Texts in Conversation
Matthew 5 and 2 Enoch 49 both emphasize honesty in speech, using the formula “yes, yes” or “no, no” to model honest communication. This resembles a tradition that would later be used throughout Rabbinic literature.
Share:
2500 BCE
1000+ CE
2 Enoch 49:1
Secrets of Enoch
Pseudepigrapha, Apocalypses
1 I swear to you, my children, but I do not swear by any oath, neither by heaven nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God created. The Lord said: 'There is no oath in me, nor injustice, but truth.' If there is no truth in men, let them swear by the words 'yes, yes', or else, 'no, no.' 2 And I swear to you, yes, yes, that there has been no man in his mother's womb, but that already before, even to each one there is a place prepared for the repose of that soul, and a measure fixed how much it is intended that a man be tried in this world. Yes, children, do not deceive yourselves, for there has been previously prepared a place for every soul of man.
Matthew 5:34
New Testament
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not take oaths at all—not by heaven, because it is the throne of God, 35 not by earth because it is his footstool, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. 36 Do not take an oath by your head because you are not able to make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’ More than this is from the evil one.
Search:
Notes and References
"... In the Jewish tradition the call to truth-telling is also common. The Jewish expert, Montefiore, comments: "I do not think that the 'unbedingte Wahrhaftigkeit im Reden' (unqualified truthfulness in speech) which Jesus demanded was not also demanded, and was not also regarded as part of the moral ideal, by the Rabbis.' Examples in Rabbinic literature include Ruth Rabbah 1:6 and Baba Mezia 49a. Finally, there is compelling evidence that 2 Enoch 49:1 should not be utilized to support the Jewish oath formulation "yes, yes" since 1) this passage is missing in the shorter recension; 2) the work shows Christian influence; 3) the MSS date only from the 16th and 17th centuries; and 4) the type of swearing which is commanded ("yes, yes" or "no, no") is explicitly stated not to be an oath. Therefore, based upon the close connection of Matthew 5:34a and 37 and the unanimous witness of the early church, it seems best to understand Matthew as passing on Jesus' exhortation to speak the truth without relying upon an oath ..."
Deppe, Dean B.
The Sayings of Jesus in the Paraenesis of James
(p. 241) Academisch Proefschrift Vrije Universiteit Te Amsterdam, 1990
* The use of references are not endorsements of their contents. Please read the entirety of the provided reference(s) to understand the author's full intentions regarding the use of these texts.
Your Feedback:
User Comments
Leave a Comment
Anonymous comments are welcome. All comments are subject to moderation.
User Comments
,
I would offer the International Critical Commentary as a corrective to the line of thinking offered by Dean Deppe above.
I would offer the International Critical Commentary as a corrective to the line of thinking offered by Dean Deppe above.Against interpreting 5:33–7 as excluding in casuistic fashion all oaths, the following observations are pertinent. (1) As Jeremias, Theology, p. 220, has affirmed, the example ...
Against interpreting 5:33–7 as excluding in casuistic fashion all oaths, the following observations are pertinent. (1) As Jeremias, Theology, p. 220, has affirmed, the examples given in Mt 5:34–6 are perhaps ‘not forms of oath used in court, but the oaths with which the oriental constantly underlines the truthfulness of his remarks in everyday speech (cf. 23:16–20). Jesus’ disciples have no need of this expedient, because Jesus expects unconditional truth of them …’. (Compare the 39th article of religion of the Anglican Church.) (2) N. J. McEleney, ‘Sermon’, pp. 557–8, has rightly remarked that ‘if Jesus is not presenting us with new halaka in his correlative reduction of speech to “yes, yes,” “no, no,” he should not be thought to do so in the hyperbole by which he tells us not to swear at all. Hyperbole matches hyperbole’. (3) Mt 23:16–22 seems to presuppose the validity of certain oaths (see commentary). (4) As already observed, in both the OT and NT God and pious people swear.
W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 536.
The NT itself does not show any aversion to oath taking (cf. Lk 1:73; Acts 2:30; Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20; Phil 1:8; Heb 6:13–20; Rev 10:6
W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 535.