Jesus and the Pharisees on Oaths
This part of the Sermon on the Mount deals with a controversial topic in the time of Jesus. In addition, it shows the continuation of Jewish theology in Jesus’s teachings. Words were very important, and considered binding. Words were so important, some rabbis recommended restrictions on certain phrases. To understand this, one has to look at the background to this topic and why it was controversial. Most legal systems would not find a “promise” binding unless there was something else given by another party. This could be either an exchange for a promise, or compensation paid for a promise of a future performance. Under Biblical Law, simply promising was legally binding. These promises, or oaths as they are translated, are called shevuah. During the time of Jesus, there were two schools of thought in Pharisaism: House of Hillel and House of Shammai. Within these houses there were differing ideas, but generally only minor differences. Jesus either paraphrases or quotes the House of Hillel throughout his Sermon on the Mount. In fact, much of his ministry draws from the ideas the House of Hillel put forth, with the exception of Divorces, which he quotes Rabbi Shammai (Matthew 19:9). Some rabbis in the House of Hillel believed that a person should not invoke a shevuah when that person makes a promise. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Yehudah said, “[Y]our ‘yes’ should be just a yes, and your ‘no’ should just be a no.” Baba Mesi’a 49A. The statement comes from the belief that the person making this statement should feel as if his word was binding without using the proper oath to make it legally binding by a court order. These Jews believed that we should start with the source of the problem: not feeling obligated to do something we promised without someone (like the court) forcing us. Therefore, as Paul points out, faithful people should follow the purpose and spirit of the law (or circumcised of heart Romans 2:29). Jesus’s teachings were very much in continuation of the Jewish faith.
