Q: In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus forbids His followers to take oaths. Swear not at all, He says. Yet in the Old Testament, many people made oaths. Isnt this a contradiction?
A: Its definitely a difference -- one of the many differences between the responsibilities of those under the old covenant and the responsibilities of those under the new testament. Special oaths were something a person said when he wished to assure others that he was telling the truth. But it shouldnt take a special oath to convince people that a Christian is telling the truth. Our standard is to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:14-15).
Does this teaching in Matthew 5:33-37 render some instructions in the old covenant obsolete and/or superfluous? Yes. That is part of what Jesus was up to here in the Sermon on the Mount: to take people who had the Law of Moses to the next level -- to metriculate them out of the school of Law into the life of grace. In the days of the old covenant, God encouraged and even commanded the use of His name in oaths to affirm truth -- filling a void which would otherwise be liable to be filled by the names of false gods -- but having established that foundation, He built upon it.
By the way, some of the passages that are employed as evidence that the taking of oaths is sanctioned touch the subject only incidentally or not at all:
Gen. 21:23-24 -- God does not command this oath; it is requested by Abimelech and Phicol, and is granted by Abraham.
Gen. 24:2-9 -- God does not command this oath; it is ordered by Abraham and performed by his eldest servant.
Gen. 31:53 -- God does not command this oath either.
Gen. 47:31 -- God does not command this oath either.
Lev. 27:2-10 -- This is not about oaths; it is about welching on vows of dedication. (Here Im making a distinction between /oaths/ as ways to affirm that a statement is true, and /vows/ which are promises to perform an action or inaction.
Numbers 30:2 -- This, too, is not about oaths, per se; it is about vows of dedication (which could, but did not have to, involve oaths).
Deut. 23:31 -- This is not about oaths; it is about vows.
Isaiah 45:23 -- not really applicable, because it is about something God does.
Isaiah 48:1 -- When the entire verse is read, it is clear that this is a critique against misusing the name of the LORD in oaths.
Rev. 10:5-6 -- not really applicable, because the standard for angels isnt necessarily the same as the rules for people (since angels are not, as far as I can tell, covered by the covenant of grace through Jesus Christ, at least not the same way human beings are).
Note: some interpreters seem to think that Jesus was referring here to oaths casually spoken in conversation, in which phrases like As surely as the LORD lives, or Is it true? May my white beard turn black if it isnt true (or the reverse), or As surely as the Temple stands, and so forth. The effect of these was sometimes evasion (like, Am I telling the truth? Am I telling the truth?! If Im not telling the truth, may the Holy Lampstand be blown out!), and it tended to diminish the reverence in which holy entities and objects were supposed to be held. Examples of such oath-formulas are mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 23:16-22. So among most Christian denominations and fellowships, frivolous oaths are forbidden but formal oaths in a court of law are not. But imho the best course of action is to avoid all oaths.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Its definitely a difference -- one of the many differences between the responsibilities of those under the old covenant and the responsibilities of those under the new testament. Special oaths were something a person said when he wished to assure others that he was telling the truth. But it shouldnt take a special oath to convince people that a Christian is telling the truth. Our standard is to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:14-15).
Does this teaching in Matthew 5:33-37 render some instructions in the old covenant obsolete and/or superfluous? Yes. That is part of what Jesus was up to here in the Sermon on the Mount: to take people who had the Law of Moses to the next level -- to metriculate them out of the school of Law into the life of grace. In the days of the old covenant, God encouraged and even commanded the use of His name in oaths to affirm truth -- filling a void which would otherwise be liable to be filled by the names of false gods -- but having established that foundation, He built upon it.
By the way, some of the passages that are employed as evidence that the taking of oaths is sanctioned touch the subject only incidentally or not at all:
Gen. 21:23-24 -- God does not command this oath; it is requested by Abimelech and Phicol, and is granted by Abraham.
Gen. 24:2-9 -- God does not command this oath; it is ordered by Abraham and performed by his eldest servant.
Gen. 31:53 -- God does not command this oath either.
Gen. 47:31 -- God does not command this oath either.
Lev. 27:2-10 -- This is not about oaths; it is about welching on vows of dedication. (Here Im making a distinction between /oaths/ as ways to affirm that a statement is true, and /vows/ which are promises to perform an action or inaction.
Numbers 30:2 -- This, too, is not about oaths, per se; it is about vows of dedication (which could, but did not have to, involve oaths).
Deut. 23:31 -- This is not about oaths; it is about vows.
Isaiah 45:23 -- not really applicable, because it is about something God does.
Isaiah 48:1 -- When the entire verse is read, it is clear that this is a critique against misusing the name of the LORD in oaths.
Rev. 10:5-6 -- not really applicable, because the standard for angels isnt necessarily the same as the rules for people (since angels are not, as far as I can tell, covered by the covenant of grace through Jesus Christ, at least not the same way human beings are).
Note: some interpreters seem to think that Jesus was referring here to oaths casually spoken in conversation, in which phrases like As surely as the LORD lives, or Is it true? May my white beard turn black if it isnt true (or the reverse), or As surely as the Temple stands, and so forth. The effect of these was sometimes evasion (like, Am I telling the truth? Am I telling the truth?! If Im not telling the truth, may the Holy Lampstand be blown out!), and it tended to diminish the reverence in which holy entities and objects were supposed to be held. Examples of such oath-formulas are mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 23:16-22. So among most Christian denominations and fellowships, frivolous oaths are forbidden but formal oaths in a court of law are not. But imho the best course of action is to avoid all oaths.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
