Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths; but I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the City of the Great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. MATTHEW v. 33-37.
Jesus was talking to Jews. They recognized two offences: Profanity, or taking the name of God in vain; and Violation of Oaths, or what we should call, in the present day, Perjury. Taking an oath was to them no more of an offence than it is today in our courts of justice, where oath-taking is required; the offence was in Forswearing. Their distinction was very much like ours, and in the same line. They had a distinct formula of words for each offence.
Jesus had just discussed two commands of the Law. To the command, Thou shalt not Kill, he had given a deeper meaning than any of his auditors had ever connected with it. He had also gone to the very starting-point of Adultery, and shown how that command reached down into the mind of man. Now he addresses himself to a consideration of the command, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. This language was applicable not to profanity, but to legal oaths and their violation, and there can be no doubt but it was so understood by Jesus' hearers. A person does not forswear himself in Profanity, but he takes the name of Deity in vain. Profanity contains no promise, and is recognized as having no binding power; it calls for no subsequent action; but an Oath includes either an express or implied promise of some future performance. The failure to make good a promise bound by an oath was considered by the Jews as among the most serious of offences.
