@John Helpher you might be able to give some insight here
Thanks for thinking of me, WUiHL.
One of the most common themes when it comes to interpreting Jesus' teachings is that, when it comes to those teachings of his which require radical, dramatic change contrary to respectability, societal expectations, and especially personal desire, the resulting interpretations usally either end up promoting the exact opposite of what Jesus taught or become essentially inconsequential.
Very few people simply believe Jesus. I agree that interpretation is necessary, but the way this works in practical life is that people almost always end up correcting Jesus with the phrase, "What he
really meant was..." as though Jesus was somewhat of a buffoon who wasn't particularly good at articulating his thoughts.
Here's the text from the KJV:
Matthew 5
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you,
Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 B
ut let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Compare this to some of the comments made so far:
He didn't forbid promises, he forbade theatrics that were meant to self-promote, or to potentially deceive.
Jesus says, "not at all", but Sketcher says what Jesus
really meant was to avoid theatrics when swearing. It's okay to swear, so long as you believe the best about yourself when you're doing so; the opposite of what Jesus actually said.
He was teaching against swearing falsely, even by the hairs on your head.
He wasn’t teaching against swearing & keeping your promise.
Nope. Another case of what he
really meant. Poor Jesus; if only Dkh587 were there at the time; he could have let Jesus know about this "swearing falsely" caveat. But;, look at again at what Jesus said: "Not. At. All."
He condemned the frivolous swearing of oaths,
Are people starting to see a pattern here? Jesus simply said don't do it; not at all, but all these people don't want to hear that. What he
meant was don't swear with theatrics. Don't swear frivolously. Don't swear falsely. But that's not what he said. He said don't swear at all, for any reason. Only say yes or no.
It means that we shouldn't have say, "I swear by the Temple in Jerusalem!" because we should be persons of integrity whose yes means yes and no means no.
But, in the very same paragraph ViaCrucis also says:
This doesn't mean that a Christian can't swear to tell the truth in a court of law
How convenient. Don't swear by the temple because you should have integrity, BUT you can swear in a court of law, (presumably because integrity is not needed in a court of law)? The logic doesn't follow. It is inconsistent, and that is because it is an issue of convenience. ViaCrucis has no problem accepting that he should not swear by the temple, because doing so is not something likely to inconvenience him. He's not a Jew and the temple is not part of his system of culture or respectability.
But swearing in a court of law is very much a sign of system respectability. I mean, if you don't put your hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth, people might believe the worst about you? Yes is yes and no is no was okay for the land of Israel back in Jesus' day, but it's simply not good enough for our modern day courts of law!
Numbers of Christians avoid taking oaths on the basis of Jesus' words. Yet Paul made a vow. I found this article to be helpful:
Is it wrong for Christians to make vows or oaths?
And finally, Aussie Pete promotes much the same sentiment, except he couldn't even be bothered to put it in his own words. The article basically says we should not make hasty, emotional swears, while Jesus says we should not do it at all. It makes a fairly weak attempt at justifying swearing using some Old Testament examples which completely ignores the fact that Jesus begins his prohibition against swearing by saying, "yes, the OT says you can swear,
but I say..."
That, "but I say" is so emblematic of the attitude most people take toward Jesus' teachings; they don't actually care about what he says. Jesus represents little more than a formulaic deity who must be "accepted" through various flowery speechs about him coming into their heart, but rarely (if ever) actually obeyed, which is something Jesus himself addressed even back in his own time when he asked supposed followers of his, "Why do you call me, Lord, but do no obey me"?