was common practice to dress up an ordinary statement by attaching some kind of oath, such as ―By thy
Life‖, or, ―May I never see the comfort of Israel if...‖ The same practice is common today, particularly in the
use of profanity. Men use oaths (or profanity) in order to give emphasis to their words—words of no real
consequence. This is the kind of oath-taking forbidden by the Old Covenant commandment, ―You shall not
take the name of the Lord your God in vain...‖ (Exod 20:7). Technically speaking, profanity is the common or
indiscriminate use of YHWH‘s name. And this YHWH Elohim has forbidden.
The second abuse of an oath was more deliberate and malicious. It was the use of evasive swearing. Here,
the emphasis of the Old Covenant revelation was shifted from what might be called substantive
righteousness to procedural or technical righteousness. YHWH Elohim had said, ―You shall not take the
name of the Lord your God in vain‖. They shifted the emphasis: ―You shall not take the name of the Lord
your God in vain‖. There is a substantial difference. An oath was not so much a matter of keeping your word,
but of phrasing your vow in such a way that you evaded your commitment. Any vow, which included the
name of YHWH, was considered a solemn oath which must be kept. But any vow which carefully avoided the
name of YHWH, was not technically binding. One could thus swear by heaven, or Jerusalem, or the temple,
or his head, and not feel bound to his oath. The effect was that people would be deceived in taking a man at
his word (or vow), but the man himself felt no obligation to live by his word.
Later in the Gospel of Matthew, Y‘shua had scathing words of rebuke for those who practiced this kind of
casuistry:
―Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ̳Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by
the gold of the temple, he is obligated‘. You fools and blind men; which is more important? The gold, or the
temple that sanctified the gold? And, ̳Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by
the offering upon it, he is obligated‘. You blind men, which is more important, the offering or the altar that
sanctifies the offering? Therefore he who swears, swears both by the attar and by everything on it. And he,
who swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. And he who swears
by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it‖ (Matt 23:16-22).
Y‘shua is saying that no matter what I do as a Believer, I make Elohim a partner in my actions and
commitments (1 Cor 6:12-20). Whether I vow using YHWH‘s name, or some part of Elohim‘s creation (my
head, Jerusalem, etc.), I have still involved YHWH in my oath. It is shallow thinking to suppose that the
avoidance of the name of Elohim divorces Him from an interest in my commitments.
Y‘shua‘s interpretation of the Old Covenant revelation restored proper emphasis in this matter. When you
give your word, keep it. Vows are only needed when one‘s integrity is in question. Live an honest and
reputable life and avoid having to emphasise the truthfulness of your statements or commitments. Say what
you mean, and mean what you say.
5:38-42 Eye for an eye...
―(38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: (39) But I say unto you,
That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (40) And
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. (41) And whosoever
shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. (42) Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would
borrow of thee turn not thou away‖. (Matt 5:38-42)
This is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts of Judaism. Ask most people and they will say
that this has something to do with "retaliation in the Old Covenant" versus "love and forgiveness in the New
Testament‖. This is incorrect – Judaism has never interpreted the verse in this fashion. The Torah command
regarding ―eye for eye" had to do with providing for limited liability in matters of legal compensation. Here,
Y‘shua is teaching to go beyond the minimum required of you, especially when you have wronged someone.
The Old Testament and Retaliation
Perhaps no standard of justice is better known than this one: ―An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth‖
(Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21). Some of the Scribes‘ and Pharisees‘ interpretation took this instruction
as biblical support for retaliation and revenge. If someone says something against me, I have every right to
do so against him. If you hit me in the face, you‘d better expect the same from me.
Y‘shua reminded His listeners that this was never intended as a proof-text for revenge, but as a principle of
justice. This is especially clear in the passage in Deut 19:16-18. This is an administration principle of justice,
given as a guideline for the judges who arbitrate a dispute or a claim. The very purpose of this system was to