TRINJ16NS (1995) 139-170

OATH-TAKING IN THE COMMUNITY OF THE NEW AGE (MATTHEW 5:33-37) DON GARLINGTON* I. INTRODUCTION Matthew 5:33-37 strikes the modern reader of the Sermon on the Mount as something of an oddity. It appears to be a holdover from a bygone eraone side of an in-house discussion between Jews and Christians respecting religious and civil duty. As such, it has assumed the aspect of a fossil embedded in an otherwise recognizable contemporary program of ethics. In fact, the more one explores the Jewish context of this saying about oath-taking, the more its seeming irrelevance for modern life comes to the forewith the exception of those Christian sects, ancient and modern, which have applied the logion quite superficially and have consciously objected to swearing under any circumstances (most conspicuously oath-taking in courts of law and oaths of national and military allegiance).1 Nevertheless, however irrelevant the saying may initially seem, oath-taking, we shall argue, is still valid for the Christian community.2 But it is a form of swearing conditioned by eschato*Don Garlington is Professor of New Testament at Toronto Baptist Seminary in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 1 See W. Frst, "Der Eid als Problem Evangelischer Ethik," in Eid, Gewissen, Treupflicht (ed. H. Bethke; Frankfurt: Stimme, 1965) 63-67; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentari/ on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: & Clark, 1988,1991) 1.535; cf. U. Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 318-20. 2 In this essay, the phrase "Christian community," and such like, go beyond the so-called "Matthean community" to embrace primitive Christianity as a whole. However, since the "Matthean community" has come in for a good deal of study of late, mention can be made of some notable works in English: S. H. Brooks, Matthew's Community: The Evidence of His Special Sayings Material (JSNTSup 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978); J. A. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); A. J. Saldarmi, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1993); id., "Revisiting Matthew's Communities," SBLSP 1994, 9-23.

140

TRINITY JOURNAL

logical and Christological factors; specifically the conception that Israel's long-expected Messiah had come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It was this Messiah who introduced a significant modification into the oath-taking practices of his adherents. On the one hand, Jesus7 "ban" on swearing, as it is normally taken to be, was a vehicle for articulating a noticeablenot to say egregious difference between the community of Israel, the people of the old age, and his community, the people of the new age.3 On the other hand, there is an observable continuity between the two communities, in that the Lord of the new covenant places the same demand for integrity on his followers as Yahweh did on his people Israel. Matt 5:33-37 thus assumes a decided salvation-historical pertinence for the disciples of Jesus the Christ by introducing a significant modification into a long-standing custom and yet, at the same time, preserving the essence of the command, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11).4

I agree with Stanton that Matthew wrote his gospel as a "foundation document" for a cluster of Christian communities (as distinct from a Jesus-centered form of Judaism, la Saldarmi). Consequently, Stanton remarks, the evangelist and most of his readers saw themselves as a "new people," over against both local synagogues and the Gentile world at large. The gospel thus contains "a whole series of 'legitimating answers' for the 'new people.'" Fully and prominently, it "defends vigorously the distinctive convictions and self-understanding of the 'new people"' ("Matthew's Communities," 17-18). 4 The following sketch focuses only on those aspects of oath-taking in ancient Israel relevant to the purposes at hand. Fuller studies are provided by M. Greenberg, Encjud 14.1295-98; H. H. Cohn, Encjud 14.1298-1302; I. Levitats, Encjud 14.1302-3; L. I. Rabinowitz, Encjud 16.227-28; Str-B 1.321-28; C. A. Keller, THAT 2.39-43,855-63; M. H. Pope, IDB 3.575-77; J. Schneider, TDNT 5.176-80, 458-61; W. Mundle and T. Sorg, NIDNTT 1.413-18; H.-G. Link, NIDNTT 3.739-40; H.-G. Link and U. Becker, N1DNTT 1.206-18; M. Stenzel, "Oath," Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology: The Complete Sacramentum Verbi (ed. J. . Bauer; New York: Crossroad, 1981) 614-15; F. C. Fensham, ISBE (2d ed.) 3.572-74; W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966) 239-45; E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity) 51-57; F. Horst, "Der Eid im Alten Testament," EvT 17 (1957) 366-84; H. L. White, "The Divine Oath in Genesis," JBL 92 (1973) 165-79. The place of oath-taking in the NT is surveyed by: F. Annen, EDNT 2.532-33; A. Kretzer, EDNT 2.510-11; G. Sthlin, "Zum Gebrauch von Beteuerungsformeln im Neuen Testament," NovT 5 (1962) 115-43; O. Bauernfeind, "Der Eid in der Sicht des Neuen Testaments," in Eid, Gewissen, Treupflicht, 83-112. Because of the limitations herein imposed, no account can be taken of oaths in the ancient Near Eastern world. Fensham provides a listing of the most relevant literature (ISBE [2d ed.] 3.574). The place of the oath in the Greco-Roman world is surveyed by Link, NIDNTT 3.737-39 (cf. Davies/Allison, Matthew 1.535).

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

141

IL THE OATH IN THE COMMUNITY OF THE OLD AGE A. The Hebrew Scriptures 1. The Oath: A Pledge of the Covenant? An "oath" (or "vow") as used in the Hebrew Scriptures, may be called "a sworn affirmation or an invocation of God in confirmation of a promise."6 It is a solemn appeal to God to confirm the truth of one's words, with the express acceptance of punishment in case one fails to speak the truth.7 That such a conception was embedded in the Jewish mind is confirmed by Philo: "an oath is an appeal to God as a witness on matters in dispute, and to call him as a witness to a lie is the height of profanity" (Spec. Leg. 2.10; Dec. 86). Therefore, as Philo continues, "all oaths must be made good so long as they are concerned with matters honourable and profitable for the better conduct of public or private affairs and are subject to the guidance of wisdom and justice and righteousness" (Spec. Leg. 2.12). So serious was the oath that it took the form of a self-curse if the condition was unfulfilled. As among other peoples, the oath was a vital part of the life of the Jewish community because:
The security of a society demands that its members speak the truth in crucial situations and keep their promises in matters of serious import. The oath is an ancient and universal means of impressing this obligation on the responsible parties in an agreement or an investigation. The obligation is fortified by holy words and holy acts which create confidence and afford a sense of security that serves to hold the community together.8

Since the Israelite community also comprised a covenant relationship, it is only to be expected that the oath, as often
"Vow" (mainly -na) is here subsumed under "oath," because, for the most part, oaths and vows were quite similar. One may thus speak of the "oath-vow." Rabinowitz defines a vow as "a promise made to God to perform some deed . . . as well as . . . a prohibition which a person imposes upon himself to abstain from something which is otherwise permitted" (Encjud 16.227; italics mine). On the varieties of vows, see G. H. Davies, IDB 4.792-93; T. W. Cartledge, ISBE (2d ed.) 4.99899; J. C. Rylaarsdam, IDB 3.526-27; A. Rothkoff, Encjud 12.907-10. The same similarity exists between "oath" and "curse" (see below). Menzel, "Oath," 614 (italics deleted). 7 Cf. T. Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London: Lutterworth, 1967) 95. 8 Pope, IDB 3.575. That such security is sought by the community from God himself is evidenced by the divine self-maledictory oath of Gen 15:7-21 (cf. Heb 6:1320). See Pope, IDB 3.576; Stenzel, "Oath," 615; M. G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 16-17. To the same effect are Gen 22:15-18; Deut 1:8; Jer 34:18; Ezek 17:16; Zeph 2:9, and the oath-gestures predicated of Yahweh in Exod 6:8; 20:5; Isa 62:8. His covenants with his people were sealed with oaths, so that the promises of these covenants are referred to as things which the Lord swore to do (Gen 24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exod 13:5,11; 33:1; Num 14:16,30; 32:11).
5

142

TRINITY JOURNAL

accompanied by sacrifice, was integral to covenant ratification and maintenance.9 In the course of time, then, "oath" and "covenant" became practically synonymous, as did "curse" (the converse of "oath") and "covenant." The varieties of covenantal oaths/vows are thus reducible precisely to "oath" and "curse." The "oath" is a pledge of covenant fidelity, and the "curse" results when the pledge is broken. (a) The Oath The oath is voiced, in the main, by the generic term runntf. It is the guarantee that a person will perform what she promises, with the understanding that dire consequences will result if the oath is not fulfilled. The occasions of an individual going on oath range from the personal and trivial to the most solemn public undertakings.10 The variety of oaths can be subsumed under three broad headings:11 (1) The exculpatory oath, taken at the sanctuary (Exod 22:7,10), was exacted by a plaintiff from a defendant to back the latter's plea of innocence when no witness to the facts was available. (2) The adjuration, to give testimony or information, was uttered by the party interested in the testimony and directed to the community at large or against a particular party (e.g., Lev 5:1; Judg 17:1-3; 1 Kgs 18:10; Prov 29:24). (3) The voluntary obligatory oath was more general and bound its taker to do or not do a thing voluntarily undertaken (e.g., Lev 5:4; Psalm 132). This oath, as all others, had to be fulfilled even at the risk of harm to oneself (e.g., Ps 15:4; cf. Eccl 5:4-5). The oath of self-denial (closely related to the vow), discussed in Numbers 30, belongs to this category. But notwithstanding the multiplicity of the oaths, the "glue" which held them all together was the loyal Israelite's determination to keep Yahweh's covenant. The oaths were thus emblems of the righteous person's commitment to maintain faith with his God. This is why "oath" (runnt andr?K)could be equated with "covenant" (e.g., Gen 26:3,28; Josh 9:20; 2 Chr 15:15; Neh 6:18; Ezek 17:13,16,1819) and why Israel's covenant with God involved the people in oathlike sanctions (e.g., Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 27-28), even though the covenant stipulations are infrequently termed an "oath" as such (2 Chr 15:12-15; Neh 10:30).12 The oath, in point of fact, was a
9 As is well-known, the Hebrew idiom "to cut a covenant" probably derives from the custom of dividing sacrificial animals in two during covenant rituals (e.g.. Gen 15:10, 17; cf. Jer 34:18). See M. Noth, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (London: SCM, 1984) 108-17; H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meaning (London: SPCK, 1967) 30-31 (n. 3). 10 E.g., Gen 21:23; Josh 9:18; Judg 21:1; 1 Sam 14:28; 17:55; 20:3, 42; 21:2; 2 Sam 14:19; 1 Kgs 17:1; 2 Kgs 2:2; Neh 13:25. "Adapted from Greenberg, Encjud 14.1297. 12 See Kline, By Oath Consigned, 14-22; E. Kutsch, Verheiung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten "Bund" im Alten Testament (BZAW 131; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973) 1-27 (esp. 18-22); D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

143

vehicle of confessing the one God of Israel: "You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name" (Deut 6:13); and: "You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve him and cleave to him, and by his name you shall swear" (Deut 10:20).13 So closely associated was the oath with the service of God that swearing by him could be used as a synonym for adhering to and trusting in him (Ps 63:12; Isa 19:18; 48:1; Jer 44:26; Zeph 1:5). The Israelite who swore to Yahweh acknowledged him to be the sole God, who alone is worthy of trust. The oath thus embodied faith and was a vehicle of monotheistic confession.14 Correspondingly, apostasy was declared by swearing to other gods (Josh 23:7; Ps 16:4; Amos 8:14; Jer 5:7; 12:16; Zeph 1:5; cf. Exod 23:13), not surprisingly because the third commandment is placed in tandem with Sie prohibitions against idolatry. Given that the oath and the confession of Yahweh were virtually one and the same, it is explicable why the latter-day acceptance of Yahweh by the Gentiles, when they turn from their idols, is portrayed as an oath of allegiance to him (Isa 19:18; 45:23). (b) The curse15 If the "oath" went unfulfilled, it became a "curse." There are two classic examples. One is Zechariah's vision of the flying scroll (Zech 5:1-4):

in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; 2d ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978) 10, 19, 31-35, 71-73, 76-81 (passim); P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AnBib 88; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982) 1014 (passim); Mendenhall, IDB 1.716; D. Stuart, ABD 1.218. 13 The correlation of swearing with the fear of Yahweh is significant because "the fear of the Lord" is a compendious phrase roughly equivalent to "religion," i.e., trust in and service to the God of Israel. See J. Becker, Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament (AnBib 25; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1965), e.g., 205-9; G. Wanke, TDNT 9.201, 205; J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religise Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinre Bedeutung (AnBib 30; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1967), e.g., 232,279; D. Garlington, "The Obedience of Faith": A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context (WUNT 2/38; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991) 19-23,187. 14 What V. H. Neufeld says of the shema applies equally to confession through the oath: It was a . . . reminder to the Jew of the uniqueness of Yahweh, the God of Israel, of his own responsibility to love, serve, and obey him, as well as a warning of the consequences of serving other gods. In this confession of the One God, all Judaism was united in one body. (The Earliest Christian Confessions [NTTS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963] 36) 15 See further Stuart, ABD 1.1218-19; W. Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch (WMANT 30; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1969); J. Scharbert, "'Fluchen' und 'Segen' im Alten Testament," Bib 29 (1958) 1-26; id., TD 1.261-66, 405-18; id., "Curse," Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, 174-79; S. Blank, "The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell and the Oath," HUCA 23 (1950-51) 73-95; C. A. Keller, THAT 1.150-52, 236-39; F. Bchsel, TDNT1.448-51.

144

TRINITY JOURNAL
This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole land; for every one who steals shall be cut off henceforth according to it, and every one who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth according to it. I will send it forth, says the Lord of Hosts, and it shall enter the house of the thief, and the house of him who swears falsely by my name; and it shall abide in his house and consume it, both timber and stones, ( w . 3-4)16

The placement of the false oath in parallel with theft may imply that just as one could deprive one's neighbor of her possessions, so also the Lord is robbed of his honor when the Israelite failed to comply with an oath taken in his name. The other example is Joshua 9, which dwells at length on the pact deceitfully extracted from Israel by the Gibeonites. Orice the Jewish leaders discovered the trick, they were powerless to revoke the agreement, because, in their words, We have sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel, and now we may not touch them. This we will do to them, and let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we swore to them. (vv. 19b-20; see also Ezek 17:16-21). The normal term for "curse" isr?K.However, rfra is frequently translated "oath," since "curse" and "oath" are readily interchangeable, as further evidenced by the way in which the oath might be cited in the form of a curse (e.g., Judg 21:18; 1 Sam 14:28). See particularly Gen 24:8 as compared with Gen 24:41, and 1 Sam 14:23 in comparison with 1 Sam 14:28. The two are paired in Num 5:21; Neh 10:29; Dan 9:11 (cf. Isa 65:16). An especially enlightening specimen is the hybrid, "the oath of the curse" (n*?n runnef), as invoked in the case of the suspected adulteress of Num 5:21. Th curse most often appears in a conditional form with a suppressed apodosis, presumably because of the horror associated with its realization (e.g., Deut 28:29; Josh 22:22-29; Ps 95:11; Neh 5:12-13). There are, however, instances in which the complete formula occurs, on occasions where the issue was grave and the emotion strong. Apart from Num 5:19-22, a prime example is Job 31, where Job's confession is accompanied by a series of oaths complete with curses of the most fearful kind. In his desperation to impress both God and his accusers with his sincerity and innocence, Job calls down upon himself the most terrible curses he can conceive. Job is thus a paradigm figure of all who take the oath.
Tne verb np3, in Zech 5:3, is often translated "be cut off" (as per RSV). However, its most frequent semantic value is "remain unpunished"; and Aere is no reason to take it otherwise here. In other words, the Lord sends forth his curse because false swearing had gone unpunished by the authorities in Israel. One way or the other, Yahweh will see to it that fraudulent swearing is requited. See D. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 245; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB 25b; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987) 286.1 am indebted to my colleague. Dr. Peter Gentry, for this information.
16

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

145

Here we see the oath in all its force as a kind of ordeal and spiritual combat. The swearer puts his whole soul and all that he has into the oath and exerts himself to the utmost to prove his integrity. The tension is extreme, but the just man will bear up under it, while the unjust man will break under the strain.17 With this underlying perspective, it becomes evident that "the oath of the curse" (Num 5:21), for example, is but a concrete instance of a more comprehensive principle, viz., every oath was a trial by ordel, whereby the swearer put his life on the line.18 Once more, it was the (Sinai) covenant which imbued the curse with clout. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28-32 (as reflected, e.g., in Jer 11:1-17) contain the covenant sanctions. In these passages, a great deal is made of the manifold curses that will befall the Israelites if they abandon the bond with Yahweh. Twenty-seven types of curses can be isolated, representing virtually all the miseries one could imagine. These can be summarized as: defeat, disease, desolation, deprivation, deportation, and death. So close is the relationship between covenant and curse that there arose a mtonymie use of "curse" for "covenant" (Deut 34:12; Zech 5:3; cf. Jer 11:3; Gal 3:13).19 It is none other than the curses of the covenant which befall the one who swears falsely (Deut 29:16-28; 30:7; 2 Chr 34:24; Isa 24:6; Jer 23:10; Ezek 16:59; Dan 9:11-12; Zech 5:1-4). "Curse," then, is the effect of covenant disloyalty and embodies the covenant in its judgmental dimension, particularly the Sinai covenant, modeled, as it was, on the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties.20 Thus the curses of the covenant are the punitive side of the "righteousness" of God, i.e., his pledge to uphold his bond with Israel, inclusive of his determination to punish covenant-breakers (e.g., Neh 9:33; Pr Azar 4-5,8-9; Tob 3:2; Add Esth 14:6-7; cf. CD 1:26).21 2. Further Theological Underpinning of the Oath/Curse The importance of the oath, and its "flip-side" the curse, is buttressed by at least three other factors in OT thought: (a) the
Pope, IDB 3.577. This sheds considerable light on the seriousness of Peter's denial of Jesus, as portrayed by Matthew in particular (26:69-75). In fact, the denial covers all three modes of Jewish asseveration: simple denial, denial with an oath, and the invocation of a curse on oneself (Pope, IDB 3.577). 19 Scharbert, TDOT 1.262,263-64; Stuart, ABD 1.218. 20 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 51-85 (esp. 76-81); K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary: In Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 14-18; M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963) 125-29. 21 See further R. Marcus, Law in the Apocrypha (CUOS 26; New York: AMS, 1966) 3-4; C. J. Roetzel, Judgment in the Community: A Study of the Relationship Between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 32; S. K. Williams, "The 'Righteousness of God' in Romans," JBL 99 (1980) 268. It is wrath as the "dark side" of righteousness which explains how Paul, in Rom 1:17-18, can move almost imperceptibly from the latter to the former (with a connecting the verses).
18 17

146

TRINITY JOURNAL

importance of words; (b) the name of Yahweh; and (c) the idea of holiness. (a) The Importance of Words "Among the ancient Hebrews/' explains J. G. S. S. Thomson, words were conceived to have an objective existence, and to have a potency that was both inherent and irresistible. This was especially true of words of blessing and cursing. . . . It was the words of benediction or malediction that brought to pass the blessing or the curse.22 Inasmuch as the oath was connected with both blessing and cursing, the person taking the oath calls down a power which must take effect whether the vow is kept or broken. For the observant Jew, no curse could have effect without Yahweh's superintendence, including the curse pronounced by a foreign prophet (Num 23:8): only Yahweh could turn a curse against its speaker (Gen 12:3; 27:29) or change it into a blessing (Deut 23:5). This probably accounts for the ceremony of the hand uplifted to heaven as the appropriate gesture of an oath (e.g., Gen 14:22; Deut 32:4; Dan 12:7; Ps 144:8), particularly in cases where a pact was to be concluded (e.g., Gen 31:44-53; Josh 21:l-7).23 Even God, so to speak, is said to affirm an oath by an upraised hand (Exod 6:8; 20:5; Isa 62:8). (b) The Name of Yahweh Akin to the "word" is the "name" of Yahweh, by which the Israelite not only swears, but prays, blesses, takes refuge, and conquers (e.g., Gen 4:26; 13:4; 1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 6:18; 2 Kgs 2:24). Ibn Ezra's comment on Hos 4:15 is to the pointAdhering to God carries with it the obligation to make mention of Him in all one's affairs, and to swear by His name, so that all who listen may perceive that he adheres lovingly to God, the name and mention of Him being always on his lips.24

^J. G. S. S. Thomson, The Word of the Lord in Jeremiah (London: Tyndale, 1959) 5 (italics his). Thomson illustrates with two examples: (1) When Isaac discovered that his words of blessing had been pronounced inadvertently over Jacob, he trembled violently, because the blessing, once pronounced, could not be revoked (Gen 27:33). (2) Balaam's words of cursing were considered by Balak to be his most potent weapon against Israel (Num 22:6). Yahweh, therefore, had to prevent the curse from being uttered, insuring, instead, that Balaam would pronounce only blessing upon his people (Numbers 23-24). ^ e e A. R. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964) 57-58. The oath was also attended by other physical gestures and symbolic acts (e.g.. Gen 24:2; 47:29; Neh 5:12-13). 24 Cited by Greenberg, Encjud 14.1298.

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

147

In keeping with the Semitic mindset generally, the name in Israel, far from being a mere vocable, was a powerful entity which served to make the person named present.25 The name was the revelation of the person and, for all practical purposes, synonymous with the person. As Philo puts it: "the name always stands second to the thing which it represents as the shadow which follows the body" (Dec. 82). In the case of Yahweh, his name is the emblem of his glory, uniqueness, and oneness; therefore, he refuses to give his name to another (e.g., Isa 42:8; 59:19; Ps 102:15). For this reason, the Psalmist exclaims that he will not take the name of another god on his lips (Ps 16:4), and Amos (8:14) condemns oaths performed in the names of Ashimah of Samaria and the other pagan gods worshipped in Dan and Beersheba. Hence, to take an oath in Yahweh's name was to submit to his sole lordship, appeal to his veracity as the guarantor of the thing promised, and invoke him as the all-seeing, all-powerful witness to every human pledge.26 Consequently, when the Israelite swore falsely, it was none other than Yahweh's name that was brought into disrepute. Such a one was forbidden to enter the sanctuary of the Lord (Ps 24:4) and was to be cut off from the people (Zech 5:1-4), because Yahweh would not hold guiltless the person who lifted his name up to vanity (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11; Lev 19:12; cf. Prov 19:5, 9, 29; 21:28; Ezek 17:18-19). No wonder Qoheleth counsels: "Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven, and you on earth; therefore let your words be few" (Eccl 5:2; cf. vv. 4-7).27 Moreover, inasmuch as God's name is frequently said to be called over his people as a sign of his ownership of them,28 to name the name of the Lord in an oath was to acknowledge his sovereignty and the justness of his judgment, if and when one perjured oneself. When the oath was taken, Yahweh himself heard from heaven and responded by bringing retribution on the guilty and rewarding the righteous according to her righteousness (1 Kgs 8:31-32; 2 Chr 6:2223). No wonder a false oath could not go unpunished (Ezek 17:13, 16,18-19). The oath, including a rash oath (Lev 5:4; Judg 11:29-40; cf. 1 Sam 14:24-32), was expected to be kept, even to one's hurt (Ps 15:4; Eccl 5:4-5). (By way of qualification, Lev 5:4-6 allows that a rash oath taken in ignorance could be covered by sacrifice, although an intentionally falsified oath could not.) Because of the far-reaching
^ e e W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (OTL; 2 vols.; London: SCM, 1967) 1.206-10, 219-20; 2.40-45; J. B. Bauer, "Name," Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, 611-13; H. Bietenhard, TDNT 5.252-70. 2 Since the validity of the oath depended ultimately on God, who sanctioned it, the most common oath-asseveration was: "as Yahweh lives" (e.g., Judg 8:19; 1 Sam 4:39,45; 19:6; 20:3; 25:26,34; 26:10,16; 28:10; 29:6). 27 Some, however, believe that Qoheleth discourages oath-taking altogether (which is unlikely). Opinions date back to rabbinic commentators, who were divided over the interpretation of the passage. See Rabinowitz, Encjud 16.228. 28 See Garlington, Obedience, 243-46.

148

TRINITY JOURNAL

consequences involved in oath-taking, the law placed careful restrictions on the practice in the case of members of a family other than the head of the family (Numbers 30). (c) The Idea of Holiness The oath was intimately associated with holiness, because, as a holy act, it was properly pronounced in a sacred place as administered by a holy person in connection with holy objects (e.g., Gen 26:28-33; Num 5:16-22; Hos 4:15; 1 Kgs 8:31-32; 2 Chr 6:22-23). After the settlement of the land, holiness was concentrated preeminently in the temple and its services, so that one of the "four pillars'' of Second Temple Judaism came to be the land as focused in the temple.29 Consisting of its six courts, the temple embodied the principle of the intensification of holiness, from the outside inward. The symbolism thus represented is clearthat is, of an innermost sanctuary protected by what in effect was a sequence of concentric circles to ensure maximum protection from defilement. The Temple mount and Jerusalem itself constituted further circles, and the land of Israel a still further circle.30 Hence, an oath taken within (or by) the temple was the most awe inspiring of all, because one was brought into intimate contact with the holiness of God. B. Second Temple Judaism31 While it is obviously impossible to know what every Jew thought about oath-taking in the predestruction period, it is possible to establish a fairly well-defined consensus among the authors who addressed the subject.32 In sum, all of them are basically in line with the biblical teachings on swearing and represent a constituency
J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London/Philadelphia: SCM/Trinity, 1991) 31-35. 30 Ibid., 39. Dunn refers to m. Kelim 1:6-9, which embodies the developed rabbinic theology of ten degrees of holiness, ranging from the boundaries of Palestine to the Holy of Holies. See further ibid., 40-44; W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974)58-60,152-54. 31 Because of the problem of dating, the rabbinic materials have been left out of direct consideration. It is true, however, that these sources give a great deal of attention to oath-taking. The Mishnah devotes three tractates to oaths and vows, Shebuoth, Nedarim, and Arakhin. In addition, Sotah 4 ties into the trial by ordeal of Num 5:11-31. The Tosefta contains a Nedarim of its own. See further Conn, Encjud 14.1298-1302. 32 Among the most important sources are: Sir 23:9-11; Wis 14:26,28-31; Philo, Dec. 82-95; Spec. Leg. 2.1-38; Leg. All. 3.203-8; 1QS 2:5-18; 5:7b-20; CD 9:9-12; 15; 16:10-12. Josephus (J.W. 2.8.6 135,139-42,145; Ant. 15.10.4 368-72) and Philo (Prob. 84) also relate the swearing practices of the Essenes.
29

GARLDSfGTON: OATH-TAKING

149

within their respective communities. The recurring emphases of these materials can be epitomized as follows. One is the recognition that oaths are of divine origin and, therefore, cannot be interdicted absolutely: there are appropriate reasons, times, and places for going on oath.33 In this literature, the OT's equation of oath-keeping with fidelity to Yahweh is observed, and its converse, oath-breaking, is condemned as tantamount to infidelity and even idolatry (esp. Wis 14:26, 28-31). In fact, 1QS 5:7b20 required new members of the Dead Sea community to "swear dread oaths'7 (Josephus, J.W. 2.8.7) respecting the faith, practice, and secrets of the sect.34 After admission, oaths in specific matters were assumed to be operative within the congregation (1QS 2:5-18; 5:7b20; 6:27; 14:17; CD 7:8; 9:9-12; 15; 16:10-12). Not to honor an oath was to disqualify oneself from the community of salvation (CD 15:l-5a). Another stress, however, is the complaint that people were swearing too often. In particular, Ben Sira, the author of Wisdom, and Philo expostulate at length against excessive oath-taking, which appears to have been the order of their day. These writers insist that a person's word ought to be as good as an oath, and to swear too much is to cheapen the oath and to cast suspicion on one's integrity. Therefore, the oath ought to be used as sparingly as possible. Perhaps in the mind of these writers was Deut 23:22: "But if you refrain from vowing, it shall be no sin in you." The third emphasis is that if one feels compelled, in dire circumstances, to take an oath, the name of God should be avoided. It was better to use a stand-in for God rather than the Lord's name itself. For example, the Essenes' reluctance to swear at all, relates Josephus, was rooted in a pious abhorrence of using God's name in an oath (J.W. 2.8.9 145; cf. 1QS 6:27), which Philo also regarded as one of the "multitude of proofs" of their love for God (Prob. 84). According to CD 15:l-5a, one could swear judicial oaths, but only by
^R. P. Martin deduces from C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (Reprint, New York: Schocken, 1974) 1078, 1087, 1092, 1394, that the rabbis were opposed to oath-taking as such (James [WBC 48; Dallas: Word, 1988] 200). However, his examples do not prove the point: they merely caution against false swearing. ^ e e the discussions of the Scrolls in Davies, Setting, 241-45; L. H. Schiffmann, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars, 1983) 111-54; T. S. Beali, Josephus' Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (SNTSMS 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 75-78. The apparent contradiction between Josephus (J.W. 2.8.6) and 1QS 5:7b-20 is problematic only if one assumes that the Dead Sea community embraced an unmodified Essenism. In attempting a resolution, however, J. H. Charlesworth suggests that the Essenes did swear, but only to fellow Essenes, to solidify solidarity with the community, because Josephus mentions later (J.W. 2.8.7) that the Essenes swore to the community ("The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus," in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls [Anchor Bible Reference Library; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992] 69 n. 291). Yet Beali may be right that there were different stages of the community's development, so that documents such as 1QS, CD, and HQTemple reflect a more open attitude toward oaths than was taken by the community described by Josephus (Josephus' Description, 70).

150

TRINITY JOURNAL

the curses of the covenant, so as not to become liable to death for profaning the name of God if the oath was broken.35 In the same vein, Ben Sira is concerned that the name of God not be defiled by habitual swearing (Sir 23:9-11). In making these demands, these authors were more punctilious than the third commandment itself; but their caution about the name was rooted in a reverence for Yahweh's name, stemming from the commandment, and shared by Jews of this period, who preferred to use various circumlocutions for God rather than name him directly.36 Fourth, Jews in Jesus' day insisted that a person's word ought to be as good as an oath. Josephus, in his oft-quoted report of the Essenes, relates: "Any word of theirs has more force than an oath; swearing they avoid, regarding it as worse than perjury, for they say that one who is not believed without an appeal to God stands condemned already" (J.W. 2.8.6 135). The same stance is assumed by Philo (Spec. Leg. 2.1-5). At the outset of his disquisition on the third commandment, there is a pronouncement which instantly catches the eye of the interpreter of Matt 5:33-37. Following Philo's affirmation that the very name of God ought not be invoked in an oath, there is the concession that if necessity forces one to swear, the oath can be taken by one's father and mother, for two reasons: to honor parents as the givers of life and rulers appointed by nature, and to avoid using the name of God lightly (Spec. Leg. 2.4). In this vein, he praises a certain class of oath-takers: those who are so extremely reticent about swearing that they cause onlookers, including the administrators of the oath, to question its necessity. Such people, says Philo, are in the habit of saying: "'Yes, by 'or 'No, by ' and add nothing more, and by thus breaking off suggest the clear sense of an oath without actually making it"37

The text is broken and the opening of the section is missing altogether. See Davies, Setting, 242; A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Oxford: Blackwell, 1961) 160 . 3. 36 See also Philo, Dec. 82; Spec. Leg. 2.1.5. See, e.g., J. Jeremas, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Scribners, 1971) 8-14. ^Another striking verbal parallel is found in the continuation of Philo's argument. He qualifies that if people wish, they may add to their "Yes" and "No," not the name of God, but "earth, sun, stars, heaven, and the whole universe. For these are worthy of highest respect, since they have precedence in time over our place in creation, and also will remain forever untouched by age according to the purpose of Him Who made them" (Spec. Leg. 2.5). Thus, because of his respect for the name of God, father and mother, our immediate "creators," the "earth, sun, stars, heaven, and the whole universe" are appropriate substitutes for the Lord. In Leg. All. 3.207-8, Philo maintains that one ought to be content to swear by God's name. However, the "name" is God's "interpreting word." He then appeals to Deut 6:13: "Thou shall swear by his Name," which, he says, is not the same as "Thou shall swear by him": "For it is enough for the created being that he should be accredited and have witness borne to him by the Divine word." 2 Enoch 49:1-2 (J) is remarkably similar to both Philo and Matt 5:33-37. However, the passage may be a Christian interpolation, so that we cannot be sure if it embodies a genuinely Jewish attitude.

35

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING C. Summary

151

For Jews of the pre-Christian era there could have been no more solemn act than the swearing of an oath in the name of the God of Israel, if for no other reason than that both the "oath" and the "curse" were tantamount to the covenant itself. It was undoubtedly the awe of invoking Yahweh as a witness to one's veracity that gave rise to the widespread reluctance of Second Temple Jews to mention his name at all, especially in an oath. Nevertheless, oath-taking was very common in ancient Israel. Indeed, as Greenberg remarks: "The estimate of the biblical period that there was nothing amiss in oaths is manifest in the frequency with which God is represented as swearing."38 As noted above, the covenants with Yahweh's people were sealed with divine oaths, so that the promises of these covenants are referred to as things which the Lord swore to do (Gen 24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exod 13:5, 11; 33:1; Num 14:16, 30; 32:11). Correspondingly, the Israelite who swore in the presence of the Lord became his oath-partner, confessing him to be the only God, who alone is worthy of trust. The oath, in short, was an expression of "the fear of Yahweh" and functioned as a token of allegiance to him; it embodied faith and was a vehicle of Israel's monotheistic confession.39 III. THE OATH IN THE COMMUNITY OF THE NEW AGE A. Matt 5:33-37 within the Sermon on the Mount Because our pericope occupies an integral part of the Sermon on the Mount as a carefully constructed literary unit, it will be necessary to consider its particular niche within the composition. In so doing, we shall follow, but at points modify, D. C Allison's analysis of this portion of the Sermon.40 1. Matt 4:23-5:2 and 7:28-8:1 The introduction (4:23-5:2) and conclusion (7:28-8:1) of the Sermon correspond to each other, as evidenced by the common
38 Greenberg, Encjud 14.1297. Note how in Psalm 132 David's vow to Yahweh (to build the temple) is matched by that of the Lord to David, and how in the Abraham narrative of Genesis the patriarch's oath to God is answered by God's oath to him (Gen 14:22; 22:16). It is on this biblical basis that Philo justifies to his readers the idea of God swearing by himself (Leg. All. 3.203-8). 39 It was only Israel among the nations which insisted that swearing take place by its God alone. In every other society, oaths could be taken by the multiplicity of deities. See J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 33-34. ^D. C. Allison, "The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount," JBL 106 (1987) 429-33.

152

TRINITY JOURNAL

vocabulary. In addition, "opening his mouth" (5:2) finds its counterpart in "when Jesus finished these words" (7:28). This implies that the simplest outline of the Sermon is: Introduction (4:235:2); Discourse (5:3-7:27); Conclusion (7:28-8:1). 2. Matt 5:3-12 and 7:13-27 After the introduction, the Sermon is headed by nine Beatitudes (5:3-12). The Beatitudes are not, as commonly conceived, "entrance requirements" into the kingdom, but the pronouncement of eschatological blessing; that is, when Jesus opens his mouth, the first thing that comes out is his announcement that the Scriptures have been fulfilled in the persons of his disciples.41 As Allison so aptly observes, the Beatitudes do not make demands as much as offer comfort and promise to the poor in spirit, etc. "Before hearing Jesus' hard imperatives the Christian reader is first built up, encouraged, and consoled."42 At the other end of the Sermon, in 7:13-27, are the corresponding warnings (about false prophets and hearers vs. doers of the Word). Instead of listening to the false prophets, the hearers of the Sermon are to mark Christ's words, so as to do them; they must not fail to act on these words and thereby become like the fool whose ill-conceived dwelling was obliterated by the storm. The antithetical correspondence between the beginning of the Sermon and its conclusion is now evident: blessings come first, warnings last. The schema of the Sermon, then, is: Nine Blessings (5:3-12); Core of the Sermon (5:13-7:12); Three Warnings (7:13-27). 3. Matt 5:13-7:12 Our passage falls within this "Core" of the Sermon, which can further be subdivided into the "Three Pillars" of the discourse: Jesus and the Torah (5:17-48); the Christian Cult (6:1-18); and Social Issues (6:19-7:12). Matt 5:33-37 thus falls under the domain of the "First Pillar." This "First Pillar" has an extended introduction, consisting of two parts. One is 5:13-16: the disciples are told that they are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Matt 5:13-16 thus serves as a transition in which Jesus moves from the life of the blessed future (promised in 5:3-12) to the demands of the life of the present (5:217:12). The theme, accordingly, switches from the gift to the task and describes the treatment to be received by those who embrace the conception of the kingdom as preached by Christ and who live according to the directions of 5:21-7:12. The second part of this first
41 See R. A. Guelich, "The Matthean Beatitudes: 'Entrance Requirements' or Eschatological Blessings?" JBL 95 (1976) 415-34. Guelich's approach to the Beatitudes may be taken to the whole of the Sermon on the Mount, which too often has been turned into a "book of virtues" devoid of eschatological content. 42 Allison, "Structure," 430.

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

153

pillar is 5:17-20, which can be compared to Lev 18:1-23 and Eccl 3:19, as well as the rabbinic kell, a summary or declaration which heads a section consisting of various particular cases or instances.43 The verses thus perform a negative and positive function. Negatively, 5:17-19 anticipates an incorrect interpretation of 5:21-48, viz., that Jesus came to abolish the law before the time of fulfillment. Positively, 5:20 announces what 5:21-48 is all about: the greater righteousness, exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharisees, i.e., a righteousness that transcends the boundaries of national righteousness and articulates a norm of behavior germane to the new, eschatological state of affairs. A noteworthy aspect of 5:17-48 is its internal antithetical structure, consisting of two sets of triads: 1. First triad (5:21-32) a. On murder (5:21-26) b. On adultery (5:27-30) c. On divorce (5:31-32) 2. Second triad (5:33-48) a. On oaths (5:33-37) b. On turning the other cheek (5:38-42) c. On love of enemy (5:43-48) The sets of triads would appear to be divided by the appearance of in 5:33 (which occurs nowhere else in the Sermon). The adverb's presence, as Allison notes, does not affect the content of the material, but it does break the rhythm of chap. 5 and leaves the impression that with the second triad Jesus starts over again.44 B. The Eschatological Setting of the "Ban" on Swearing The placement of 5:33-37 within the subsection entitled "Jesus and the Torah" has hermeneutical/exegetical implications, of which the most crucial is the relation of his words to the Mosaic law. As every student of the Sermon on the Mount knows all too well, this is one of the Gordian knots of NT interpretation. On the one hand, 5:17-19 appears to state categorically that Jesus has no intention of modifying even the most minute element of the Torah; on the other, it is evident from 5:31-42 that he does indeed alter several items of the law: divorce, swearing, and the lex talionis. It seems to me, however, that the resolution of the problem resides in v. 18: "until heaven and earth pass away, not an yod, not a tittle, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." The verse exudes the language of eschatology, in particular apocalyptic
43

Ibid.,432. ^Ibid.

154

TRINITY JOURNAL

eschatology. For one thing, the phraseology of "heaven and earth passing away" is a compendious gathering together of various apocalyptic metaphors for the removal of the present creation and the advent of the new.45 The same expression is found in Matt 24:35: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." That is to say, his words transcend the finale of the present aeon and have validity for the (eternal) age to come. Therefore, to assert that nothing will pass from the law "until heaven and earth pass away" is to say that it remains intact until such time as the new creation comes.*6 All this stands in rather stark contrast to the Jewish belief in the eternity of the Torah, according to which even the coming of Messiah would not radically alter the law (e.g., Sir 24:9,33; Bar 4:1; Wis 18:4; T. Naph. 3:l-2).47 The other eschatological idea in v. 18 is that of fulfillment, as voiced by . In tandem with v. 17Christ "fulfills," not "dismantles" () the lawv. 18 declares that neither a yod nor a tittle will pass from the law "until all is accomplished." and cognates in the NT bear distinctively salvation-historical overtones, inasmuch as they signal the "eschatological measure," the completion of the eternal plan of salvation in Christ (e.g., Matt 5:17; Mark ).48 Hence, the law is fulfilled, i.e., attains its reason for existence, when Jesus opens his mouth and delivers the new law of the kingdom; its only purpose was to point to him and his people as the grand end of God's eschatological design. As D. J. Moo points out, is central to Matthew's theological vocabulary. When his distinctive usage of this verb is taken into account, Moo argues,
^ e e , e.g., Jer 31:35-37; Joel 2:28-32; Hag 2:6-7, all of which are bracketed by a new creation/new covenant context. The same imagery is replicated in Jewish apocalyptic. See D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (OTL; London: SCM, 1964) 271-76; J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1977) 313-15. 46 It is within such a salvation-historical continuum that passages like Deut 11:21; Jer 31:36; 33:25 assume perspective: each speaks of the covenant with Israel enduring as long as the elements remain. Yet, in point of fact, the (old) creation does cease to exist with the Christ-event. It is true that Ps 72:5; 89:36-37 also draw on the same imagery in their depiction of the eternal reign of Messiah; but his dominion is everlasting, strictly speaking, since, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but mtf words will not pass away" (24:35). 47 See further Garlington, Obedience, 257-58; R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 50-64, 67-85; id., "The Eschatological Role of Law in Pre- and Post- Christian Jewish Thought," in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on His 60th Birthday (ed. R. Banks; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 175-77; W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come SBLMS 7; Philadelphia: SBL, 1952) 84. ^Jeremas, Theology, 84-85; W. D. Davies, "Matthew 5, 17, 18," in Christian Origins and Judaism (London: Efarton, Longman & Todd) 44-45; G. Delling, TDNT 6.294-95. Cf. D. J. Moo, "Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law," JSNT 20 (1984) 25-26; G. Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (NTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 68-69; D. Garlington, "Burden Bearing and the Recovery of Offending Christians (Galatians 6:1-5)," TrinJ 12NS (1991) 168.

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING
7

155

"fulfillment" in this gospel means that Jesus new, eschatological demands do not constitute desertion of the law, but embody that which the law all the while presaged. The continuity of the law with Jesus' teaching is hereby expressed, but "it is a continuity on the plane of a salvation-historical scheme of 'anticipation-realization.'" What emerges from this datum is that is the key term chosen by Matthew to depict the impact of Jesus' coming on the OT, in keeping with the way he customarily uses the verb to designate the coming to pass of OT predictions. As encapsulated by , the history of Israel reaches its "fulfillment" (1:22; 2:15,17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35,48; 23:32; 26:54, 56; 27:9). Matthew thus presents a theology of salvation history which pictures the entire OT as anticipating Christ.49 In keeping, therefore, with both of these eschatological idioms, Matthew, I would submit, envisages a period during which the law remains in forcethe period of Israel and of the Law and the Prophetsbut afterward, when it is fulfilled, passes from the scene.50 In other words, while there is to be an abrogation of the law, it is not an abrogation irrespective of fulfillment, whereby the Torah is simply discarded as irrelevant in salvation history.51 It is, rather, an abrogation very much in line with salvation history, consequent upon the law's accomplishment in the Christ-event, when "heaven and earth pass away."52 Consequently, the question whether Jesus is
49 D. J. Moo, "The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ," in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (ed. J. S. Feinberg; Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988) 205. Cf. Overman, Matthew's Gospel, 74-78. D. Daube (Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament [Reprint, Salem, NH: Ayer, 1984] 60) thinks that lying behind is the Hebrew qiyyem, "to uphold," i.e., "uphold" in the technical sense of showing that the text is in agreement with one's own teaching. But even if he is right (which is by no means certain), Jesus can still be understood as highlighting the continuity between his instruction and the OT while promoting his words as the end which the Torah had in view. 50 Matthew thus divides history into two epochs, after the manner of prophecy and fulfillment (J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom [London: SPCK, 1975] 31-37). 51 The words "think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets" (Matt 5:17) assume that such an opinion was in existence. Among the various explanations of this phenomenon, D. A. Hagner, I think, is right that Jesus' "sovereign interpretation" of the law was so out of step with contemporary thought that it seemed to many that he was going against the law (Matthew 1-13 [WBC 33a; Dallas: Word, 1993] 104). If this is correct, then there is no need to press for an "antinomian" faction within the "Matthean community" (as per Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," 159-64). A. N. Wilder likewise singles out the sovereignty of Jesus vis-vis the law (Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus [2d ed.; New York: Harper, 1950] 159). From the perspective, say, of 1 Enoch 104:10-13, the exercise of such sovereignty would have made Jesus indistinguishable from the "sinners," who "alter the word of truth." 52 "By 'abrogation' is meant the declaring invalid of the natural meaning of a commandment for the Christian dispensation" (Moo, "Jesus and the Mosaic Law," 14). Contra P. Sigal (The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew [Lanham: University Press of America, 1986] 20), who suggests that Jesus fulfills the law in the sense of teaching its correct interpretation to prospective members of the

156

TRINITY JOURNAL

"for" or "against" the law misses the point. It is, rather, a matter of acknowledging that the law performs a function up to a certain point in history and thereafter, once it has served its purpose, is set aside. What D. A. Carson says of Matt 5:33-37 in particular applies to Christ's attitude toward the Torah in general: "It must be frankly admitted that Jesus here formally contravenes OT law But if his interpretation of the direction in which the law points is authoritative, then his teaching fulfills it."53 In view of these data, Matthew's notation that darkness and a shaking earth attended the crucifixion (27:45, 51) is hardly accidental, nor is his singular report that an earthquake preceded the resurrection (28:2). These are the prophetic/apocalyptic phenomena of "heaven and earth passing away." To be sure, the Cross and Resurrection represent only the first phase of the new creation, with the final phase yet outstanding. Nevertheless, with these events the ages have taken a crucial turn and thus pave the way for the ultimate passing of the elements at "the end of the age" (28:2).54 Therefore, both ideas, cosmic upheaval and fulfillment, find as their point of reference the Cross/Resurrection, when, in principle, heaven and earth pass away and all things are accomplished.55 Yet, from one point of view, one does not even have to wait for Christ's death and resurrection, because the very impact of the Beatitudes is that the purposes of God have been realized with his pronouncement of eschatological blessing on his disciples. Consequently, when Matt 5:21-42 effects changes in the Torah, it comes as no surprise, given the overall eschatological schema of Matthew and the NT generally. Indeed, as read within this schema, the agenda of these verses is precisely that of altering in some notable regards the revealed will of God for the people of the new age, not of preserving the standards of the old aeon as such. (Paul terms these standards, "the elements of the world," "the weak and beggarly elements," and "shadows," and is bold enough to equate them with no less than pagan idolatry and slavery [Gal 4:8-10; Col 56 2-.16-23]!) However, an additional problem presents itself: How could Jesus introduce these changes before the Cross? It would appear that
kingdom. Although he allows for the possibility of change in particulars of halakah, Sigal envisages the Torah as remaining more or less intact. Overman is essentially in accord with Sigal (Matthew's Gospel, 86-89). ^D. A. Carson, "Matthew," vol. Soi The Expositor's Bible Commentary (ed. F. E. Gaebelein, et al.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 154. ^By way of analogy, the fourth gospel relates the saying from the cross, "it is finished" (), i.e., Jesus' work of making all things new (John 19:30). This too is the idiom of eschatological accomplishment, drawn from the work of God in the first creation (Gen 2:1-3). Note how John's is matched by and in the LXX of Gen 2:1-2. 55 For a more detailed defense of this reading of Matthew, see Davies, "Matthew 5,17,18," 60-66. 56 See D. Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul's Letter to the Romans (WUNT1/79; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994) 40.

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

157

in so doing he sets up a contradiction to his own pronouncement of 5:19. To make a long story very short, perhaps the most satisfying explanation is that Jesus7 teaching, as accompanied by many of his actions (e.g., his disregard of the purity and dietary laws and the Sabbath), is conceived to take place within a transition period intended to prepare the way for the time which would dawn at the passing of heaven and earth, when God's purposes would be accomplished once for all. This transition period, one might argue, establishes the uniqueness (deity) of his person as the Lord of the new covenant, the one who exercises the prerogatives reserved for God alone, such as bypassing the sacrificial system and pronouncing the forgiveness of sins direcy and immediately ( la Mark 2:1-12).57 Mutatis mutandis, I. H. Marshall's observation on Luke 6:1-5 would seem to apply here: "Jesus claims an authority tantamount to that of God with respect to the interpretation of the law/'58 Such a supposition would be buttressed by the salvation-historical datum that as the first man of the Spirit, Jesus is unique in that he enters the new creation by himself, and only afterwards brings his people into the same phase of world history (at Pentecost).59 In point of fact, the problem would have been of practical concern only for the precrucifixion/resurrection hearer of these words, not for the postEaster reader of the first gospel.

On Mark 2:1-12, see Dunn, Partings, 44-46. The uniqueness of Jesus for Matthew is placed beyond doubt by his infancy and temptation narratives, in which the evangelist portrays him as a personage to be worshiped in his own right. See R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 55, 58. Cf. G. Bornkamm, "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew," in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 41-43 (on Matthew's use of ). 5 I. . Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 233. This may well be the force of the antithetical form, "You have heard . . . but I say . . . ." S. Westerholm (Jesus and Scribal Authority [ConBNT 10; Lund: Gleerup, 1978] 153 n. 28), following Daube (Rabbinic Judaism, 5562), maintains that these formulas may be used to contrast a possible interpretation of an OT text with the proper one. In any event, Stanton correctly infers from Matt 28:20 that in "Matthean community" life the commands of Jesus took precedence: "they were the filter through which torah was viewed, not vice versa. The selfunderstanding of the is quite distinct from that of the synagogue" ("Matthew's Communities," 18). 59 J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (SBT 2/15; London: SCM, 1970) 43.

57

158

TRINITY JOURNAL C. Exegesis of Matthew 5:33-37*

1. The Point of Contrast: "You have heard that it was said to the people of old... but I say to you" (v. 33) One of the perennial problems in the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is the recurring formula of Matt 5:21-43: "You have heard that it was said to the people of old " For one thing, there is the question whether the expressions "you have heard that it was said . . . but I say to you" form antitheses, or whether the latter member of the pair provides a complement to the former. In other words, is Jesus contradicting (refuting) what was said to the ancients or placing an interpretation on it? Another difficulty is that at times the reference seems to be to the transmission of the law of Moses to the wilderness generation; yet at other times this cannot be so (e.g., v. 43). As to the first problem, a case can be made for both interpretations. On the one side, at times Jesus certainly does contradict what was spoken to the people of old (vv. 43-48); and at other times he introduces what can only be called alterations of the traditions (vv. 31-37). On the other side, the sayings about murder and adultery (vv. 21-30) penetrate beyond "the letter of the law" and represent a radicalizing of the sixth and seventh commandments respectively. So, perhaps the most balanced approach is a recognition that these formulae are not as stereotyped as they appear to be on the surface and ought to be given as much hermeneutical latitude as possible.61 It is not necessary, then, to limit ourselves to an oversimplified "either-or" in our assessment of them. In the instance of oath-taking specifically, I think it is best to say that Jesus does not oppose what has gone before, but announces its transformation, as befits the eschatological situation. As regards the second problem, the outstanding feature of the saying is that whether the reference is to Scripture or later tradition, the things spoken to "the people of old" are identified with the preeschatological era, before the advent of the kingdom of heaven. Christ, by contrast, stands within the time of fulfillment, and his words constitute the final form of what God has to say. Matthew, in other words, represents Jesus' teaching as the displacement of all instructionscriptural or otherwisewhich came before him. In the case of the oath, appeal is made directly to the OT. The words of the first clause of v. 33, "You shall not swear falsely" [or "break an oath"], summarize passages such as Exod 20:7; Lev 19:12; Num 30:3I am assuming the authenticity of the passage, as argued by A. Ito, "The Question of the Authenticity of the Ban on Swearing (Matthew 5.33-37)," JSNT43 (1991) 5-13, over against G. Daut?;enberg, "Ist das Schwurverbot Mt 5,33-37; Jak 5,12 ein Beispiel fr die Torakritik Jesu?" BZ 25 (1981) 47-66. 61 Moo takes a similar line ("Jesus and the Mosaic Law," 17-23).
60

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

159

15; Deut 23:21-23; Zech 8:17; and the verse's second clause, "but you shall perform to the Lord your oaths/' is a quotation of Ps 50 (LXX 49):14b. Nonetheless, these OT admonitions concerning the oath are picked up by, e.g., Wis 14:28; HQTemple 53-54; T. Ash. 2:6; Sib. Or. 2:68. These references, as coupled with the survey of the Jewish materials above, argue that Jesus treads a broad stream of tradition regarding swearingbiblical and contemporary. Thus, in v. 33, the formula, "you have heard that it was said to the people of old," would appear to be comprehensive of both the Torah and its subsequent elaborations. The material content of what was said to the people of old has to do with fidelity in oath-taking. The verb , as commentators point out, can mean either "to break an oath" (e.g., 1 Esd 1:46) or "to swear falsely" (e.g., T. Ash. 2:6; cf. Wis 14:28).62 However, there was no practical difference between breaking an oath and swearing falsely, at least as far as the result is concerned: the one who despised the oath proved himself to be in contempt of the covenant. The positive counterpart of oath-breaking was the performance of one's oaths to Yahweh. In the words of Ps 50 (LXX 49):14, quoted in v. 33: "Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High" (cf. Numbers 30; Deut 23:21). Apart from other changes in the wording of the Psalm in Matthew's rendering of it, the "vows" ( = orna) to be paid to "the Most High" become the "oaths" () which are to be rendered to "the Lord.'*3 Some scholars think this rendering is due to the "widespread confusion" between oaths and vows by the first century.64 However, this "confusion," if it is that, stems from the fact that the two were, for all practical purposes, identifiable, inasmuch as in both cases it was Yahweh who was called on to verify the sincerity of the pledge in 65 question, and inasmuch as "oaths are not distinguished from vows in the case where they overlap, i.e., a statement of one's intentions."66 The terms are thus virtually interchangeable. The context of Psalm 50 as a whole is suggestive for Matthew's citation of v. 14b. Verses 1-5 represent God as the judge, who summons his people into his presence to hold covenantal court: "The heavens declare his righteousness [i.e., his covenantal faithfulness], for God himself is judge!" In vv. 7-15, the judge
62 E.g v Davies/AUison, who themselves opt for the latter on the basis of the LXX of Lev 19:12 (Matthew, 1.534). the form of Matthew's citation, see R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel (NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 108-9. ^E.g., Davies, Setting, 240; Davies/Allison, Matthew, 1.545, basing their judgment on S. Lieberman (Greek in Jewish Palestine [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942] 115-43). 65 Cf. Moo, "Jesus and the Mosaic Law," 21; R. A. Guelich, "The Antitheses of Matthew V. 21-48: Traditional and/or Redactional?" NTS 22 (1975-76) 453; id.. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco: Word, 1982) 213; Saldarmi, Community, 154. 66 Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority, 107.

160

TRINITY JOURNAL

pronounces an indictment against his people. The reproach centers around God's self-sufficiency ("every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills^): he does not need the sacrifices of Israel, for everything is his to begin with. It is within the reading of this "covenant lawsuit" that Yahweh reveals the source of his ire toward his covenant partners: Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High; and caU upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me. (w. 14-15) Yahweh, in other words, rejects the sacrifices because they are offered hypocritically. Evidently, the offerings of Israel were multiplying, but they were not accompanied by the sincerity of heart which honors God by the sacrifice of thanksgiving and the performance of one's vows to him. The people are thus commanded to rectify the situation, and are assured that if they mend their ways, in the "day of trouble" he will deliver them and thereby be glorified. The final segment of the Psalm, w . 16-23, concentrates mainly on the wicked, who take the covenant on their lips and yet hate the Lord's discipline and keep company with thieves and adulterers. They give their mouths free reign to speak evil and use their tongues to deceive. And they are warned in no uncertain terms that they, who forget God, will not be delivered when he rends them in his judgment. However, the Psalm does end on a positive note: He who brings thanksgiving as his sacrifice honors me; to him who orders his way aright I will show the salvation of God! (v. 23) Even this brief analysis of the Psalm is sufficient to demonstrate that paying one's vows to the Most High is the antithesis of "wickedness," i.e., giving lip service to the bond with Yahweh and yet living in contradiction to it. The Psalm, then, simply confirms the findings of our survey of the OT materials, viz., that oathtaking/oath-breaking is an index of one's attitude toward the covenant and the Lord of the covenant: it is the summation of either righteousness or unrighteousness. Even if the "vows" of v. 14b are restricted to the votive sacrifice which the worshiper has bound herself to perform (standing in parallel to the thank-offering of 14a), the point remains valid, because the whole of Israelite covenant life was concentrated in the cultus:
There is here required of the inward man an attitude which wholly subordinates him to God by offering God man's praise, that is, by

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING bearing testimony to him, acknowledging him as the "Most High/' This is the true purpose of the cult of the Covenant67

161

Assuming that the context of an OT quotation has a bearing on its use in the NT, Jesus shows his respect for swearing precisely in its capacity to mirror an Israelite's commitment to covenant life. As long as that covenant stood, oath-breaking was to be avoided at all costs: one was obliged, under the pain of severe penalties, to pay one's vows to Yahweh. But it is just for this reason that his "ban" on swearing signals a turning of the ages, a state of affairs in which the oath in its now outmoded contours is no longer an appropriate means of expressing covenant loyalty. With the advent of the kingdom, a new method of "pledging allegiance" to the God of Israel comes to the fore, a method commensurate with a new covenant and a new creation. 2. Jesus' Directive to his Community: "Swear not at all... " The imperative "swear not at all" appears to be very abrupt in view of Jewish attitudes toward swearing. While numerous caveats were advanced by Second Temple authors about excessive oathtaking, swearing was taken for granted as an acceptable and normal procedure. Davies/AUison suggest that Deut 23:22 ("But if you refrain from vowing, it shall be no sin in you") may provide a buffer between the Torah and Jesus.68 But even if they are right, it still comes as something of a shock to hear: "swear not at all (6)\" It is possible that the "prohibition" is one of the several hyperboles of the Sermon on the Mount, intended only to utter the same kind of protestation against excessive swearing as Philo (e.g., Dec. 92), Ben Sira (23:9-11), and Wisdom (14:26, 28-3), etc. However, each of the authors who voiced a complaint against this particular abuse of the oath stated so sufficiently clearly that there is no mistaking their intention. This word of Jesus, however, contains no such intimations. The key, I think, resides in the qualifiers of vv. 34b-36, each introduced by as followed by a clause: one is not to "swear at all," i.e., by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or by one's head. Jesus, in other words, is indeed protesting something: not excessive swearing, but swearing performed by various substitutes for God (or his name). "Jesus," remarks Schneider, "excludes the common Jewish practice of avoiding the name of God because of its sanctity but substituting equivalents. He exposes the insincerity of this habit, showing that the reference is really to God even though His name is avoided."69
A. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 397 (italics mine). ^Davies/AUison, Matthew, 1.535, referring also to HQTemple 53:12, which is apparently modeled on Deut 23:22. 69 Schneider, TDNT 5.180. Schneider, however, does take the prohibition to be absolute.
67

162

TRINITY JOURNAL

That such was the habit of first-century Judaism comes as no surprise, given that by this time the name could no longer be vocalized without the taint of scandal. As Davies/AUison explain: "one of the unstated assumptions behind 5.34b-6 is the Jewish conviction that God's name itself could not be named and that, therefore, when one takes an oath, a substitution for God's name must be employed."70 The same unstated assumption underlies Matt 23:16-22, where again the custom is castigated. But the question remains: why is swearing by alternatives to God so objectionable to Jesus, especially since the avoidance of the Lord's name appeared to be rooted in a deep reverence for that name? The answer may reside in portions of the Mishnah, according to which oaths by heaven, earth, and one's head were held not to be binding.71 If this proviso existed in the first century, then our text would appear to interact directly with a demonstrable strand of halakah and counter it by linking heaven and earth (and Jerusalem) immediately to God, so as to make the oath binding after all. Because the value and meaning of heaven, earth, and Jerusalem reside in God, their creator and sustainer, his presence in and control over them means that he cannot be abstracted from them or any other portion of the creation (cf. Ps 48:1-3; Isa 66:1). In like manner, one's own head is under the superintendence of the providence of God (cf. Matt 6:27; 10:31; 1 Chr 12:19; m. Sanh. 3:2). Thus, an oath by any of these entities is tantamount to an oath by God himself. One can imagine that the same would hold true for the curses of the covenant (CD lSil-Sa).72 If, as seems to be the case, this sort of casuistry is the point of contact for our verse, it follows that using an ersatz for God is condemned because it provided a convenient loophole for not fulfilling one's vowthus, in principle, making a perjurer of oneself, la the wicked of Psalm 50. Such parallels are illuminating and to a degree assist in the exegesis of our text. However, Matthew provides his own clarification in the polemic of 23:16-22. Very much in line with the kind of blunt criticisms leveled against the Jewish leadership in the Second Temple period,73 the charge is elaborated that the Scribes and the Pharisees have made subtle and unwarranted distinctions in oath-taking (= casuistic abuse of the oath).74 Because of their
Davies/Allison, Matthew, 1.536. m. Sebu. 4:13; m. Ned. 1:3; m. Sanh. 3:2. See further Str-B 1.332-34; Guelich, "Antitheses," 451 n. 4, who show that each of these objects by which people would swear finds a parallel in rabbinic literature. Incidentally, t. Ned. 1:4 declares vows taken "by the Torah" not to be binding, but those taken "by what is written in the Torah" to be binding. ^Both Charlesworth ("Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus," 31) and Davies (Setting, 244) suggest that Jesus may have had the Essenes/Qumran covenanters in mind. ^See Overman, Matthew's Gospel, 19-23,141-47. 74 D. E. Garland (The Intention of Matthew 23 [NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1979] 132-36), in tandem with Lieberman (Greek in Jewish Palestine, 115-43), believes that Matthew accurately portrays Jesus as contending with a Pharisaic position that only
71 70

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

163

eagerness not to be bound by a potentially inconvenient oath, the Pharisees have prized the lesser things more highly than the greater: the gold of the temple for them is worth more than the temple itself, and the gift on the altar is superior to the altar, which renders the gift sacred. To swear by these entities, which were actually lesser in value as Jesus appraises them, was a clever maneuver, because oaths could now be classified as either "binding" or "non-binding."75 Both had a sacrosanct aura about them, designed to impress the onlooker; but, in fact, only the former classification entailed any obligation. Jesus' response, accordingly, is virtually the same as in 5:33-37: He who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. (23:20-22) It should be clarified, however, that what was really objectionable was not so much the content of the oath as "the mode of thought" or disposition lying behind it.76 Returning to Matthew 5 and the original question, swearing by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one's head is objectionable because it was the current means of avoiding the obligation of the oath, and thus stands for every attempt to obviate the responsibilities of truthful speaking within the setting of the covenant. In this regard, contemporary oath-taking for Jesus was like the korban regulation (Mark 7:9-13; cf. Josephus, Ag. . 1.167), which allowed a person to dishonor his parents and thereby nullify the word of God by tradition.77 We may say, then, that "swear not at all" is relative to oaths taken by these specific objects: none of them is to be substituted for an oath taken in the presence of God, as though he could be
oaths employing the divine name or attributes (such as "his throne") were binding. I differ, however, with Garland's stance that the real difference between Jesus and the Pharisees centered around Jesus' total rejection of oaths. For Garland, Jesus does not attack the Pharisees because they used casuistry to evade the obligation of oaths, but because they allowed swearing at alleven by divine names and attributesfor the purpose of countering the abuse of swearing among the masses. However, apart from the perennial problem of the dating of the rabbinic materials, the text of Matthew 23 itself does not provide a direct point of contact with the Sitz im Lehen proposed by Garland. Besides, the question must be posed: With what sort of Pharisees was Jesus doing battle? If they were of the Shammaite variety, a further limitation would be placed on the relevance of tannaitic materials, which stem mainly from the descendants of Bet Hillel. The Shammaite identity of the Pharisees of Matthew 23 has, in fact, been argued by A. Finkel (The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth [Leiden: Brill, 1964]) and H. Falk (Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus [New York: Paulist, 1985]). In addition to everything else, the tone of Matthew 23 is so ferocious that it seems unlikely that Jesus would upbraid the Pharisees for merely allowing swearing, especially if their motives were so well-intentioned. 75 Cf. Sanders, Jewish Law, 55. 76 G. Bertram, TDNT 4.845; Garland, Intention, 136; Overman, Matthew's Gospel, 96. ^Sanders (Jewish Law, 56-57) notes that Jesus' criticism of the Pharisaic korban would apply equally to Pho.

164

TRINITY JOURNAL

abstracted from any single one.78 Every word is spoken in the presence of God, because the whole earth is his (Ps 50:10-12; Exod 19:5; etc.). Our interpretation, of course, stands in contrast to the "total prohibition,, interpretation, endorsed by many scholars. Guelich, for example, argues that vv. 34b-36 elaborate upon the radical implications of v. 34a, thereby blocking any casuistic attempts to avoid its thrust. In other words, "these clauses served to sharpen the focus of the total prohibition by eliminating any possible casuistical distraction/779 His suggestion is certainly plausible in itself, but it does not alleviate the tension between v. 33a and 33b and that between v. 33 and w . 34-36, as Guelich himself acknowledges.80 I would say that if there is a categorical character to the "ban," it is its preclusion of any addition to one's "Yes" or "No" which could be employed as an exemption from speaking the truth.81 Ironically, then, the "prohibition" of swearing becomes a new type of oath, the oath of the new age, which consists in a simple "Yes" or "No."82 In other words, a kind of "swearing" is allowed, but one which corresponds to the new thing which has transpired with the dawning of the kingdom of heaven. As Geza Vermes perceptively comments, this "antithesis" is not set against a Mosaic precept. Rather: In the final age, Jesus intends to discard all the paraphernalia connected with oaths as unnecessary. Hence he declares redundant
As suggested by J. Calvin (A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke [3 vols.; ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972] 1.191) and M.-J. Lagrange (Evangile selon Saint Matthieu [Ebib; Paris: Gabalda, 1948] 108). (Luz wrongly dismisses Calvin's view as an attempt to evade the force of [Matthew, 313 n. 17].) This interpretation has the further advantage of relieving the tension in v. 33 between "swear not at all" and performing to the Lord one's vows, a tension observed by, e.g., Guelich ("Antitheses," 450-51), T. W. Manson (The Sayings of Jesus [London: SCM, 1975] 158), and P. S. Minear ("Yes or No: The Demand for Honesty in the Early Church," NovT 13 [1971] 2). Likewise, the interpretation removes the "bit of tension" (Guelich, "Antitheses," 451) between "swear not at all" and the detailing of specific oaths in w . 34-36. ^Guelich, "Antitheses," 451. To Guelich may be added the great majority of commentators on Matthew. Others include: Schneider, TDNT 5.180; Garland, Intention, 132-36; Sanders, Jewish Law, 56; Overman, Matthew's Gospel, 96; Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority, 107; Sthlin, "Beteuerungsformeln," 116; E. Kutsch, "Eure Rede aber sei ja ja, nein nein," EvT 20 (1960) 218. 80 Guelich, "Antitheses," 452. 81 "The first three examples, swearing by heaven, by the earth, and by Jerusalem, reject such oaths for being encroachments upon the sphere of God's majesty. The last example, swearing by one's own head, makes the oath ridiculous: the man who makes it cannot in any sense so dispose himself" (R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition [2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1968] 135). 82 The case is strengthened if the "Yes, Yes" and "No, No" oath formulas found in b. Shebu. 36a and 2 Enoch 49:1-2 (cf. again Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.3) were in use in the first century. In this case, Jesus would be imposing a new "oath formula" in terms familiar to his hearers. On the rabbinic usage of "Yes" and "No," see Banks, Jesus and the Law, 195.
78

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING the multitude of commonly used surrogate terms for God.... The heart of Jesus' doctrine is that among truthful people no special solemnities are necessary: a "yes" or a "no" should be enough.83

165

That our Lord is very serious about this new type of oath is placed beyond doubt by the final word of the pericope: "any more than this is of the evil one" (v. 37b). It is true that can mean "evil" in the abstract, denoting an evil disposition on the part of a person (the same ambiguity crops up again in 5:39; 6:13; 13:38). I think it more likely, however, that the reference is to Satan, "the Evil One." There are two reasons for thinking so. One is that elsewhere Satan is preeminently associated with falsehood: he was a liar from the beginning and the "father of lies" (John 8:44; 1 John 3:12; Rev 12:9; cf. Matt 13:19; 1 Enoch 69:15). The other is that a straight line can be drawn from Matthew's temptation narrative, in which "the Evil One" tempts Christ to abandon his God, to the Sermon on the Mount. This Matthean trajectory is informative because it suggests that in the case of the one who adds to her "Yes" or "No," the Devil repeats his attempts to seduce her from the path of commitment to God. The people who succumb to this temptation are, once again, like the wicked of Psalm 50, who give lip service to the covenant, but betray their inward defection from it by the deceitful tongue. IV. OATH-TAKING AND THE MODERN CHRISTIAN This reflection on present-day oath-taking falls into the category of "eschatology and ethics." That is to say, ethics for the Christian community are determined by eschatology, or rather, by the complex of eschatology and Christology, as it were, a "Christological 84 eschatology." The norms of the Torah, as valid as they were for their time, have been displaced by the standards of the kingdom. Whereas the old people were bound by the criteria of tradition and propriety, the new people have broken with the past, as prompted by Jesus' own departure from the time-honored standards of oathtaking as required by none other than the "holy and God-given law" (2 Mace 6:23) of the Sinai covenant.

^G. Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 34 (italics mine). M W. Schrge confirms this "Christological eschatology." "Jesus," says Schrge, "understood his message and his ethics as deriving from the imminent or incipient kingdom of God." This is commensurate with the fact that "the unity of eschatology and ethics is given in the person of Jesus, who shows the way in both," and that "fundamental for Matthew's ethics is its foundation in the person and work of Jesus" (The Ethics of the New Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 24-25, 144). See also Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics, 145-62; T. W. Manson, Ethics and the Gospel (London: SCM, 1960) 58-68; R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament (New York: Seabury, 1973) 15-25.

166

TRINITY JOURNAL A. The Oath in Salvation-Historical Perspective

If we put the straightforward questionis swearing still valid for twentieth-century Christians?the answer, as odd as it may seem, is yes. From the perspective of redemptive history, we may say that oath-taking, rather than being superfluous, has changed its shape. No longer is the name of Yahweh invoked as a witness to one's words by sacrosanct objects, in holy places, in the presence of holy persons, as a pledge of allegiance to the Sinai covenant. Instead, since the advent of the kingdom of heaven, the "oath" for the followers of Christ is a simple "Yes" or "No," an "oath" commensurate with the relative simplicity of the new covenant in comparison to the old. Jesus does not discourage false swearing by obliterating oaths altogether, but rather by changing "the rules of the game." To adapt Hagner's observation, he pursues the same goal as the law in that he demands honesty from his people,*5 but it is an honesty no longer disciplined by the Mosaic standards, as befits the eschatological ethics of the kingdom and the "grown-up" status of the sons and daughters of God (Gal 3:23-26). The various safeguards once placed on "minors" under tutelage have now been lifted: all that remains is a "Yes" or "No" spoken from the integrity of conscience. One might say that the normal procedure of swearing under the old covenantthe "safeguards"actually opened, albeit inadvertently, the door to bogus oath-taking. This was so precisely because the oath was bound to the various holy entities, so that, as tradition accumulated, subtle distinctions like those alluded to in Matt 23:1622 were able to serve as smoke screens for insincerity. But now that there are no more holy places (cf. Zech 14:20-21), the oath has been detached from locales and objects and is made to reside solely in the integrity of the individual. In brief, the Christian's word is his oath. We hasten to clarify that it is not as though one oath formula has been superseded by another, one set of words taking the place of another set of words. It is not a matter of formulae and words as such, any of which may be manipulated and abused, but of intent. "Yes" and "No" henceforth voice the believer's devotion to Jesus, the Lord of his latter-day people. Jesus' role as the terminus of the promises of God (2 Cor 1:17b20a) illuminates oath-taking in his new community. As in so many other regards, this people declares itself to be distinct from its forbears in the matter of swearing and truthfulness because the King has arrived, and with his appearance the people of God themselves have assumed a new configuration. No longer are they the people of
^Hagner, Matthew, 126-27. Therefore, Banks appears to go too far: " . . . both in regard to contemporary Jewish teaching and Old Testament requirements, we have a pronouncement of Jesus that moves in a different realm to anything that can be brought into relation with it" (Jesus and the Law, 195-96).

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

167

the law, but the people of Christ, the people whose faith is directed to him. It is in this unmistakably eschatological sense that Matthew can relate: "I will build my church" (Matt 16:18). Set within the frame of such an eschatology, Matt 5:33-37 builds on the genius of oath-taking in Judaism. The old oath, attached to a comparatively complex apparatus, was a pledge of one's commitment to the covenant and its Lord, Yahweh. As such, it was appropriate for its day. But with the coming of a new Moses, this type of swearing is no longer required to confirm the truthfulness of one's word: a simple "Yes" or "No" is enough.86 And with the cessation of swearing in its Mosaic mode, the old covenant itself comes to an end. (The writer of Hebrews makes a similar point: a change in the priesthood necessitates a change in the law itself [Heb 7:12].) The allegiance of the people of God is no longer to the Sinai covenant, adapted, as it was, to its age and the people under it, but rather to Jesus, the ? of the new covenant. The ethics of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, have been updated from the commonwealth of Israel and have Jesus as their point of reference. This does not mean, however, that there are irreconcilable differences between these two major phases of salvation history; for the payment of one's vows to the Most High commended by Ps 50:14 has now become the "Yes" or "No" of the participant in the new covenant. The new people of God actually fulfill the ideal of Psalm 50, but in such a way as to render Mosaic oath-taking pass. In short, devotion to Yahweh, as encapsulated in the oath, has been shifted to devotion to Jesus. The righteous are no longer defined in terms of swearing an oath before God and performing the same; rather, they are those who let their simple "Yes" or "No" suffice because of their commitment to Christ. The righteousness of the righteous, in other words, is now that of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 5:20). Such righteousness, observes Guelich, "involved conduct and relationships nothing short of that characteristic of the promised age of salvation, the presence of the Kingdom," all because "with the dawn of the age of salvation a new relationship with God began for those whose lives were touched by Jesus' person and ministry."87 That this biblical theology of the oath was taken to heart by the first disciples of Christ is apparent from the exhortation of James:

86 On the Moses-Jesus typology of the first gospel, see the full-scale study of D. C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). 87 Guelich, "Beatitudes," 429. Guelich goes on to state that righteousness for Matthew is both the "eschatological gift" of the new relationship between God and the individual and the resultant "ethical conduct" towards God and others made possible through the gift (ibid., 430). His assessment is in line with Overman (Matthew's Gospel, 90-94) and B. Przybylski (Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought [SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980]).

168

TRINITY JOURNAL

"But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation" (Jas ).88 As in Jesus' prohibition, James' "any other oath" is relative to devices added to one's "Yes" or "No" for the purpose of providing an escape clause in case one wishes to renege. In language likewise reminiscent of Matt 5:37, Paul confronts the Corinthians: Do I make my plans like a worldly man, ready to say Yes and No at once? As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we preached among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No; but in him it is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in him.(2Corl:17b-20a) Although Paul is making a different point than Jesus and James, he is conscious that "Yes" and "No" mean just that"Yes" and "No"! To say either is to commit oneself to the course of action articulated by these respective vocables. Paul, in other words, was conscious of his obligation to tell the truth just because all of God's promises of old have found their "Yes" in Christ. This perception of swearing does not preclude the modern Christian from going on oath in a court of law or from pledging allegiance to his country, simply because oaths as such are not forbidden.89 Moreover, Matt 5:33-37 presupposes the covenantal context of the people of God's dealings with one another; that is, the saying is not meant to obviate one's civil obligations, but seeks to regulate the life of the new covenant community in its "in-house" relationships. As Sanders reminds us, the rejection of oaths altogether would create social problems. For example, a person who would not swear could not do business, except within the confines of a very small group.90 By way of support, Jesus himself, even after issuing his directive, did not shrink from the adjuration of the High Priest
^On the relationship of Jas 5:12 to Matt 5:33-37, see P. H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 18991. That James was actually dependent on a dominical saying is argued by Ito ("Authenticity," 10-12). M. Dibelius/H. Greeven think that the form of the saying in James is prior to its form in Matthew. Even so, they are unwilling to sever the link between James and Jesus (James [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976] 251). Other analyses are provided by Kutsch, "Ja Ja, Nein Nein," 209-11; Dautzenberg, "Schwurverbot," 61-63; Bauernfeind, "Eid," 103-9. For further literature, see Martin, James, 198. Martin himself is inclined to regard the Sitz im Leben of James as his attempt to provide a modus vivendi between his Christian brethren and the Zealot faction, the sicarii, who were in the habit of taking oaths (ibid., 199-200). However, this is no more certain than the Essene hypothesis, rejected by him. 89 At the very least. Overman has overstated his case when he concludes that the "Matthean community" viewed the courts and the civil realm as a hostile environment (Matthew's Gospel, 109). 90 Sanders, Jewish Law, 56.

GARLINGTON: OATH-TAKING

169

(26:63-64).91 Also, his use of the (double) amen in the gospels (e.g., Matt 26:63-64; Mark 8:12; 15:25) corresponds to that of the oath in the OT (e.g., Num 5:22).92 And these are not the only instances of oathlike language in the synoptics.93 Similarly, Paul was not reluctant to make others swear (1 Thess 5:27), nor to take an oath respecting his own sincerity (Rom 1:9; 9:1-3; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 1:23; 2:17; 4:2; 11:1011, 31; Gal 1:20; Phil 1:8; 1 Thess 2:5,10), although his preference was to use a simple "Yes" or "No," consistent with the thrust of Jesus' instruction (2 Cor l:17b-20a).94 It is possible, of course, that Paul was not directly aware of the saying preserved in Matt 5:33-37 as such. However, it is not unlikely that he was cognizant of it, given his general acquaintance with the teaching of Jesus.95 B. Honoring God's Name It is beyond dispute that Jesus demands honesty in the church in the broadly ethical sense.96 But more pointedly, he opposes the kind of casuistry which has the appearance of piety, but, in fact, prevents fidelity to one's word. Much of oath-taking in Jesus' day had become a tool which, in the hands of the clever and manipulative, fostered the diametrical opposite of the divine intention of the oath. In brief, a divine institution was utilized to subvert godlinessand Jesus will have no such thing in his end-time community.97 Yet there is something even more basic to his mind than human behavior, viz., the honoring of the name of God. In this, Jesus is very much in line with the Jewish emphasis. Nevertheless, his attitude, unlike that of Philo, Essenes/Qumran, and Second Temple Judaism generally, was that there could be no substitute for God's own name
It is true that Jesus' reply to the High Priest, "you have said so," is to a certain degree ambiguous. Nonetheless, the words are a response to a legally binding oath ( )he did not remain silent as before. Moreover, the ambiguity of "you have said so" pertains only to the title "Son of God," not to Jesus' declaration that he is the Danielle Son of Man who will come in glory, a claim which the High Priest immediately took to be blasphemy. 92 See Dautzenberg, "Schwurverbot," 58-59; Bauernfeind, "Eid," 109-10. 93 As demonstrated by Sthlin, "Beteuerungsformeln," 122-30. 94 See further Dautzenberg, "Schwurverbot," 63-65; Bauernfeind, "Eid," 91-103; Sthlin, "Beteuerungsformeln," 130-42. Ito points out that Paul uses the oath formula only to testify to the divine origin of his apostleship, mission, and gospel ("Authenticity," 9). 95 As argued by a number of scholars. See D. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); J. D. G. Dunn, "Paul's Knowledge of the Jesus Tradition: The Evidence of Romans," in Christus Bezeugen: Festschrift fr Wolfgang Trilling zum 65 Geburtstag (ed. . Kertelge, et al.; Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1989) 193-208; J. Piper, "Love Your Enemies": Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis (SNTSMS 38; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) 102-19; Garlington, "Burden Bearing," 173. 96 E.g., Minear, "Yes or No;" id.. Commands of Christ (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 30-46; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies in Its Form and Content (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 298. 97 Cf. B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979) 143.
91

170

TRINITY JOURNAL

in the oath. He honored the name of his Father not by building a protective "fence" of oral tradition around the third commandment ( la m. 'Abot 1:1), but by refusing to lift up the name itself to vanity. Luz remarks that Jesus, as the whole of Judaism, cares for the sanctification of God's name and majesty. He says: Jesus is not only concerned about truthfulness so that the case of the oath would exemplify what truthfulness is. But he is concerned about the oath because here the name of God is invoked. The anthropological aspect, the command of truthfulness, has its theological correlative in the demand of sanctification of the Lord's name.98 We recall that the third commandment of the Decalogue is placed immediately after the first two commandments, which in effect enjoin none other than the sanctification of Yahweh's name. We are thus led to believe that when Jesus bids the disciples pray, "Hallowed be thy name," integral to the hallowing process is the recollection that he has "eliminated the distinction between words which have to be true and those which do not have to be true."99 It is just Christ's own attitude which has been bequeathed to his . By letting "Yes" and "No" suffice in themselves, without the addition of supplements (for less than altruistic reasons), one is admonished not to abuse the name of God by taking advantage of oath-taking as a vehicle for self-serving ends and an escape hatch from the obligations of commitment.100 And if bringing the name of God into disrepute is forbidden in the matter of insincere oaths, then so it ought to be in every area of endeavor. The same disposition of truthfulness and sincerity inherent in the "swearing" of the new people of God ought, by the very nature of the case, take precedence in all they are and do.

Luz, Matthew, 316. "A. Schlatter, as quoted by Luz (Matthew, 315). 100 "Each word is to be unconditionally reliable, without needing any confirmation through an appeal to God. For Jesus' disciples know that they will soon have to give account to God for every word that does not accord with the truth [Matt 12:36]. . .. God is the God of truth, and therefore the truth is a characteristic of his reign" (Jeremas, Theology, 220).

98

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.