Sorry I can't find the relavant address right now, but when in the New Testament we are told not to make any oaths but to let our yes be a yes;
I was wondering what all is included in the category, oaths?
I find myself often quite unwilling to state what I will or will not do in the future because I don't know what tomorrow might bring, or where the Lord might lead.
Thank You & God Bless
Bud
Making Oaths
Making Oaths
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
The passage about oaths is found first in the sermon on the mount (Matt.5:33-37), and is repeated by James (James 5:12). The meaning of the instruction has been variously applied by different interpreters. There are some groups, like the Anabaptists, who will not swear an oath in court when asked to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because they consider such oaths to be a violation of Christ's commandment. I have seen cult apologists who made almost their whole case against the Masonic Lodge based upon the fact that these people are required to take oaths, and that Christians should not take oaths. I think these are examples of the misunderstanding of the teaching that Christ is giving.
In my early attempts to make sense of what Jesus was saying, I thought the concern was that our lack of knowledge of the future makes it impossible for us to make absolute commitments about future activities. Since taking an oath is a solemn thing, and an oath broken is a great offense, I thought the idea was that we should not commit ourselves with oaths which to keep requires our performance of certain promised duties in a future over which we have no control. We should only say "Yes," or "No," (which commits us less than if we made an oath) so that, any unpredictable and uncontrolably events that forced our nonperformance would at least not involve us in perjury. I thought this idea was bolstered by appeal to James 4:13-16, which warns against boasting of uncertain future activities, which boasting "is evil."
I now see this quite differently, and do not think that Jesus is recommending a simple "Yes" or "No' as a less-binding alternative to an oath, but just the opposite. He is saying that we should attach as much weight to a simple "Yes" or "No' as we do to an oath in the name of God.
First, to state what might not be obvious to all modern readers, the command "Do not swear at all" has nothing to do with what we commonly refer to as "swearing" (i.e., the use of profanity, or "cussing"). It is a refernce to the manner in which deals were ratified in a day before written contracts came to serve the same purpose. If one would bind himself to a matter, he would swear, or take an oath. This involved invoking the integrity of a higher power than oneself (Heb.6:16). It was assumed that such an invocation would be a guarantee of honesty, since any violation of the vow would be seen as a sacriligious violation of the virtue of the thing sworn by.
There was nothing intrinsically immoral about this system of taking oaths. In fact, in the Old Testament, it was encouraged, only that all oaths should be taken in the name of Yahweh, rather than in the names of other gods (Deut.10:20). By invoking the name of Yahweh in an oath, one did not thereby dishonor God, but the opposite. He was expressing his conviction that Yahweh was the most virtuous of all beings, and one could do no better than to swear by so lofty a name.
The only irreverence would come if one swore by Yahweh, and then broke his oath, which was called "taking the name of Yahweh in vain," and was forbidden in the third commandment. Over time, the fear of taking the name of Yahweh in vain led scrupulous Jews to substitute other holy things for the name of Yahweh in their oaths, swearing by heaven, by Jerusalem, by the temple, etc. Eventually, oaths sworn by these holy things were regarded as being as binding as oaths sworn in the name of Yahweh.
Once this stage had been reached in the practice of oath-taking, there came the temptation to define more carefully which oath really amounted to a binding oath, and which oath might not carry as much sanctity. An assumption arose among the rabbis that certain oaths would bind a man to his word, but some would not. Thus, in Jesus' day, the rabbis taught that an oath sworn by the temple or the altar were not binding upon the swearer, whereas oaths sworn by the gold of the temple or the gift on the altar were binding (see Matt. 23:16-22).
This became a means for dishonest people to cheat others. Eventually, only the legal experts (scribes and Pharisees) were acquainted with all the binding and non-binding formulae, and were able to take advantage of the ignorance of the general populous. The legal expert could say, "I will take this cow of yours today, and send you payment tomorrow. I swear by the temple that I will pay you." The gullible seller would assume this was a binding oath. When the buyer did not pay, and the seller complained, the former could say, "Ah, but I didn't swear by the gold of the temple! That would have bound me to pay you. I only swore by the temple, search and look! You will find that I am not bound to pay you!"
Thus the taking of oaths, as it was practiced in Jesus' time had become just a corrupted means of deceiving gullible people. Jesus' teaching was that an oath is an oath. To swear by anything--heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or even your own head!--was as binding as swearing in the name of Yahweh, since He had a sovereign interest in all things. In fact, even without taking an oath at all, God expects His people to keep their word, even a simple "Yes" or "No" should mean just that: "Yes" means "yes;" and "No" means "no." If this is not true, then it exhibits the evil of your heart. "Swear not at all..." in my opinion, means "Don't bother with oaths, just be honest with or without them."
This "swear not at all," I think, is not intended as a firm proscription (making a practice wrong that was right in the Old Testament), but as a means of saying "Oaths ought not to be necessary to keep you honest." At a later date, Jesus even allowed Himself to be put under oath in court (Matt.26:63-64), and Paul repeatedly took what look to be oaths (Gal. 1:20/ Rom.1:9/ 1 Thes.2:5). For this reason, I don't think Jesus' concern about oaths was to render immoral a practice which was advocated in the Old Testament, but He was appealing for seamless honesty in all speech, whether oaths were invoked or not.
The Old Testament necessity of performing oaths made to God, then. is extended, by Jesus, to the necessity of keeping all promises, even those made casually without being solemnized by an oath. Marriage vows, in my opinion, and being placed under oath in court, are not forbidden by this legislation. Christians, however, should never break a vow, and should see every promise as being in the same category as a vow. That is what I think Jesus is teaching.
In my early attempts to make sense of what Jesus was saying, I thought the concern was that our lack of knowledge of the future makes it impossible for us to make absolute commitments about future activities. Since taking an oath is a solemn thing, and an oath broken is a great offense, I thought the idea was that we should not commit ourselves with oaths which to keep requires our performance of certain promised duties in a future over which we have no control. We should only say "Yes," or "No," (which commits us less than if we made an oath) so that, any unpredictable and uncontrolably events that forced our nonperformance would at least not involve us in perjury. I thought this idea was bolstered by appeal to James 4:13-16, which warns against boasting of uncertain future activities, which boasting "is evil."
I now see this quite differently, and do not think that Jesus is recommending a simple "Yes" or "No' as a less-binding alternative to an oath, but just the opposite. He is saying that we should attach as much weight to a simple "Yes" or "No' as we do to an oath in the name of God.
First, to state what might not be obvious to all modern readers, the command "Do not swear at all" has nothing to do with what we commonly refer to as "swearing" (i.e., the use of profanity, or "cussing"). It is a refernce to the manner in which deals were ratified in a day before written contracts came to serve the same purpose. If one would bind himself to a matter, he would swear, or take an oath. This involved invoking the integrity of a higher power than oneself (Heb.6:16). It was assumed that such an invocation would be a guarantee of honesty, since any violation of the vow would be seen as a sacriligious violation of the virtue of the thing sworn by.
There was nothing intrinsically immoral about this system of taking oaths. In fact, in the Old Testament, it was encouraged, only that all oaths should be taken in the name of Yahweh, rather than in the names of other gods (Deut.10:20). By invoking the name of Yahweh in an oath, one did not thereby dishonor God, but the opposite. He was expressing his conviction that Yahweh was the most virtuous of all beings, and one could do no better than to swear by so lofty a name.
The only irreverence would come if one swore by Yahweh, and then broke his oath, which was called "taking the name of Yahweh in vain," and was forbidden in the third commandment. Over time, the fear of taking the name of Yahweh in vain led scrupulous Jews to substitute other holy things for the name of Yahweh in their oaths, swearing by heaven, by Jerusalem, by the temple, etc. Eventually, oaths sworn by these holy things were regarded as being as binding as oaths sworn in the name of Yahweh.
Once this stage had been reached in the practice of oath-taking, there came the temptation to define more carefully which oath really amounted to a binding oath, and which oath might not carry as much sanctity. An assumption arose among the rabbis that certain oaths would bind a man to his word, but some would not. Thus, in Jesus' day, the rabbis taught that an oath sworn by the temple or the altar were not binding upon the swearer, whereas oaths sworn by the gold of the temple or the gift on the altar were binding (see Matt. 23:16-22).
This became a means for dishonest people to cheat others. Eventually, only the legal experts (scribes and Pharisees) were acquainted with all the binding and non-binding formulae, and were able to take advantage of the ignorance of the general populous. The legal expert could say, "I will take this cow of yours today, and send you payment tomorrow. I swear by the temple that I will pay you." The gullible seller would assume this was a binding oath. When the buyer did not pay, and the seller complained, the former could say, "Ah, but I didn't swear by the gold of the temple! That would have bound me to pay you. I only swore by the temple, search and look! You will find that I am not bound to pay you!"
Thus the taking of oaths, as it was practiced in Jesus' time had become just a corrupted means of deceiving gullible people. Jesus' teaching was that an oath is an oath. To swear by anything--heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or even your own head!--was as binding as swearing in the name of Yahweh, since He had a sovereign interest in all things. In fact, even without taking an oath at all, God expects His people to keep their word, even a simple "Yes" or "No" should mean just that: "Yes" means "yes;" and "No" means "no." If this is not true, then it exhibits the evil of your heart. "Swear not at all..." in my opinion, means "Don't bother with oaths, just be honest with or without them."
This "swear not at all," I think, is not intended as a firm proscription (making a practice wrong that was right in the Old Testament), but as a means of saying "Oaths ought not to be necessary to keep you honest." At a later date, Jesus even allowed Himself to be put under oath in court (Matt.26:63-64), and Paul repeatedly took what look to be oaths (Gal. 1:20/ Rom.1:9/ 1 Thes.2:5). For this reason, I don't think Jesus' concern about oaths was to render immoral a practice which was advocated in the Old Testament, but He was appealing for seamless honesty in all speech, whether oaths were invoked or not.
The Old Testament necessity of performing oaths made to God, then. is extended, by Jesus, to the necessity of keeping all promises, even those made casually without being solemnized by an oath. Marriage vows, in my opinion, and being placed under oath in court, are not forbidden by this legislation. Christians, however, should never break a vow, and should see every promise as being in the same category as a vow. That is what I think Jesus is teaching.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve