Did Jesus contradict Himself? He said earlier in his ministry, “Do not swear at all” (Matt. 5:34). But standing on trial before Caiaphas, Jesus seems to have taken an oath. When Caiaphas demanded, ”I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God,” Jesus replied, “Yes, it is as you say” (Matt. 26:63-64).
What was He to do? He was legally obligated to answer the high priest because the law held a man guilty who kept silence under such circumstances (Lev. 5:1). If He’d remained silent, He basically would have been denying his Messianic claims. So, when Jesus answered, “Yes, it is as you say,” He was swearing with God as witness that He was the Christ.
Was Jesus’ oath, then, in contradiction to His command “not to swear at all?” If Jesus broke His own teaching, then He wouldn’t be perfect. So, it’s necessary to clarify the context of His command. Groups such as Quakers & Anabaptists consider this an absolute prohibition, binding at all times under all circumstances. So they refuse to take an oath in court on the Bible, or say, “So help me God.” While their desire to honor Scripture is commendable, this may not be the best way to understand it.
Jesus introduced His teaching by stating, “‘Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord’'” (Matt. 5:33). While not quoting any one particular passage, Jesus summed up the Old Testament teaching on oath-taking. Oaths were allowed with restrictions. The 3rd Commandment said that man must not take God’s name in vain. (Ex. 20:7). Likewise, God said, “Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God” (Lev. 19:12). Taking oaths in God’s name with no intention to fulfill them was to profane God’s name. If one made a vow to the Lord, that person was under obligation to keep it (Num. 30:2).
Was Jesus doing away with all oaths to prevent men from committing perjury in the name of the Lord? At first sight, it seems so. But rather, He’s drawing out the Law’s intended principles while correcting false interpretations. In the Sermon on the Mount, He would state, “You have heard that it was said—but I tell you,” in order to form a contrast between the way the Law was being applied & its true intent. The Law’s intent was spiritual & designed to bring about the end of anger, lust, divorce, etc. But the Law had been misapplied & perverted, & only brought about sin instead. Jesus intended to reinforce the higher aim of the Law.
However, since the higher aim hadn’t been applied in the degenerated traditionalism of Judaism, Jesus knew that strict measures must be taken. Instead of merely reiterating & interpreting the Old Testament commandments on oath-taking, He declared that they should cease in order to give place to what was implied in the true idea of an oath—the truthful word of a follower of God.
The Jewish formalists had concocted a clever way of nullifying oaths, while not profaning God’s name. This is what Jesus refers to when he said that one should not even swear by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one’s own head (Matt. 5:34-36). In this way, according to the Jewish scribes, the swearer was relieved from his moral obligation for the oath to be true or kept. As long as God’s actual name wasn’t involved, then the oath could not be considered as binding. This opened the door for perjury without blame.
The rabbis & scribes who had abused the oath were concerned enough about which oaths were valid and which were not that they devoted an entire essay of the Mishnah to the subject. The extent of this foolishness was the subject of Jesus’ denunciation in Matthew 23:16-22. He considered such rationalization as foolishness because to swear by anything at all meant that God was involved by reason of creation. He even demonstrated from the Old Testament that these formulas were indeed oaths (Is. 66:1, Ps. 48:2). So if oaths were used flippantly or as covers for deception, Jesus would abolish oaths. If a person does not swear at all, he cannot swear falsely.
But does Jesus still allow for oaths to be taken on solemn occasions? If he doesn’t, then he did, in fact, break his own commandment when he took an oath in Caiaphas’ court. So, His prohibition must be understood as limited to personal relationships, not to legal affirmations or solemn occasions. For example, Augustine pointed out that Paul even used a form of oath-taking in his writings (Rom. 1:9, 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:23, 11:31). The parallel command forbidding swearing in James 5:12 supports this understanding of Jesus’ words, prohibiting using oaths in ordinary conversations.
While the functioning of society necessitates the taking of oaths in legal matters, including wedding ceremonies, in other matters, oaths shouldn’t be required of a Christian whose word should always be considered trustworthy. We must be so known as a people of our word that a simple “yes” or “no” will suffice. Christians who tell the truth all the time don’t need to take oaths to affirm that this time they’re telling the truth.