at la 0000906015

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

1/33

TRINJ16NS (1995) 139-170

OATH-TAKING

IN THE

COMMUNITY OF THE NEW AGE

(MATTHEW 5:33-37)

DON GARLINGTON*

I. INTRODUCTION

Matthew 5:33-37 strikes the modern reader of the Sermon on theMount as something of an oddity. It appears to be a holdover from abygone eraone side of an in-house discussion between Jews and

Christians respecting religious and civil duty. As such, it hasassumed the aspect of a fossil embedded in an otherwiserecognizable contemporary program of ethics. In fact, the more oneexplores the Jewish context of this saying about oath-taking, themore its seeming irrelevance for modern life comes to the forewiththe exception of those Christian sects, ancient and modern, whichhave applied the logion quite superficially and have consciouslyobjected to swearing under any circumstances (most conspicuouslyoath-taking in courts of law and oaths of national and militaryallegiance).1

Nevertheless, however irrelevant the saying may initially seem,oath-taking, we shall argue, is still valid for the Christiancommunity.2 But it is a form of swearing conditioned by eschato-

*Don Garlington is Professor of New Testament at Toronto Baptist Seminary inToronto, Ontario, Canada.

1See W. Frst, "Der Eid als Problem Evangelischer Ethik," in Eid, Gewissen,Treupflicht (ed. H. Bethke; Frankfurt: Stimme, 1965) 63-67; W. D. Davies and D. C.

Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentari/ on the Gospel According to Saint Matthe(ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: & Clark, 1988,1991) 1.535; cf. U. Luz, Matthew1-7: ACommentary(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 318-20.

2

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

2/33

140 TRINITY JOURNAL

logical and Christological factors; specifically the conception that

Israel's long-expected Messiah had come in the person of Jesus ofNazareth. It was this Messiah who introduced a significantmodification into the oath-taking practices of his adherents. On theone hand, Jesus7 "ban" on swearing, as it is normally taken to be,was a vehicle for articulating a noticeablenot to say egregiousdifference between the community of Israel, the people of the oldage, and his community, the people of the new age.3 On the otherhand, there is an observable continuity between the twocommunities, in that the Lord of the new covenant places the samedemand for integrity on his followers as Yahweh did on his peopleIsrael. Matt 5:33-37 thus assumes a decided salvation-historicalpertinence for the disciples of Jesus the Christ by introducing asignificant modification into a long-standing custom and yet, at thesame time, preserving the essence of the command, "You shall nottake the name ofthe Lord your God in vain" (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11).4

3I agree with Stanton that Matthew wrote his gospel as a "foundationdocument" for a cluster ofChristian communities (as distinct from a Jesus-centeredform of Judaism, la Saldarmi). Consequently, Stanton remarks, the evangelist andmost of his readers saw themselves as a "new people," over against both local

synagogues and the Gentile world at large. The gospel thus contains "a whole seriesof 'legitimating answers' for the 'new people.'" Fully and prominently, it "defendsvigorously the distinctive convictions and self-understanding of the 'new people"'("Matthew's Communities," 17-18).

4The following sketch focuses only on those aspects of oath-taking in ancientIsrael relevant to the purposes at hand. Fuller studies are provided by M. Greenberg,Encjud14.1295-98; H. H. Cohn, Encjud14.1298-1302; I. Levitats, Encjud14.1302-3; L. I.Rabinowitz, Encjud16.227-28; Str-B 1.321-28; C. A. Keller, THAT2.39-43,855-63; M. H.Pope, IDB 3.575-77; J. Schneider, TDNT5.176-80, 458-61; W. Mundle and T. Sorg,

NIDNTT1.413-18; H.-G. Link, NIDNTT3.739-40; H.-G. Link and U. Becker, N1DNTT1.206-18; M. Stenzel, "Oath," Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology: The Complete

Sacramentum Verbi (ed. J. . Bauer; NewYork: Crossroad, 1981) 614-15; F. C. Fensham,ISBE(2d ed.) 3.572-74; W. D. Davies, The Settingof the Sermon on the Mount(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1966) 239-45; E P Sanders Jewish Lawfrom

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

3/33

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING 141

IL THE OATH IN THE COMMUNITY OF THE OLD AGE

A. The Hebrew Scriptures

1. The Oath: A Pledge ofthe Covenant?

An "oath" (or "vow") as used in the Hebrew Scriptures, may becalled "a sworn affirmation or an invocation of God in confirmationof a promise."6 It is a solemn appeal to God to confirm the truth of

one's words, with the express acceptance of punishment in case onefails to speak the truth.7 That such a conception was embedded inthe Jewish mind is confirmed by Philo: "an oath is an appeal to Godas a witness on matters in dispute, and to call him as a witness to alie is the height of profanity" (Spec. Leg. 2.10; Dec. 86). Therefore, asPhilo continues, "all oaths must be made good so long as they areconcerned with matters honourable and profitable for the betterconduct of public or private affairs and are subject to the guidance ofwisdom and justice and righteousness" (Spec. Leg. 2.12). So seriouswas the oath that it took the form of a self-curse if the condition wasunfulfilled. As among other peoples, the oath was a vital part of thelife of the Jewish community because:

The security of a society demands that its members speak the truthin crucial situations and keep their promises in matters of seriousimport. The oath is an ancient and universal means of impressingthis obligation on the responsible parties in an agreement or aninvestigation. The obligation is fortified by holy words and holyacts which create confidence and afford a sense of security that

serves to hold the community together.

8

Since the Israelite community also comprised a covenantrelationship, it is only to be expected that the oath, as often

5"Vow" (mainly -na) is here subsumed under "oath," because, for the most part,oaths and vows were quite similar. One may thus speak of the "oath-vow."Rabinowitz defines a vow as "a promise made to God to perform some deed . . . aswell as . . . a prohibition which a person imposes upon himself to abstain fromsomething which is otherwise permitted" (Encjud 16.227; italics mine). On thevarieties of vows, see G. H. Davies, IDB 4.792-93; T. W. Cartledge, ISBE (2d ed.) 4.998-99; J. C. Rylaarsdam, IDB 3.526-27; A. Rothkoff, Encjud12.907-10. The same similarity

i b " h" d " " ( b l )

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

4/33

142 TRINITY JOURNAL

accompanied by sacrifice, was integral to covenant ratification and

maintenance.

9

In the course of time, then, "oath" and "covenant"became practically synonymous, as did "curse" (the converse of"oath") and "covenant." The varieties of covenantal oaths/vows arethus reducible precisely to "oath" and "curse." The "oath" is apledge of covenant fidelity, and the "curse" results when the pledgeis broken.

(a) The Oath

The oath is voiced, in the main, by the generic term runntf. It isthe guarantee that a person will perform what she promises, withthe understanding that dire consequences will result if the oath isnot fulfilled. The occasions of an individual going on oath rangefrom the personal and trivial to the most solemn publicundertakings.10 The variety of oaths can be subsumed under threebroad headings:11 (1) The exculpatory oath, taken at the sanctuary(Exod 22:7,10), was exacted by a plaintiff from a defendant to backthe latter's plea of innocence when no witness to the facts wasavailable. (2) The adjuration, to give testimony or information, wasuttered by the party interested in the testimony and directed to thecommunity at large or against a particular party (e.g., Lev 5:1; Judg17:1-3; 1 Kgs 18:10; Prov 29:24). (3) The voluntary obligatory oath wasmore general and bound its taker to do or not do a thing voluntarilyundertaken (e.g., Lev 5:4; Psalm 132). This oath, as all others, had tobe fulfilled even at the risk of harm to oneself (e.g., Ps 15:4; cf. Eccl5:4-5). The oath of self-denial (closely related to the vow), discussedin Numbers 30, belongs to this category.

But notwithstanding the multiplicity of the oaths, the "glue"

which held them all together was the loyal Israelite's determinationto keep Yahweh's covenant. The oaths were thus emblems of therighteous person's commitment to maintain faith with his God. Thisis why "oath" (runnt andr?K)could be equated with "covenant"(e.g., Gen 26:3,28; Josh 9:20; 2 Chr 15:15; Neh 6:18; Ezek 17:13,16,18-19) and why Israel's covenant with God involved the people in oathlike sanctions (e.g., Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 27-28), eventhough the covenant stipulations are infrequently termed an "oath"as such (2 Chr 15:12-15; Neh 10:30).12 The oath, in point of fact, was a

9As is well-known the Hebrew idiom "to cut a covenant" probably derives from

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

5/33


vehicle of confessing the one God ofIsrael: "You shall fear the Lordyour God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name" (Deut 6:13);and: "You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve him andcleave to him, and by his name you shall swear" (Deut 10:20).13

So closely associated was the oath with the service of God thatswearing by him could be used as a synonym for adhering to andtrusting in him (Ps 63:12; Isa 19:18; 48:1; Jer 44:26; Zeph 1:5). TheIsraelite who swore to Yahweh acknowledged him to be the soleGod, who alone is worthy oftrust. The oath thus embodied faith andwas a vehicle of monotheistic confession.14 Correspondingly,apostasy was declared by swearing to other gods (Josh 23:7; Ps 16:4;Amos 8:14; Jer 5:7; 12:16; Zeph 1:5; cf. Exod 23:13), not surprisinglybecause the third commandment is placed in tandem with Sieprohibitions against idolatry. Given that the oath and the confessionof Yahweh were virtually one and the same, it is explicable why thelatter-day acceptance of Yahweh by the Gentiles, when they turnfrom their idols, is portrayed as an oath of allegiance to him (Isa19:18; 45:23).

(b) The curse15

If the "oath" went unfulfilled, it became a "curse." There are twoclassic examples. One is Zechariah's vision of the flying scroll (Zech5:1-4):

in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; 2d ed.; Rome:Biblical Institute Press, 1978) 10, 19, 31-35, 71-73, 76-81 (passim); P. Kalluveettil,Declaration andCovenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the OTestament and the Ancient Near East (AnBib 88; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982) 10-14 (passim); Mendenhall, IDB 1.716; D. Stuart, ABD 1.218.

13The correlation of swearing with the fear of Yahweh is significant because "thefear of the Lord" is a compendious phrase roughly equivalent to "religion," i.e., trustin and service to the God of Israel. See J. Becker, Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament(AnBib 25; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1965), e.g., 205-9; G. Wanke, TDNT9.201,205; J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religise Struktur und ihre literarisund doktrinre Bedeutung (AnBib 30; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1967), e.g., 232,279;D. Garlington, "The Obedience ofFaith": A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context (WUN2/38; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991) 19-23,187.

14What V. H. Neufeld says of the shema applies equally to confession through theoath:

It i d t th J f th i f Y h h th G d f

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

6/33

144 TRINITY JOURNAL

This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole land; for

every one who steals shall be cut off henceforth according to it, andevery one who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth accordingto it. I will send it forth, says the Lord of Hosts, and it shall enterthe house of the thief, and the house of him who swears falsely bymy name; and it shall abide in his house and consume it, bothtimber and stones, ( w . 3-4)16

The placement of the false oath in parallel with theft may imply thatjust as one could deprive one's neighbor of her possessions, so also

the Lord is robbed of his honor when the Israelite failed to complywith an oath taken in his name. The other example is Joshua 9,which dwells at length on the pact deceitfully extracted from Israelby the Gibeonites. Orice the Jewish leaders discovered the trick, theywere powerless to revoke the agreement, because, in their words,

We have sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel, and now wemay not touch them. This we will do to them, and let them live, lestwrath be upon us, because ofthe oath which we swore to them. (vv.19b-20; see also Ezek 17:16-21).

The normal term for "curse" isr?K.However, rfra is frequentlytranslated "oath," since "curse" and "oath" are readilyinterchangeable, as further evidenced by the way in which the oathmight be cited in the form of a curse (e.g., Judg 21:18; 1 Sam 14:28).See particularly Gen 24:8 as compared with Gen 24:41, and 1 Sam14:23 in comparison with 1 Sam 14:28. The two are paired in Num5:21; Neh 10:29; Dan 9:11 (cf. Isa 65:16). An especially enlighteningspecimen is the hybrid, "the oath of the curse" (n*?n runnef), as

invoked in the case of the suspected adulteress of Num 5:21.Th curse most often appears in a conditional form with asuppressed apodosis, presumably because of the horror associatedwith its realization (e.g., Deut 28:29; Josh 22:22-29; Ps 95:11; Neh5:12-13). There are, however, instances in which the completeformula occurs, on occasions where the issue was grave and theemotion strong. Apart from Num 5:19-22, a prime example is Job 31,where Job's confession is accompanied by a series of oaths completewith curses of the most fearful kind. In his desperation to impress

both God and his accusers with his sincerity and innocence, Job callsdown upon himself the most terrible curses he can conceive. Job isthus a paradigm figure of all who take the oath

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

7/33


Here we see the oath in all its force as a kind ofordeal and spiritual

combat. The swearer puts his whole soul and all that he has intothe oath and exerts himselfto the utmost to prove his integrity. Thetension is extreme, but the just man will bear up under it, while theunjust man will break under the strain.17

With this underlying perspective, it becomes evident that "the oathof the curse" (Num 5:21), for example, is but a concrete instance of amore comprehensive principle, viz., every oath was a trial by ordel,whereby the swearer put his life on the line.18

Once more, it was the (Sinai) covenant which imbued the cursewith clout. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28-32 (as reflected, e.g., inJer 11:1-17) contain the covenant sanctions. In these passages, a greatdeal is made of the manifold curses that will befall the Israelites ifthey abandon the bond with Yahweh. Twenty-seven types of cursescan be isolated, representing virtually all the miseries one couldimagine. These can be summarized as: defeat, disease, desolation,deprivation, deportation, and death. So close is the relationshipbetween covenant and curse that there arose a mtonymie use of"curse" for "covenant" (Deut 34:12; Zech 5:3; cf. Jer 11:3; Gal 3:13).19

It is none other than the curses of the covenant which befall the onewho swears falsely (Deut 29:16-28; 30:7; 2 Chr 34:24; Isa 24:6; Jer23:10; Ezek 16:59; Dan 9:11-12; Zech 5:1-4). "Curse," then, is the effectof covenant disloyalty and embodies the covenant in its judgmentaldimension, particularly the Sinai covenant, modeled, as it was, onthe Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties.20 Thus the curses of the covenantare the punitive side of the "righteousness" of God, i.e., his pledge touphold his bond with Israel, inclusive of his determination to punishcovenant-breakers (e.g., Neh 9:33; Pr Azar 4-5,8-9; Tob 3:2; Add Esth14:6-7; cf. CD 1:26).21

2. Further Theological Underpinning ofthe Oath/Curse

The importance of the oath, and its "flip-side" the curse, isbuttressed by at least three other factors in OT thought: (a) the

17Pope, IDB 3.577.18This sheds considerable light on the seriousness of Peter's denial of Jesus, as

portrayed by Matthew in particular (26:69-75). In fact, the denial covers all threemodes of Jewish asseveration: simple denial, denial with an oath, and the invocationof a curse on oneself (Pope, IDB 3.577).

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

8/33

146 TRINITY JOURNAL

importance of words; (b) the name of Yahweh; and (c) the idea of

holiness.

(a) The Importance ofWords

"Among the ancient Hebrews/' explains J. G. S. S. Thomson,

words were conceived to have an objective existence, and to have apotency that was both inherent and irresistible. This was especiallytrue of words of blessing and cursing. . . . It was the words ofbenediction or malediction that brought to pass the blessing or thecurse.22

Inasmuch as the oath was connected with both blessing and cursing,the person taking the oath calls down a power which must takeeffect whether the vow is kept or broken. For the observant Jew, nocurse could have effect without Yahweh's superintendence,including the curse pronounced by a foreign prophet (Num 23:8):only Yahweh could turn a curse against its speaker (Gen 12:3; 27:29)or change it into a blessing (Deut 23:5). This probably accounts for

the ceremony of the hand uplifted to heaven as the appropriategesture of an oath (e.g., Gen 14:22; Deut 32:4; Dan 12:7; Ps 144:8),particularly in cases where a pact was to be concluded (e.g., Gen31:44-53; Josh 21:l-7).23 Even God, so to speak, is said to affirm anoath by an upraised hand (Exod 6:8; 20:5; Isa 62:8).

(b) The Name of Yahweh

Akin to the "word" is the "name" of Yahweh, by which the

Israelite not only swears, but prays, blesses, takes refuge, andconquers (e.g., Gen 4:26; 13:4; 1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 6:18; 2 Kgs 2:24).

Ibn Ezra's comment on Hos 4:15 is to the point-

Adhering to God carries with it the obligation to make mention of

Him in all one's affairs, and to swear by His name, so that all who

listen may perceive that he adheres lovingly to God, the name and

mention ofHim being always on his lips.24

^J. G. S. S. Thomson, The Word of the Lord in Jeremiah (London: Tyndale, 1959) 5

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

9/33


In keeping with the Semitic mindset generally, the name in Israel, far

from being a mere vocable, was a powerful entity which served tomake the person named present.25 The name was the revelation ofthe person and, for all practical purposes, synonymous with theperson. As Philo puts it: "the name always stands second to thething which it represents as the shadow which follows the body"(Dec. 82). In the case of Yahweh, his name is the emblem of his glory,uniqueness, and oneness; therefore, he refuses to give his name toanother (e.g., Isa 42:8; 59:19; Ps 102:15). For this reason, the Psalmistexclaims that he will not take the name of another god on his lips (Ps

16:4), and Amos (8:14) condemns oaths performed in the names ofAshimah of Samaria and the other pagan gods worshipped in Danand Beersheba.

Hence, to take an oath in Yahweh's name was to submit to hissole lordship, appeal to his veracity as the guarantor of the thingpromised, and invoke him as the all-seeing, all-powerful witness toevery human pledge.26 Consequently, when the Israelite sworefalsely, it was none other than Yahweh's name that was brought intodisrepute. Such a one was forbidden to enter the sanctuary of the

Lord (Ps 24:4) and was to be cut off from the people (Zech 5:1-4),because Yahweh would not hold guiltless the person who lifted hisname up to vanity (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11; Lev 19:12; cf. Prov 19:5, 9,29; 21:28; Ezek 17:18-19). No wonder Qoheleth counsels: "Be not rashwith your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word beforeGod, for God is in heaven, and you on earth; therefore let yourwords be few" (Eccl 5:2; cf. vv. 4-7).27

Moreover, inasmuch as God's name is frequently said to becalled over his people as a sign of his ownership of them,28 to name

the name of the Lord in an oath was to acknowledge his sovereigntyand the justness of his judgment, if and when one perjured oneself.When the oath was taken, Yahweh himself heard from heaven andresponded by bringing retribution on the guilty and rewarding therighteous according to her righteousness (1 Kgs 8:31-32; 2 Chr 6:22-23). No wonder a false oath could not go unpunished (Ezek 17:13,16,18-19). The oath, including a rash oath (Lev 5:4; Judg 11:29-40; cf.1 Sam 14:24-32), was expected to be kept, even to one's hurt (Ps 15:4;Eccl 5:4-5). (By way of qualification, Lev 5:4-6 allows that a rash oathtaken in ignorance could be covered by sacrifice, although anintentionally falsified oath could not.) Because of the far-reaching

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

10/33

148 TRINITY JOURNAL

consequences involved in oath-taking, the law placed careful

restrictions on the practice in the case of members of a family otherthan the head of the family (Numbers 30).

(c) The Idea of Holiness

The oath was intimately associated with holiness, because, as aholy act, it was properly pronounced in a sacred place asadministered by a holy person in connection with holy objects (e.g.,Gen 26:28-33; Num 5:16-22; Hos 4:15; 1 Kgs 8:31-32; 2 Chr 6:22-23).

After the settlement of the land, holiness was concentratedpreeminently in the temple and its services, so that one of the "fourpillars'' of Second Temple Judaism came to be the land as focused inthe temple.29 Consisting of its six courts, the temple embodied theprinciple of the intensification of holiness, from the outside inward.

The symbolism thus represented is clearthat is, ofan innermostsanctuary protected by what in effect was a sequence of concentriccircles to ensure maximum protection from defilement. The Templemount and Jerusalem itselfconstituted further circles, and the land

ofIsrael a still further circle.30

Hence, an oath taken within (or by) the temple was the most aweinspiring of all, because one was brought into intimate contact withthe holiness of God.

B. SecondTemple Judaism31

While it is obviously impossible to know what every Jew

thought about oath-taking in the predestruction period, it is possibleto establish a fairly well-defined consensus among the authors whoaddressed the subject.32 In sum, all of them are basically in line withthe biblical teachings on swearing and represent a constituency

29J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings ofthe Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism andTheir Significance for the Character ofChristianity (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity,1991) 31-35.

30Ibid., 39. Dunn refers to m. Kelim 1:6-9, which embodies the developed rabbinic

theology of ten degrees of holiness, ranging from the boundaries of Palestine to theHoly of Holies. See further ibid., 40-44; W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: EarlyChristianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Los Angeles: University of California Press,

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

11/33

GARLDSfGTON: OATH-TAKING 149

within their respective communities. The recurring emphases of

these materials can be epitomized as follows.One is the recognition that oaths are of divine origin and,therefore, cannot be interdicted absolutely: there are appropriatereasons, times, and places for going on oath.33 In this literature, theOT's equation of oath-keeping with fidelity to Yahweh is observed,and its converse, oath-breaking, is condemned as tantamount toinfidelity and even idolatry (esp. Wis 14:26, 28-31). In fact, 1QS 5:7b-20 required new members of the Dead Sea community to "sweardread oaths'7 (Josephus, J.W. 2.8.7) respecting the faith, practice, and

secrets of the sect.

34

After admission, oaths in specific matters wereassumed to be operative within the congregation (1QS 2:5-18; 5:7b-20; 6:27; 14:17; CD 7:8; 9:9-12; 15; 16:10-12). Not to honor an oath wasto disqualify oneself from the community of salvation (CD 15:l-5a).

Another stress, however, is the complaint that people wereswearing too often. In particular, Ben Sira, the author of Wisdom,and Philo expostulate at length against excessive oath-taking, whichappears to have been the order of their day. These writers insist thata person's word ought to be as good as an oath, and to swear too

much is to cheapen the oath and to cast suspicion on one's integrity.Therefore, the oath ought to be used as sparingly as possible.Perhaps in the mind of these writers was Deut 23:22: "But if yourefrain from vowing, it shall be no sin in you."

The third emphasis is that if one feels compelled, in direcircumstances, to take an oath, the name of God should be avoided.It was better to use a stand-in for God rather than the Lord's nameitself. For example, the Essenes' reluctance to swear at all, relatesJosephus, was rooted in a pious abhorrence of using God's name inan oath (J.W. 2.8.9 145; cf. 1QS 6:27), which Philo also regarded asone of the "multitude of proofs" of their love for God (Prob. 84).According to CD 15:l-5a, one could swear judicial oaths, but only by

^R. P. Martin deduces from C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A RabbinicAnthology (Reprint, New York: Schocken, 1974) 1078, 1087, 1092, 1394, that therabbis were opposed to oath-taking as such (James [WBC 48; Dallas: Word, 1988] 200).However, his examples do not prove the point: they merely caution against falseswearing.

^ e e the discussions of the Scrolls in Davies, Setting, 241-45; L. H. Schiffmann,Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (BJS 33; ChScholars, 1983) 111-54; T. S. Beali, Josephus' Description of the Essenes Illustratedby theDead Sea Scrolls (SNTSMS 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 75-78.

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

12/33

150 TRINITYJOURNAL

the curses of the covenant, so as not to become liable to death for

profaning the name of God if the oath was broken.

35

In the samevein, Ben Sira is concerned that the name of God not be defiled byhabitual swearing (Sir 23:9-11). In making these demands, theseauthors were more punctilious than the third commandment itself;

but their caution about the name was rooted in a reverence forYahweh's name, stemming from the commandment, and shared byJews ofthis period, who preferred to use various circumlocutions forGod rather than name him directly.

36

Fourth, Jews in Jesus' day insisted that a person's word ought tobe as good as an oath. Josephus, in his oft-quoted report of theEssenes, relates: "Any word of theirs has more force than an oath;swearing they avoid, regarding it as worse than perjury, for they saythat one who is not believed without an appeal to God standscondemned already" (J.W. 2.8.6 135). The same stance is assumed

by Philo (Spec. Leg. 2.1-5). At the outset of his disquisition on thethird commandment, there is a pronouncement which instantlycatches the eye of the interpreter ofMatt 5:33-37. Following Philo'saffirmation that the very name of God ought not be invoked in anoath, there is the concession that ifnecessityforces one to swear, theoath can be taken by one's father and mother, for two reasons: tohonor parents as the givers of life and rulers appointed by nature,and to avoid using the name of God lightly (Spec. Leg. 2.4). In this

vein, he praises a certain class of oath-takers: those who are soextremely reticent about swearing that they cause onlookers,including the administrators of the oath, to question its necessity.Such people, says Philo, are in the habit of saying: "'Yes, by 'or'No, by ' and add nothing more, and by thus breaking offsuggestthe clear sense of an oath without actually making it"

37

35The text is broken and the opening of the section is missing altogether. See

Davies, Setting, 242; A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Oxford:Blackwell, 1961) 160 . 3.

36See also Philo, Dec. 82; Spec. Leg. 2.1.5. See, e.g., J. Jeremas, New Testament

Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Scribners, 1971) 8-14.^Another striking verbal parallel is found in the continuation of Philo's

argument. He qualifies that if people wish, they may add to their "Yes" and "No," notthe name ofGod, but "earth, sun, stars, heaven, and the whole universe. For these areworthy ofhighest respect, since they have precedence in time over our place in

ti d l ill i f t h d b di t th f

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

13/33


C. Summary

For Jews of the pre-Christian era there could have been no moresolemn act than the swearing of an oath in the name of the God ofIsrael, if for no other reason than that both the "oath" and the"curse" were tantamount to the covenant itself. It was undoubtedlythe awe of invoking Yahweh as a witness to one's veracity that gaverise to the widespread reluctance of Second Temple Jews to mentionhis name at all, especially in an oath. Nevertheless, oath-taking was

very common in ancient Israel. Indeed, as Greenberg remarks: "Theestimate of the biblical period that there was nothing amiss in oathsis manifest in the frequency with which God is represented asswearing."38 As noted above, the covenants with Yahweh's peoplewere sealed with divine oaths, so that the promises of thesecovenants are referred to as things which the Lord swore to do (Gen24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exod 13:5, 11; 33:1; Num 14:16, 30; 32:11).Correspondingly, the Israelite who swore in the presence of the Lordbecame his oath-partner, confessing him to be the only God, who

alone is worthy of trust. The oath, in short, was an expression of "thefear of Yahweh" and functioned as a token of allegiance to him; itembodied faith and was a vehicle of Israel's monotheisticconfession.39

III. THE OATH IN THE COMMUNITY OF THE NEW AGE

A. Matt 5:33-37within the Sermon on the Mount

Because our pericope occupies an integral part of the Sermon onthe Mount as a carefully constructed literary unit, it will benecessary to consider its particular niche within the composition. Inso doing, we shall follow, but at points modify, D. C Allison'sanalysis of this portion of the Sermon.40

1. Matt 4:23-5:2 and7:28-8:1

The introduction (4:23-5:2) and conclusion (7:28-8:1) of the

Sermon correspond to each other, as evidenced by the common

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

14/33

152 TRINITY JOURNAL

vocabulary. In addition, "opening his mouth" (5:2) finds its

counterpart in "when Jesus finished these words" (7:28). Thisimplies that the simplest outline of the Sermon is: Introduction (4:23-5:2); Discourse (5:3-7:27); Conclusion (7:28-8:1).

2. Matt 5:3-12 and7:13-27

After the introduction, the Sermon is headed by nine Beatitudes(5:3-12). The Beatitudes are not, as commonly conceived, "entrancerequirements" into the kingdom, but the pronouncement of

eschatological blessing; that is, when Jesus opens his mouth, the firstthing that comes out is his announcement that the Scriptures havebeen fulfilled in the persons of his disciples.41 As Allison so aptlyobserves, the Beatitudes do not make demands as much as offercomfort and promise to the poor in spirit, etc. "Before hearing Jesus'hard imperatives the Christian reader is first built up, encouraged,and consoled."42 At the other end of the Sermon, in 7:13-27, are thecorresponding warnings (about false prophets and hearers vs. doersof the Word). Instead of listening to the false prophets, the hearers of

the Sermon are to mark Christ's words, so as to do them; they mustnot fail to act on these words and thereby become like the foolwhose ill-conceived dwelling was obliterated by the storm. Theantithetical correspondence between the beginning of the Sermonand its conclusion is now evident: blessings come first, warningslast. The schema of the Sermon, then, is: Nine Blessings (5:3-12);Core of the Sermon (5:13-7:12); Three Warnings (7:13-27).

3. Matt 5:13-7:12

Our passage falls within this "Core" of the Sermon, which canfurther be subdivided into the "Three Pillars" of the discourse: Jesusand the Torah (5:17-48); the Christian Cult (6:1-18); and Social Issues(6:19-7:12). Matt 5:33-37 thus falls under the domain of the "FirstPillar."

This "First Pillar" has an extended introduction, consisting oftwo parts. One is 5:13-16: the disciples are told that they are the saltof the earth and the light of the world. Matt 5:13-16 thus serves as a

transition in which Jesus moves from the life of the blessed future(promised in 5:3-12) to the demands of the life of the present (5:21-7:12). The theme, accordingly, switches from the gift to the task and

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

15/33


pillar is 5:17-20, which can be compared to Lev 18:1-23 and Eccl 3:1-

9, as well as the rabbinic kell, a summary or declaration whichheads a section consisting of various particular cases or instances.43

The verses thus perform a negative and positive function.Negatively, 5:17-19 anticipates an incorrect interpretation of 5:21-48,viz., that Jesus came to abolish the law before the time of fulfillment.Positively, 5:20 announces what 5:21-48 is all about: the greaterrighteousness, exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharisees, i.e., arighteousness that transcends the boundaries of nationalrighteousness and articulates a norm of behavior germane to the

new, eschatological state of affairs.A noteworthy aspect of 5:17-48 is its internal antitheticalstructure, consisting of two sets of triads:

1. First triad (5:21-32)a. On murder (5:21-26)b. On adultery (5:27-30)c. On divorce (5:31-32)

2. Second triad (5:33-48)a. On oaths (5:33-37)b. On turning the other cheek (5:38-42)c. On love of enemy (5:43-48)

The sets of triads would appear to be divided by the appearance of in 5:33 (which occurs nowhere else in the Sermon). Theadverb's presence, as Allison notes, does not affect the content of thematerial, but it does break the rhythm of chap. 5 and leaves the

impression that with the second triad Jesus starts over again.

44

B. The EschatologicalSettingofthe "Ban"on Swearing

The placement of 5:33-37 within the subsection entitled "Jesusand the Torah" has hermeneutical/exegetical implications, ofwhichthe most crucial is the relation of his words to the Mosaic law. Aseverystudent of the Sermon on the Mount knows all too well, this isone of the Gordian knots of NT interpretation. On the one hand,

5:17-19 appears to state categorically that Jesus has no intention ofmodifying even the most minute element of the Torah; on the other,it is evident from 5:31-42 that he does indeed alter several items of

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

16/33

154 TRINITYJOURNAL

eschatology. For one thing, the phraseology of "heaven and earth

passing away" is a compendious gathering together of variousapocalyptic metaphors for the removal of the present creation andthe advent of the new.

45The same expression is found in Matt 24:35:

"Heaven andearth will passaway, but my words will not pass away."That is to say, his words transcend the finale of the present aeon andhave validity for the (eternal) age to come. Therefore, to assert thatnothing will pass from the law"untilheaven andearth passaway"is tosaythat it remains intact untilsuch time asthe newcreation comes.*

6All

this stands in rather stark contrast to the Jewish belief in the eternity

of the Torah, according to which even the coming ofMessiah wouldnot radically alter the law(e.g., Sir 24:9,33; Bar 4:1; Wis 18:4; T. Naph.3:l-2).

47

The other eschatological idea in v. 18 is that of fulfillment, asvoiced by . In tandem with v. 17Christ "fulfills," not"dismantles" () the lawv. 18 declares that neither a yodnora tittle will pass from the law "until all is accomplished." and cognates in the NT bear distinctively salvation-historicalovertones, inasmuch as they signal the "eschatologicalmeasure," the

completion of the eternal plan of salvation in Christ (e.g., Matt 5:17;Mark ).48

Hence, the law is fulfilled, i.e., attains its reason forexistence, when Jesus opens his mouth and delivers the new law ofthe kingdom; its only purpose was to point to him and his people asthe grand end of God's eschatological design. As D. J. Moo pointsout, is central to Matthew's theological vocabulary. When hisdistinctive usage of this verb is taken into account, Moo argues,

^ e e , e.g., Jer 31:35-37; Joel 2:28-32; Hag 2:6-7, all of which are bracketed by a

new creation/new covenant context. The same imagery is replicated in Jewishapocalyptic. See D. S. Russell, The Method andMessage ofJewish Apocalyptic (OTL;London: SCM, 1964) 271-76; J. D. G. Dunn, Unityand Diversityin the New Testament(London: SCM, 1977) 313-15.

46It is within such a salvation-historical continuum that passages like Deut 11:21;

Jer 31:36; 33:25 assume perspective: each speaks ofthe covenant with Israel enduringas long as the elements remain. Yet, in point offact, the (old) creation does cease toexist with the Christ-event. It is true that Ps 72:5; 89:36-37 also draw on the sameimagery in their depiction of the eternal reign of Messiah; but his dominion iseverlasting, strictlyspeaking, since, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but mtf wordswill notpassaway"(24:35).

47

See further Garlington, Obedience, 257-58; R. Banks, Jesusandthe Lawin theSynoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1975) 50-64,67-85; id., "The Eschatological Role of Law in Pre- and Post- Christian Jewish

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

17/33


"fulfillment" in this gospel means that Jesus7

new, eschatologicaldemands do not constitute desertion of the law, but embody that

which the law all the while presaged. The continuity of the law withJesus' teaching is hereby expressed, but "it is a continuity on theplane of a salvation-historical scheme of 'anticipation-realization.'"What emerges from this datum is that is the key term chosenby Matthew to depict the impact of Jesus' coming on the OT, inkeeping with the way he customarily uses the verb to designate thecoming to pass of OT predictions. As encapsulated by, thehistory of Israel reaches its "fulfillment" (1:22; 2:15,17, 23; 3:15; 4:14;8:17; 12:17; 13:35,48; 23:32; 26:54, 56; 27:9). Matthew thus presents atheology of salvation history which pictures the entire OT asanticipating Christ.

49

In keeping, therefore, with both of these eschatological idioms,Matthew, I would submit, envisages a period during which the lawremains in forcethe period of Israel and of the Law and theProphetsbut afterward, when it is fulfilled, passes from thescene.

50In other words, while there is to be an abrogation of the law,

it is not an abrogation irrespective of fulfillment, whereby the Torahis simply discarded as irrelevant in salvation history.

51It is, rather,

an abrogation very much in line with salvation history, consequentupon the law's accomplishment in the Christ-event, when "heavenand earth pass away."

52Consequently, the question whether Jesus is

49D. J. Moo, "The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ," in Continuity and

Discontinuity: Perspectiveson the Relationship Between the OldandNewTestaments: Essin HonorofS. LewisJohnson, Jr. (ed. J. S. Feinberg; Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988)205. Cf. Overman, Matthew'sGospel, 74-78. D. Daube (Rabbinic Judaism andthe NewTestament [Reprint, Salem, NH: Ayer, 1984] 60) thinks that lying behind is theHebrewqiyyem, "to uphold," i.e., "uphold" in the technical sense of showing that thetext is in agreement with one's own teaching. But even if he is right (which is by nomeans certain), Jesus can still be understood as highlighting the continuity betweenhis instruction and the OT while promoting hiswords as the end which the Torah hadin view.

50Matthewthus divides history into two epochs, after the manner of prophecy

and fulfillment (J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom [London:SPCK, 1975] 31-37).

51The words "think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets"

(Matt 5:17) assume that such an opinion was in existence. Among the variousexplanations ofthis phenomenon, D. A. Hagner, I think, is right that Jesus' "sovereigninterpretation" of the law was so out of step with contemporary thought that itseemed to many that he was going against the law(Matthew1-13 [WBC 33a; Dallas:

Word, 1993] 104). If this is correct, then there is no need to press for an "antinomian"f ti ithi th "M tth it " ( B th "M tth ' U d t di

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

18/33

156 TRINITYJOURNAL

"for" or "against" the law misses the point. It is, rather, a matter of

acknowledging that the law performs a function up to a certainpoint in history and thereafter, once it has served its purpose, is setaside. What D.A. Carson says ofMatt 5:33-37 in particular applies toChrist's attitude toward the Torah in general: "It must be franklyadmitted that Jesus here formally contravenes OT law But if hisinterpretation of the direction in which the law points isauthoritative, then his teaching fulfills it."

53

In view of these data, Matthew's notation that darkness and ashaking earth attended the crucifixion (27:45, 51) is hardlyaccidental, nor is his singular report that an earthquake preceded theresurrection (28:2). These are the prophetic/apocalyptic phenomenaof "heaven and earth passing away." To be sure, the Cross andResurrection represent only the first phase of the new creation, withthe final phase yet outstanding. Nevertheless, with these events theages have taken a crucial turn and thus pave the way for theultimate passing of the elements at "the end of the age" (28:2).

54

Therefore, both ideas, cosmic upheaval and fulfillment, find as theirpoint of reference the Cross/Resurrection, when, in principle,heaven and earth pass away and all things are accomplished.

55

Yet, from one point of view, one does not even have to wait forChrist's death and resurrection, because the very impact of theBeatitudes is that the purposes of God have been realized with hispronouncement of eschatological blessing on his disciples.Consequently, when Matt 5:21-42 effects changes in the Torah, itcomes as no surprise, given the overall eschatological schema ofMatthewand the NT generally. Indeed, as read within this schema,the agenda of these verses is precisely that of altering in somenotable regards the revealed will of God for the people of the new

age, not of preserving the standards of the old aeon as such. (Paulterms these standards, "the elements of the world," "the weak and

beggarly elements," and "shadows," and is bold enough to equatethem with no less than pagan idolatry and slavery [Gal 4:8-10; Col2-.16-23]!)

56

However, an additional problem presents itself: How couldJesus introduce these changes before the Cross? It would appear that

kingdom. Although he allows for the possibility of change in particulars ofhalakah,

Sigal envisages the Torah as remaining more or less intact. Overman is essentially inaccord with Sigal (Matthew'sGospel, 86-89).

^D A Carson "Matthe " ol S i Th E it ' Bibl C t ( d F E

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

19/33


in so doing he sets up a contradiction to his own pronouncement of

5:19. To make a long story very short, perhaps the most satisfyingexplanation is that Jesus7 teaching, as accompanied by many of hisactions (e.g., his disregard of the purity and dietary laws and theSabbath), is conceived to take place within a transition periodintended to prepare the way for the time which would dawn at thepassing ofheaven and earth, when God's purposes would beaccomplished once for all. This transition period, one might argue,establishes the uniqueness (deity) of his person as the Lord of thenew covenant, the one who exercises the prerogatives reserved for

God alone, such as bypassing the sacrificial system and pronouncingthe forgiveness ofsins direcy and immediately ( la Mark 2:1-12).57

Mutatis mutandis, I. H. Marshall's observation on Luke 6:1-5 wouldseem to apply here: "Jesus claims an authority tantamount to that ofGod with respect to the interpretation of the law/'58 Such asupposition would be buttressed by the salvation-historical datumthat as the first man ofthe Spirit, Jesus is unique in that he enters thenew creation by himself, and only afterwards brings his people intothe same phase ofworld history (at Pentecost).59 In point offact, the

problem would have been ofpractical concern only for the pre-crucifixion/resurrection hearer ofthese words, not for the post-Easter reader ofthe first gospel.

57On Mark 2:1-12, see Dunn, Partings, 44-46. The uniqueness ofJesus forMatthew is placed beyond doubt by his infancy and temptation narratives, in whichthe evangelist portrays him as a personage to be worshiped in his own right. See R. H.Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary andTheologicalArt (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1982) 55, 58. Cf. G. Bornkamm, "End-Expectation and Church inMatthew," in Tradition andInterpretation in Matthew, 41-43 (on Matthew's use of

).5I. . Marshall, The Gospel ofLuke: A Commentaryon the GreekText(NIGTC;Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 233. This may well be the force of the antithetical form,

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

20/33

158 TRINITY JOURNAL

C. Exegesis ofMatthew 5:33-37*

1. The Point ofContrast: "You have heard that it was said to the people old... but I say to you" (v. 33)

One of the perennial problems in the interpretation of theSermon on the Mount is the recurring formula of Matt 5:21-43: "Youhave heard that it was said to the people of old " For one thing,there is the question whether the expressions "you have heard that it

was said . . . but I say to you" form antitheses, or whether the lattermember of the pair provides a complement to the former. In otherwords, is Jesus contradicting (refuting) what was said to the ancientsor placing an interpretation on it? Another difficulty is that at timesthe reference seems to be to the transmission of the law of Moses tothe wilderness generation; yet at other times this cannot be so (e.g.,v. 43).

As to the first problem, a case can be made for bothinterpretations. On the one side, at times Jesus certainly does

contradict what was spoken to the people of old (vv. 43-48); and atother times he introduces what can only be called alterations of thetraditions (vv. 31-37). On the other side, the sayings about murderand adultery (vv. 21-30) penetrate beyond "the letter of the law" andrepresent a radicalizing of the sixth and seventh commandmentsrespectively. So, perhaps the most balanced approach is arecognition that these formulae are not as stereotyped as they appearto be on the surface and ought to be given as much hermeneuticallatitude as possible.61 It is not necessary, then, to limit ourselves to an

oversimplified "either-or" in our assessment of them. In the instanceof oath-taking specifically, I think it is best to say that Jesus does notoppose what has gone before, but announces its transformation, asbefits the eschatological situation.

As regards the second problem, the outstanding feature of thesaying is that whether the reference is to Scripture or later tradition,the things spoken to "the people ofold" are identified with the pre-eschatological era, before the advent of the kingdom of heaven.Christ, by contrast, stands within the time of fulfillment, and hiswords constitute the final form of what God has to say. Matthew, inother words, represents Jesus' teaching as the displacement of allinstructionscriptural or otherwisewhich came before him. In the

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

21/33


15; Deut 23:21-23; Zech 8:17; and the verse's second clause, "but you

shall perform to the Lord your oaths/' is a quotation ofPs 50 (LXX49):14b. Nonetheless, these OT admonitions concerning the oath arepicked up by, e.g., Wis 14:28; HQTemple 53-54; T. Ash. 2:6; Sib. Or.2:68. These references, as coupled with the survey of the Jewishmaterials above, argue that Jesus treads a broad stream of traditionregarding swearingbiblical and contemporary. Thus, in v. 33, theformula, "you have heard that it was said to the people of old,"

would appear to be comprehensive of both the Torah and itssubsequent elaborations.

The material content of what was said to the people of old has todo with fidelity in oath-taking. The verb , as commentatorspoint out, can mean either "to break an oath" (e.g., 1 Esd 1:46) or "toswear falsely" (e.g., T. Ash. 2:6; cf. Wis 14:28).

62However, there was

no practical difference between breaking an oath and swearingfalsely, at least as far as the result is concerned: the one whodespised the oath proved himself to be in contempt of the covenant.

The positive counterpart of oath-breaking was the performanceof one's oaths to Yahweh. In the words ofPs 50 (LXX49):14, quoted

in v. 33: "Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay yourvows to the Most High" (cf. Numbers 30; Deut 23:21). Apart fromother changes in the wording of the Psalm in Matthew's rendering ofit, the "vows" (= orna) to be paid to "the Most High" becomethe "oaths" () which are to be rendered to "the Lord.'*

3Some

scholars thinkthis rendering is due to the "widespread confusion"between oaths and vows by the first century.

64However, this

"confusion," if it is that, stems from the fact that the two were, for allpractical purposes, identifiable, inasmuch as in both cases it was

Yahweh who was called on to verify the sincerity of the pledge inquestion,65

and inasmuch as "oaths are not distinguished from vowsin the case where they overlap, i.e., a statement ofone's intentions."

66

The terms are thus virtually interchangeable.The context of Psalm 50 as a whole is suggestive for Matthew's

citation of v. 14b. Verses 1-5 represent God as the judge, whosummons his people into his presence to hold covenantal court:"The heavens declare his righteousness [i.e., his covenantalfaithfulness], for God himself is judge!" In vv. 7-15, the judge

62E.g Davies/AUison, who themselves opt for the latter on the basis of the LXX

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

22/33

160 TRINITY JOURNAL

pronounces an indictment against his people. The reproach centers

around God's self-sufficiency ("every beast of the forest is mine, thecattle on a thousand hills^): he does not need the sacrifices of Israel,for everything is his to begin with.

It is within the reading of this "covenant lawsuit" that Yahwehreveals the source of his ire toward his covenant partners:

Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving,and pay your vows to the Most High;and caU upon me in the day of trouble;I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me. (w. 14-15)

Yahweh, in other words, rejects the sacrifices because they areoffered hypocritically. Evidently, the offerings of Israel weremultiplying, but they were not accompanied by the sincerity of heartwhich honors God by the sacrifice of thanksgiving and theperformance of one's vows to him. The people are thus commandedto rectify the situation, and are assured that if they mend their ways,in the "day of trouble" he will deliver them and thereby be glorified.

The final segment of the Psalm, w. 16-23, concentrates mainlyon the wicked, who take the covenant on their lips and yet hate theLord's discipline and keep company with thieves and adulterers.They give their mouths free reign to speak evil and use their tonguesto deceive. And they are warned in no uncertain terms that they,who forget God, will not be delivered when he rends them in his

judgment. However, the Psalm does end on a positive note:

He who brings thanksgiving as his sacrifice honors me;to him who orders his way aright

I will show the salvation of God! (v. 23)

Even this brief analysis of the Psalm is sufficient to demonstratethat paying one's vows to the Most High is the antithesis of"wickedness," i.e., giving lip service to the bond with Yahweh andyet living in contradiction to it. The Psalm, then, simply confirms thefindings of our survey of the OT materials, viz., that oath-taking/oath-breaking is an index of one's attitude toward thecovenant and the Lord of the covenant: it is the summation of either

righteousness or unrighteousness. Even if the "vows" of v. 14b arerestricted to the votive sacrifice which the worshiper has boundherself to perform (standing in parallel to the thank offering of 14a)

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

23/33


bearing testimonyto him, acknowledging him as the "Most High/'Thisisthe true purpose of the cultof the Covenant

67

Assuming that the context of an OT quotation has a bearing onits use in the NT, Jesus shows his respect for swearing precisely in itscapacity to mirror an Israelite's commitment to covenant life. Aslong as that covenant stood, oath-breaking was to be avoided at allcosts: one was obliged, under the pain of severe penalties, to payone's vows to Yahweh. But it is just for this reason that his "ban" onswearing signals a turning of the ages, a state of affairs in which theoath in its now outmoded contours is no longer an appropriate

means of expressing covenant loyalty. With the advent of thekingdom, a new method of "pledging allegiance" to the God ofIsrael comes to the fore, a method commensurate with a newcovenant and a new creation.

2. Jesus'Directive to his Community: "Swearnotatall... "

The imperative "swear not at all" appears to be very abrupt inview of Jewish attitudes toward swearing. While numerous caveats

were advanced by Second Temple authors about excessive oath-taking, swearing was taken for granted as an acceptable and normalprocedure. Davies/AUison suggest that Deut 23:22 ("But if yourefrain from vowing, it shall be no sin in you") mayprovide a buffer

between the Torah and Jesus.68

But even if they are right, it stillcomes as something of a shock to hear: "swear not atall(6)\"It ispossible that the "prohibition" is one of the several hyperboles of theSermon on the Mount, intended only to utter the same kind ofprotestation against excessive swearing as Philo (e.g., Dec. 92), Ben

Sira (23:9-11), and Wisdom (14:26, 28-3), etc. However, each of theauthors who voiced a complaint against this particular abuse of theoath stated so sufficiently clearly that there is no mistaking theirintention. This word ofJesus, however, contains no such intimations.

The key, I think, resides in the qualifiers of vv. 34b-36, eachintroduced by as followed by a clause: one is not to "swearat all," i.e., by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, orbyone's head. Jesus, in other

words, is indeed protesting something: not excessive swearing, butswearing performed by various substitutes for God (or his name).

"Jesus," remarks Schneider, "excludes the common Jewish practiceof avoiding the name of God because of its sanctity but substituting

i l t H th i i it f thi h bit h i th t

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

24/33

162 TRINITY JOURNAL

That such was the habit of first-century Judaism comes as nosurprise, given that by this time the name could no longer bevocalized without the taint of scandal. As Davies/AUison explain:"one of the unstated assumptions behind 5.34b-6 is the Jewishconviction that God's name itself could not be named and that,therefore, when one takes an oath, a substitution for God's namemust be employed."70 The same unstated assumption underlies Matt23:16-22, where again the custom is castigated. But the questionremains: why is swearing by alternatives to God so objectionable toJesus, especially since the avoidance of the Lord's name appeared tobe rooted in a deep reverence for that name?

The answer may reside in portions of the Mishnah, according towhich oaths by heaven, earth, and one's head were held not to bebinding.71 If this proviso existed in the first century, then our textwould appear to interact directly with a demonstrable strand of

halakah and counter it by linking heaven and earth (and Jerusalem)immediately to God, so as to make the oath binding after all.Because the value and meaning of heaven, earth, and Jerusalemreside in God, their creator and sustainer, his presence in and controlover them means that he cannot be abstracted from them or any

other portion of the creation (cf. Ps 48:1-3; Isa 66:1). In like manner,one's own head is under the superintendence of the providence ofGod (cf. Matt 6:27; 10:31; 1 Chr 12:19; m. Sanh. 3:2). Thus, an oath byany of these entities is tantamount to an oath by God himself. Onecan imagine that the same would hold true for the curses of thecovenant (CD lSil-Sa).72 If, as seems to be the case, this sort ofcasuistry is the point of contact for our verse, it follows that using anersatz for God is condemned because it provided a convenientloophole for not fulfilling one's vowthus, in principle, making a

perjurer ofoneself, la the wicked of Psalm 50.Such parallels are illuminating and to a degree assist in the

exegesis of our text. However, Matthew provides his ownclarification in the polemic of 23:16-22. Very much in line with thekind of blunt criticisms leveled against the Jewish leadership in theSecond Temple period,73 the charge is elaborated that the Scribes andthe Pharisees have made subtle and unwarranted distinctions inoath-taking (= casuistic abuse of the oath).74 Because of their

70Davies/Allison, Matthew, 1.536.71m. Sebu. 4:13; m. Ned. 1:3; m. Sanh. 3:2. See further Str-B 1.332-34; Guelich,

"Antitheses " 451 n 4 who show that each of these objects by which people would

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

25/33


eagerness not to be bound by a potentially inconvenient oath, thePharisees have prized the lesser things more highly than the greater:the gold of the temple for them is worth more than the temple itself,and the gift on the altar is superior to the altar, which renders thegift sacred. To swear by these entities, which were actually lesser in

value asJesus appraises them, was a clever maneuver, because oathscould now be classified as either "binding" or "non-binding."

75Both

had a sacrosanct aura about them, designed to impress the onlooker;but, in fact, only the former classification entailed any obligation.Jesus' response, accordingly, is virtually the same as in 5:33-37:

He who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it;and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him whodwells in it; and he who swears by heaven, swears bythe throne ofGod and by him who sits upon it. (23:20-22)

It should be clarified, however, that what was really objectionablewas not so much the content of the oath as "the mode of thought" ordisposition lying behind it.

76

Returning to Matthew 5 and the original question, swearing by

heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one's head is objectionable because itwas the current means of avoiding the obligation of the oath, andthus stands for every attempt to obviate the responsibilities oftruthful speaking within the setting of the covenant. In this regard,contemporary oath-taking for Jesus was like the korban regulation(Mark7:9-13; cf. Josephus, Ag. . 1.167), which allowed a person todishonor his parents and thereby nullify the word of God bytradition.

77We may say, then, that "swear not at all" is relative to

oaths taken by these specific objects: none of them is to be substituted

for an oath taken in the presence of God, as though he could be

oaths employing the divine name or attributes (such as "his throne") were binding. Idiffer, however, with Garland's stance that the real difference between Jesus and thePharisees centered around Jesus' totalrejection ofoaths. For Garland, Jesus does notattackthe Pharisees because they used casuistry to evade the obligation ofoaths, but

because they allowed swearing at alleven by divine names and attributesfor thepurpose of countering the abuse of swearing among the masses. However, apart fromthe perennial problem of the dating of the rabbinic materials, the text ofMatthew23itselfdoes not provide a direct point ofcontact with the Sitzim Lehen proposed byGarland. Besides, the question must be posed: With what sort ofPharisees was Jesus

doing battle? If they were of the Shammaite variety, a further limitation would beplaced on the relevance of tannaitic materials, which stem mainly from thedescendants of Bet Hillel The Shammaite identity of the Pharisees of Matthew 23 has

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

26/33

164 TRINITYJOURNAL

abstracted from any single one.78

Every word is spoken in thepresence of God, because the whole earth is his (Ps 50:10-12; Exod19:5; etc.).

Our interpretation, of course, stands in contrast to the "totalprohibition

,,interpretation, endorsed by many scholars. Guelich, for

example, argues that vv. 34b-36 elaborate upon the radicalimplications of v. 34a, thereby blocking any casuistic attempts toavoid its thrust. In other words, "these clauses served to sharpen thefocus of the total prohibition by eliminating any possible casuisticaldistraction/

779His suggestion is certainly plausible in itself, but it

does not alleviate the tension between v. 33a and 33b and thatbetween v. 33 and w. 34-36, as Guelich himself acknowledges.80

I would say that if there is a categorical character to the "ban," itis its preclusion of any addition to one's "Yes" or "No" which could

be employed as an exemption from speaking the truth.81

Ironically,then, the "prohibition" of swearing becomes a new type of oath, theoath of the new age, which consists in a simple "Yes" or "No."

82In

other words, a kind of "swearing" is allowed, but one whichcorresponds to the new thing which has transpired with thedawning of the kingdom of heaven. As Geza Vermes perceptivelycomments, this "antithesis" is not set against a Mosaic precept.Rather:

In the final age, Jesus intends to discard allthe paraphernaliaconnectedwith oathsas unnecessary. Hence he declares redundant

78As suggested byJ. Calvin (A Harmonyofthe Gospels: Matthew, Markand Luke [3

vols.; ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972] 1.191)and M.-J. Lagrange (Evangile selon SaintMatthieu [Ebib; Paris: Gabalda, 1948] 108).(Luz wrongly dismisses Calvin's view as an attempt to evade the force of[Matthew, 313 n. 17].) This interpretation has the further advantage of relieving thetension in v. 33 between "swear not at all" and performing to the Lord one's vows, atension observed by, e.g., Guelich ("Antitheses,"450-51), T. W. Manson (The Sayingsof

Jesus[London: SCM, 1975] 158), and P. S. Minear ("Yes or No: The Demand forHonestyin the EarlyChurch," NovT13 [1971] 2).Likewise, the interpretation removesthe "bit oftension" (Guelich, "Antitheses," 451) between "swear not at all" and thedetailing ofspecific oaths in w. 34-36.

^Guelich, "Antitheses," 451. To Guelich may be added the great majority ofcommentators on Matthew. Others include: Schneider, TDNT 5.180; Garland,Intention, 132-36; Sanders, Jewish Law, 56; Overman, Matthew'sGospel, 96; Westerholm

JesusandScribalAuthority, 107; Sthlin, "Beteuerungsformeln," 116; E. Kutsch, "EureRede aber sei ja ja, nein nein," EvT20 (1960) 218.

80G li h "A tith " 452

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

27/33


the multitude of commonly used surrogate terms for God.... Theheart ofJesus' doctrine is that among truthful people no specialsolemnities are necessary: a "yes" or a "no" should be enough.83

That our Lord is very serious about this new type of oath isplaced beyond doubt by the final word of the pericope: "any morethan this is of the evil one" (v. 37b). It is true that canmean "evil" in the abstract, denoting an evil disposition on the partofa person (the same ambiguity crops up again in 5:39; 6:13; 13:38). Ithinkit more likely, however, that the reference is to Satan, "the EvilOne." There are two reasons for thinking so. One is that elsewhere

Satan is preeminently associated with falsehood: he was a liar fromthe beginning and the "father of lies" (John 8:44; 1 John 3:12; Rev12:9; cf. Matt 13:19; 1Enoch 69:15). The other is that a straight line can

be drawn from Matthew's temptation narrative, in which "the EvilOne" tempts Christ to abandon his God, to the Sermon on theMount. This Matthean trajectory is informative because it suggeststhat in the case of the one who adds to her "Yes" or "No," the Devilrepeats his attempts to seduce her from the path of commitment toGod. The people who succumb to this temptation are, once again,

like the wicked ofPsalm 50, who give lip service to the covenant, butbetray their inward defection from it by the deceitful tongue.

IV. OATH-TAKINGAND THEMODERNCHRISTIAN

This reflection on present-day oath-taking falls into the categoryof "eschatology and ethics." That is to say, ethics for the Christiancommunity are determined by eschatology, or rather, by thecomplex ofeschatologyand Christology, as it were, a "Christological

eschatology."84 The norms of the Torah, as valid as they were fortheir time, have been displaced by the standards of the kingdom.

Whereas the old people were bound by the criteria of tradition andpropriety, the new people have broken with the past, as prompted

by Jesus' own departure from the time-honored standards of oath-taking as required by none other than the "holy and God-given law"(2 Mace 6:23) of the Sinai covenant.

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

28/33

166 TRINITY JOURNAL

A. The Oath in Salvation-Historical Perspective

If we put the straightforward questionis swearing still validfor twentieth-century Christians?the answer, as odd as it mayseem, is yes. From the perspective of redemptive history, we may saythat oath-taking, rather than being superfluous, has changed itsshape. No longer is the name of Yahweh invoked as a witness toone's words by sacrosanct objects, in holy places, in the presence ofholy persons, as a pledge of allegiance to the Sinai covenant. Instead,

since the advent of the kingdom of heaven, the "oath" for thefollowers of Christ is a simple "Yes" or "No," an "oath"commensurate with the relative simplicity of the new covenant incomparison to the old. Jesus does not discourage false swearing byobliterating oaths altogether, but rather by changing "the rules of thegame." To adapt Hagner's observation, he pursues the same goal asthe law in that he demands honesty from his people,*5 but it is anhonesty no longer disciplined by the Mosaic standards, as befits theeschatological ethics of the kingdom and the "grown-up" status ofthe sons and daughters of God (Gal 3:23-26). The various safeguardsonce placed on "minors" under tutelage have now been lifted: allthat remains is a "Yes" or "No" spoken from the integrity ofconscience.

One might say that the normal procedure of swearing under theold covenantthe "safeguards"actually opened, albeit inadvertently, the door to bogus oath-taking. This was so precisely becausethe oath was bound to the various holy entities, so that, as traditionaccumulated, subtle distinctions like those alluded to in Matt 23:16-22 were able to serve as smoke screens for insincerity. But now thatthere are no more holy places (cf. Zech 14:20-21), the oath has beendetached from locales and objects and is made to reside solely in theintegrity of the individual. In brief, the Christian's word is his oath.We hasten to clarify that it is not as though one oath formula hasbeen superseded by another, one set of words taking the place ofanother set of words. It is not a matter of formulae and words assuch, any of which may be manipulated and abused, but of intent."Yes" and "No" henceforth voice the believer's devotion to Jesus,the Lord ofhis latter-day people.

Jesus' role as the terminus of the promises of God (2 Cor 1:17b-20a) illuminates oath-taking in his new community. As in so many

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

29/33


the law, but the people ofChrist, the people whose faith is directedto him. It is in this unmistakablyeschatological sense that Matthew

can relate: "Iwill build mychurch" (Matt 16:18).Set within the frame of such an eschatology, Matt 5:33-37 builds

on the genius ofoath-taking in Judaism. The old oath, attached to acomparatively complex apparatus, was a pledge of one'scommitment to the covenant and its Lord, Yahweh. As such, it wasappropriate for its day. But with the coming of a new Moses, thistype ofswearing is no longer required to confirm the truthfulness ofone's word: a simple "Yes" or "No" is enough.

86And with the

cessation of swearing in its Mosaic mode, the old covenant itself

comes to an end. (The writer of Hebrews makes a similar point: achange in the priesthood necessitates a change in the law itself [Heb7:12].) The allegiance of the people of God is no longer to the Sinaicovenant, adapted, as it was, to its age and the people under it, butrather to Jesus, the ? of the new covenant. The ethics of thekingdom of heaven, in other words, have been updated from thecommonwealth of Israel and have Jesus as their point of reference.

This does not mean, however, that there are irreconcilabledifferences between these two major phases ofsalvation history; for

the payment of one's vows to the Most High commended by Ps50:14 has now become the "Yes" or "No" of the participant in thenew covenant. The new people of God actually fulfill the ideal ofPsalm 50, but in such a way as to render Mosaic oath-taking pass.In short, devotion to Yahweh, as encapsulated in the oath, has beenshifted to devotion to Jesus. The righteous are no longer defined interms of swearing an oath before God and performing the same;rather, they are those who let their simple "Yes" or "No" sufficebecause of their commitment to Christ. The righteousness of the

righteous, in other words, is now that of the kingdom of Heaven(Matt 5:20). Such righteousness, observes Guelich, "involvedconduct and relationships nothing short of that characteristic of thepromised age of salvation, the presence of the Kingdom," all because"with the dawn of the age of salvation a new relationship with Godbegan for those whose lives were touched by Jesus' person andministry."87

That this biblical theology of the oath was taken to heart by thefirst disciples of Christ is apparent from the exhortation of James:

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

30/33

168 TRINITYJOURNAL

"But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or earthor with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no,

that you may not fall under condemnation" (Jas ).88 As in Jesus'prohibition, James' "any other oath" is relative to devices added toone's "Yes" or "No" for the purpose ofproviding an escape clause incase one wishes to renege. In language likewise reminiscent ofMatt5:37, Paul confronts the Corinthians:

Do I make my plans like a worldlyman, readyto sayYes and No atonce? As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been

Yes and No. For the Son ofGod, Jesus Christ, whom we preached

among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No; butin him it is always Yes. For all the promises ofGod find their Yes inhim.(2Corl:17b-20a)

Although Paul is making a different point than Jesus and James, heis conscious that "Yes" and "No" mean just that"Yes" and "No"!To say either is to commit oneself to the course of action articulated

by these respective vocables. Paul, in other words, was conscious ofhis obligation to tell the truth just because all of God's promises ofold have found their "Yes" in Christ.

This perception of swearing does not preclude the modernChristian from going on oath in a court of law or from pledgingallegiance to his country, simply because oaths as such are notforbidden.

89Moreover, Matt 5:33-37 presupposes the covenantal

contextof the people of God's dealings with one another; that is, thesaying is not meant to obviate one's civil obligations, but seeks toregulate the life of the new covenant community in its "in-house"relationships. As Sanders reminds us, the rejection of oathsaltogether would create social problems. For example, a person who

would not swear could not do business, except within the confinesof a very small group.

90

By way of support, Jesus himself, even after issuing hisdirective, did not shrink from the adjuration of the High Priest

^On the relationship ofJas 5:12 to Matt 5:33-37, see P. H. Davids, The Epistle ofJames: A Commentaryon the GreekText(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 189-91. That James was actually dependent on a dominical saying is argued by Ito

("Authenticity," 10-12). M. Dibelius/H. Greeven thinkthat the form of the saying inJames is prior to its form in Matthew. Even so, they are unwilling to sever the linkbetween James and Jesus (James[Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976] 251). Other

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

31/33


(26:63-64).91 Also, his use of the (double) amen in the gospels (e.g.,Matt 26:63-64; Mark 8:12; 15:25) corresponds to that of the oath in theOT (e.g., Num 5:22).92 And these are not the only instances of oathlike language in the synoptics.93 Similarly, Paul was not reluctant tomake others swear (1 Thess 5:27), nor to take an oath respecting hisown sincerity (Rom 1:9; 9:1-3; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 1:23; 2:17; 4:2; 11:10-11, 31; Gal 1:20; Phil 1:8; 1 Thess 2:5,10), although his preference wasto use a simple "Yes" or "No," consistent with the thrust of Jesus'instruction (2 Cor l:17b-20a).94 It is possible, of course, that Paul wasnot directly aware of the saying preserved in Matt 5:33-37 as such.However, it is not unlikely that he was cognizant of it, given hisgeneral acquaintance with the teaching ofJesus.95

B. Honoring God's Name

It is beyond dispute that Jesus demands honesty in the church inthe broadly ethical sense.96 But more pointedly, he opposes the kindof casuistry which has the appearance of piety, but, in fact, preventsfidelity to one's word. Much of oath-taking in Jesus' day had becomea tool which, in the hands of the clever and manipulative, fosteredthe diametrical opposite of the divine intention of the oath. In brief, adivine institution was utilized to subvert godlinessand Jesus willhave no such thing in his end-time community.97

Yet there is something even more basic to his mind than humanbehavior, viz., the honoring of the name ofGod. In this, Jesus is verymuch in line with the Jewish emphasis. Nevertheless, his attitude,unlike that of Philo, Essenes/Qumran, and Second Temple Judaismgenerally, was that there could be no substitute for God's own name

91It is true that Jesus' reply to the High Priest, "you have said so," is to a certaindegree ambiguous. Nonetheless, the words are a response to a legally binding oath( )he did not remain silent as before.Moreover, the ambiguityof "you have said so" pertains onlyto the title "Son of God,"not to Jesus' declaration that he is the Danielle Son of Man who will come in glory, aclaim which the High Priest immediatelytookto be blasphemy.

92See Dautzenberg, "Schwurverbot," 58-59; Bauernfeind, "Eid," 109-10.

93As demonstrated bySthlin, "Beteuerungsformeln," 122-30.

94See further Dautzenberg, "Schwurverbot," 63-65; Bauernfeind, "Eid," 91-103;Sthlin, "Beteuerungsformeln," 130-42. Ito points out that Paul uses the oath formula

only to testify to the divine origin of his apostleship, mission, and gospel("Authenticity," 9).

95A d b mb f h l S D L D Th S i fJ i th

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

32/33

170 TRINITY JOURNAL

in the oath. He honored the name of his Father not by building aprotective "fence" of oral tradition around the third commandment( la m. 'Abot 1:1), but by refusing to lift up the name itself to vanity.

Luz remarks that Jesus, as the whole of Judaism, cares for thesanctification of God's name and majesty. He says:

Jesus is not only concerned about truthfulness so that the case ofthe oath would exemplify what truthfulness is. But he is concernedabout the oath because here the name of God is invoked. Theanthropological aspect, the command of truthfulness, has itstheological correlative in the demand of sanctification ofthe Lord's

name.98

We recall that the third commandment of the Decalogue is placedimmediately after the first two commandments, which in effectenjoin none other than the sanctification of Yahweh's name. We arethus led to believe that when Jesus bids the disciples pray,"Hallowed be thy name," integral to the hallowing process is therecollection that he has "eliminated the distinction between wordswhich have to be true and those which do not have to be true."99

It is just Christ's own attitude which has been bequeathed to his. By letting "Yes" and "No" suffice in themselves, withoutthe addition ofsupplements (for less than altruistic reasons), one isadmonished not to abuse the name of God by taking advantage ofoath-taking as a vehicle for self-serving ends and an escape hatchfrom the obligations ofcommitment.

100And ifbringing the name of

God into disrepute is forbidden in the matter ofinsincere oaths, thenso it ought to be in everyarea ofendeavor. The same disposition oftruthfulness and sincerity inherent in the "swearing" of the new

people of God ought, by the verynature of the case, take precedencein all they are and do.

7/28/2019 At La 0000906015

33/33

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.