises they did not intend to keep. (See Mat. 23:16-22) Their sophistry had developed into the fine art of evasion! The obligation to honor an oath. according to their verdict, depended upon the nature of the object by which one swore: if they swore by something created, it was not necessarily binding and might be simply forgotten for convenience. If the oath was sworn by the dread Name of Jehovah God, the oath was binding. This mode of reasoning probably began simply to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name. Substitutes were put for Gods Name which were understood to mean it, But sweating by something other than by God removed also the very awe for a God of truth and justice with which an oath was to be invested. Then, the corruption set in where men refused to honor certain specially-worded vows or promises. Thus, a superstitious show of carefulness for the Divine Name had corroded into sophistries that justified iniquity. The very substitutes for Gods Name became, by definition, not binding. Jesus exposes the fallacy: these non-binding substitutes are meaningless unless they have real reference to God. You swear by heaven, but that is Gods throne (Isa. 66:1)! You vow by the earth. thinking to avoid His throne, but that is His footstool (Isa. 66:1)! You Cannot even swear by Jerusalem for it is His capital and the seat of His worship (Psa. 48:3; Psa. 48:8). Thus, there is no real way to keep God out of your smallest transactions. God is Owner of the universe and all in it, even the smallest part, yes, even the hair of mans head. You cannot even swear by your head, because God made that too and He alone possesses the power to make your hair white or black: mention even a hair in an oath and you automatically bring into the question the great Governor of the universe!

What are some modern examples which represent the same evasive reasoning of the scribes? The list could be as long and spiced as human history itself. Lord have mercy! Lord a mercy! or simply Lord . . . Mercy! Merciful heavens! or simply Heavens! are common blasphemy, because they are uttered as an unintended appeal to God for His assistance in a trivial difficulty. These, like My Lord; began as a sincere expression arising out of a deep religious consciousness, but they are degenerated, like Hallelujah! and praise the Lord! I, into meaningless interjections. God bless you or simply, . . . bless you (after sneezes, of all things!) is just as vulgar in the mouth as God damn you! or simply I. . . damn! or the adjectival form goddam(ned). ALL bywords, which are intended to bypass Gods Name but which usually bear the same initials and the same moral responsibility, are likewise condemned by Jesus. The dodge that such interjections are not swearing is invalid, as they would have no meaning otherwise. Such evasion smells of Pharisaic hypocrisy that whined, I did not use Gods Name, but I swore by the Temple! The use of such interjections is indefensible on two grounds. First, they are usually used as emphatic explosions to impress the hearer with the sincerity or truthfulness of the speaker (Cf. Hell yes! Youre damn right! Heavens no!), and as such partake of that nature of oaths from which most of them are historically drawn or for which they are lately substituted. Second, they, being thoughtless, do not reflect that sacred responsibility for every word spoken (Mat. 12:33-37) and may be judged as being more than the simple affirmation (or negation) required by Jesus (Mat. 5:37; cf. Jas. 5:12). The exact terminology does not matter: if the interjection or additional confirming partakes of the nature of an oath but does not carry with it the solemnity of an oath. it stands condemned on the same grounds as the thoughtless, unintended oaths of the Jews.

II. THE SOLEMN SACREDNESS OF SIMPLE SPEECH

Mat. 5:37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Simply to tell the truth is quite adequate. The disciple of Jesus is not to honor his word merely because it is supported by an oath. but because

it is sustained by an integrity of character that will honor any and every commitment. (Study 2Co. 1:12-23 for an excellent example of both personal integrity and oath-taking.) Blessed are the pure in heart, for their word is as good as their most solemn pledge. A mans personal integrity is but another word for the quality of his heart, But if the heart be basically false, dishonest, unjust and polluted, the mouth cannot but reveal that condition (Mat. 12:33-37). This man must resort to oaths to guarantee his affirmations, for what other assurance of his truthfulness could he present, if his generally- known lack of integrity could not support it?

Jesus is saying, Make your life so transparently pure that your simplest statement Is easily accepted as valid by your obvious sincerity. Live your whole life under oath! (Col. 3:17) Make your simplest declarations in the full knowledge that God witnesses them and holds you accountable for them. Consequently, all your words must be holy and This may explain the frequent swearing of Paul (cited above). he was so profoundly obligated before God to tell the truth that he stepped into the witness-stand, almost without realizing it, by calling God to be his Arbiter.

Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Let your speech be exactly what it pretends to be. A yes should mean yes; no should mean exactly that. If you mean maybe or perhaps, then, avoid equivocation by saying so. Thus, ones plain words are pledged by all his character and religion. When a Christian speaks, everyone should know exactly for what he can be counted upon and where he stands. There can be no trick words or evasions which take away personal responsibility for what is said, in order to keep God out of the question. Whatsoever is more than these is of the evil (one). ALL such frivolous oaths and unnecessary supporting additions, even the necessity for vows, finds its basic origin in evil and the father of lies.

Why?

Because oaths are usually required because of a habitual lack of veracity in the speaker and the common desire to obscure inconvenient or embarrassing truth.

Because oaths are used in an evil society in which lying is common.

Christian participation in the common vice certainly will not hasten the day when all men will have learned merely to speak the truth. By this expression, Jesus does not intend to proscribe all oaths, for oaths themselves are not evil (see on Mat. 5:33), but He is merely admitting that His high ideal of personal integrity will not be sufficient always to allay the suspicions of others. James (Jas. 5:12) gives another valid reason for speaking simply: lest you fall under condemnation.

III. SUGGESTIONS FOR SINCERE SWEARING AND SPEAKING

If you must swear, swear properly. Jeremiah (Jer. 4:2) lists four characteristics with which any oath must be invested:

Swear in truth. only attestation or support of what is really true. Never link Gods holy Name with what is false.

Swear in justice, only in a just cause worthy of Gods Name, never lightly or rashly, but for a sufficient cause that actually requires an oath for confirmation to end the argument.

Swear only in righteousness or personal integrity, never with intent to deceive by hypocritical piety and mock solemnity.

Swear only by Gods Holy Name and by nothing else. If something is so important that an oath must be given, it is worthy of Gods Name; if not, it is not important enough to merit an oath. To seek substitutes for His Name is evasive and hypocritical.

If you would cure the habit of inordinate swearing:

Seek a right knowledge of the majesty of a holy God who will not let go unpunished him who takes His Name uselessly.

Reverence Him with all your heart, so that any wrong use of W s Name becomes a shock to your conscience. In a society where profane swearing is common, this shock gets dulled and must be continually sharpened by constant contact with God Himself.

Live so sincerely and openly and so truthfully that no one would dream of asking you to give an oath to back up your everyday assertions. Dedicate your whole life to telling just the truth.

Reserve your oaths, vows or swearing for the most solemn occasions.

C. If you would apply Jesus counsel to your own life, remember:

Careless and thoughtless use of Gods Name is all the more damnable because it implies that kind of selfishness which cares more for self than for Gods holiness, The excuse that the oath is meaningless (I did not mean anything by it) carries with it a very serious confession that the speaker holds God in such contempt that he may throw around Gods Name with impunity. Profanity is nothing but making common and vulgar (profane) what must be regarded with reverence,

Exaggerated assertions which tend to lend a false impression are proscribed as inconsistent with simple, truthful speech.

Idle or hypocritical promises, that ate not intended to be kept, are exposed as lying.

Inattentive prayers, in which God is addressed but in which there is no real concentration of thought and in which the mind is allowed to wander over the entire range of immediate interests with only an occasional nod at God, are words which are as empty as meaningless oaths.

Praying to be seen of men in order to deceive them into believing that he who prays is a man of extraordinary piety, when in reality he is like those whom he seeks to impress, is condemned.

Mechanical prayers, which repeat words that once expressed fervent and real convictions but have since cooled into inattentive, indifferent and idle invocations of Gods Name, may be avoided by returning to simple words that accurately represent ones true sentiments.

To put it another way: Putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another , . , Let no evil come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. (Eph. 4:25; Eph. 4:29)

FACT QUESTIONS

What fundamental principle forms the basis of Jesus summary of the OT Law on swearing?

Summarize the basic teaching of the OT on swearing.

Explain the reasons why men require and give oaths.

Give at least five examples of oaths in the OT, telling who gave the oath. what the oath was supposed to guarantee as true, and the formula used.

List five NT oaths, telling who spoke under oath. what the oath was supposed to guarantee as true, and the formula used (if stated).

What fundamental principle, essential to the very heart of Christianity, underlies Jesus advice to keep all speech simple, that is, without confirming affirmations such as oaths?

Give one example of a Christian who maintained unfailing personal integrity, yet also bound himself under vows and oaths.

God commanded Israel to swear only by His Name. By what process of reasoning did the Jews arrive at swearing by so many other things, to the point that they absolutely refused to name Gods Name?

What is the basic principle behind Jesus argument that swearing by heaven, the earth. Jerusalem, etc., missed the very point that the Jews aimed to reach by their circumlocutions?

10. Show how whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.
11. What are the basic rules for making a proper oath. according to Jeremiah? Are these rules helpful in our day?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(33) By them of old time.Read, to them of old time, as before. Here, again, the reference is to the letter of the Law as taught by the Rabbis, who did not go beyond it to its wider spirit. To them the Third Commandment was simply a prohibition of perjury, as the Sixth was of murder, or the Seventh of adultery. They did not see that the holy name (Lev. 19:12) might be profaned in other ways, even when it was not uttered; and they expressly or tacitly allowed (See Philo, De Special. Legg.) many forms of oath in which it was not named, as with the view of guarding it from desecration. Lastly, out of the many forms thus sanctioned (as here and in Mat. 23:16-22) they selected some as binding, and others as not binding, and thus by a casuistry at once subtle, irrational, and dishonest, tampered with mens sense of truthfulness.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

(3.) Christian law of oaths.

33. Forswear Perjure. Shalt perform Shalt not commit perjury by breaking thy vows and solemn affirmations.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘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.”

As described above this was probably a citation that someone had thrown at Him, possibly as a Tradition of the Elders, or He may have put it together Himself from the Scriptures mentioned above as an indication of what people were quoting ‘from the past’. The gist of it was that when men swore an oath they were not to do so falsely, but were to perform them to the Lord. Jesus does not deny the truth in it, but He goes on to declare that as His disciples they should not resort to oaths which the Scriptures did not require. Rather because they were under the Kingly Rule of Heaven they should be so honest that oaths were not required. After all a man under the Kingly Rule of Heaven was speaking as one who was a servant of God. He could not therefore lie.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

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 Mat 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 Lev 19:12 and part of Deu 23:21, combined with part of Psa 50:14. ‘You shall not swear by my Name falsely’ (Lev 19:12), ‘when you make a vow to the Lord your God you shall not be slack to pay it’ (Deu 23:21), but ‘shall pay your vows to the Most High’ (Psa 50:14). Consider also ‘you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain’ (Exo 20:7; Deu 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’ (Ecc 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 (Exo 24:3-8; Eze 17:19), which even God would involve Himself in (Gen 22:16), and this included those made as part of a testimony in court (Exo 20:16), when the court was acting in God’s Name. Such testimony on oath was often legally required by God Himself (e.g. Exo 22:11; Num 5:19; 1Ki 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 (Mat 26:63-64). Compare how Paul also makes use of mild forms of oaths in solemn matters (2Co 1:23; Gal 1:20; Php 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 (Num 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 (Exo 20:7; compare Jer 5:2; Hos 4:2; Zec 5:4; Mal 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 (Lev 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 (Num 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 (Psa 15:4; Hos 4:2; Mal 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 (Deu 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 (Deu 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 Mat 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” (Mat 5:33).

b But I say to you, swear not at all (Mat 5:34 a).

c Neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God (Mat 5:34 b).

d Nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet (Mat 5:35 a).

c Nor towards Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King (Mat 5:35 b).

b Nor shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black (Mat 5:36).

a But let your speech be, “Yes, yes; No, no,” and whatever is more than these is of the evil one (Mat 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 Mat 5:33-37 we have firstly that they are not swear by any of three things connected directly with God (Mat 5:34-35), secondly that they are not swear by their heads (with two alternative possibilities described, their hair being white or black) (Mat 5:36), and thirdly the need for them only to say one of two possibilities, ‘yes’ and ‘no’ (Mat 5:37).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Teaches on Swearing – In Mat 5:33-37, Jesus teaches us the true meaning of the ninth commandment, which tells us not to swear.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

An illustration from the Second Commandment:

v. 33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.

v. 34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;

v. 35. nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.

v. 36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

v. 37. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Jesus introduces the subject as before, referring to the customary reading of the Law and the accompanying teaching. The implication of Christ is that the people were really kept under a false impression, by being permitted to draw the conclusion that they were listening to the exact words of Moses. The words as stated are indeed found in the Law, Lev 19:12; Num 30:3; Deu 23:22. But the interpretation left much to be desired. It placed no emphasis upon the inner truthfulness of the heart. If that is missing, what object have all oaths? All the careful distinctions as to degrees of oaths, and therefore of perjury, were a yoke on the necks of the Jews that did not affect their hearts. And it was a matter of mere sophistical quibbling that permitted all manner of affirmations in which the divine name was not mentioned directly, Deu 6:13, and thus evaded the obligation of the oath. There is not the slightest difference between an oath in the name of God and such asseverations as substitute the names of holy things, heaven, or such over which God alone has control: His city, Jerusalem, the earth, His footstool, a man’s head or life. All these oaths involve a reference to God. And all of them, as He distinctly specifies them, one after the other, are superfluous where the heart is pure and truthful. The Lord distinctly condemns the incessant, frivolous calling upon the Deity in all kinds of garbled forms. He does not imply that oaths, under circumstances, are not altogether lawful and right. “In civil life the most truthful man has to take an oath because of the untruth and consequent distrust prevailing in the world, and in so doing he does not sin against Christ’s teaching. Christ Himself took an oath before the high priest. ” His demand is absolute truthfulness and straightforwardness in the dealing of people with one another. There the affirmation shall have the full value and force of the Yea, and the denial the simple power of the Nay, that there may be an unhesitating dependence upon all statements, without the support of an oath. Anything that goes beyond this simple definition is of evil, even savors of the influence of the evil one, the devil, the father of lies. Jesus expressed Himself mildly with a purpose, and did not deny the necessity of oaths in, a world full of falsehood. “I know, He means to say, that in certain circumstances something beyond yea and nay will be required of you. But it comes of evil, the evil of untruthfulness. See that the evil be not in you.”

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 5:33-37. Again, ye have heard, &c. As to oaths, the doctors affirmed, that they were obligatory, according to the nature of the things by which a man swears. See ch. Mat 23:16. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law which forbad them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only, as were of a binding nature. It was this detestablemorality which Jesus condemned in Mat 5:34-36. By comparing ch. Mat 23:16 it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. Jesus by no means condemns swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Heb 6:16 and a high act of religious worship, Deu 6:13. Isa 65:16 an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but also a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great protector and patron of right, and the avenger of falsehood. But let your communication, says he, be yes, yes; no, no: “Maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words, as will claim the belief of your acquaintance: so that in common conversation, to gain yourselves credit, you should do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil;” or, as it may be translated, cometh of the evil one: ‘ . See ch. Mat 6:13. In common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, arises either from our own evil heart, or from the temptation of the devil, who prompts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen their reverence for God, and lead them at length to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations, which shew the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. We may just observe, that the Jews have a proverb among them to this purpose: “The yea of the just is yea, and their nay, nay:” that is to say, they are sincere, and perform whatever they say or promise. See Jam 5:12. In whatever sense the last clause be understood,cometh of evil, it contains a demonstration, that the 34th verse is to be explained with the limitation proposed; for it is evident that oaths were in some cases not only allowed, but required by the Mosaic law. See Exo 22:11. Lev 5:1. Num 19:21. Deu 12:14. So that if Christ’s prohibition had here referred to swearing in solemn and judicial cases, he would in these words have charged the divine law with establishing an immorality; which is most absurd to suppose. See Macknight, Doddridge, and Wetstein.

Dr. Campbell well observes, that our Lord is to be considered here, not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, inwhich case it would have suited better the simplicity of his style to say barely, , yes and no, without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexibleregard 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, 2Co 1:20. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen; that is, certain and infallible truths.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 5:33 . ] as in Mat 4:7 .

] Doctrinal precept, according to Exo 20:7 ; Lev 19:12 . It is not to the eighth commandment that Jesus refers (Keim, following an artificially formed scheme), but the second commandment forms the fundamental prohibition of perjury.

The Pharisaic tradition made arbitrary distinctions between oaths that were binding (by Jehovah) and those that were not binding (comp. also Philo, de Spec. Legg . p. 770 A). See Lightfoot, p. 280; Eisenmenger, II. p. 490; Wetstein on Mat 5:36 ; Michaelis, Mos. Recht , V. p. 141 ff., upon their loose principles regarding this matter. The second half of the precept quoted (formulated after Num 30:3 ; Deu 33:22 ) was so weakened by them, that special emphasis was laid upon the words , and other oaths were deprived of their obligatory powers.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1306
SWEARING FORBIDDEN

Mat 5:33-37. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is Gods 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. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil.

AMONGST persons unaccustomed to hear the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, a kind of jealousy is often excited by the very recital of the text; especially if the preacher be known to be zealous for those doctrines, and the passage which he has selected evidently inculcates them. This feeling is manifestly wrong; and every one who loves the Gospel sees in a moment the evil of indulging it. But is this feeling peculiar to those who are ignorant of the Gospel? No; by no means: for religious people themselves are too apt to yield to it, when any text is announced which leads only to the discussion of some moral subject. But if this feeling be wrong in the unenlightened part of mankind, it is a thousand times more so in those who profess to be enlightened, and who ought on that very account to love every portion of the sacred volume, and gladly to hear every truth insisted on in its season.
The subject of swearing does not seem to promise much edification to an audience conversant with the sublimer mysteries of our religion: but, if our blessed Lord saw fit to speak of it so fully in his Sermon on the Mount, we may be sure that our time cannot be misspent in investigating, as we purpose to do,

The nature and extent of the prohibition before us

You must be aware that there is a very respectable body of people in this kingdom, who not only deny the lawfulness of oaths altogether, but make the abstaining from them an essential part of their religion; insomuch that the legislature, which exacts an oath of all others, allows them to give their evidence in a way of simple assertion. Now these people understand the prohibition in ourtext as unlimited: whereas we consider it as limited.
To exhibit it in its true light, I shall shew,

To what it does not extend

[It does not extend then to oaths taken in a court of judicature. This is evident from their being absolutely enjoined on many occasions by God himself [Note: Exo 22:10-11. Num 5:19-22. Deu 6:13.] Moreover, our blessed Lord submitted to be examined upon oath; and, on being adjured by the living God, gave a reply, which nothing else could extort from him [Note: Mat 26:63-64.]. And by his disciples also such an use of oaths is manifestly approved: it is said, that an oath for confirmation is an end of all strife [Note: Heb 6:16.]. Now then I ask, would such kind of oaths have been commanded of God, taken by Christ, and approved by the Apostles, if there had been any thing necessarily and inherently wrong in them? We are well assured, that had they been in themselves morally evil, the use of them would never have been so sanctioned.

Nor does the prohibition absolutely extend to the use of them on any other solemn occasion. On some particular occasions they were imposed and taken by holy men of old. Abraham exacted an oath of his servant whom he sent to seek a wife for his son Isaac [Note: Gen 24:2-3; Gen 24:9.]. Jacob took an oath of Joseph, as Joseph also did of the children of Israel, that they would carry up his bones to Canaan, and bury them in the promised land [Note: Gen 47:29-31; Gen 50:25.]. And Jonathan made David swear to him to exercise tenderness towards his posterity, after that he should be seated on the throne of Israel [Note: 1Sa 20:14-17.]. Under the New Testament, the most distinguished of all the Apostles very frequently made an appeal to God, when the subject was such as needed a solemn confirmation, and could not be confirmed in any other way [Note: Rom 1:9; Rom 9:1. 2Co 1:18; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 11:31. Gal 1:20. Php 1:8.]

Who that considers this statement can doubt for a moment the admissibility of oaths on such occasions as could not otherwise be satisfactorily determined?]

To what it does extend

[The foregoing limitation is intimated even in the text: for though the words, Swear not at all, appear to be indefinite, yet it is plain that the prohibition was designed only to reach to such oaths as were used in common conversation: Swear not; but let your conversation be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.

Nevertheless the import of the prohibition is very extensive. It extends, first, to all irreverent appeals to God. The taking of Gods holy name in vain is forbidden in the third commandment; which our blessed Lord is here rescuing from the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees. They thought that nothing but perjury was a violation of that commandment: but he informs them that all light mention of the name of God, and all irreverent appeals to him, were sinful. Well would it be, if they who customarily curse and swear, and they also who occasionally use the words God knoweth, were sensible of the guilt which they contract!

The prohibition extends also to all swearing by the creature. The Jews had a much greater reverence for the name of God than the generality of Christians have. Being averse to mention that, they invented an inferior kind of oaths, and swore by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by their own heads. To these they annexed less sanctity, and were therefore less scrupulous about the violation of them. But our Lord shews, that to swear by the creature was, in fact, to swear by the Creator himself; since every creature was his, and subsisted only by his providential care. On another occasion he entered more fully still into this argument, and shewed the folly of recurring to such subterfuges [Note: Mat 23:16-22.]. In fact, if a separation could be made, there would be to the full as much guilt in swearing by the creature as in swearing by the Creator; since it would be an ascribing of omniscience and omnipotence to that which is incapable of knowing the things about which the appeal is made, or of executing judgment between the parties. This is idolatry; and, as idolatry, will be visited with Gods heaviest displeasure [Note: Jer 5:7.]. This statement is abundantly confirmed by the Apostle James, who prohibits the same kind of oaths under the pain of eternal condemnation [Note: Jam 5:12.].

Once more, the prohibition extends to all unnecessary confirmation of our word. All vehement protestations are unbecoming the Christian character. Unless the urgency of the occasion require some additional testimony, a simple affirmation or negation is all that we should use: our Yea should be yea, and our Nay, nay. If questioned, we may repeat our answer; Yea, yea, or Nay, nay; but beyond that we ought not to go, except the authority of a magistrate, or the importance of the subject, absolutely require it.]

Having thus endeavoured to mark the extent of the prohibition, we will proceed to state,

II.

The reasons of it

Our Lord says, Whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil. The words which are here translated evil, may also mean, the evil one: and in this sense many understand them. If we take them in the former sense, it relates to the source of such expressions; and if in the latter sense, it refers rather to their tendency: since Satan instigates men to swear, in order that he may accomplish by that means his own malevolent designs. Both senses being equally good and proper, we shall include both.

Our Lord then prohibits oaths, because they are evil,

In their source

[Whence do they spring? Frequently from an undue vehemence of temper. Those who are irascible, almost always are intemperate in their expressions. They will swear, if not by God, yet by their life, their soul, their faith; or they will pledge their honour, which yet is Gods, as much as their head is Gods. In short, whether they affirm or deny, they will, directly or indirectly, make God a party in their cause. If reproved for this, they will urge their passion as an excuse; but this is to urge one sin as an excuse for another: and, if we grant that hasty expressions originate in hasty tempers, they are on that very account exceeding criminal. They come of evil, and are for that very reason to be condemned.

But they arise also from low thoughts of the importance of truth. A person duly sensible of the sacredness of truth will not hastily convey an idea that his simple assertions are unworthy of credit: he will be cautious what he affirms: and, having affirmed any thing, he will expect his word to be taken as much as his oath. If unreasonable persons require more, he will rather leave the confirmation of his word to other testimony, than admit, by unnecessary oaths or protestations, the existence of an intention to deceive. In direct opposition to such a character is he, who wantonly transgresses the commandment in our text: he proves by that very act, that he has no such high sense of honour, no such value for truth, no such disposition to maintain his character for veracity. What then must that habit be, which so degrades every one that yields to it; or rather, I should say, which marks him so destitute of the noblest attributes of man?

We may further add, that all violations of this commandment proceed from a disregard of God, and of every thing belonging to him. Who that had a reverence for the Divine Majesty, would dare to profane his name, and to appeal to him on every trivial occasion? People, when they take Gods name in vain, account it sufficient to say, I did not think of it: but what excuse is that? It says, in fact, I have no reverence for God: he has forbidden such levity; but I have no fear of offending him: he is present when I profane his name; but I have no wish to please him. Were I in the presence of an earthly monarch, I could take heed to my words, and put a bridle on my tongue; but, though I know that God both sees and hears me, I regard him no more than if he did not exist. It is true, he declares, that, if I take his name in vain, he will not hold me guiltless; but my lips are my own: who is he, that he should be Lord over me [Note: Psa 12:4.]? Let him say what he will, or do what he will, I am determined to have my own way, and to set him at defiance.

Once more I ask, what must that habit be, which betrays such a disposition as this?]

In their tendency

[Satan, the god of this world, is ever working in all the children of disobedience. As he put it into the hearts of Ananias and Sapphira to lie, so he puts it into the hearts of ungodly men to swear. By this he has several objects to accomplish.
By this he hopes, first, to eradicate truth and virtue from the world. When he has prevailed on men so to cast off the fear of God as to take his name in vain, he will easily instigate them to any thing else. Having already lowered their estimate of truth, he will soon lead them to overstep the bounds of truth, and occasionally to confirm their falsehoods also with oaths. Indeed he stirs up men to confirm with oaths that which is doubtful, more frequently than that which is true; and consequently to perjure themselves, without being at all aware what guilt they are contracting: and could he influence all, as he does the great mass of those who are under his dominion, there would be no longer any truth or virtue to be found. He was a liar from the beginning; and he would take care that all his children should be known by their resemblance to him [Note: Joh 8:44.].

By this too he hopes, in the next place, to bring God himself into contempt. How ardently he desires to attain this object, we need not say: but this is clear, that the means he uses to attain it are admirably adapted to the end proposed. Tell a person who is accustomed to swear, that God is displeased with him; and you make no more impression on him than if he had never heard of such a Being. Tell him that he shall be fined a few shillings, and he is all alive to the subject: but if you speak of the judgments of God, he puffs at them with perfect contempt [Note: Psa 10:5.]. Nor is it in the speaker only that these effects are produced: the hearers of such conversation gradually lose their abhorrence of the sin, and their tender concern for the honour of their God: and the more this insensibility is diffused, the more does Satan exult and triumph.

Lastly, by this Satan aims to destroy the souls of men. What destruction he makes in this nation by means of oaths, none but God can tell. This appears to many to be a little sin; and Satan easily seduces men to the commission of it. But, even if it drew no other sins along with it, it would not be small, nor would the consequences of it be unimportant. God has said, that he will not hold such persons guiltless. They may hold themselves guiltless, it is true; but God will not form his judgment according to their estimate: he has fixed his determination, and will never reverse it. This Satan knows: and if he can but deceive us with vain hopes, he has gained his end. Yes, in truth, that roaring lion goeth about, seeking to devour us; and then does he most prosper in his endeavours, when he leads us to sport ourselves with our own deceivings [Note: 2Pe 2:13.].]

Address
1.

Those who are addicted to the habit of swearing

[I speak not to those who are familiar with oaths and imprecations (if their own consciences do not speak to them, all that I can say will be to little purpose) but to those who make only occasional appeals to God, or take his name in vain. View your sin as it has been set forth: view it in its source. What undue warmth of temper does it manifest! what insensibility to the value and importance of truth! and what a profane disregard of God! View it in its tendency: see how it tends to eradicate virtue from the world; to bring God himself into contempt, and to ruin the souls of men. Is this a habit that you will indulge? What do you gain by it? By other sins you obtain some kind of gratification; but by this, none at all: it brings no pleasure, no profit, no honour, along with it. In the commission of other sins you sell your souls for something; in this, for nought; you do not sell, but give, yourselves to your great adversary. O that God may impress this thought upon your minds, and that this word may be ever sounding in your ears, Swear not at all!]

Those who are free from that habit

[Shall I tell you what the ungodly world are ready to say to you? These people will not swear; but they will lie. Dearly beloved, this would be a dreadful reproach indeed if it were true: and whosoever he be to whom this reproach attaches, that person has reason to tremble for his state before God. Tell me not of faith, or love, or any thing else; for this is certain, that all liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone [Note: Rev 21:8.]. Christian tradesmen, consider this in your dealings with mankind; for as the nail sticketh between the jointings of the stones, so doth lying between buying and selling [Note: Ecclesiasticus 27:2.]. Christian servants, remember this when tempted to conceal a fault, or to exculpate yourselves from some blame. Let all, of every class, and every degree, remember this. If ye be Christs indeed, ye will remember him in whose lips there was no guile found. Let truth be in your inward parts, and let it be ever dear to your souls. Set a watch before the door of your lips; for of every idle word you shall give account in the day of judgment; yea, by your words you shall be justified; and by your words you shall be condemned [Note: Mat 12:36-37.].]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

What a beautiful train of thoughts arise from those words of Jesus. Not only the prohibition of the Load to what is so highly unsuitable and offensive in oaths and the like, but the injunction to a simple confirmation of the Yea and Nay among the followers of Him whose name is Amen.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 20

The Beatitudes In Practical Form On Taking Oaths the Personal Resistance of Evil on Borrowing and Lending

Prayer

Almighty God, we cannot mistake thy word, it is as fire and it is as music, it is as the sound of a mighty wind from heaven there is none like it; our hearts know thy voice, and when we follow thy word thy blessing upon us is like a great wave. Thou hast written for us thy book”, thou hast given unto us thy Holy Spirit for its interpretation and for the enlightenment of our mind; enable us to receive thy book, not as the word of man, but as the express deliverance and message of heaven. Save us from all the reading of the letter, that does not see into the meaning of the infinite Spirit, bring us into sympathy with thine own purpose whilst we read thy wondrous words. We long to hear thy voice; it will soothe us, it will give us courage, it will answer every rising inquiry and repel every urgent temptation. Let thy voice fill the hearing of our soul to-day and make us glad with the music of heaven.

Give us release from the anxieties and torments of a worldly life; lift us above the cares and distresses incident to an earthly pilgrimage, and bring us into thine inner chamber, where our hearts shall see the radiance of thy face, and our life shall be lifted up into a new and immortal hope. Thou hast been with us in the valley of the week, and even in the darkness we have seen where the flowers were, and our hands have” been filled with their beauty. Thou hast caused us to pass over stony places, yet even in the rock hast thou found a river of water, so that we have not died in the wilderness by reason of thirst. Where the water has been bitter thou hast given us a plant to heal its bitterness, thou hast turned upon us an eye brighter than the morning, and upon our enemies thou hast turned a cloud darker than the night. Because of thy great goodness we are here this day, living, with hearts uplifted heavenward, with a great desire going out after thyself that our souls may be completed in perfection and soothed with peace.

Hear us whilst we confess our sin, and whilst we mourn our iniquity. Let thy forgiveness, through Jesus Christ our one Priest and only Saviour, be greater than all our guilt. When we sin most we most need him, for he is the Saviour of the world and the Redeemer of those that are in bondage. Bring us all round his cross, and high above all the writing of those who slew him may we see the superscription traced by thine own hand, “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

We put ourselves into thine hands for guidance, direction, sustenance, and all things needful. We shall die tomorrow, but to die is to live, if so be we die unto the Lord. Our days are thinning down, so much so that we see through the remainder of them and behold the tomb at the other end. Yet, though our days be few, we would live them as industrious servants, being found diligent and faithful, stooping down to our work with a hearty good will, and doing it in all the strength and fear and hope of God.

We commend one another with mutual love to thy gentle care. Garry our sick ones in thy great arms, press our little ones to thine infinite heart, kiss the tears of our sorrow from our reddened cheek, and give us a time of sunshine, when the storm has spent itself upon our poor life. Help every man who wishes to do better to realize this solemn hope; to every man who would lift himself up by thy grace and strength so as to catch the full shining of thy light, give grace, strength, comfort, and renewal of confidence every day. If any heart be set upon evil and any hand be trying to find what mischief it can work, the Lord confound the counsel of those who are wrong and overturn the purpose of those who know not and fear not thy name.

Thy word awaits us, may we await its deliverance, may it come to us with great power and breadth, great simplicity and unction may every heart throw open its gates to give right loving welcome to the kingdom of Christ. The Lord direct us in everything, individually, congregation ally, socially, and nationally. Give righteousness and a spirit of mercy and judgment to all who are in high places. God save the Queen, and add many unto the days of her life; the Lord himself rule the nation and make us glad under his sovereignty. Send light and truth, purity and peace all over the world, and make the whole earth thy sanctuary, thou who didst redeem it with blood.

Hear us in these our uttered prayers, and as for the desires we may not and cannot speak, read them every one, as they lie unuttered in the heart. Wherein they point towards truth and better life and penitence and nobler purpose, thou wilt give them infinite answers “of satisfaction and peace. Amen.

Mat 5:33-48 .

33. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

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.

38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.

We had some difficulty in understanding the beatitudes, the music seemed to be too exquisite and refined for the rough instruments at our disposal. We hastened over them, rather than deliberately read them As your teacher, I had a purpose in this; I knew that the beatitudes would all come up again in practical form. Who can understand abstract and purely spiritual truth? But that which is impossible from one point of view may be rendered comparatively easy from another. Jesus Christ now proceeds to give examples upon what we might call the black board. When he said, looking it whilst he did say it, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” we did not understand the meaning of the unfathomable doctrine. When he said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” we thought he was speaking of himself, or of strangers, for we had never come within the sacred lines described by that simple yet immeasurable word, meekness. Now he is proceeding from doctrine to exhortation, and you will find under his exhortations the whole set of the beatitudes: he is giving you now to drink out of the wells he dug when he laid down the doctrine.

I cannot tell what he means by purity of heart, so he approaches my dull understanding with this practical direction Do not be angry with your brother without a cause, do not call your brother by contemptuous names, do not describe any man wilfully and maliciously as a fool. I think these are easy exhortations, and when I begin to give them incarnation in my life I find they are supreme difficulties; I have not motive force in me enough to carry this tremendous engine along. Now I take him aside and say privately in the house, “I know now something of what you meant when you said, Blessed are the pure in heart.” “Yes,” he replies, “that was my purpose, and if your heart be not right you will never be able to do the apparently simple duties which I have now indicated. Unless there be pureness of heart there will be pollution of lips, unless there be rightness of heart there will be hidden and baleful fire in the spirit, and it will express itself in contempt and malice, and harshness and cruelty.” So now that he comes into practical particulars, I find that they balance the spiritual doctrine which I could not understand. But I will try to do the duty I shall be led back into the doctrine, and be made to feel that I cannot work with the hand except it expresses the inspiration of a cleansed heart So when he says to me, “If a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also;” when I ask, “How is this to be done?” he says, “Recall the beatitudes.” I then endeavour to remember what he said in the spiritual part of his discourse, and this sweet word returns to my memory “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” When I heard that sentence the first time I dismissed it as a very beautiful conception, a high and beautiful theory, written in clouds and illustrated with sunset colours; but now that it comes down to me in a practical form, I find it was no cloudy revelation, no mere touch of intellectual beauty, no flash of the moral imagination, but something sound, honest, vital, divine. So it is no use telling a man to turn the other cheek to the man who has smitten him if he has not first turned his heart towards meekness. You cannot put on meekness except as you put on paint that can be washed off. If you have not the meek heart, you cannot do the meek deed. Do not play at meekness, do not simulate meekness; let us hide ourselves with Christ, who is meek and lowly in heart, then we shall be exactly what he meant when he told us that when we were smitten on one cheek we had to turn the other also. Throughout the whole of these practical exhortations you will find that he is reducing the beatitudes or spiritual doctrines to spiritual form and expression.

Let us now go a little into detail to establish this with some breadth of illustration. “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” That is, you have heard it laid down broadly that you are not to commit perjury: having taken a vow, you must be faithful to it; having uttered your oath, you must carefully and deliberately reduce it to practice. It must not be made a dead letter, it must net be evaded, it must not be inverted, there must be no perjury or false-swearing or foregoing of the most sacred oaths of life; but I say unto you, that that is a very poor advancement in the right direction. So far as it goes it is right enough, but go forward, follow me, so as to relieve yourself from the necessity of ever swearing at all. That is to say, let your heart be so sincere that your speech must be simple; cultivate that state of heart in the sight of God which naturally and necessarily, by virtue of the divine compulsion, expresses itself in simple, transparent, and beauteous sincerity and simplicity.

I do not understand the Saviour as forbidding what is known as judicial oath-taking or swearing. He always recognised certain necessities of the time, and he adapted his revelation from the beginning to the hardness of the hearts of those whom he had to instruct. But he was bound to point to the ultimate line he set up of ideal conversation. It is his purpose to make us so like himself that we cannot but speak exactly what is true. Consider the monstrousness of any man speaking only what is true because he has sworn to do it. That man is a liar. In his very nature and blood he is false, if he will only speak that which is true simply on the ground that he has taken an oath to do it. There can be no formal truthfulness: sincerity is a condition of heart; it is not the result of a mechanical contrivance coming out of the kissing a certain book under a certain adjuration. Jesus Christ therefore educates the race up to the point of not needing to swear or affirm or declare, with unusual emphasis. He would have our very breathing to be the expression of our hearts’ condition, so that if a man said Yea, he meant that, and that only: if he said Nay, there was no mental reservation, no subtle and unexpressed equivocation of meaning, no intention, deep down in the heart, to take advantage of a certain set of terms under a certain set of circumstances that is the deep and glorious meaning of the Son of God. Be so right within as to be incapable of uttering one word that is not pure as light and as fire. It is to that high result he would bring us. We are dull scholars, and the teacher has yet an infinite work before him.

Jesus Christ then addressed himself to certain little trickeries that were in custom amongst the people. He told them not to swear by heaven, nor by earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by the head. Why did he go into this detail? Because such was the corruption of his age, that there were great and learned men who laid it down as right to break any oath in which you could not find, in so many letters, the name Jehovah. There was one great man in history who openly avowed that he felt himself to be at liberty to break any oath in which he did not expressly use the word God. If the word God had passed his lips he felt himself bound in honour to fulfil his oath, but if he sware by heaven, by the altar, by the queen, by his hair, by his palace, he did but gather so much straw as he could cast into the fire of his passion and burn when he pleased. Jesus Christ, with that marvellous comprehensiveness of teaching which is characteristic of his school, proceeds to show that, though you may not have the name of God in your oath, whatever you touch is sacred and has God in it. “Swear not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is his city; nor by thine head, for he fashioned it and clothed it, and thou canst not make one hair white or black.” So he delivered the term God from its consisting of so many letters and syllables, and showed that the whole universe was alive with God, and that to swear by a stone was to invoke the Creator that formed it. To be under such a Teacher is an inspiration, to hear such a man is to expose yourself to the mountain breeze or a whiff of ocean air full of life and giving life.

Take the next particular. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the one cheek turn to him the other also, and if any man shall sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And if any man compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” We all know to what absurdities and iniquities a merely literal acceptance of these words would lead. You nibble at the meaning of Christ when you begin to think that you see it all in these bare words, as they would be understood by the unenlightened and unspiritual mind. What is Jesus Christ teaching here? He is teaching the great principle of forbearance or long-suffering. He quells all human passion, and sets upon human revenge the seal of his displeasure. Revenge is not to enter into our thoughts. As to self-protection it is written in our nature; it is not a debased instinct, it was in the original Adam, the divinely-shaped and divinely-inspired man, and the very first word spoken to the man constituted an appeal to this instinct, “Take care; in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Protect thyself.” It cannot be taken out of our manhood, this instinct of self-preservation; it can be sanctified, moderated, ennobled, and this is what Christ meant it to be. I may smite in judgment or I may smite in revenge, but the individual man who is injured cannot smite in judgment. I smite in temper that is the very thing forbidden. We caution a man against taking the law into his own hands that is exactly what Jesus Christ means in this direction. You ought not to have taken the law into your own hands Why? Because you were only an individual and the individual is incomplete. What, then, should I have done? You should have referred it to the complete man. What is his name? Society. Society will lay its terrific hand upon the man that smote you. When will you learn that you are only a part and not a whole, a fraction and not an integer? The judge, when he sits upon the bench and condemns a fellow-creature to penal servitude for life, is not an individual, he is the embodiment of Society, the representative of the latest civilization of his time and land. If you, being smitten on one cheek, turn round and smite the man who smote you, you may both be taken before the judge. Rather than that, turn to him the other also. Leave your defence and his punishment in the hands of the social man, the aggregate humanity, the judge.

This is exactly what Christ did himself. Christ did not personally resist evil. He exemplified the very doctrine now being explained. Personally, when he was reviled, he reviled not again, when he suffered he threatened not; he gave his back to the smiters and his cheeks to them that pluck off the hair. But as Judge, not the Jesus of Nazareth, but the Son of Man, he shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him he shall divide the nations and open hell under the feet of those that despised him. We believe that thou wilt come to be our Judge. Every eye shall see him, they that pierced him shall mourn because of him, those whose hands are wettest and reddest with human blood shall seek mercy of the rocks and pity of the mountains, for the wrath of his face shall scourge them like the fire that awaits their coming. Resist not evil, do not take the law into your own hands; personally be meek, forbearing, long-suffering, show that the spirit of revenge has no place in you, show that you would rather suffer wrong than do wrong, take the larger view, be gentle, hopeful, noble, and as to your sufferings, there is an organised anger that shall burn the adversary, there is a judicial scourge that shall cut to his bone. “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord,” and he repays through organised society, through enlightened and established civilization, and by a thousand ministries which we can neither name nor measure.

“And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” This refers to the system of forced courierships. In ancient times and oriental lands, messages were delivered by couriers, persons were required to show the way to strangers. If you were lost upon a mountain or in a valley, it was part of your right to insist upon any person who was in the neighbourhood to go with you part of the road; to help you out of your difficulty. Persons could be compelled to bear messages and letters. One Simon, a Cyrenian, was compelled to bear the cross. Who would not carry that every mile he has yet to walk? The Saviour said, “If a man compel you to go a mile with him to show him the road, go two rather than not go at all. Show a cheerful disposition under the pressure, let your philanthropy absorb your convenience.”

“Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away.” We all know that society would be wrecked in a very short time if this rule were to be literally applied. In fact it bears upon its face the proof that it does not admit of application in the way which the mere literalist would expect. It is too broad to mean anything as a mere letter; it is, as the lawyers say, void by generality. It means so much as to mean nothing. And yet it must have some profound signification? Certainly. Where shall we find that signification? In God’s own government, just as we find the explanation of non-resistance in Christ’s own conduct. God does not do this himself, as the literalist would interpret it. He does it in the nobler and larger way which is of no use to the mere devotee of the letter. Let me explain. I ask God to give me what I mention to him, yet he turns away. Then he tells me to give to the man that asketh of me. I must find the meaning of these words in the course of his own action. I would borrow of God, and yet he turns away from my cry. He judges what is best for me, what is good for me: He Says “No” to many a prayer: many a desire of mine that I have sent out towards the heavens has fallen back upon the door-sill like a wounded bird. I know now what Christ means: he teaches me clemency, sympathy, he developes in me an interest in human affairs, he saves me from absurdity and folly and recklessness and from putting myself into the very position in which I should have gone to repeat the doctrine he lays down, and thus keep up a system and action of absurd borrowing, now one man having it and now another, and so passing it between themselves through every hour of the day.

If you want to find the meaning of these sweet words, you can easily find them. Do not try to discover it in the letter. Whenever you are clement, sympathetic, large-hearted, kind-handed, you are going in the direction of the meaning of this passage. Jesus is not laying down little laws and small maxims, he is developing infinite principles which can be applied in every climate, and which can embody themselves under all the various circumstances which make up all the changefulness of human life.

That I am right in seeking the explanation of the whole doctrine in myself and in God is proved by what Jesus Christ immediately adds, “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven,” that you may do in your degree as he does upon an infinite scale. He does not answer every petition, he turns away from some requests, he knows that difficulty has a place in the discipline and sanctification of life, and he uses the rod as sometimes the only admissible lesson. I would be taught by him, I would be like him, I would err, as we sometimes say, on the liberal side rather than on the ungenerous. I would rather be taken in than take in any human creature, I would rather try to find the means of healing a man than sourly turn away from his distressed face and his faltering voice. If that be my disposition of heart, I am in the school of Christ.

But take these exhortations as you like, you cannot give their application, without you have help from heaven. It is not in man that liveth to work out this sublime morality, it is not in the human heart as at present existing to find room for these divinities. He who made the heart must disinfect it, cleanse it, enlarge it to give hospitality to such guests.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

Ver. 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself ] An oath is quasi , a hedge which a man may not break. It must not be taken without necessity. Hence the Hebrew nishbang, is a passive, and signifieth to Be sworn, rather than to swear. For if the doubt or question may be assoiled, or ended by verily or truly, or such naked asseverations, we are, by the example of our Saviour, to forbear an oath. But having sworn, though to his hurt, a man must not change, Psa 15:4 , upon pain of a curse, yea, a book full of curses, Zec 5:3-4 . It is not for men to play with oaths as children do with nuts; to slip them at pleasure, as monkeys do their collars; to snap them asunder, as Samson did his cords. It was an impious and blasphenmus speech of him that said, “My tongue hath sworn, but my mind is unsworn.” , . (Euripides.) And who can but detest that abominable doctrine of the Priscillianists of old, and their heirs the Jesuits of late:

” Iura, periura, secretum prodere noli. “

God will be a swift witness against perjured persons, Mal 3:5 , as those that villanously abuse his majesty, making him an accessory, yea, a partner in their sin, thinking him like themselves, and therefore calling him to justify their untruths. Had Shimei peace, that brake his oath to Solomon? Or Zedekiah, that kept not touch with the king of Babylon? Or Ananias and Sapphira, that but uttered an untruth, swore it not? God punisheth perjury with destruction, man with disgrace, saith a fragment of the Twelve Tables in Rome; periurii poena divina exitium, humana dedecus. The Egyptians and Scythians punished it with death. So did Philip, Earl of Flanders, and others. But where men have not done it, God hath hanged up such with his own hands, as it were, as our Earl Godwin; Rodolphus, Duke of Suabia, that rebelled against his master Henry, Emperor of Germany, to whom he had sworn allegiance; Ladislaus, King of Bohemia, at the great battle of Varna, where the raging Turk, provoked by his perjury, appealed to Christ; Michael Paleologus, Emperor of Constantinople, who for his perjury, and other his foul and faithless dealings, lieth obscurely shrouded in the sheet of defame, saith the history. Richard Long, soldier at Calais, deposing falsely against William Smith, curate of Calais, shortly after, upon a displeasure of his wife, desperately drowned himself. And within the memory of man, Feb. 11, 1575, Ann Averies forswore herself at a shop in Wood Street, London, and praying God she might sink where she stood if she had not paid for the wares she took, fell down speechless, and with a horrible stink died soon after. Thus God hangeth up evildoers in gibbets, as it were, that others may hear and fear, and do no more so. Alterius perditio tua cautio.

But shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths ] As David, “I have sworn, and I will perform,” &c., Psa 119:106 . And yet David was not always as good as his oath, as in the case of Mephibosheth, &c. Nor did Jacob for a long time perform his vow, Gen 28:21 , though once, at least, admonished, Gen 31:13 , till he was frightfully aroused by the slaughter of the Shechemites, and his own apparent danger, to go up to Bethel and do as he had promised. a The font in baptism is Beersheha, the well of an oath, there we solemnly swear ourselves to God, which St Peter calleth the stipulation of a good conscience, 1Pe 3:21 . This oath we renew when we come to the other sacrament; and often besides, when the Lord layeth siege to us by some disease or other distress, what promises and protestations make we, as Pharaoh and those votaries! Psa 78:43-51 But sciapato il morbo, fraudato il Dio, as the Italian proverb hath it; the disease or danger once over, God is defrauded of his due. See it in those, Jer 34:8-22 , who forfeited their fidelity, though they had cut the calf in twain, and passed through the parts thereof (a most solemn way of sealing up covenants), and are sorely threatened for it, that Ged would in like sort cut them in twain and destroy them, which was the import of that ceremony. Virgil viii.

a Iacob pater votorum nuncupatur. Pareus.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

33 37. ] FOURTH EXAMPLE. The law of oaths .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

33, 34. ] The exact meaning of these verses is to be ascertained by two considerations. (1) That the Jews held all those oaths not to be binding , in which the sacred name of God did not directly occur: as Philo states (De Special. Legg. ad 3, 4, 5 decal. cap. 1, vol. ii. p. 271), , , , , , , , . And Lightfoot (Hor. Hebr. ad locum) cites from the Rabbinical books, ‘Si quis jurat per clum, per terram, per solem, etc. non est juramentum.’ See note, ch. Mat 23:16 . It therefore appears that a stress is to be laid on this technical distinction in the quotation made by our Lord; and we must understand as belonging to the quotation, ‘but whatever thou shalt swear not to the Lord may be transgressed.’ (2) Then our Lord passes so far beyond this rule, that He lays down (including in it the understanding that all oaths must be kept if made , for that they are all ultimately referable to swearing by God) the rule of the Christian community, which is not to swear at all; for that every such means of strengthening a man’s simple affirmation arises out of the evil in human nature, is rendered requisite by the distrust that sin has induced, and is, therefore, out of the question among the just and true and pure of heart. See Jas 5:12 , and note there, as explanatory why, in both cases, swearing by the name of God is not specified as forbidden. In the words, ‘Swear not at all,’ our Lord does not so much make a positive enactment by which all swearing is to individuals forbidden, e.g. on solemn occasions, and for the satisfaction of others, (for that would be a mere technical Pharisaism wholly at variance with the spirit of the Gospel, and inconsistent with the example of God himself , Heb 6:13-17 ; Heb 7:21 ; of the Lord when on earth , whose was a solemn asseveration, and who at once respected the solemn adjuration of Caiaphas, ch. Mat 26:63-64 ; of His Apostles , writing under the guidance of His Spirit, see Gal 1:20 ; 2Co 1:23 ; Rom 1:9 ; Phi 1:8 , and especially 1Co 15:31 ; of His holy angels , Rev 10:6 ,) as declare to us, that the proper state of Christians is, to require no oaths; that when is expelled from among them, every and will be as decisive as an oath, every promise as binding as a vow. We observe ( ) that these verses imply the unfitness of vows of every kind as rules of Christian action; ( ) that the greatest regard ought to be had to the scruples of those, not only sects, but individuals, who object to taking an oath, and every facility given in a Christian state for their ultimate entire abolition. There is a very full account in Tholuck, Bergpredigt, pp. 258 75, of the history of opinions on this question.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 5:33-37 . Fourth illustration: concerning oaths . A new theme, therefore formally introduced as in Mat 5:21 . points to a new series of illustrations (Weiss, Mt.-Evan., p. 165). The first series is based on the Decalogue. Thou shalt not swear falsely (Lev 19:12 ), and thou shalt perform unto the Lord thy vows (Num 30:3 : Deu 23:22 ) what is wrong in these dicta ? Nothing save what is left unsaid. The scribes misplaced the emphasis. They had a great deal to say, in sophistical style, of the oaths that were binding and not binding, nothing about the fundamental requirement of truth in the inward parts. Again, therefore, Jesus goes back on the previous question: Should there be any need for oaths?

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Matthew

‘SWEAR NOT AT ALL’

Mat 5:33-37 .

In His treatment of the sixth and seventh commandments, Jesus deepened them by bringing the inner man of feeling and desire under their control. In His treatment of the old commandments as to oaths, He expands them by extending the prohibitions from one kind of oath to all kinds. The movement in the former case is downwards and inwards; in the latter it is outwards, the compass sweeping a wider circle. Perjury, a false oath, was all that had been forbidden. He forbids all. We may note that the forms of colloquial swearing, which our Lord specifies, are not to be taken as an exhaustive enumeration of what is forbidden. They are in the nature of a parenthesis, and the sentence runs on continuously without them-’Swear not at all . . . but let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay.’ The reason appended is equally universal, for it suggests the deep thought that ‘whatsoever is more than these’ that is to say, any form of speech that seeks to strengthen a simple, grave asseveration by such oaths as He has just quoted, ‘cometh of evil’ inasmuch as it springs from, and reveals, the melancholy fact that his bare word is not felt binding by a man, and is not accepted as conclusive by others. If lies were not so common, oaths would be needless. And oaths increase the evil from which they come, by confirming the notion that there is no sin in a lie unless it is sworn to.

The oaths specified are all colloquial, which were and are continually and offensively mingled with common speech in the East. Nowhere are there such habitual liars, and nowhere are there so many oaths. Every traveller there knows that, and sees how true is Christ’s filiation of the custom of swearing from the custom of falsehood. But these poisonous weeds of speech not only tended to degrade plain veracity in the popular mind, but were themselves parents of immoral evasions, for it was the teaching of some Rabbis, at all events, that an oath ‘by heaven’ or ‘by earth’ or ‘by Jerusalem’ or ‘by my head’ did not bind. That further relaxation of the obligation of truthfulness was grounded on the words quoted in Mat 5:33 , for, said the immoral quibblers, ‘it is “thine oaths to the Lord” that thou “shalt perform,” and for these others you may do as you like’ Therefore our Lord insists that every oath, even these mutilated, colloquial ones which avoid His name, is in essence an appeal to God, and has no sense unless it is. To swear such a truncated oath, then, has the still further condemnation that it is certainly an irreverence, and probably a quibble, and meant to be broken. It must be fully admitted that there is little in common between such pieces of senseless profanity as these oaths, or the modern equivalents which pollute so many lips to-day, and the oath administered in a court of justice, and it may further be allowed weight that Jesus does not specifically prohibit the oath ‘by the Lord,’ but it is difficult to see how the principles on which He condemns are to be kept from touching even judicial oaths. For they, too, are administered on the ground of the false idea that they add to the obligation of veracity, and give a guarantee of truthfulness which a simple affirmation does not give. Nor can any one, who knows the perfunctory formality and indifference with which such oaths are administered and taken, and what a farce ‘kissing the book’ has become, doubt that even judicial oaths tend to weaken the popular conception of the sin of a lie and the reliance to be placed upon the simple ‘Yea, yea; Nay, nay.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 5:33-37

33″Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.”

Mat 5:33 “vows” This was an allusion to several OT texts. This did not mean cursing, but God’s name being brought into a conversation to assure the truth of one’s statements (cf. Mat 23:16-22; Jas 5:12). Vows or oaths in the OT could refer to (1) worship (cf. Deu 6:15); (2) legal proceedings (cf. Exo 20:7; Lev 19:12); or (3) affirmations of doing something (cf. Leviticus 27; Num 30:2; Deu 23:21-22). Jesus was involved in an oath in Mat 26:63-64. Paul made oaths in 2Co 1:23, Gal 1:20, Php 1:8, and 1Th 2:5. Another oath is found in Heb 6:16. The focus is not on oath taking, but on failing to perform the vow!

Mat 5:34-36 This showed how elaborately the rabbis had developed binding and unbinding oaths (cf. Mat 23:16-22). It was a way to appear to be telling the truth by associating one’s statement with Deity, but all the time knowing that one’s oath, expressed in certain ways, was not legally binding.

Mat 5:34 “make no oath” Jesus testified under oath in Mat 26:63-64. Paul often confirmed his words by oaths in God’s name (cf. 2Co 1:23; Gal 1:20; Php 1:8; 1Th 2:5; 1Th 2:10). The issue is truthfulness, not restricting oaths (cf. Jas 5:12).

Mat 5:37 ” But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’or ‘No, no'” Jesus was concerned with truthfulness, not form! Others who claim to know God should be honest and trustworthy, not tricky.

NASB”evil”

NKJV, NRSV”the evil one”

TEV, NJB”the Evil One”

The inflected form of the term in Greek can either be neuter, “evil” or masculine, “the evil one” (see special Topic at Mat 4:5). This same ambiguity occurs in Mat 6:13; Mat 13:19; Mat 13:38; Joh 17:15; 2Th 3:3; 1Jn 2:13-14; 1Jn 3:12; 1Jn 5:18-19.

Evil has several forms.

1. a fallen world system, Genesis 3; Eph 2:2; Jas 4:4

2. personal evil, Eph 2:2

3. fallen individuals, Eph 2:3; Jas 4:1-2

Evil looks for an opportunity to kill, steal, and destroy. Only the mercy of God, His Son, and His Spirit can enable us to live happy, purposeful, contented lives!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

THE LAW OF PERJURY. it hath been said = it was said. See Lev 19:12; also App-107.

Thou shalt not, &c. Quoted from Exo 20:7. Num 30:2. Deu 23:21.

forswear = swear falsely. Greek. epiorkeo. Occurs only here.

the LORD. See App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

33-37.] FOURTH EXAMPLE. The law of oaths.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 5:33. , thou shalt render)[213] Perjury therefore is the non-performance of promises attested by an oath. Christ, therefore, especially forbids promissory oaths, since men by them asseverate concerning future things, none of which is in their power, see Mat 5:36. The human oaths concerning which Moses gives regulations, or which holy men have sworn, have more frequently reference to confirming, more rarely to promising, and in fact more persons perjure themselves with regard to future, than past matters. Wherefore the Romans prudently preferred binding with oath their magistrates at the conclusion, rather than at the commencement of office.-, oaths,) sc. things promised by oath.

[213] E. V. Thou shalt perform.-(I. B.)

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 5:33-42

9. TEACHINGS AGAINST OATHS AND RETALIATION

Mat 5:33-42

33 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself.-Again Jesus refers to another part of the law of Moses which the Jews were continually perverting. This refers to the law recorded in Lev 19:12; Num 30:2; Deu 23:21. Jesus frequently refers “to them of old time” or the ancients, when he means to refer to some clause of the law of Moses as frequently referred to by the religious teachers of his day. To “forswear” means to perjure oneself; it means false swearing and a profane use of the name of God; the Hebrew word which answers to “in vain” may be rendered to include “forswear thyself.” The Jews held that all oaths were not binding unless the sacred name of God should be invoked at the time that the. oath was taken. Some think that Jesus here had reference not to judicial oaths, but to nonjudicial; others think that he had reference to all oaths. To “forswear” is to perjure oneself which stands over against “shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” Jesus goes further than prohibiting all oaths in ordinary communication. The Pharisees made frivolous and pernicious distinctions between certain oaths. Jesus prohibits making distinction between oaths and states clearly that one is under obligation to perform all of his oaths.

34, 35 But I say unto you, Swear not at all.-The oath authorized by the law of Moses was not taken in the name of God. (Deu 6:13.) The Jewish teachers held that no oath had any binding force unless it brought in the name of God; swearing by the heavens, or by the earth, or by the stars went for nothing, because the name of God was not expressed. They thought by this practice to honor the name of God, but by it they really dishonored God. Swearing “by the heaven,” “by the earth,” “by Jerusalem,” “by thy head” all were not authorized of God; Jesus teaches that such oaths should not be practiced. The Jew claimed that he could swear by these and still not have to perform his oath, but Jesus prohibits this and all other kinds of oaths. Those who have written on this subject vary widely in their comment; some say that one should not swear at all unless it is with due reverence toward God; others say that one should not swear lightly in ordinary life; others say that one should not swear after the manner of the Jews; others, it is not applicable to our duty as citizens in the state; still others say that it prohibits at all times and under all circumstances the taking of any oath. Jesus does forbid plainly the swearing as mentioned here.

36, 37 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head.-Jesus has forbidden swearing by heaven as it is the throne of God; he has also prohibited the swearing by the earth as it is “the footstool of his feet”; he has also prohibited the swearing by Jerusalem, “for it is the city of the great King.” He now forbids the- swearing by one’s own head as one cannot “make one hair white or black”; these are all foolish and wicked oaths and the disciples of Jesus cannot indulge in them. Man has not the power to make one hair become white or black; God alone can do that, and since he has absolute proprietorship on us, we have no right to swear by ourselves or by any member of our body; the significance of an oath consists in its calling God to witness the truth of the assertion.

But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.-Instead of an oath for confirmation of what has been said, the disciple of Jesus should be content with the simple affirmation of “Yea, yea,” or the simple negation of “Nay, nay.” The Christian must live so that whatever he states will be accepted as the truth; his character and life give affirmation to what he says, and no oath is needed to confirm his statement. Jas 5:12 confirms this teaching when he said, “Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay”; these are to be used only in their simplicity. Jesus adds that “whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.” James adds another reason when he said, “that ye fall not under judgment.” (Jas 5:12.) Christians should be content with a serious affirmation or denial of any statement and others should be satisfied to take a Christian’s statement at face value. What is more than these comest of “the evil one”; this may mean either of the evil that lie latent, or of the evil one (Satan) who fosters all evil, and not least the evil which forever flows from profane swearing.

Jesus does not here refer to common vulgar profanity; he speaks of performing the oath in contrast with forswearing oneself, which is to swear and not to perform. The oaths of which Jesus spoke here seem to be made to the Lord, and to him they are to be performed. This would indicate vows made to God; yet the language, “swear not at all,” seems to prohibit all oaths, either judicial or those made to God. The oath of confirmation is an appeal to God to visit wrath upon one if one does not tell the truth. This seems to violate the divine law. The courts allow an affirmation without calling on the name of God.]

38, 39 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.-Again Jesus quotes from the law of Moses and puts his interpretation over against the traditions of the Jews. Jesus is still teaching against retaliation; the Jews had perverted Exo 21:23-24; Lev 24:20; Deu 19:21. God had never taught the spirit and practice of retaliation as the Jews were teaching and practicing it. It was never the law of God for any one who had lost an eye to knock out the eye of his enemy, or if in personal combat one had lost a tooth, that he could knock out a tooth of his assailant; no such procedure was permitted without judicial process; this was the law that should govern judges and juries in placing the penalty on one who had attacked his fellow; it did not permit personal vengeance, as the Jews were practicing it at that time. They practiced it under their construction of the law, and Jesus opposed their practice; he was not opposed to the law; he came to fulfill the law, but not to disregard it. Some think that the Mosaic law permitted individual retaliation, but did not make it compulsory; however, that which was done by the hand of the magistrate or judge cannot be called individual retaliation. Even in the case of murder the avenger of blood became an officer in executing punishment of the murderer.

But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil.-Jesus implies here that the malice and wrongdoing of the world to his disciples is the work of the devil. (1Jn 2:13-14; Rev. 2 10). All evil originates with the devil; it emanates from him and is inspired by him;those who do evil intentionally are led by his spirit. There is a sense in which we are to resist the evil one; “but resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (Jas 4:7); we must resist evil with all of our might in this sense, but as used here we are not to resist “the evil one.” In what sense may we not resist? In the sense of doing evil for evil; we are not to oppose violence with violence; we are not to “fight fire with fire”; “be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good,” is the method that Christians are to use in opposing evil; our warfare is to overcome, not evil with evil, but evil with good. There are those who may overcome evil with evil. (Rom 13:1-4.)

But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.-To slap a man in the face was a common mode of insult. (1Ki 22:24 , Lam 3:30; Mat 26:67; Joh 18:22; Joh 19:3.) Smiting on the “right cheek” (literally jaw), was both an injury and an insult (2Co 11:20), and yet this was done to Jesus more than once. Jesus here gives the rule of conduct that his disciples should follow. There has been much discussion as to whether these examples cited by Jesus should be taken figuratively or literally; there seems to be no just grounds for taking them other than literally. The principle and spirit that Jesus here gives are against retaliation, and emphasize his statement, “Resist not him that is evil.” Jesus’ conduct when smitten illustrates his meaning; he turned the other cheek to those who would smite him. Rather than resent the first insult, Jesus teaches that we are to submit to a second; he does not mean that we should invite a repetition of the insult, but that we should meekly endure it and suffer another rather than resist evil with evil.

40, 41 And if any man would go to law with thee.-If any one should be disposed to contend and take a matter to law, it is better rather to suffer than to resist or resent by going to law. This is another example or application that Jesus gives against retaliation. If one should go to law and “take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” “Coat” as used here means a shirtlike undergarment or tunic; it was the less expensive garment worn. “Cloak” was the outer garment or mantle; it was used as a covering for the night, and therefore was forbidden by the Mosaic law to be retained in pledge overnight. (Exo 22:26-27.) To give up the cloak without resistance implied a higher degree of concession.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.-This is the third application that Jesus makes of the principle of submitting rather than retaliating; the first, if smitten on one cheek turn the other; the second, if compelled to give up the inner garment, give the outer garment also; and third, if compelled to go one mile, go two. There was a custom which originated with the Persian government that a man traveling on a mission for the government, if need be, could compel others to assist him in carrying out the demands of the government; the Greeks took up the same custom and put it into a law; finally the Romans enlarged upon it and incorporated this principle into a law. Unfair advantage was taken of this law; sometimes the Jews were compelled to assist Romans when the official authority had not demanded it. It was a beautiful custom at first, when a man traveling and about to pass a post station, where horses and messengers are kept in order to forward royal messages as quickly as possible, such could be commanded into the service of the government; but to pervert this custom or principle for private gain or advantage was mean; the Jews resented it, but Jesus teaches that it is better to suffer this inconvenience and injury than to retaliate.

42 Give to him that asketh thee.-This has its limitations and is still on the teaching against retaliation; the meaning of this can be understood from the conduct of Jesus. He said later, “If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do.” (Joh 14:14.) Jesus did not always give what was asked of him , sometimes God does not give what we ask of him. (2Co 12:8-9.) Sometimes we do not receive because we ask amiss. (Jas 4:3.) Our beneficence must be regulated by a due regard to those who may ask of us. Those who “would borrow of thee turn not thou away”; those who would borrow because they need should not be rejected; but those who borrow in order to make gain or profit are to be rejected. The spirit of retailation is still before Jesus; if one has injured us, but is in need and should ask, we should not refuse to give that which is needed because the one asking has done us an injury; to withhold from one who asks in need would be to retaliate; this is forbidden. The teaching of Jesus on this was expressed in the law of Moses. (Deu 15:8-10.)

[ Jesus here gives a positive law of his kingdom;his subjects must not return evil for evil, but they must return good for evil. This is a positive law for the government of every subject of his kingdom. The object as set forth by Jesus is to make us the children of our Father who is in heaven and to perfect us like God our Father. To every one then that has an aspiration to be a child of God, to be made perfect like God, it is necessary to conform to this solemn law. And no man can be a child of God without cultivating and continually practicing this spirit. The whole life and teachings of Jesus were a continued exemplification of this law. He uncomplainingly bore evil, persecution, contumely, and contempt during his life; he endured sorrow and affliction while he lived on earth. His life was falsely sworn away, and he suffered a cruel and ignominious death, as a malefactor, without a word of bitter reproach escaping from him.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

it hath: Mat 23:16

Thou: Exo 20:7, Lev 19:12, Num 30:2-16, Deu 5:11, Deu 23:23, Psa 50:14, Psa 76:11, Ecc 5:4-6, Nah 1:15

Reciprocal: Gen 42:15 – By the life Psa 15:4 – sweareth Psa 116:14 – pay my vows Psa 119:106 – sworn Pro 20:25 – after Zec 5:3 – sweareth Mal 2:9 – but Mat 5:21 – it 1Ti 1:10 – perjured Jam 5:12 – swear not

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

REVERENCE FOR THE HOLY NAME

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all, etc.

Mat 5:33-36

According to the Quaker view, our Blessed Lord forbids all oaths, whether promissory or evidential, and in her Articles the Church of England is blameworthy in giving her sanction to such oaths.

I. Are all oaths forbidden?The difficulties of this position are not inconsiderable. If all swearing be forbidden here, the Saviours attitude towards the Law of Moses at this point is suddenly changed, and instead of confirming, He proceeds to destroy. Oaths were admitted under the old law. Again, St. Paul repeatedly strengthens his language by formal appeals to the God of truth. God is my witness (Rom 1:9). If, then, our Lord is to be understood here as condemning oaths of every kind, He is distinctly at issue with the Law of Moses, and His apostle, by his practice, is as markedly at issue with Him. If, on the other hand, we simply understand the prohibition here to be that of all light and irreverent appeals to the Divine Being, direct or indirect, all difficulty vanishes.

II. The acknowledgment of God.In the taking of an oath some very solemn and weighty truths are acknowledged by implication. The existence of a personal God: His interference in human affairs: His immutable character as the True and Faithful One, Who loves the true and will avenge the false: His judicial as well as his inquisitorial powersall this is implied and assented to when a man calls God to witness to the truth of what he is doing or saying; and such an attestation to distinctively religious truth, in connection with certain grave functions of state or of law, is a healthy protest against that growing materialism which every earnest Christian must so deeply deplore.

III. The need of reverence.On the general question of reverence, it may be observed that Eastern manners admitted, and still admit, of much more frequent allusions to the great Object of worship, which contrast favourably with our shy and meagre acknowledgments of His presence. And now that we appear to be breaking through this reserve to some extent, it would seem that, with clumsy maladroitness, we are doing so at the expense of all true reverence. Christianity is being popularised to-day as it never was before, and in the process is parting with much of its mysterious character; and in some quarters, where this particular phase of it has met with astonishing success, it is not easy for a devotional mind to distinguish between this familiar treatment of the subject and downright profanation. There is a current fashion of speaking of the Redeemer as if He were more of a human friend than a Divine. On many lips the holy and yet purely human name Jesus altogether supersedes the name Christ, which bespeaks His Divine Messiah ship. An unbecoming familiarity is thus fostered, at times sinking almost to the spirit of patronage.

IV. Reverence in daily life.The subject touches more nearly the daily lives of most of us at other points. Profanity admits of degrees, and in some of its shapes it gains an all too facile entrance into polite society. Reverence is a tender, delicate plant, and very little may sometimes prove enough to nip it. People will tell us, attitude is quite immaterial in worship. So it may be, if we only have regard to the Hearer; we have, however, some doubts if we consider the suppliant himself. A careless posture not only betokens a careless frame of mind, but induces it. Besides, is it becoming to draw near to the King of kings in a posture which would insult our earthly sovereign? Nothing abject is called for. We draw near with boldness. But if a spotless seraph, as he worships, veils his face with his wings before the throne of heaven, we who worship at the footstool can hardly do less than kneel.

Bishop Alfred Pearson.

Illustrations

(1) Bending over his manuscript in the scriptorium of the monastery, the poet makes his good father pause on coming to the Holy Name. He is writing out a copy of a Gospel:

I come again to the Name of the Lord;

Ere I that awful Name record,

That is spoken so lightly among men,

Let me pause a while and wash my pen;

Pure from blemish and blot must it be

When it writes that word of mystery.

(2) That great and good man, the Hon. Robert Boyle, who wrote Natures Reflectionhe was a nobleman, a statesman, and an authorbefore he ever said the name of God he always made a hush, a pause.

(3) Two years ago I was on the Kulm, i.e. the top, of the Stanserhorn (a mountain near Lucerne), and the view was perfect and all was delightful and one felt in tune with Nature and in touch (if I may reverently say so) with God. Suddenly I heard voices. It was two Americans. One of them began to speak, and he could not admire the beauty around him without taking that sacred Name in vain, that Name at which every knee shall one day bow! A cloud had come over my beauteous scene; the day was spoiled to me.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

5:33

Forswear means to make a false oath, or to testify under oath that which one does not intend to fulfill. The reference is to Lev 19:12 where false oaths were expressly forbidden. Jesus cites the saying in contrast between his ruling and the old.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

[It hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, etc.] the law forbids perjury, Lev 19:12; etc. To which the Fathers of the Traditions reduced the whole sin of swearing, little caring for a rash oath. In this chapter of oaths they doubly sinned:

I. That they were nothing at all solicitous about an oath, so that what was sworn were not false. They do but little trouble themselves, what, how, how often, how rashly, you swear, so that what you swear be true.

In the Talmudic tract Shevuoth; and in like manner in Maimonides, oaths are distributed into these four ranks:

First, A promissory oath; when a man swore that he would do, or not do, this or that, etc. And this was one of the twofold oaths, which were also fourfold; that is, a negative or affirmative oath; and again, a negative or affirmative oath concerning something past, or a negative or affirmative oath concerning something to come: namely, when any one swears that he hath done this or that, or not done it; or that he will do this or that, or that he will not do it. “Whosoever, therefore, swears any of these four ways, and the thing is not as he swears, (for example, that he hath not cast a stone into the sea, when he hath cast it; that he hath cast it, when he hath not; that he will not eat, and yet eats; that he will eat, and yet eateth not,) behold, this is a false oath, or perjury.”

“Whosoever swears that he will not eat, and yet eats some things which are not sufficiently fit to be eaten, this man is not guilty.”

Secondly, A vain or a rash oath. This also is fourfold, but not in the same manner as the former: 1. When they asserted that with an oath which was contrary to most known truth; as, “If he should swear a man were a woman, a stone-pillar to be a pillar of gold,” etc.; or when any swore that was or was not, which was altogether impossible; as, “that he saw a camel flying in the air.” 2. When one asserted that by an oath, concerning which there was no reason that any should doubt. For example, that “Heaven is heaven, a stone is a stone,” etc. 3. When a man swore that he would do that which was altogether impossible; namely, “that he would not sleep for three days and three nights; that he would taste nothing for a full week,” etc. 4. When any swore that he would abstain from that which was commanded; as, “that he would not wear phylacteries,” etc. These very examples are brought in the places alleged.

Thirdly, An oath concerning something left in trust; namely, when any swore concerning something left in trust with him, that it was stolen or broke or lost, and not embezzled by him, etc.

Fourthly, A testimonial oath; before a judge or magistrate.

In three of these kinds of swearing, care is taken only concerning the truth of the thing sworn, not of the vanity of swearing.

They seemed, indeed, to make some provision against a vain and rash oath: namely, 1. That he be beaten, who so swears, and become cursed: which Maimonides hints in the twelfth chapter of the tract alleged: with whom the Jerusalem Gemarists do agree; “He that swears two is two, let him be beaten for his vain oath.” 2. They also added terror to it from fearful examples, such as that is in the very same place. “There were twenty-four assemblies in the south; and they were all destroyed for a vain oath.” And in the same tract, a woman buried her son for an oath, etc. Yet they concluded vain oaths in so narrow a circle, that a man might swear a hundred thousand times, and yet not come within the limits of the caution concerning vain swearing.

II. It was customary and usual among them to swear by the creatures; “If any swear by heaven, by earth, by the sun, etc. Although the mind of the swearer be under these words to swear by Him who created them, yet this is not an oath. Or if any swear by some of the prophets, or by some of the books of the Scripture, although the sense of the swearer be to swear by Him that sent that prophet, or that gave that book, nevertheless this is not an oath.”

“If any adjure another by heaven or earth, he is not guilty.”

They swore by Heaven. By Heaven so it is.

They swore by the Temple. “When turtles and young pigeons were sometimes sold at Jerusalem for a penny of gold, Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, By this habitation [that is, by this Temple] i will not rest this night, unless they be sold for a penny of silver.”

“R. Zechariah Ben Ketsab said, By this Temple; the hand of the woman departed not out of my hand.” “R. Jochanan said, By the Temple it is in our hand,” etc.

“Bava Ben Buta swore by the Temple in the end of the tract Cherithuth, and Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel in the beginning; And so was the custom in Israel.” Note this, “so was the custom.”

They swore by the city Jerusalem. “R. Judah saith, He that saith, ‘By Jerusalem,’ saith nothing, unless with an intent purpose he shall vow towards Jerusalem.” Where, also, after two lines coming between those forms of swearing and vowing are added, “Jerusalem, for Jerusalem, by Jerusalem. The Temple, for the Temple, by the Temple. The altar, for the altar, by the altar. The lamb, for the lamb, by the lamb. The chambers of the Temple, for the chambers of the Temple, by the chambers of the Temple. The wood, for the wood, by the wood. The sacrifices on fire, for the sacrifices on fire, by the sacrifices on fire. The dishes, for the dishes, by the dishes. By all these things, that I will do this to you.”

They swore by their own heads. “One is bound to swear to his neighbour, and he saith, Vow (or swear) to me by the life of thy head;” etc.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 5:33. A summary of the Mosaic precepts in regard to swearing; negatively, Thou shalt not swear falsely; positively, but shalt perform to the Lord thine oaths. (Comp. Lev 19:12; Num 25:2.) The twofold mistake of the Jews, answered by our Lord: that only false swearing, and swearing by the name of God, were forbidden. They probably considered no oaths binding, save those in which the name of God occurred; this error, though not mentioned, is necessarily opposed.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The next commandment which our Saviour expounds and vindicates, is the third, which requires a reverent use of God’s name.

Now the Pharisees taught that perjury was the only breach of this commandment; and that swearing was nothing, if they did not forswear themselves; and that persons were only obliged to swear by the name of God in public courts of justice, but in their ordinary and common discourse they might swear by any of the creatures.

Now, in opposition to these wicked principles and practices, Christ says, Swear not at all: that is,

1. Swear not profanely in your ordinary discourse.

2. Swear not unduly by any of the creatures; for that is to ascribe a deity to them.

3. Swear not lightly upon any trifling or frivolous occasion; for oaths upon small occasions are great sins. So that an oath is not here forbidden by our Saviour, but restrained.

For though light and needless, common and ordinary swearing, be a very great sin, yet to take an oath upon a solemn occasion, when adjured by the high-priest, did answer upon oath. But he forbids all voluntary oaths in common conversation, and in our ordinary discourse; because an oath is an act of religious worship; therefore to trifle with it is an horrid provocation.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 5:33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time Or rather, was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. See the margin. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that oaths were obligatory according to the nature of the things by which a man swears: Mat 23:10. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law, which forbade them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only as were of a binding nature. It is this detestable morality which Jesus condemns in the following words. But I say unto you, Swear not at all In your common discourse one with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swear not by any thing, on the supposition that the oath will not bind you. For all oaths whatever, those by the lowest of the creatures not excepted, are obligatory; because, if they have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the great Creator; consequently they are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath on such of the creatures sworn by as are capable of Gods wrath; and for the other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case of your swearing falsely, that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in, or hope from those creatures. Swear not, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. By comparing Mat 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. His meaning therefore is, Swear not at all, unless you have a mind to perform; because every oath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his own head, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty, who, when called thereto by lawful authority, swears with an intention to falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Heb 6:16; and a high act of religious worship, Deu 6:3; Isa 65:16; an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great patron and protector of right, and the avenger of falsehood. But let your communication be yea, yea Avoid the use of all such oaths, as of those in which the name of God is directly expressed, and maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words as will merit the belief of your acquaintance; so that, in common conversation, to gain yourselves credit, you need do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil , Of the evil one: in common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen in them, and in all who hear them, a due reverence of the Divine Majesty, and by this means lead them, at length, to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations which show the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. The Apostle James expresses this sentiment thus, Jas 5:12, Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay, therefore, signify the promise or assertion; the second the fulfilment. Accordingly we find the word yea used as a promise, Rev 1:7, where it is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2Co 1:10, where we are told that the promises of God are all in Christ, yea and amen. On the other hand, concerning those whose actions do not correspond to their promises, it is said, 2Co 1:18-19, that their word is yea and nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Mat 5:33-37. Oaths.Jesus sums up several OT passages, e.g. Exo 20:7, Lev 19:12, Num 30:2, Deu 23:21-23. The use of oaths and vows by the Jews was much abused, and the Rabbis were continually discussing whether or no certain vows and oaths were binding. Jesus goes to the root of the matter by forbidding all oaths, and admits no limitations to the general principle, a position adopted by the Quakers as by Irenus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome. The Essenes abstained from oaths except at their initiation. Yet Paul uses solemn expressions of appeal to God (cf. also 1Co 15:31, 1Th 5:27, and Heb 6:13-17).Heaven (Mat 5:34) is the sky, the dwelling-place of God, therefore to swear by it is profanation; so with earth (Mat 5:35), His footstool.by Jerusalem: lit. towards Jerusalem. There was a Jewish saying that an oath by Jerusalem was void unless it was sworn towards Jerusalem. Jesus forbids even this. The city of God, like His throne (cf. Mat 23:22) and footstool, implies the presence of God. Even a mans own head (Mat 5:36) is not his absolute possession; so he must not swear by it. In Mat 5:37 Jesus condemns unnecessary emphasis; Jas 5:12 suggests the probable rendering of the injunction here. Whatever goes beyond plain unequivocal speech arises from the evil that is in the world. Oaths spring from the untruthfulness of men. On this whole passage cf. Secrets of Enoch, 491.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 33

Unto the Lord thine oaths; thine oaths taken in the name of the Lord.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

5:33 {8} Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

(8) The meaning of the third commandment against the perverse opinion and judgment of the scribes, who excused by oaths or indirect forms of swearing.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

God’s will concerning oaths 5:33-37

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus next gave a condensation of several commands in the Old Testament that forbade taking an oath, invoking the Lord’s name to guarantee the oath, and then breaking it (Exo 20:7; Lev 19:12; Num 30:2; Deu 5:11; Deu 6:3; Deu 23:21-23). God has always intended simple truthfulness in speech as well as lifelong marriage. The rabbis had developed an elaborate stratification of oaths. They taught that swearing by God’s name was binding, but swearing by heaven and earth was not binding. Swearing toward Jerusalem was binding, but swearing by Jerusalem was not. In some cases they even tried to deceive others by appealing to various authorities in their oaths. [Note: Hogg and Watson, p. 54.] Jesus was not talking about "cursing" here but using oaths to affirm that what one said was true.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles