Keep it Simple
DMLJ: As we have seen, this whole section of the Sermon on the Mount is framed by our Lord to expose the sham and falseness of the Pharisees’ and scribes’ representation of the Mosaic law, and to contrast it with His own positive exposition.
Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol.2 - The Sermon on the Mount, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev
Matthew 5: 33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Jesus begins with what His audience has heard said. Both Lloyd-Jones and Metropolitan Hilarion note that this precise teaching is not to be found in the Mosaic law, although it is indirectly dependent on various Old Testament statements: do not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; you shall not swear by God’s name falsely, nor profane the name of God.
DMLJ: The Pharisees and scribes were familiar with those Scriptures and out of them they had extracted this teaching.
The purpose here, by Jesus, was to correct this false understanding, to get at the true intent of the Mosaic law. To begin, just what was the purpose of the related statements in the Old Testament?
DMLJ: The answer is, undoubtably, that its main intent was to place a bridle upon man’s proneness, as the result of sin and the fall, to lying.
Men could not rely on one another’s statements. This was one of the issues Moses was dealing with. Further, the purpose of the Mosaic law was to restrict oath-taking to serious issues; oaths were being taken for the most trivial of matters.
For the Pharisees, the preeminent issue was that of perjury. This is what they boiled all of this teaching down to. One could make any number of oaths on any manner of issues, as long as one did not commit perjury. It was, as we have seen, a very legalistic system, unconcerned about the foundation or the true purpose of the commandments – a change of heart.
Further, they concluded that some oaths were binding while other were not. This hypocrisy was called out by Jesus:
Matthew 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?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Returning to the Sermon:
Matthew 5: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Lloyd-Jones addresses those who have taken this passage to mean do not swear under any circumstance. On the surface, this seems to be what is taught. It is a view, according to him, that is a similar view of the Pharisees – a legalistic view. But in the whole of Scripture and in the tradition of the Church, this isn’t so cut and dry.
Metropolitan Hilarion notes that there were varying interpretations in the Patristic tradition: swearing an oath was inadvisable; swearing an oath was forbidden; swearing an oath was only forbidden when it involved the specific objects mentioned by Jesus.
Some clarity can be offered by looking to the Old Testament. God laid down injunctions on when oaths should be taken: regarding when Abraham sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac; when Jacob extracted an oath from Joseph; when Joseph did from his brothers; and when Jonathan asked an oath from David.
MHA: The righteous people of the Old Testament used oaths or demanded oaths from others. … The breaking of an oath was regarded as a serious sin that God would punish severely.
Then there is this example from Jesus:
Matthew 26: 62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus does not rebuke the high priest for this command “by the living God.” Instead:
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
The apostle Paul gives similar testimony:
Romans 9: 1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost
2 Corinthians 1: 23 Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.
There is something of nuance here, not a black and white legalistic teaching. Something of this can be seen in Christian traditions even today: when taking holy orders, in receiving baptism, when one gets married, at the ordination of a priest or bishop.
This is the negative side of what Jesus is teaching. So, what of the positive?
Matthew 5: 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
In ordinary conversation, a yes or a no is sufficient. No oaths, no swearing by taking the Lord’s name in vain, no taking an oath to a creature. Further, we must not lie or perjure ourselves.
MHA: In this case, the saying ought to be understood as a reminder of one’s responsibility for one’s own words.
Truth is from divine origin, lies are from the devil.
John 8: 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Even here, the prohibition of lying is understood in different ways in Christian tradition. Basil the Great allows no exceptions; others find that lying is permissible in certain circumstances. Several such situations illustrating the exceptions are found in the Old Testament.
Abraham passes off Sarah as his sister; Jacob lies to acquire his father’s blessing. According to Metropolitan Hilarion, the Bible gives no moral evaluation in these cases. In other cases, the Scriptures justify the actions of people who use lying and cunning to save lives: the midwives in Egypt saving the Hebrew children by deceiving Pharoah; for this, they received the blessing of God. Rahab the harlot concealed the two spies from the messengers of the king of Jericho; her deed is cited as an example of faith and virtue.
Conclusion
MHA: The words from the Sermon on the Mount that we have examined cannot be understood as an unqualified prohibition of lying under all circumstances.
Instead, Jesus points to the main principle: lying is impermissible as an approach to life.
Epilogue
When I am working through a book and writing on it, I try to present what is being taught by the authors, and try to limit my interpretations or note when I am speaking in my voice (although this division is not possible in an absolute sense, as even, at minimum, I am selective about what I include from the author’s work).
With that said, the following is all me: Would I lie to protect an innocent loved one from harm? When considering all that Jesus taught, all that is in Scripture, and not just one or two things in isolation, the answer to this question, at least for me, is obvious.
Call me a midwife in Egypt…
"Would I lie to protect an innocent loved one from harm? When considering all that Jesus taught, all that is in Scripture, and not just one or two things in isolation, the answer to this question, at least for me, is obvious."
I agree. I am not sure which is the correct Scriptural interpretation on the matter, but I know in my heart that I would lie to a killer who wanted to know the location of my loved ones without an ounce of remorse.
In the early days of my libertarian journey, I began thinking of all political questions in terms of black and white. The NAP seemed to slice through the gray areas of politics like a hot knife through butter. But the more my understanding of liberty matured, the more the gray has crept back in. All of the core concepts of the NAP (property, aggression, use, consent, threat, nuisance, imminent, restitution, proportionate, etc.) need some real-world definition, and they may each be defined somewhat differently by whichever judge, community, association, or culture is applying the principle. Also, given that the NAP writ large leads to private sovereign political entities, the various law codes voluntarily entered into within these may have a large degree of variety from one to the next. In other words, liberty looks different to different people.
Also this black and white way of thinking or aesthetic, I've come to find out, is associated with the rationalist, Enlightenment radicalism, Freemasonry and Illuminatism and other would-be absolutisms which hold that every minute aspect of human life should be understood, defined, catalogued, categorized, demystified, disenchanted, and rigorously governed. I saw the new Dune movie, and the Nietzschian absolutist Harkonnen aesthetic throughout is almost totally black and white. Even the fireworks in the Harkonnen home-world are black explosions framed by a white sky. It was so explicit that during a few scenes I almost wondered if the film had been damaged and lost its color. Villeneuve's first Dune movie likely had the same aesthetic but I don't remember. Either way, it felt appropriate. It's the totalitarian mindset: you're either with us or you're against us.
This also coincides with Pageau's insight that evil, especially aristocratic evil, is obsessed with knowing, defining, and counting everything. This is why vampires in mythology have counting compulsions, why the fall of Adam and Eve was the result of an inappropriate desire for knowledge, and why King David was punished by God for being seduced by Satan to conduct a census of his military and economic potential. Some things need to be left in the hands of God, but to the totalitarian there is no power or authority above the institutions of man.
Pageau also talks about how power (potestas) is associated with the book and rigidity, while authority (auctoritas) is associated with the hand of address and flexibility. The law (book) is defined, black and white, but the leader (authority) who applies the law has latitude to find justice in the real-world gray.
In good Christianity and in good liberty, there needs to be latitude for authority to navigate the gray. One of the major problems with the modern world, and with the ancient Pharisees is/was the desire to replace authority with power, to make rigid what should have flexibility, to number and categorize everything instead of leaving some things up to God, and to, with an undue confidence in our ability, stamp out the gray.
Of course this is not an endorsement of moral relativity, nominalism, or antinomianism, etc. Black and white should exist and in fact do. Murder is wrong, Rape is wrong. Theft is wrong. Homosexuality is an abomination before God. Worshiping false idols is a sin against God. But on the boundary of all of these there exists also the gray and the need for authority to find justice.
So yes, I believe at times it is right to lie.
I think your conclusion is correct. If someone uses deception to protect the innocent or righteous, then it is acceptable. If someone lies in order to attack someone else or to unjustly receive monetary or societal gain, then it is unacceptable.
I have to admit after reading this passage multiple times, I didn't understand how directly it was addressing lying versus telling the truth. I also did not know the connection back to taking the Lord's name in vain. But after reading this article, it seems very obvious.
Thinking back to when I was a kid, sometimes a kid would brag about something and follow that up with phrases like "I swear on my mother's life" or "let God strike me dead if I'm lying" when other's did not believe them. Usually the perpetrator was telling a tall tale about something they had accomplished or about an outlandish story in general. They were trying to convince the other kids that they were telling the truth when it was something that was hard to believe. It adds a level of seriousness to the claim or commitment to the story. It is an attempt to show that the story teller really believes what they are saying and would risk some kind of family scorn or divine punishment if they are lying. Even as kids, we usually knew not to trust someone who used this kind of tactic. Sometimes adults aren't as insightful. No wonder Jesus has such a warm spot in his heart for children.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/