Reconciling Jesus Prohibition of Oath-Taking with Paul’s Practice of Taking Oaths

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

In His famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus appeared to prohibit the practice of oath-taking when He said rather emphatically, “make no oath at all” (Matt 5:34).[i] Likewise, James offers similar instructions: “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment” (5:12). Many Christians, upon reading this, begin to avoid the practice. This article will consider the true intent of the seeming prohibition of Christ against oath-taking by a careful study of the context of Matthew 5:34 and the rest of Scripture.

In Matthew 5:33, Jesus states, “you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’” Here, Christ is harkening back to clear statements in the Old Testament (OT) which support the practice of taking oaths. For example, Moses, in Numbers 30:2, writes, “If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.” Instead of prohibiting the practice, Moses opts to set forth guidelines for it. His concern is directed solely at the person remaining truthful to their word.

In Deuteronomy, Moses once again permits oath-taking but adds that those who fail to make good on their pledges become guilty of sin (23:21). His concern is once again for truthfulness, regardless of whether the oath was taken while invoking the Lord’s name or otherwise (23:23; cf. Lev 19:12). Irrespective of whether the Lord’s name was verbally mentioned, all swearing done by those under Mosaic Law was by default done in the name of the Lord: “You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name” (Deut 10:20; cf. 6:13). Throughout the OT, both before the Mosaic Law and afterwards, the practice of oath-taking appears to be widespread. Those who swore oaths in the OT include Abraham (Gen 24:3), Esau (Gen 25:33), Joseph (Gen 47:31), the sons of Israel (Gen 50:25), Moses (Josh 14:9), and David (1 Sam 24:22).  Along with these OT figures, the practice of oath-taking was directly mandated by Mosaic Law when a woman was to be tested to see whether or not she had committed adultery (Nu 5:19-21). Along with all of this, God Himself regularly engaged in the practice of oath-taking (Gen 26:3; Ex 6:8; 33:1; Jer 22:5; Ps 89:49; 95:11; 106:26; Is 54:9; Ezek 16:8; etc.).

At this point, one should be relatively assured that the taking of oaths was at least an allowable practice during the OT era, but what about the New Testament times after Jesus made what appears to be a prohibition of it? Surprisingly, the Apostle Paul seems quite willing to take oaths by calling God as his witness (Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23; 1 Thess 2:5, 10; cf. Phil 1:8). Giving Paul’s willingness to disregard at least the surface-level meaning of Christ’s words, perhaps it would be best to return to Matthew 5:33-36 and reconsider Christ’s meaning.

By the time Jesus entered the scene, the religious leaders of Israel had created essentially a legalistic maze which all but choked out the truth within the Mosaic Law. For instance, a rabbi was allowed to swear by Jerusalem and still break his word, but not if he instead swore toward Jerusalem. These many laws required serious commitment to legalistic and man-made traditions but showed no true regard for God’s Word. As noted previously, God was supremely concerned with truthfulness being upheld, especially when oaths were taken. Instead of simply honoring God’s intent, the religious created a framework that allowed them to promote and practice dishonesty under the guise of legalistic righteousness.

Given the common underhanded approach of taking oaths in a such a way that they could easily be dispensed with irrespective of the maintenance of truthfulness, Jesus preferred to simply do away with the practice. The practice itself is allowable according to OT Law, but the practice must be performed in line with a determined faithfulness in regard to the truth. For this reason, Jesus said, “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.” In other words, one should stand by his/her word regardless of whether or not an oath is verbally expressed, because the giving of one’s word is equivalent to taking an oath.  For this reason, Paul was not wrong for taking an oath, so long as he stayed true to it. Likewise, those who avoid oaths are still obligated to deal honestly with all people.

In conclusion, the Bible is replete with examples of oath-taking where the practice is shown to be biblically allowable. Even so, it is clear from Scripture that all oaths were to be supported by a firm commitment to one’s word. Jesus, however, spoke against the practice because its validation in the OT had been obscured by the self-righteous religious leaders who had essentially legalized their own dishonesty. In response, Jesus pointed out the fundamental concern of God for truthfulness in one’s dealings whether oaths are taken or not.

[i]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.