Swearing Oaths
The problem Jesus is addressing is not oaths as they were meant to be, firm promises, which He never negated, but oaths as what they had become under the corrupt teaching of the Pharisees. Under them, oaths had become a game of crossed fingers, where if you didn't swear in a binding formula, you could break any promise and not be held to account under the law. It had become a safe way to lie with regularity. The whole meaning of "swearing" had been corrupted. Jesus takes his listeners, not to some bizarre new rule about never making promises, but back to the primitive truth about integrity, that a man's own word must be his bond, and you should do what you say you're going to do, and if you don't, you've fallen short of the righteousness of God, and the law of love.Think of Jesus in the role of judge, and changing the law by his rulings.
As I referenced previously in the chain, and is clear in the scriptures, one was permitted to swear or not swear, without sin. as long as one performed one's oath or word. Now, Jesus commands us not to swear at all, and still to perform our words. That is a change, no more oaths.
When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.
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: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Think of Jesus in the role of judge, and changing the law by his rulings.
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not think of Jesus that way. The role of the judge is not to enact law from the bench. We call that judicial activism, and it is a major force for anarchy. Not good. As an attorney, the last thing I want is to stand before a judge who makes it up as he goes along.
Now you might reasonably object that Jesus is unique, being the Son of God and very God. True, He is unique, and if He had chosen to change the law, I'd have to deal with it. He is God. He can do as He pleases in Heaven and earth, and no one can stay His hand, or challenge what He is doing.
But Jesus is also the Son, and lived in complete submission to the Father, the only human who ever did that to perfection, bar none. If there was a change in law, it could not come from Jesus. He did not ever say He came to change the law. Only to fulfill it. We know from the apostolic testimony that some laws were indeed transitory, as they had run their prophetic course, were fulfilled in Christ, and so no longer obligatory on the New Covenant believer.
But the moral law is the eternal law. It is inherently unchangeable. Especially the law of love. All the requirements of the law for justice against the sinner have been met in Christ, so no further sacrifice is necessary, and if no sacrifice, no temple, and if no temple, no temple priesthood, and all that went with that. This is a change in the law that can be justified through direct apostolic testimony.
But the moral law of God is a reflection of the character of God Himself. To suggest that it can change is to suggest (even if inadvertently) that God Himself is changeable, which I heartily reject.
Therefore, when we look at what Jesus teaches concerning the trivialized and phony practice of "pinky promise" swearing, we can recognize there is no way He could be condemning a serious and truthful promise, which before it had been corrupted, was the meaning of the whole concept of a vow. A vow is just a promise. There is no law against that. Indeed, Jesus confirms the continuity of the essence of the oath, that what you say is really what you will do. The law concerning telling the truth and making reliable promises has never changed, and will never change.
As to the passage you cite, Deuteronomy 23:21-23, there is no contradiction. Indeed, God there is saying the same thing as Jesus. Only the emphasis is different. If you make a solemn promise, you'd better keep it. If you choose not to make a solemn promise, there's no sin in that. How is that a change from Jesus' teaching? It isn't. It's the same thing. Keep your word. Period. Don't go trying to get fancy with a cosigner, like Jerusalem, or your head, or whatever. That's all nonsense, and that nonsense is the
kind of swearing Jesus was forbidding.
Furthermore, if you want to force that prohibition to cover all oaths, in violation of the context, then you must find Paul guilty if sinning while writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
(Galatians 1:20)
That's in the form of a valid oath. Notice he doesn't swear by some thing. he is simply affirming a solemn truth in the form of an oath. That's what an oath is for. There is no contradiction. Paul did not violate the law, because Jesus did not change the law. He reformed our understanding of it. The issue isn't finding the right verbal formula for making promises while crossing your fingers. The issue is saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. Integrity. And that law will never change. Period.
Peace,
SR.