“Honestly, I’m telling you the truth.”
“I swear to God!” “You have my word on it.”
We’ve all heard these expressions. We’ve probably used them ourselves. They’re ways of adding weight to what we’re saying, hoping to convince someone that we’re really sincere or trustworthy.
But why should our words need that extra reinforcement? Shouldn’t they be trustworthy without it?
It’s a question worth considering as we arrive at the fourth of Jesus’ six “You have heard it said…but I say to you” teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. As we’ve discovered in the previous three, Jesus likely had something more in mind than simply improving people’s religious behavior.
What the Torah Said
Jesus began: “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all.” (Matthew 5:33–34)
Jesus was drawing together several Torah teachings (Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21–23). The instructions were straightforward: Don’t swear falsely by God’s name. If you make a vow, fulfill it. Don’t break your word.
Two Hebrew words help us understand the practice. Neder referred to a vow, usually a promise made to God. Shevu’ahreferred to an oath, often used to affirm the truth of a statement or establish a binding commitment.
We’ve probably all heard a vow resembling, “God, if you’ll just get me through this situation, I promise I’ll…”. Oaths were also common between people. Invoking God’s name added weight to a promise or claim.
Interestingly, the psalmist expressed the practice positively: “I have taken an oath and confirmed it, that I will follow your righteous laws.” (Psalm 119:106)
In a 2022 blog post, I explored the Hebrew word translated as confirmed, which carries the idea of establishing or making something stand. The psalmist wasn’t looking for a way around his commitment. He was determined to live by it.
The heart of the Torah instruction was simple: Say what you mean and do what you say.
So why did Jesus challenge the practice?
When Keeping Your Word Became Complicated
By Jesus’ day, oath-taking had become considerably more complicated.
Because Jewish people treated God’s name with great reverence, many avoided pronouncing the divine name. Instead, they might swear by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or other things closely associated with God. We might call these God-adjacent.
Distinctions developed regarding which oaths were binding and which were not. Jesus later criticized religious leaders who distinguished between swearing by the temple and swearing by the gold in the temple, or by the altar and the gift on the altar (Matthew 23:16–22).
Apparently, some oaths counted more than others.
Think about what had happened. A teaching intended to encourage truthfulness had become a system for determining which promises absolutely had to be kept. Instead of asking, “Is my word trustworthy?” people could debate, “Was the particular oath I made technically binding?”
Jesus wasn’t interested in improving the system. He challenged the thinking behind it.
But I Say to You…
Jesus continued by telling his listeners not to swear by heaven, God’s throne; by earth, his footstool; or by Jerusalem, the city of the great King. He even included swearing by one’s own head, pointing out that we cannot make a single hair white or black (Don’t I know that!).
His point? Everything belongs to God. No clever wording creates a loophole.
Then Jesus offered a remarkably simple alternative: “All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:37)
Jesus was describing a way of living in which our ordinary words could be trusted without special reinforcement.
But I wonder if there’s more going on here than simply being honest.
When Words Become Leverage
Dallas Willard, in The Divine Conspiracy, offered an insightful perspective on this passage. He suggested that invoking something greater than ourselves, especially God, can become a way of making our words seem more significant or authoritative.
The intent isn’t necessarily to communicate truth. It can be to persuade others to accept our position or do what we want. Then…
Our words can become instruments of manipulation.
Consider an expression familiar in Christian circles: “God told me…”. I certainly believe God guides people. We can develop convictions through prayer, Scripture, wise counsel, and attentiveness to the Spirit.
But consider the difference between these two statements: “I believe God may be leading me in this direction” and “God told me this is what we need to do.” The first invites conversation, discernment, and even disagreement.
The second can effectively end the conversation. After all, who wants to argue with God? When we invoke God’s authority to strengthen our position, disagreeing with us can begin to feel like disagreeing with God.
We’ve played the God card.
Suddenly, we’re not merely sharing a conviction. We’re using God’s authority to give our position an advantage it might not otherwise have. Are we inviting someone to consider what we’re saying? Or are we making it difficult for them to disagree?
Truthfulness Is Not Always Trustworthiness
Jesus concluded by saying that anything beyond a simple yes or no comes from tou ponērou, an expression that can mean “evil” or “the evil one.”
That language may remind us of the serpent in Genesis 3. The serpent used words to question and distort what God had said, influencing how the woman understood God and the choice before her.
Manipulation often works that way. And it doesn’t always require an outright lie. We can selectively present truthful statements, exaggerate our certainty, or invoke our authority to discourage disagreement. We can tell the truth and still use it to manipulate someone.
Throughout the six “you have heard it said…” examples, Jesus was describing a greater righteousness – a way of doing right by God and others that went beyond merely satisfying the requirements of the Torah. He had already challenged his listeners to consider how their anger, contempt, desires, and decisions affected others.
Now he was asking them to consider what their words were doing to people.
Truth Without Leverage
We tend to read Matthew 5:33–37 as a teaching about honesty and keeping our promises. Certainly, those things matter.
But maybe Jesus was asking something more: Why do I need to add something to my words in order to make you believe me – or do what I want?
Jesus was describing life in God’s kingdom, where relationships are shaped by truthfulness, trust, and genuine concern for others’ dignity. In that kingdom, my words aren’t tools for getting my way. They’re part of how I love and honor the person listening.
The opposite of manipulation isn’t merely telling the truth. It is telling the truth without using it as leverage.
