THE SCIENCE OF EVASION
“Alas for you, Scribes and Pharisees! Blind guides! You who say, `If any one swears by the Temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the Temple is bound by his oath.’ Foolish ones and blind! Which is the greater? The gold? Or the Temple which hallows the gold? You say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift that is on it, he is bound by his oath.’ Blind ones! Which is greater? The gift? Or the altar which hallows the gift? He who swears by the altar, swears by it and all that is on it. He who swears by the Temple, swears by it, and by him who inhabits it. And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits upon it.”
We have already seen that in matters of oaths the Jewish legalists were masters of evasion (Matt. 5:33-37). The general principle of evasion was this. To the Jew an oath was absolutely binding, so long as it was a binding oath. Broadly speaking, a binding oath was an oath which definitely and without equivocation employed the name of God; such an oath must be kept, no matter what the cost. Any other oath might be legitimately broken. The idea was that, if God’s name was actually used, then God was introduced as a partner into the transaction, and to break the oath was not only to break faith with men but to insult God.
The science of evasion had been brought to a high degree. It is most probable that in this passage Jesus is presenting a caricature of Jewish legalistic methods. He is saying, “You have brought evasion to such a fine art that it is possible to regard an oath by the Temple as not binding, while an oath by the gold of the Temple is binding; and an oath by the altar as not binding, while an oath by the gift on the altar is binding.” This is rather to be regarded as a reductio ad absurdum of Jewish methods than as a literal description.
The idea behind the passage is just this. The whole idea of treating oaths in this way, the whole conception of a kind of technique of evasion, is born of a fundamental deceitfulness. The truly religious man will never make a promise with the deliberate intention of evading it; he will never, as he makes it, provide himself with a series of escape routes, which he may use if he finds his promise hard to keep.
We need not with conscious superiority condemn the Pharisaic science of evasion. The time is not yet ended when a man seeks to evade some duty on a technicality or calls in the strict letter of the law to avoid doing what the spirit of the law clearly means he ought to do.
For Jesus the binding principle was twofold. God hears every word we speak and God sees every intention of our hearts. In view of that the fine art of evasion is one to which a Christian should be foreign. The technique of evasion may suit the sharp practice of the world; but never the open honesty of the Christian mind.
Back to: Barclay’s Commentary