The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ longest uninterrupted address that is recorded in the Scriptures. In this address Jesus contrasts and supersedes some of the teachings of the Old Testament law with His teachings. One of the areas where He introduces a change is in the swearing of oaths. Let’s begin with understanding the purpose of oaths under the old covenant and consider Jesus’ teaching on the non-swearing of oaths and the use of simple affirmations of the truth.
1. Oaths under the Old Testament law
The oath was used under the old covenant as a means of binding the law upon Israel.
“Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God . . . That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: That he may establish thee today for a people unto himself” (Deuteronomy 29:10-13).
Using God’s name in swearing was also a means to call upon God as a witness to truth.
“Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name” (Deuteronomy 6:13).
When swearing oaths under the law, God’s name was used to prevent taking frivolous oaths. God’s name was to be used reverently and truthfully for making covenant promises (Exodus 23:1; Leviticus 5:1, 6:2-5, 19:12).
The swearing of oaths was a religious ceremony and an integral part of the old covenant relationship between God and His people, to illustrate to them the importance of speaking the truth and being faithful to God’s law.
2. Oaths are designed to force people to tell the truth
Humans in their fallen nature will naturally lie and must be taught, encouraged, and required to tell the truth. The following Scriptures speak of this:
“The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies” (Psalms 58:3).
“Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips” (Romans 3:13).
“Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds” (Colossians 3:9).
Many cultures have recognized the natural tendency to lie and therefore use oaths and penalties for perjury to force people to be truthful.
3. Oaths in Colonial America
Military and political leaders have required oaths from soldiers or subjects to compel obedience and to deter rebellion.
Oaths to the British Crown were imposed on all the early colonists. When the Patriots began to resent the British laws, they adjured some of the magistrates in Massachusetts to renounce the king of England and the laws of Parliament. Not only did the Patriots renounce former oaths, but they took new oaths of loyalty to their colony. Eventually every colony required these loyalty oaths. In 1777, George Washington issued a proclamation requiring all Americans to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States (Ronald Wells and Thomas Askew, eds., Liberty and Law [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], p. 5-7).
The Protestant Reformers were ardent advocates of the use of religious oaths. In early America the Reformed Church members broke their oaths when the rule of the king was perceived unjust. This action went against their standard Reformed teaching.
Matthew Henry, the Reformed Puritan commentator, says in his notes on Psalm 15:4, “He is one that always prefers a good conscience before any secular interest or advantage whatever: for, if he has promised upon oath to do anything, though afterwards it appears much to his damage and prejudice in his worldly estate, yet he adheres to it and changes not. See how weak-sighted and short-sighted even wise and good men may be; they swear to their own hurt, which they were not aware of when they took the oath. But see how strong the obligation of an oath is, that a man must suffer loss to himself and his family than wrong his neighbor by breaking his oath. An oath is a sacred thing, which we must not think to play fast and loose with.”
This commentary would rebuke those who revolted and broke their loyalty oath to the king of England. We do not mention this history to suggest that God did not ordain the founding of America, but rather to illustrate the ineffectiveness of oaths in keeping people true to their word.
4. Oaths are frivolous for those that have the Spirit of truth
Oath advocates have argued that Jesus was only condemning frivolous oaths. However, the requirement of the law to swear by God eliminated frivolous oaths, and Jesus was superseding the law. Jesus not only prohibited oaths by Jerusalem, the head, or Heaven, He also was saying, “Swear not at all.” When people need to strengthen their yes and their no with an oath, there is the implication of evil inclinations. Without the penalties for perjury, they might not tell the truth.
Jesus changed the manner of communication for believers and enabled them to be truthful by sending the Spirit of truth into their hearts (John 14:16-17). The indwelling of the Spirit empowers us to speak the truth before magistrates (Mark 13:11).
5. Arguments from the New Testament used to support the use of oaths
There are some New Testament passages that are used to try to prove that Christ did not categorically forbid all swearing when He said, “Swear not at all.”
One of the arguments is derived from the fact that God swears. If God swears, how can it be a sin? This argument relies on passages such as Hebrews 6:13-20 and 7:20-28 that refer to God swearing. These Scriptures speak of God swearing to Abraham the promise of blessing and swearing to make Christ an eternal Priest and Surety of the new and better testament.
It is important to understand that God may justly prohibit us from performing that which He now reserves for Himself, for His ways are not our ways. One example is that God has reserved the right of vengeance for Himself alone when He says, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,” and then says, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay” (Romans 12:19). Another example is when God tells us not to judge our brother, but then says that to his Master he will stand or fall (Romans 14:4).
Furthermore, the two main reasons for which God swears are the same two reasons why we as Christians should not. First, God can swear because He knows all truth and will never break His oath. He alone “cannot lie.” Secondly, God is able to guarantee the performance of all that He has sworn to do. James 4:13-15 notes that we can never guarantee a course of action. Therefore, we should say that if the Lord wills and we live, we plan to perform certain things. Our yes and no should represent the honest intentions of our heart and will, but beyond that we risk falling short in our inability to always perform an oath (James 5:12).
Sometimes it is remarked that Jesus replied to the high priest at His trial after He was adjured (placed under oath), thus Jesus gave consent to be placed under oath.
“And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63).
The argument, then, is that since Christ spoke after being adjured, it is one and the same as if He had taken an oath and testified. The Scriptures do not record that Christ took an oath, but rather that He responded without taking an oath. If we are to assume that Christ took an oath by responding to an adjuration, then we are saying that any person is oath-bound to any course of action unto which a wicked man adjures him.
Using this logic, when the demon said to Christ, “I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not,” Christ was then bound by an oath to not torment the demon (Mark 5:7). We can see this logic does not work when applied to this Scripture.
Some also argue that the language Paul used in Galatians 1:11 and 1:20 is the equivalent of him taking an “oath of certification” that the gospel is true. Paul is giving his solemn word before God that what he is writing and preaching is gospel truth. The Greek word for certify is gnōrizō, which means to “declare” or “make known.” Paul was saying that before God he declares that the gospel is true and comes not from men or himself, but is a direct revelation from Christ.
The foregoing arguments illustrate the weakness of the case that the New Testament supports believers using oaths.
6. Testimony supporting the avoidance of oaths
We want to note the teaching on oaths of the ante-Nicene church (before AD 325) before the church became a state-supported religion.
Justin Martyr (AD 160) — “And with regard to our not swearing at all, and always speaking the truth, He commanded as follows: ‘Swear not at all; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these comes of evil’” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 168).
Clement of Alexandria (AD 195) — “The man of proven character in such piety is far from being apt to lie and to swear. For an oath is a decisive affirmation, with the taking of the divine name. For how can he, that is once faithful, show himself unfaithful, so as to require an oath; and so that his life may not be a sure and decisive oath? He lives, and walks, and shows the trustworthiness of his affirmation in an unwavering and sure life and speech” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 537).
Constantine (AD 325) and succeeding Roman emperors established Christianity as a state-supported religion, which brought oaths into more common usage among the nominal church. However, Chrysostom, writing in the Nicene church age, disputed the effectiveness of the oath and aligns his thinking with the ante-Nicene church.
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 5:33-37 (AD 386-397) — “But what, it may be said, if anyone should require an oath, and apply constraint? Let the fear of God be more powerful than the constraint: since, if you are to bring forward such excuses, you will keep none of the things which are enjoined.”
Moving on to the Middle Ages, we note other groups holding the same position as the ante-Nicene church.
Waldensians (beginning in the 12th century) — “Waldensians tried to live strictly based on the Bible. For example, because the Bible said, ‘Swear not at all’, Waldensians avoided swearing. This was used as a technique to find Waldensians: they asked an accused person to swear an oath, and if they did not, they were Waldensians” (Philip Daileader, Ph.D., College of William & Mary).
Anabaptists and similar groups since the 16th century have avoided the use of oaths.
Charles Spurgeon (published the commentary on Matthew in AD 1893) — He lived in a time when many mainline churches taught that oaths were acceptable. Spurgeon also reflects the understanding of the ante-Nicene church in his comments:
“Christ thus abolishes the whole system of swearing, as it ought to be abolished in every place; and he goes on to show that he did not mean merely unclean, false oaths, or oaths taken as some men take them blasphemously, but every form and kind of oath, for he says, ‘Swear not at all’ . . .
“If words mean anything, this command of Christ is an utter abolishment of oaths taken before magistrates as well as everywhere else. I can make nothing else out of it; indeed, it must mean that, because Christ contrasts his teaching with that of former ages: ‘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.’ A man who cannot be believed upon his word certainly cannot be believed upon his oath; and, usually, when a man tells a lie, the next thing he does is to swear to it. When Peter denied his Master, the next thing he did was to curse and to swear, because he thought it likely that they would not imagine that he was a follower of Christ if he did curse and swear; so he gave that as a pretty clear proof that he had not been with Christ, and was not one of his disciples. Alas, that we should need anything beside ‘Yea, yea,’ and ‘Nay, nay!’”
The position presented here has been affirmed by the ante-Nicene church and successive faithful bodies of believers down through the ages. Wherever the church has involved itself in the affairs of state they have typically advocated the usage of oaths. Professing Christians from mainline churches lay their hand upon the Bible and swear over the words of Christ which tell us to “swear not at all.” How does laying one’s hand on a Bible and disobeying the words of the Master make someone truthful? The oath is designed to force people to tell the truth, whereas the words of Christ are designed to help us become true people in our words and lives.
For clarity on the topic of oaths we should briefly consider the difference between an oath, a vow, and a promise.
a. An oath is a “binding guarantee often with penalties for noncompliance” that the truth will be told or that an action will be completed. It generally has no exceptions or provisions for shortcomings. Any failure is considered a breach of the guarantee and may incur a penalty. (Example of God: God’s oath made Jesus the eternal High Priest of the new covenant—to break the oath would make God a liar.)
b. A vow is a “sacred commitment” that does not guarantee an outcome, but it becomes a non-negotiable guiding principle for life. Faithfulness is expected, but human failure does not make it void and therefore it remains in effect in spite of human failure (example: marriage vows).
c. A promise is “giving our word or pledge” to carry out a course of action to the best of our ability. (Example: If the Lord wills we will do this or that.)
7. Why did God command Israel to swear oaths in the Old Testament when
Jesus would say “swear not at all” in the New Testament?
The law’s provision for swearing demonstrated man’s inability to guarantee the complete truth of his words or the complete fulfillment of his words. The oath revealed a human’s limitations, inability, and sinfulness in spite of their best resolutions. The law demonstrated that the oath takers were oath breakers.
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20).
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24).
To become people of truth we need a heart change and the indwelling of the Spirit of truth. The ineffectual oaths of the law brought us to faith in Christ, showing their temporary nature. The new covenant is founded on God’s eternal oath on our behalf as an anchor of the soul that is sure and steadfast (Hebrews 6:16-20). The new covenant relationship unites us permanently with God’s truth.
The Old Testament law was engraved on stone by the finger of God and then constituted upon the people with a covenant oath. The New Testament was initiated with God confirming by an oath that Jesus was eternally the Priest, Mediator, and Surety of the new covenant which was then written by the Spirit of God upon the tables of our heart (2 Corinthians 3:3-8). The righteous ministry of the Spirit upon our hearts is far more effective and glorious than the oaths taken under the law which in turn condemned them for oath breaking (2 Corinthians 3:8-9).
8. How can we apply truth affirmations in our lives?
We all know that the Scriptures can be misunderstood. Peter mentioned that some of the things which Paul wrote were hard to understand, yet the Holy Spirit moved Paul to write them that way. Jesus used parables at times to keep the unconverted from understanding the deeper truths of the gospel before they were saved. The Bible is filled with topics that require meditation and careful consideration. None of these aspects negate Jesus’ teaching about using simple truth affirmations in important agreements between parties. The Scriptures also include many other commands that are as simple and straightforward as “swear not at all.”
Jesus teaches us that in situations where oaths may typically be employed, we need to use clear communication in place of an oath. When called upon to testify, the “yes and no” are guiding principles to clearly affirm truth and to clearly deny error. Here are some guidelines that may help us as we think about communicating truth in such situations:
a. Be as clear as you can be when communicating your message.
b. Do not be deceptive with your words by being technically accurate but intentionally misleading.
c. Be as accurate as you can be with your knowledge of the facts. If you are questioned on something that you previously said, there should not be a significant difference between what you originally stated and how you might explain it later under questioning unless you are making a factual addition or correction to your original message.
d. Do not become defensive or hostile in your attitude or “play the emotional victim” when you are being questioned about statements that you have made. As someone has said, “It is amazing how calm a person can be when they are telling the truth.”
e. Become known as someone who says what you mean and means what you say and stands by your word, but who is willing to admit when you make a mistake.
May we walk in the Spirit of truth and use concise affirmations of yes and no as Jesus taught us. May the truth be written upon the tables of our hearts and the ministry of the Spirit be glorified in our lives when we are called upon to testify.
Loading...