NOTES for Jam 5:12

What was an oath for a believing Yahwist, and later for a Jew? First of all, of course, it was a kind of obligation a person took upon himself. In this capacity it essentially did not differ from the obligations we take on today when concluding any agreement. In fact, when concluding an ordinary agreement in antiquity, Jews customarily swore an oath in the presence of witnesses, after which the agreement was considered concluded. So what then: does the apostle, following Jesus, forbid this kind of practice? And thereby encourage irresponsibility, since the issue is obligations without which no relations between people are possible? Surely not. And the matter here, one may think, is not the obligations themselves. The issue is that when concluding the most ordinary agreements, people swore by the sacred name, by the name of God. And thus they involved Him in their affairs without first asking whether He needed those affairs and whether He intended to take part in them. So then: may one never swear by God's name? Even when the issue is not secular matters, which often really do not concern God and to which He is at best indifferent, but religious or even spiritual matters, where one not only may count on His support but directly needs it, otherwise nothing will come of it? Apparently yes. For the issue is not only what exactly we are occupied with. The issue is that by swearing by God or by the sacred name, which in essence is the same thing, we involve God in our affairs without asking His opinion and consent. And we take upon ourselves a responsibility we are unable to bear. Indeed, an oath by God's name requires unfailing fulfillment; otherwise, if we fail to fulfill what was promised, we become unquestionably guilty not only before the people to whom we swore, but also before God, by whose name we swore. Without any allowance for circumstances. Of course, in practice the Torah also takes into account some attendant circumstances that can, for example, hinder fulfillment of obligations under a concluded contract. But in that case it makes sense to leave God aside, not involving Him in the deal and not taking upon ourselves what we obviously cannot fulfill without Him. Thus our "yes" or "no" should remain as unambiguous and binding as lies within human power. And to our human efforts God, if He wants to intervene, will add His own. He does not need our oaths for that.