Numbers/B'Midbar chapter 30 says a man can nullify his wife's vows, but a woman cannot nullify her husbands vows. The authority to nullify a woman's vows is transferred from her father to the husband when she gets married. Perhaps this is why Torah talks about why a man must get the permission of the girl's father to marry her. Does this authority transfer if he doesn't get that permission? (Think about it....)

But children do not submit to their parents forever. A woman unquestionable no longer submits to her parents after she marries, because she cannot have two heads. Thus, that authority is transfered from her father to her husband, as we see in Numbers/B'midbar 30.  Scriptures says when a man marries, he "will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." He cannot be the head of his own household is he is still submitting to his father and mother.

A man can nullify his wife's vows, and Yeshua can nullify our vows, because He is the heavenly groom with an earthly bride, and thus the same laws apply. We are His bride. Thus, if we make a rash vow that violates Torah, we are not obligated to keep it (as if someone COULD be obligated to sin!!!), because that vow has already been nullified by His word.

Anyway...Numbers 30 appears to be the basis for why Yeshua said...

"whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of sexual immorality, causeth her to commit adultery, and anyone who takes the divorced woman commits adultery. " (Matt 5:32)

When a man divorces his wife, he is nullifying a vow she has made; namely, her wedding vow(s).

", however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt." 
(Num/B'Mid 30:15)

Now if we apply Num/B'Midbar 30:15 to the context of marriage, we come to the same conclusion as in Matt 5:32. If a man divorces his wife, her re-marriage is called "adultery" in G-d's eyes, because G-d will consider her married to her first husband (unless adultery was involved) even though her husband, the Beit Din, and the Government of the land does not. And if he calls it "adultery" when the man (who has the power to nullify her vows) divorces her, then certainly it is adultery for her to "divorce" him and "remarry". But in such a case, she would be guilty of violating her marriage vows, not him. However, because Num 30:15 tells us that a man incurs the guilty of his wife if he nullifies her vows, then he incurs the guilt of adultery if he nullfies her wedding vows by divorcing her for reasons other than adultery.

Now one of the best proofs that Num 30 was the basis of his reasoning in Matt 5:32 is that in the very next verse, he moves on to talking about fulfilling your vows, and by what authority you swear by.

"Again you have heard that it was said to the ancients, "Do not swear for falsehood, but complete your vows to YHWH." " (Matt 5:33)

So he moves from talking about marriage vows, to talking about vows in general. Now some people have interpreted this verse to mean "Do not cuss" rather than "do not take an oath", and in English, we do indeed use the word "swear" to refer both to taking an oath/vow as well as to cussing. But this concept is not found in the shades of meaning used in the original language(s) of Matthew 5. And the more we examine this verse, the clearer it will become that this is talking about taking oaths, not about cussing.

Then He says...

"But I say to you do not swear in any matter, not by the heavens, because they^{(the heavens)} are the throne of Elohim. And not by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet. And not by Yerushalayim ^(Jerusalem), for it is the city of the great King. " (Matt 5:34-35)

Many Christians use this verse as "proof" that the New Covenant changed all the rules of the "Old Covenant", and that this is one example of something that was changed. But in reality, there are numerous places where we find people making vows of some sort in the New Testament. Marriage vows are both permitted and encouraged. Act 18:18 records Paul taking a vow. The book of Hebrews talks of Yeshua being made High Priest of the New Covenant by an oath. And in Isa 45:3 quoted in Rom 14:11, it talks of yet a future time in which men shall "swear" / "שבע". And Isa 65:16 says that "He who swears on earth shall swear through the G-d of truth" with the context of this being placed in the still-to-be future time period of when the "new heavens and new earth" (Isa 65:17) are created. So was it only swearing "by heaven" or "by earth" that Yeshua was addressing?

Yeshua said what He said while He was still alive, as instructions to people who lived under the Law. He did not tell them "After I die, quit swearing". No, He gave them instructions on how to live in the present tense, which for them, was a period of time before His Resurrection. So any concept that His death and Resurrection changed how G-d viewed oath taking still leaves us short of how to explain the fact that these instructions where given while He was still alive for those living during that period. Anything spoken in the Gospels was spoken to people on how to live life in obedience to torah.

There are a number of places where it says to swear by the Name of YHWH. (Isa 65, Jer 12:16) and Deut/Dev 6:13 says flatly "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by His Name". And Jewish tradition teaches caution in making oath on the grounds that the earth shook when Elohim spoke the commandment against taking His Name in vain (Tractate Shavuot 38b). We see a number of places in scripture where men took oaths (Gen/Ber 24,50, Joshua 2:12-20, 1 Sam 20:17, etc).

So why is there a problem with swearing "by heaven"? Let's examine two explanations...

Man is swearing by something he has no power over:

G-d said..

"This is what the LORD says: 'If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, ²¹ then my covenant with David my servant-and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me-can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. " (Jer/Yer 33:20-21)

While one could argue "But G-d swears by the heavens, and if I am to be like Him, why shouldn't I?" Because you're not Him. He has power over the heavens, and when G-d swears by the heavens, He is merely using them as a sign, which He can do, because He has power over the heavens. But man does not. Yes, we're to imitate G-d's character, but we are not to pretend we have His power.

For a man to stand up and swear "by the authority of Heaven" would be like a woman standing up and swearing "by the authority of my husband" when she's never talked to her husband about it. Such an oath implies that she already has his consent, or that he has already decided to back her up when he hasn't. So too with a man swearing "by heaven". He really has no power over the heavens, so how can he swear by them? Yeshua used this logic in Matt 5:36, when He said not to swear by one's head "because you cannot make one hair white or black"

However, this logic does not appear to be how people thought back then. Just the reverse. The desire to swear or take an oath by a greater authority that oneself is seen elsewhere in scripture. Heb 6:16 says...

• "But men verily¹ swear by one greater [than themselves] and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all opposing-words." 
  (Greek Heb 6:16, with "verily" being in some Greek manuscripts, but not others.)
• "But the sons of the wrath swear by one that is greater than them and the oath is to them an end to all argument and confirmation in sign to them. " (Hebrew version of Hebrews 6:16)

Both of these versions talk about how men swear by one greater than himself. The Hebrew version ascribes this as a practice that the "sons of wrath" do, but not necessarily believers. Whereas the Greek version ascribes this practice to all men. Either way, we see that this practice was invoked at the time Yeshua made his statement.

Men had a tendency to swear by a person or power greater than themselves. Philo (20 BC - 40 AD) makes this interesting comment about swearing...

"If indeed occasion should force us to swear, it should be by a father or mother, their good health and welfare if they are alive, their memory if they are dead. For parents are copies and likenesses of the Divine power, since they have brought the non-existent into existance." (Special Laws, 2)

It is a substitute for God's Name

The Name of YHWH was used a lot in the Tanach, but by the time we get to 1st century times, we find the use of the Name outside the temple was banned. This left men taking oaths in a fix. Torah commands them to "swear by His Name" (Deut 6:13), yet the Oral Law of 1st century AD banned the use of his Name. So they either had to not swear, or swear and violate the Oral Law against using the Name, or come up with a substitute. Often, they simply used a substitute.

The fact that "heaven" was used as a euphemism for "G-d" can be seen in the numerous places where the "Kingdom of the heavens" is used in Matthew in identically the same places where "kingdom of G-d" is used in Luke or Mark. Here are just a few examples;

• the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt 3:2)
• the kingdom of God is at hand (Mark 1:15)
• he that is least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt 11:11)
• he that is least in the kingdom of God (Luke 7:28)

Many more examples could be shown where identically the same verse. The practice of substituting "heaven" for "G-d" was prevalent in the 1st century, and perhaps it was this practice that caused Yeshua to instruct them not to swear by heaven (or earth or anything else). Other substitutions we see recorded for swearing "by His Name" (Deut 6:13) included swearing by the temple, or by the gold in the temple (Matt 23:16). So while swearing "by earth" was not a euphemism for "G-d" or "YHWH", we certainly see "the temple" as a euphemism for Elohim, which of course, was made out of the earth, and also the gold in the temple as well.

Perhaps Yeshua was simply telling them that if they aren't going to do it right, and swear by The Name, then they should not swear at all, and certainly should not use a euphemism like "heaven" or "the temple" or anything else made out of the earth that would be an understood euphemism.

Also, a vow is to be made "by His Name" (Deut 6:13) recognizing YHWH as the heavenly husband of the one making the vows. If it is sworn "By His Name", then perhaps He will nullify a rash vow made "by His Name", but not a vow made "by heaven". Or perhaps it is the other way around? I wouldn't try to out-guess G-d - I would simply follow His instructions as He gave them. But when we examine this issue in light of Num/BMid 30, we see how numerous problems could arise from this.

HOWEVER, the use of "heave and earth" does not HAVE to be a euphemism. For examine, if I say "Look at that rocket in the heavens", I am not using "heaven" as a euphemism for G-d.

The Mishnah (circa 220 AD) records that Yeshua's statement may have made an impact on Orthodox Jewish thinking, for the Mishnah talks about oaths in the courtroom by saying this...

"if the defendant had said to them, "I impose an oath on you...they are exempt, unless they hear from the mouth of the plaintiff. 
[If].....

• ""I impose an oath on you", "I command you", "I bind you" - these are liable.
• "By heaven and earth" - these are exempt
• "By Adonai", or "by YaH" or "By the Almighty" or "By Hosts", or "by Him Who is merciful..." or by any other euphemism ... these are liable.

(Mishnah, Shavuot 4:12-13)

So the Mishnah tells us two things;

• That in this context, some people DID swear "by heaven and earth"
• That Yeshua's halachah on this issue was at least eventually accepted by the Rabbinical tradition of His days, at least by the time that the Mishnah was compiled almost 200 years later. The Mishnah does not cite any teachers on this issue, thus we do not know how far back it goes.

In fact, we can see how BOTH of these above issues come into play. Torah tells us to "swear by His Name" (Deut 6:13), and Hebrews 6:16 talks of how it is common for men to swear by one greater than themselves. To swear "by heaven" is to recognize it as greater than ourselves, when G-d wants us to recognize Him in that context. So swearing "by heaven" is problematic both from a standpoint of it being a substitution for the Name of YHWH as well as a substitution for Him as a Person.

One fundamental problem here was that the Pharisees accepted swearing "by the heavens " or "by the temple" (which is 'by earth') as a substitute for swearing "by The Name", while obviously, Yeshua did not accept this substitution.

James/Ya'acov said...

• "Above all, my brothers, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else...or you will fall into condemnation" (James/Ya'acov 5:12 in some Greek manuscripts)
• "...or you will fall into hypocracy." (Jam/Ya'acov by other Greek manuscript interpretations)
• "...or you will owe under judgement." (Jam/Ya'acov in Aramaic Peshitta)

"Condemned" in what way? Will G-d not nullify your rash vows when He otherwise would have if you swear "by heaven"? Was that what James/Ya'acov was getting at? Or was it because G-d would condemn them for using a euphemism in place of His Name, yet the Pharisees would condemn them for using the Name instead of a euphemism? Was this said because they would lose out either way and incur someone's wrath no matter which direction they went? The scriptures aren't clear on what the answer is to that, but perhaps the Mishnah provides an explanation.

What context did James' comments apply? In the Mishnah, Shavuot 5-6, it gives numerous examples of how when people take an oath, they assume a legal liability before Israeli courts that they did not have before they took that oath.

James/Ya'acov was the bishop of Jerusalem writing to the "twelve tribes in the diaspora" (James 1:1). Was he assuming that his audience was completely Jewish, and would not swear by the Divine Name because of Jewish tradition having banned it?

Now let's get to the solution given for this dilemma of being told what we are to do about this issue.

• "Let your speach be "Yes, Yes, No, No"" (Matt 5:37)
• "but let your language be yes, yes, and no, no" (Ya'acov/James 5:12, Aramaic manuscripts)
• "but let it be of you the yes yes and the no no" (Ya'acov/James 5:12, most Greek manuscripts)
  Note: This is an overly literal translation whose interpretation can go in several directions.

Now some translators have translated this as "Let your "yes" be "yes" and your "No" be "No"." However, these two translations would be saying something rather different.

1. Let your "Yes" be "Yes"

This interpretation would tell us that we take no oath, and simply let our words stand, adding nothing to "yes". Saying "Certainly yes" would be a violation of this interpretation, because it is adding something to a "Yes", and we are to simply let our "yes" be a mere "yes". And taking an oath would be even worse!!!

2. "Say "yes yes""

This interpretation would tell us its OK to add something to our "Yes" at a level above a mere "Yes", but below an oath. This interpretations allows us to add words of certainty, as long as it is not at the level of an oath. Yeshua gave a Hebrew based example of saying it twice for validation. In Hebrew, repetition can imply certainly. For example, we find in Gen/Ber 2:17

• "in the day that thou eatest thereof dying thou shalt die." (Literal translation)
• "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (KJV wording)

The KJV translated it this way because when a verb appears twice in the same sentence, once in the finite, once in the infinite, then it implies the certainly that what is being spoken of will come to pass. When Yeshua said "Say "yes, yes"" He was talking to a Hebrew speaking audience, where saying "Yes, yes" would be like saying "Yes, certainly" in English. In English, we wouldn't likely repeat the word "yes" a second time, but we'd use the word "certainly" or "surely".

To some people saying "surely yes" is a violation of how some translations render Matt 5:37 / James 5:12, because it is adding something to a "yes" beyond a mere "yes", and thus implying that a "yes" is not good enough. Whereas, a Hebrew understanding of what was being said here would suggest there's nothing wrong with saying "certainly, yes" in English, and that, in fact, this is the preferred method, since we are to use something between a mere "yes" and an oath if we are not going to swear in the Name of YHWH. The purpose of an oath is to add a level of validity / confirmation that what is said will come to pass beyond what a mere statement or promise would. The Hebrew language already has a built in way of doing this grammatically, through repetition. But we are only to take an oath if we take it "in His Name" (Deut 6:13). If , for some reason, we are not going to take an oath "in His Name" (Deut 6:13), then we are not to swear at all. We are not to use euphemisms, etc. But we can use language that elevates the level of certainty being conveyed as long as it is not on the same level as an oath. Thus "Ken Ken" in Hebrew or "Certainly so" or "surely yes" in English would accomplish this without taking an oath.

Now which interpretation is correct? "Let your 'yes' be 'yes'" or "Say 'yes, yes'"? Well, first of all, adding the "be" between "yes" and the second "yes" is purely interpretative; it's not in any original manuscripts. Of course, existentuality can be implied in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in ways it is not implied in English. But there is yet another way we can tell what the correct interpretation is.

There are plenty of places where Yeshua is recorded as saying...

• "Amen, Amen, I say to you..." (Yochanan/John 1:51, 3:3,5,11, 5:19,24,25, 6:26, and many others...)

Saying the word "Amen" (or "Verily" in the KJV) twice, follows the "Say 'yes, yes'" interpretation, and not the, "Let your "yes" be "yes"" interpretation. The many examples Yeshua left us of how He put this in practice seem to break the ambiguity over how to interpret this. In fact, the "Let your "yes" be "yes"" interpretation would require us to think Yeshua contradicted Himself in saying "Amen, Amen, I say unto you..." at all, because if a man cannot validate what he said by other words that imply certainly, in that such a thing would imply that he sometimes lies, then it would have been wrong for Yeshua to have said, "Amen, Amen, I say unto you...." over and over and over again. The repetition of the word "Amen" appears because He was talking to a Hebrew speaking audience where such a thing would imply confirmation / certainty. But in English, as well as most languages, simply saying "Verily" or "certainly" or "Yes, surely" would flow more naturally. Since Yeshua stopped at times to add words that did nothing but say "I'm not lieing, I'm telling the truth", then how can there be something wrong with adding a "surely" to your "yes"?

 

--------------------------

Philo says, "The bare word of a virtuous man should be like an oath, steadfast, inviolable, and true. Should necessity absolutely require an oath let a man swear by his father and mother . . . instead of by the name of the highest and first Essence." , [Special Laws, 2] (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2&letter=O)

From Lowe's Classic: ""If indeed occasion should force us to swear, it should be by a father or mother, their good health and welfare if they are alive, their memory if they are dead. For parents are copies and likenesses of the Divine power, since they have brought the non-existent into existance."

Shalom,

Joe