Oaths, Anyone?

[newton3005]

All Scripture in the Bible is the Breath of God. Some of us may have held to the notion that each Verse in the Scriptures stands on its own. With that in mind, here is a Verse than can arouse one’s curiosity: Matthew 5:37 in which Lord Jesus says, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”

What could that mean, in and of itself? Is Jesus saying that anything said beyond a yes or a no is a temptation to evil? If so, does that mean that those who love God should keep communication to yes or no? But how can we convey our knowledge to eachother? Yes, we can write down our thoughts perhaps, notwithstanding Matthew 5:37, but most of the words won’t make sense to anyone who can’t read, beyond word associations such as a word below the picture of a hat, which may cause some to conclude that that’s what the word is for, at least. But it’s harder to associate words with abstracts like, say, jealousy. What picture would you use to illustrate jealousy?

It is possible, perhaps, to teach a person how to read by just saying yes or no, with the person you’re teaching making sounds that don’t amount to more than grunts. But seems that would take a long time, if people say no more than yes or no. It also would take a long time for people to learn anything if they don’t’ know how to read, beyond learning not to do certain things lest they be punished for it.

So in the Bible, it seems that we can’t always isolate a Verse so it stands on its own; we need to look around it for context. So, we have Verses 33-36 of Matthew 5 in which Jesus says the following: “...you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ [Cited from Leviticus 19:12] But I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.” So, Jesus in Verse 37 is referring to taking an oath.

If you expressly swear to do something, you commit yourself. Problem is, we live among evil that is in this world, so in most cases it will be impossible to hold to what you swear by. Better to respond with a yes or a no, since you would merely be answering the person asking you to swear. When a person testifies in court, he is asked if he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God. The person is only required to say “I do,” thereby avoiding the possibility of betraying the oath if he repeats ‘I swear to tell the truth,’ etc. Because if he states what he is swearing to, then that makes him beholden to God to not say anything else, particularly to lie. There is a lot in this world, and even in a courtroom, that would make a person betray the Throne of God, but by merely saying ‘I do,’ the temptation to do evil by lies or deception is minimized. That is, in the context of Matthew 5:33-37, if we are to answer anything in response to taking an oath, it should be yes or no, or ‘I do’ or ‘I don’t.’ That way you won’t be offending God’s Throne.

What about the Presidential oath of Office, recited by newly elected Presidents in the U.S.? It goes, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." A newly elected President is required to recite this oath; the person telling him what to recite won’t ask him if he swears to faithfully execute the office of President, etc., requiring the President-elect to merely respond, ‘I do.’ But in duly reciting the oath, is not the President-elect not risking betraying God’s footstool or God’s city of Jerusalem referred to in Verse 35?

We know of past Presidents that have been called into question in terms of the Oath they recited, with people saying those Presidents violated the Oath, doing so on purpose. Violating the oath in such manner amounts to lying, to the extent that you never intended to abide by the oath and to the extent that you end up bearing false witness after the fact. Perhaps it’s better that the person administering the Oath of Office merely ask the President-elect if he swears to, etc., and the President elect answers yes or no, inasmuch as the person administering the oath is neither God’s Throne nor His Footstool nor His City? And the President, or ex-President perhaps, wouldn’t be any worse off than if he was called upon to testify in court!

 

[SkyWriting]

Matthew 5:37 in which Lord Jesus says, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”

What could that mean, in and of itself? Is Jesus saying that anything said beyond a yes or a no is a temptation to evil? If so, does that mean that those who love God should keep communication to yes or no? But how can we convey our knowledge to eachother? Yes, we can write down our thoughts perhaps, notwithstanding Matthew 5:37, but most of the words won’t make sense to anyone who can’t read, beyond word associations such as a word below the picture of a hat, which may cause some to conclude that that’s what the word is for, at least. But it’s harder to associate words with abstracts like, say, jealousy. What picture would you use to illustrate jealousy?

It is possible, perhaps, to teach a person how to read by just saying yes or no, with the person you’re teaching making sounds that don’t amount to more than grunts. But seems that would take a long time, if people say no more than yes or no. It also would take a long time for people to learn anything if they don’t’ know how to read, beyond learning not to do certain things lest they be punished for it.

So in the Bible, it seems that we can’t always isolate a Verse so it stands on its own; we need to look around it for context. So, we have Verses 33-36 of Matthew 5 in which Jesus says the following: “...you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ [Cited from Leviticus 19:12] But I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.” So, Jesus in Verse 37 is referring to taking an oath.

If you expressly swear to do something, you commit yourself. Problem is, we live among evil that is in this world, so in most cases it will be impossible to hold to what you swear by. Better to respond with a yes or a no, since you would merely be answering the person asking you to swear. When a person testifies in court, he is asked if he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God. The person is only required to say “I do,” thereby avoiding the possibility of betraying the oath if he repeats ‘I swear to tell the truth,’ etc. Because if he states what he is swearing to, then that makes him beholden to God to not say anything else, particularly to lie. There is a lot in this world, and even in a courtroom, that would make a person betray the Throne of God, but by merely saying ‘I do,’ the temptation to do evil by lies or deception is minimized. That is, in the context of Matthew 5:33-37, if we are to answer anything in response to taking an oath, it should be yes or no, or ‘I do’ or ‘I don’t.’ That way you won’t be offending God’s Throne.

What about the Presidential oath of Office, recited by newly elected Presidents in the U.S.? It goes, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." A newly elected President is required to recite this oath; the person telling him what to recite won’t ask him if he swears to faithfully execute the office of President, etc., requiring the President-elect to merely respond, ‘I do.’ But in duly reciting the oath, is not the President-elect not risking betraying God’s footstool or God’s city of Jerusalem referred to in Verse 35?

We know of past Presidents that have been called into question in terms of the Oath they recited, with people saying those Presidents violated the Oath, doing so on purpose. Violating the oath in such manner amounts to lying, to the extent that you never intended to abide by the oath and to the extent that you end up bearing false witness after the fact. Perhaps it’s better that the person administering the Oath of Office merely ask the President-elect if he swears to, etc., and the President elect answers yes or no, inasmuch as the person administering the oath is neither God’s Throne nor His Footstool nor His City? And the President, or ex-President perhaps, wouldn’t be any worse off than if he was called upon to testify in court!

You are absolutely correct.
But keep in mind the Bereans.

Acts 17:10-11
The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

 

[CMDRExorcist]

These passages have always fascinated (and confused) me, but your assessment makes sense to me. Personally, I don’t believe we can effectively isolate all verses in the Bible and have them stand on their own. Context is key in many instances and this is certainly one of them. I think that with respect to oaths, you’re right that we’re not called to swear to oaths because humanity has a hard time upholding them. Although I’m not sure if there’s really a difference between saying I do versus I solemnly swear when asked if you’ll uphold something. Both are affirmation of an intent to fulfill an obligation.