Thoughts On Matt 23:16-17

[Duncan]

So, Matt 23:16-17 is kind of a puzzle for me. I get the part about "Blind guides" but this deal about the Temple and Gold and sanctifying is lost on me, what do you think Christ is saying about that part?

 

Matt 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

[Freedom]

Allow me to quote Dummelow:

"The lax moralists of that time invented ways of evading the obligation of truthfulness by saying that certain forms of swearing were binding and others not. Thus an oath by the Temple or the altar might be broken without sin, but not an oath by the gold of the temple, or by the fit of the altar. Such refinements were a direct encouragement to dishonesty and untruthfulness, and our Lord denounced them with terrible severity, declaring that a man's word or oath, in whatever words expressed, is absolutely binding. The lesson here taught is truthfulness and honesty in general, as well as the sanctity of oaths. Christ's teaching here is no inconsistent with 5:34 where from a higher ideal standpoint He forbids oaths altogether."

 

Hope this helps

[Calm]

Off the top of my head, I am thinking this is another case of man making rules about what can and can't be used as oaths.  If someone made a oath by a certain object, it had to be accepted as absolute truth where an oath by a different object wouldn't be seen as legally binding.  I am guessing that this is the case here, swearing by the gold of the temple was technically of more value than swearing by the temple itself…something that was logically stupid (the temple can hardly be of less value than something that is part of it) and thus demonstrating the artificiality and meaninglessness of such rules.

 

Just involved in a discussion about oaths elsewhere and will try and see if I can get a copy of that to post here.

[Duncan]

Allow me to quote Dummelow:

"The lax moralists of that time invented ways of evading the obligation of truthfulness by saying that certain forms of swearing were binding and others not. Thus an oath by the Temple or the altar might be broken without sin, but not an oath by the gold of the temple, or by the fit of the altar. Such refinements were a direct encouragement to dishonesty and untruthfulness, and our Lord denounced them with terrible severity, declaring that a man's word or oath, in whatever words expressed, is absolutely binding. The lesson here taught is truthfulness and honesty in general, as well as the sanctity of oaths. Christ's teaching here is no inconsistent with 5:34 where from a higher ideal standpoint He forbids oaths altogether."

 

Hope this helps

 

interesting! Thank you! what do we make though of the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood if Christ is against Oaths?

[Calm]

Christ is not against oaths, but the misuse and abuse of oaths. He is against oaths being used to facilitate deception. He is teaching that an oath should be binding at all times, not sometimes intended not to be kept and excused because of what it was made on....kind of like a kid trying to excuse himself by saying "I didnt really promise that because I was crossing my fingers".

Edited March 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

A yes is a yes and a no is a no, basically.

People coming up with ways to infer that a certain type of agreement is more binding than another type of agreement are just being silly

If you give your word and the word is yes, stick to it. Don't try to weasel your way out of it by suggesting that you didn't really mean yes when you said yes.

[saemo]

Off the top of my head, I am thinking this is another case of man making rules about what can and can't be used as oaths.  If someone made a oath by a certain object, it had to be accepted as absolute truth where an oath by a different object wouldn't be seen as legally binding.  I am guessing that this is the case here, swearing by the gold of the temple was technically of more value than swearing by the temple itself…something that was logically stupid (the temple can hardly be of less value than something that is part of it) and thus demonstrating the artificiality and meaninglessness of such rules.

 

Just involved in a discussion about oaths elsewhere and will try and see if I can get a copy of that to post here.

Matthew 5:33“Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.’34 But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.36 Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.37 Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

 

 

....I understand this as meaning, Jesus is demanding a truthfulness that makes oaths unnecessary.

Edited March 20, 2015 by saemo

[Freedom]

The oath and covenant is an oath between God and man. Jesus is referring to, I think, general oaths people make to convince those he is talking to that he is telling the truth. It is like saying 'I swear on my mother's grave'. It is in the same category as fasting while putting on a big show, or praying in public for all to see. Just be honest and let your honesty stand for itself. 

 

Oaths are important in many applications, such as in business. I make oaths, in a sense, almost daily as I make commitments to various clients and contractors. I seal my oaths with written contracts so that they do not have to rely in court on my spoken oaths.