Many groups (e.g., Anabaptists, Jehovah's Witnesses) have understood these verses absolutely literally and have therefore refused even to take court oaths. Their zeal to conform to Scripture is commendable, but they have probably not interpreted the text very well. 1. The contextual purpose of this passage is to stress the true direction in which the</SPAN> OT points--viz., the importance of truthfulness. Where oaths are not being used evasively and truthfulness is not being threatened, it is not immediately obvious that they require such unqualified abolition. 2. In the Scriptures God himself "swears" (e.g., Gen 9:9-11; Luke 1:68, 73; cf. Ps 16:10 and Acts 2:27-31), not because he sometimes lies, but in order to help men believe (Heb 6:17). The earliest Christians still took oaths, if we may judge from Paul's example (Rom 1:9; 2Cor 1:23; 1Thess 2:5, 10; cf. Philippians 1:8), for much the same reason. Jesus himself testified under oath (26:63-64). (Frank Gaebelein, Expositor’s Bible Commentary)
Certainly Jesus does not prohibit oaths in a court of justice for he himself answered Caiaphas on oath. Paul made solemn appeals to God (1Th 5:27; 1Co 15:31). Jesus prohibits all forms of profanity. The Jews were past-masters in the art of splitting hairs about allowable and forbidden oaths or forms of profanity just as modern Christians employ a great variety of vernacular "cuss-words" and excuse themselves because they do not use the more flagrant forms. (A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament)
Our Lord now proceeds to descant upon the nature of oaths, and to rebuke the Jewish practice of confirming even the most trivial statements, by an oath, considered more or less binding, according to the dignity or value of the person or thing named in the oath. The subject of judicial oaths is not here touched upon, and they are therefore in an error, who draw from this passage any prohibition of an oath before a court of justice, or any lawful judicatory. Nor is profanity the sin against which our Savior inveighs. The object in general was to show the obligations imposed by the ninth commandment to speak the truth on every subject, and to rebuke the habit of taking an oath on every trifling occasion, and making such a distinction in these oaths, that some were regarded of binding force, and others not. As the Jews considered a violation of the sixth and seventh commandments, to consist only in the overt act of killing or committing adultery, so in respect to the ninth, they considered its violation to consist only in swearing falsely by the name of God. They thought it no harm to utter an untruth, and even to confirm it by an oath, provided that this oath was not made in the name of Jehovah. It is necessary to keep this in view, in order to interpret rightly this portion of Christ’s discourse, which has suffered strange perversions from those who are opposed to judicial oaths, and oftentimes been misunderstood by sincere inquirers after truth.
33. Again, ye have heard, &c. Reference is had to Levit. 9:12; Deut. 23:23. Forswear thyself, i.e. swear falsely or perjure thyself. (John J. Owen, Commentary, Critical, Expository, and Practical, on the Gospel of Matthew)
Reference to (or actual quotation of) a precept of the tradition of the elders then in esteem, not, clearly, to the religious vows concerning which the law gave directions, with object of here dealing with the question of religious vows under the gospel; although Christ’s not having dealt with these may be very significant.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
These all have severally one or other mark of divine property in them; and perhaps it may be meant, thou shouldest never dare to bring them into comparison with thy ignorant purposes by mention of the two together in thy light oaths.
Prostituting the earnestness of speech (which should be reserved for employment, of holy names, and serious references, in the business of religious exercises), to occasions of inferior importance, weakens the impression of the one subject of paramount claim, the calling of God and what that requires. A profane exaggeration, that cometh of evil or perhaps literally of the evil one, of common and secular concerns, must dull the ear to due apprehension of the necessity of obeying the call of the gospel. (George Scratton, Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew)
It seems to have been held by the scribes that, unless God was named in an oath, it was no oath at all. Thus the Talmud says (Mishnah, Shebuoth, c. 4) “If any adjure another by heaven or earth, he is not guilty.” And the great Maimonides in his commentary on the treatise in question says, “If any swear by heaven, by earth, by the sun, &c., although the mind of the swearer be under these words to swear by Him who created them, yet this is not an oath. Or if any swear by some of the prophets, or by some of the books of the Scripture, although the sense of the swearer be to swear by Him that sent that prophet, or that gave that book, nevertheless this is not an oath.” (Edward Byron Nicholson, A New Commentary on the Historical Books of the New Testament)
False swearing and profane and idle use of the name of God are both prohibited by the third commandment (Exod. 20:7). The Hebrew word which answers to in vain may certainly be rendered either way, and probably includes both. Compare Lev. 19:12. False swearing is yet more distinctly forbidden by Numb. 30:2 and Deut. 23:21-23. The false witness received the same punishment which was due for the crime to which he testified. (Deut. 19:16-19.) Neither by heaven. . . nor by the earth. “The Jews held all those oaths not to be binding in which the sacred name of God did not directly occur.” --(Alford quoting Philo.) So Lightfoot quoting from the rabbinical books, “If any one swear by the heavens, by the earth, by the sun, it is not an oath.” (Lyman Abbott, Illustrated Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew)
