The third Commandment, Matthew 5:33-37

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

Dear Brethren, this is my first thread, so please be merciful

I have read in other PB threads that the WCF ch. XXII affirms the lawful use of oaths because of and not limited to these reasons:

1. Godly commandments scattered throughout the Pentateuch to only swear by YHWH's name.

2. due to their interpretation of Matthew 5:33-37 as
i) possible hyperbole in context of the entire sermon of the mount
ii) Jesus correction of the perversion of scripture by the Pharisees of the day (they swore by the gold instead of the sacred altar... which obviously made Jesus quite

3. other Godly swearing in the New Testament such as Romans 1:9, 2 Cor 1:23, Phil 1:8 which supports their position that Jesus didn't abrogate swearing, but radically condemned improper uses of it.


However I myself see hardly any hyperbole in the sermon on the mount, but a new "giving of the law" from our Lord. And this time He's either abrogated certain teachings, or upgraded them to a new 'High'. (physical adultery --> mind-lust, actual murder --> hate, swearing --> don't even bother, just tell the truth, certificate of divorce --> don't divorce because God has made you one, love your neighbouring Israelites --> love your enemies ... etc.)

Could I please hear from the brethren on what you understand to be the relationship between Matthew 5:33-37 and the Third commandment? What are the arguments against Jesus' total abrogation of the practice of swearing? I am particularly thinking of this issue because marriage is imminent and I have serious doubts about the biblical-support behind marital vows. Thank you!





P.S. James 5:12 is similar to the Matthew 5 passage, so I didn't bring it up.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/third-commandment-swearing-oaths-4799/ - the last post in this thread has a similar unanswered question. (I would not have started a new thread if I found my answer already).

 

[A5pointer]

It may be simple. Jesus is not necessarily forbidding the forms of oaths as much simply saying there are not different types of truth telling. Ie. Your words are to always be true oath or not.

 

[KMK]

And this time He's either abrogated certain teachings, or upgraded them to a new 'High'.

This is certainly how the Jews felt about His teaching. But, in fact, Jesus' teaching was simply a restoration of the original intent contained in the OT. The teachings that He abrogated were those by the Jewish elders who had added their own traditions. (Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time) These Jewish elders had not 'degraded' God's Law but had replaced it with their own traditions altogether (See Mark 7).

The key to understanding "Swear not at all" is His clarification with the words "neither by heaven" and "neither by earth".

Calvin:

Many have been led by the phrase, not at all, to adopt the false notion, that every kind of swearing is condemned by Christ. Some good men have been driven to this extreme rigor by observing the unbridled licentiousness of swearing, which prevailed in the world. The Anabaptists, too, have blustered a great deal, on the ground, that Christ appears to give no liberty to swear on any occasion, because he commands, Swear not at all But we need not go beyond the immediate context to obtain the exposition: for he immediately adds, neither by heaven, nor by the earth Who does not see that those kinds of swearing were added by way of exposition, to explain the former clause more fully by specifying a number of cases? The Jews had circuitous or indirect ways of swearing: and when they swore by heaven, or by earth, or by the altar, (Matthew 23:18,) they reckoned it to be next to nothing; and, as one vice springs from another, they defended, under this pretense, any profanation of the name of God that was not openly avowed.
To meet this crime, our Lord declares that they must not swear at all, either in this or that way, either by heaven, or by the earth Hence we conclude, that the particle, at all, relates not to the substance, but to the form, and means, “neither directly nor indirectly.” It would otherwise have been superfluous to enumerate those kinds: and therefore the Anabaptists betray not only a rage for controversy, but gross ignorance, when they obstinately press upon us a single word, and pass over, with closed eyes, the whole scope of the passage. Is it objected, that Christ permits no swearing? I reply: What the expounder of the law says, must be viewed in connection with its design. His statement amounts to this, that there are other ways of “taking the name of God in vain,” besides perjury; and, therefore, that we ought to refrain from allowing ourselves the liberty of unnecessary swearing: for, when there are just reasons to demand it, the law not only permits, but expressly commands us to swear. Christ, therefore, meant nothing more than this, that all oaths are unlawful, which in any way abuse and profane the sacred name of God, for which they ought to have had the effect of producing a deeper reverence.

 

[Poimen]

I have read in other PB threads that the WCF ch. XXII affirms the lawful use of oaths because of and not limited to these reasons:

2. due to their interpretation of Matthew 5:33-37 as
i) possible hyperbole in context of the entire sermon of the mount
ii) Jesus correction of the perversion of scripture by the Pharisees of the day

However I myself see hardly any hyperbole in the sermon on the mount, but a new "giving of the law" from our Lord. And this time He's either abrogated certain teachings, or upgraded them to a new 'High'. (physical adultery --> mind-lust, actual murder --> hate, swearing --> don't even bother, just tell the truth, certificate of divorce --> don't divorce because God has made you one, love your neighbouring Israelites --> love your enemies ... etc.)

Hyperbole or not, Jesus is contradicting and counteracting the oral tradition of the Pharisees whenever He says "it has been said" or "you have heard it said" (as mentioned several times in this sermon: vss. 21,27,31,33,38,43). Also note that this oral tradition often contained that which contradicted what the OT actually taught (as we see later on in the Pharisee's understanding of the fifth commandment - Matthew 15:3ff.). Contrast this approach to "it has been said" with "it is written" and you will see that our Lord believed in the authority of God's (OT) word and thus presented it in a way that was opposite of how it was popularly understood in those days.

Add to that that our Lord meant to fulfill the law & not to destroy it (Matthew 5:17) and taught in such a way that subverted the authority of the established authorities by establishing His own as law giver and King (Matthew 7:28-29), it should be clear that our Lord did not intend to do away with or subvert the Old Testament law of oath taking.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

However I myself see hardly any hyperbole in the sermon on the mount, but a new "giving of the law" from our Lord. And this time He's either abrogated certain teachings, or upgraded them to a new 'High'. (physical adultery --> mind-lust, actual murder --> hate, swearing --> don't even bother, just tell the truth, certificate of divorce --> don't divorce because God has made you one, love your neighbouring Israelites --> love your enemies ... etc.)

I think part of what may be making this whole question hard for you is that as a kind of starting point, the Sermon on the Mount is for you a new "law."

In the first place it can be neither "new" nor "abrogation," because Jesus expressly disavows the idea in Mt.5:17-20. It isn't even correct to describe what Jesus does as "heightening" the laws requirements; but rather a boring down under the hard calcification of Pharisaic superficiality as pertained to the original law's true character. Jesus is "raising the bar," but not because it had been set lower by Moses, but because the Pharisees had lowered it, so that it might be vaulted--at least by themselves, the athletic, the motivated, the energetic. Jesus sweeps away all that by explaining that law-keeping is not, and never was, a way to right-standing with God. Perfection alone allows the door to the Kingdom to open; and because this is unattainable (not even by the scribes and Pharisees), some other means of reconciliation must be sought.

Second, of course if the Sermon is "new law" or even a further retelling of the former law revealed in all its mammoth rigor, then everything Jesus says should be interpreted as strictly as possible. By way of mitigation, this would still require explanation how Christ himself (having been adjured by the High Priest, Mt.26:63) or the Apostles (e.g 2Cor.1:23; Gal.1:20) should find it fitting to speak upon an oath. And so explain which text should "trump" the other? We want them to harmonize. We need the right habit of oaths in their proper place, so that after fifty generations we can still make sense of a text like Heb.6:16.

Third, the standards expressed in the Sermon are nothing but the actual lives of citizens of the Kingdom. "Blessed ARE" these people.... This is obviously an ideal; in its clearest expression, it is true of people who are already in heaven, that is perfected. It can only be approximated on earth, and to think otherwise is to "overrealize" one's eschatology. Moreover, it is no better to think of the Kingdom citizen as bound for better success than the Jews because of Holy Spirit's presence. The power of the Spirit is a tremendous blessing to the believer, enabling the believer to walk close to God. But, we are still simultaneously saint-and-sinner; all the blessedness of our obedience belongs to God, and all that corrupts our work is man's contribution. What God sees looking at the "actual lives" of his citizens are their getting about clad in the righteousness of Another, being united to Christ. From the standpoint of his justice--who's in and who's out--he only sees Christ when he looks at them.

The Sermon on the Mount's description of a citizen of Christ's kingdom is only attainable by grace--saving grace, sustaining grace, perfecting grace. Though a kingdom of grace, it is nevertheless death once again (as was the killing letter of Moses) if, having been brought into it as it were by grace, we fundamentally treat its expectations especially under the color of law.


Jesus confronts Pharisaic legalism in his sermon, because that is the milieu in which he sits to teach. The legalists have divided their duty to truth-telling into parts. One form of the oath is non-binding, while a supposedly "stricter" oath is binding. It is a matter of subtlety and subterfuge. The standard Jesus points to is truth in everything, always; rather than asserting that only in a court of law, or in some other case that excites "proof" of truthfulness men are obliged not to skirt the facts.

There is nothing in Jesus' language, contextually and properly understood, that precludes the propriety of a formal oath; the same may be said for James 5:12. Jesus lets himself speak under oath (imposed by a lawful authority in the High Priest of the Old Covenant). Paul and others invoke God (e.g. Peter and John invoke God as Judge in Act.4:19) in spoken or written oaths, formal asseverations of the truth. And there is no undercurrent of a negative evaluation of it. Angels swear in heaven itself, Rev.10:5.

Your oath should not be more reliable than anything else you say, to your wife or to anyone. But, when in a public ceremony you acknowledge the God of heaven as witness, you are making a statement of faith. As a Christian, such statements are honorable and honoring to God Triune.

And, you must guard against the vanity of swearing lightly, as so many do today, cursing, or even blessing men without just sense of those statements. This is one of the great evils of our time: the presence of "Jesus Christ" (or "God" etc.) on the lips even of professing Christians, who speak without reverence. What is "God bless!" without any idea that you are swearing by invocation? It is no less profane than a "God damn!" that proceeds from a black heart of selfishness.

So, my final thought to you is this: if you must refrain from taking your marriage vow for sake of your conscience, then I'm afraid that you must also refrain from any and all public statements of faith, other than perhaps direct prayer to God. For every one of them is an invocation and invitation to a divine witness of your speech. And thus, a form of oath-taking.

 

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

Wow. Matthew 26:63-64 actually solves the whole disharmony I had once believed. My bad!

I'm going to have to print out your responses and read them a few times over.

Thanks to everyone who responded. Thank you Brother Buchanan for spending so much of your time.