Matt 5.33-37. Let your yes be yes

In the kingdom, you can trust me. Now, you'll need it notarized.

---

Matthew 5.33-37

Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

Hagner, pages 128-129

Although in the OT the practice of oath taking was encouraged, or at least allowed, as a means of strengthening one’s personal resolution to do something, as it evolved it apparently often became a way by which some persons avoided responsibility. Jesus affirms the binding character of oaths and implicitly denies the subtle distinctions that some used to invalidate their oaths (cf. Matt 23:16-22). Yet at the same time, he lifts the entire matter to a new level by denying the necessity of oaths altogether. The ethics to which Jesus calls his disciples are those of the kingdom and its perfection. Here a person’s word can be relied upon without qualification and without need of the further guarantee an oath might afford. Oaths are thereby rendered superfluous. With the dawn of the new era comes a wholly new standard of righteousness, one in which a yes is really a yes and a no is really a no. It is a mistake, however, to take a biblicist approach to this passage that would disallow Christians from taking an oath, say in a court of justice. The issue is nothing less than and nothing more than truthfulness.

Hagner says that in the kingdom a person’s word can be relied upon without qualification. This is what makes the kingdom such a special place?! Why can’t we expect a person’s word to be relied upon now?

Hagner’s kingdom’s elevated ethics are little more than a return to the demand every first grader has that people tell the truth, because the worst thing you can be called is a liar. A child who is told by someone that his father is a liar is deeply hurt; nothing could be worse.

We all agree that a person’s word should be relied upon without qualification, but making it a kingdom ethic—and especially an elevated kingdom ethic—is lame. Hagner wants his explanation to be dramatic so he invents some drama. There was no need. There are plausible explanations for why Jesus would include this in his sermon. Maybe it’s not about us. Maybe he is fed up with religious people who use God in their schemes and scams. Maybe he is telling us to leave God out of our deal-making and deal-breaking. Maybe he’s tired of the name of God being besmirched by the people of God.

There is no reason anyone would have to invoke the name of God when promising to do something unless there was a chance his word was not trustworthy. We add “so help me God” at the end of our oath in court because our hope is that even if the judge and courtroom situation can’t compel someone to be careful in their testimony, the thought of doing it before God, who cannot be fooled or avoided, will pressure the witness to balance the consequence of the truth against the consequence of the lie, and tell the truth.

But here it is a different thing. Jesus is upset with people who use the name of God to create a façade of trustworthiness and reliability, to lure people into a deal that is possibly to their disadvantage. Or, to get out of a deal because after the fact they claim it was not solemnized to the required level with additions of sacred garnishings.

Jesus wants it to stop. Just tell the truth. If you conceal your intentions under a layer of sacred-sounding assurances, you might be getting an advantage but you are making God your enemy, for he is the defender of the weak. It is only those who have no credibility who use God’s character to deflect attention away from theirs.

Jesus’ words may or may not have anything to do with the kingdom, but they have a lot to do with the situation he was in. This is more than just a criticism of the religious leaders and the rich and the powerful. This is personal. They are not just bullying the weak and gullible; they are invoking the name of God to do it. When a person adds religious weight to his word to assure people he can be believed, and then refuses to follow through because some formula was not followed exactly, then his word is useless. In Psalm 50 God says:

What right have you to recite my statutes,

or take my covenant on your lips?

For you hate discipline,

and you cast my words behind you.

You give your mouth free rein for evil,

and your tongue frames deceit.

These things you have done and I have been silent;

you thought that I was just like you.

But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you.

Mark this, then, you who forget God,

or I will tear you apart, and there will be no one to deliver.

God, who is truth, is never part of a shady deal. It is Satan who is the father of lies. There’s no reason to be polite about this. Have nothing to do with them. God doesn’t.

In Romania we ran into a problem with a church. We made an agreement with them to renovate one of their mission churches so we could use it for a weekday children’s church. We had a dispute with the deacon of the mission church (he demanded 15,000 euro) and when we refused he convinced one of the pastors to expel us. We reminded the pastor we had an agreement with him stating we could use the renovated space for as long as we wanted. That didn’t work, so we appealed to the president of the denomination. He said we should have had our original agreement with the pastor stamped, because a document with signatures but no stamp is not legally binding.

It is understandable that a verbal agreement is fraught with potential problems because there is so much room for misremembering details, and I understand we live in the world and must be careful to protect ourselves, but still: when a pastor and a denomination president say a written, signed agreement is not enforceable because it is not stamped, we have a problem. When a pastor’s word is no good unless he is legally required to do it, he has made a human judge rather than God his boss.

Luring someone into a deal by assuring them of our credibility by invoking the name of God is a horrible affront against God. A pastor who refuses to follow though on an agreement because not every legal step was observed is an embarrassment to the Church. Anyone who uses their position—and especially their position of religious respectability—to profit or to escape responsibility is disturbing.

And of course we have endless examples of televangelists telling us we need to send them money. Creflo Dollar says he needs a $65 million private jet because Satan is trying to stop him from spreading the gospel. Benny Hinn asks his followers to send him a “seed-gift” donation to pray over so God will make them prosper. Victoria Osteen told the people of her church, “Do good for your own self. When you come to church, when you worship Him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy.”

For a pastor to refuse to abide by an agreement because it is not accompanied by the proper degree of legal force disqualifies him from the pastorate. Televangelists who claim to speak for God and then make him out to be as scheming and shady as you are will one day face the harshest judgement for that affront.

Any person who claims to speak for Christ and them embarrasses him with their duplicity is a fraud.