Cross My Heart

28JUL2024@GNBC

📷

INTRODUCTION

One of the greatest animated movies was released in 2009. It is great because it is not your typical children's movie that focuses on just one or two basic plots driven by a shallow range of emotions. This movie elicits a wide range of emotions.

The movie in question opens up with someone that deals with what a good amount of us in this congregation deal with - introverted-ness. Then, as often happens, that introvert is drawn to an extrovert and bonds of friendship quickly develop. As the years go by, the friendship between this boy and girl turns into something romantic, and the movie covers this so well that in a matter of minutes, you have fallen in love with the couple yourself.

So well put together is this sequence in the movie, that if you watch it as an adult, you empathize with the couple's futile attempts at saving money for a vacation, the need to put some hopes and dreams and pursuits on the back burner for more pressing needs, their sadness as they try unsuccessfully to have children, and ultimately the heartbreak of a spouse that has fallen ill and passed away. By the time that happens in the movie, you feel as though you have journeyed with this couple throughout their lives and this last scene may even bring a tear to your eye.

And as the story progresses, mixed in with this emotional plot are sequences of adventure, humor, mystery and suspense. The aspects of friendship, loyalty, and staying true to your word are present all throughout the story in this amazing Pixar movie with a two-letter title, Up.

So what does this have to do with the Sermon on the Mount? Well, as mentioned before, the movie opens up on a young, introverted boy named Carl. Carl is the main character in the movie, but Carl only says one word in the first 13 minutes of the movie. In fact, up until that point, the dialogue is dominated by his extroverted friend, Ellie. Carl only communicates in gasps and facial expressions at the beginning of the movie.

In one scene, a young Ellie pulls out a scrapbook that she has started to document her future adventures, but before she shows it to Carl, she makes him promise to not tell anyone about it. Carl quickly nods his head in agreement, but unsatisfied with that response, Ellie demands, "Cross your heart. Do it!" To which Carl, silently and with a look of surprise at the aggressive tone that Ellie has, crosses his heart with his fingers and holds up his hand in a silent oath.

Ellie then shows Carl her "Adventure Book" and in it, the place she most desires to explore, Paradise Falls. She gets this idea that Carl should take her in a blimp there when they grow up, and again, forces him to swear to it. For the second time in barely a minute, Carl is swearing another oath as he silently crosses his heart and holds up his hand.

Cross My Heart, Hope to Die

The phrase, cross my heart and hope to die, is a phrase most common among children when they are trying give validity to their argument or trying to show how honest they are being. This was not always just considered a child's phrase, it was often used by adults. The phrase "cross my heart" seems to have originated in the United States sometime in the mid 1800's, with the first recording of it being used in play produced in 1857.

It is believed that those of the Christian faith would, even before the origin of the phrase, as a sign of their complete honesty, would make a sign of the cross over their hearts or hold crossed hands to their heart as they took an oath.

It seems that it was not until the late 1800's that the phrase "hope to die" was added. This would be a reference that the oath giver would rather die than to break his promise.

But what does this phrase teach children? "Cross my heart, hope to die. Stick a needle in my eye," has subtly conditioned us that there is wiggle room in the area of honesty, that honesty exists on a sliding scale.

Today, as we continue our study on the Sermon on the Mount, we find ourselves set up to finish chapter 5 or possibly the week after VBS! By the end of next week, we will have spent about 40 weeks covering the life of Christ so far, with about 22 of those weeks having been a studies over the Sermon on the Mount.

This morning we get into something that seems like it should go without saying. Something that on the scale of things like hatred, murder, lust, adultery, marriage, and divorce just seems maybe not so consequential. And yet, as Jesus deals with this issue and as we clear up common misconceptions that have risen from this passage,

We find our text today in Matthew 5:33-37

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: 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. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The issue that we find being dealt with is the issue of oaths and honesty. To clarify something right off the bat, when we use the word "swear" throughout this study, it is not the action of swearing at someone or cussing, or using what we know as swear words. The word swear here in this passage and for the purposes of the study this morning means simply to take an oath or make a solemn promise.

You might think that in the grand scheme of things, that this issue of our speech and our honesty toward others doesn't merit the same kind of space as what we have already seen, or maybe it seems that it should go without saying, but here, what Jesus is bringing to our attention, the matter of our speech, and as we will see in just a moment, even the matter of our idle speech, is something that is very important to him.

The Gospel concerns itself not only with large things such as murder and adultery, but with seemingly small things such as our speech as well. In fact, as D. Marin Lloyd-Jones puts it, "[It concerns itself] with smallest details of our lives." The reason that this is true is that because everything, as we have already seen previously and we continue to make a point of, hangs on the two greatest commandments. What are they? Love God, Love Others. And our speech hangs on these two as well.

This whole section of the Sermon on the Mount is about Jesus exposing the sham religion of the Pharisees and their false representation of Mosaic Law as he contrasts it to the true interpretation of it. Just like he has begun for the last three issues, Jesus begins this paragraph in the same manner - "You have heard that it has been said by them of old time..."

"You have heard..." There were three languages that were prominent among the Jews in Jesus' day. The common tongue, the language of the streets, if you will was Aramaic. This had been true since the conquering of Judah by the Babylonians. Many of the Jews in Jesus' day no longer spoke or fully understood Hebrew. Aramaic is considered to be the mother tongue of the people in Judea and Galilee in the time surrounding the first century.

Greek also had a heavy influence as Alexander the great had conquered the region roughly 300 years before the birth of Christ and there had been many Greek settlements that had been established there. The descendants of the Jews that did not return to their homeland when Cirrus the Great gave that edict, eventually were conquered by the Greeks also and would have mainly spoken the Greek language.

Though this language was commonly heard in the regions of Galilee and Judea, it was predominantly the language of politics and trade and was spoken by those outside this region, in the areas surrounding the Mediterranean.

Hebrew, on the other hand, was not spoken by many besides the Jewish religious scholars. For this reason, the Old Testament was translated into Greek. It is known as the Septuagint. This was done at the request of Ptolemy II (a Greek ruler of Egypt) about 250 years before Christ.

So, the Pharisees, who would have been well versed in the Hebrew and Greek, would read the Old Testament, whether the original Hebrew or the Greek translation, and would then expound upon it in Aramaic so that all could understand it. The thing is, as we have already seen in the last three examples Jesus has given in this chapter, they left a lot out or completely twisted things in their teachings.

This is why Jesus starts off his examples with, "You have heard that it has been said of old..." He is making a point that what they have been taught is either false or incomplete, and he does that again here.

So what had been said of old time?

Well, in this case, "Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord all thy oaths."

The first word we need to take a close look at is the word forswear. This literally means to perjure one's self. Don't commit perjury. The word perjury means to willingly tell a lie in court after having sworn to tell the truth. But you know what is odd? There is no place in the Old Testament that says those words. This had been a perversion of the Pharisees of other Old Testament texts.

Their perversion has its roots in the third commandment - thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain (to falsely swear an oath using God's name would be taking or bearing His name in vain); and Leviticus 19:12 that says "Ye shall not swear falsely by my name, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God"; and Deuteronomy 6:13 that says "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name." They had taken these passages and rendered this teaching - Thou shalt not forswear (to commit perjury) thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord all they oaths.

Looking at that you might say, "What is wrong with that? That sounds like a good teaching!" But the problem is seen when we analyze the word "forswear," to commit perjury. This brings to light a false teaching, and as we study, we will see a false lifestyle that was pervasive in Jewish culture.

The intent of the Mosaic law was to put a halt upon man's proneness to lie. We need to look at the intent behind the laws given about oath taking, lying, bearing false witness, and so forth. Remember, it is not just the letter of the law that is important, it is the spirit of the law that is the most important part of the law.

We know that dishonesty flies in the face of a holy God because he is truth, and has stated throughout his word that he abhors a lying tongue. Laws dealing with lying and the swearing of oaths and keeping of one's word are intended to curb the natural inclination of man to lie.

It was also the intent of the Mosaic law to restrict oath-taking to serious and important matters. Scholars of Jewish history have made it clear that the practice of the day was to flippantly swear or take oaths about anything.

"Hey, I am having a get together at my house tomorrow, you coming?" "Of course! I swear I'll be there. Cross my heart..."

But not only that, they were swearing oaths on something much higher than their own life. They had taken to flippantly swearing oaths in God's name about these most trivial things. Let me put it in words for you... "I swear to God, I am so hungry right now."

See what I mean? I bristle, and some of you do to, when you hear the phrase "I swear to God." This is the right response when we hear it used so flippantly, and it often is today.

It is not a modern problem, it is a problem that was pervasive with the Jews in Moses' day, so God had to address it.

When you look at how God commanded certain oaths to be taken, you understand that oaths were a very solemn and serious matter. By enacting laws regarding oath taking (something that had seeped into mundane conversation), God reminds the people of Israel that everything is under His watchful eye, and that every part of their life, including their mundane speech was to be lived to God's honor and glory.

As we study this, we must understand that even our idle speech is also to be honorable to the Lord. God commands us to be holy as he is holy.

This had been lost on the Scribes and Pharisees, and Jesus aimed to correct that. The trouble with the view of the Pharisees is that their attitude was legalistic. As long as they could keep every letter of the law, they were happy. They applied this attitude toward murder, adultery, divorce, and now we see it in the matter of honest speech. They turned their teaching into a legal phrase, and as long as they had not perjured themselves in court and had kept their promises to God, they felt that they were ok.

To commit perjury was a very grave thing in the site of the Scribes and Pharisees, but you could, however, make all other kinds of oaths and back out of them. They even had a system for categorizing oaths. They viewed some oaths as binding and some as not.

The common practice for taking oaths was that one might swear by heaven, by Jerusalem, by temple... in fact, by almost anything and for almost anything, thus cheapening oath-taking in general. By cheapening oath-taking, then simply believing someone at his word was impossible.

The scribes, apparently, created a couple of loopholes: 1) speech not under oath and 2) oaths not made to the Lord. You must be honest and keep your word to the Lord, but this same commitment does not necessarily apply to our human relationships. One commentator put it this way, “some 1st century rabbis emphasized only the importance of speaking truth to God and downplayed the importance of absolute honesty in all communication. They thought that they had a special obligation to keep promises made to God specifically but could break promises made to others when it was convenient.”

The Pharisees would say that if you took an oath by the temple, that was non-binding; but if you took an oath by the gold of the temple, then it was binding. If you took an oath by the altar you need not keep it; but if you took an oath by the gift that was on the altar then it was absolutely binding.

Jesus addresses this nonsense more in Matthew 23:16-22 as he speaks to the Pharisees and Scribes concerning oaths.

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? 20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

Jesus puts in equal standing the fact that any oath is sacred and solemn, regardless of what you swear by.

It reminds me of another great movie. The Princess Bride is probably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, movie of all time. If your feelings are different than this, you need to get right with God...

But in that movie, there is a character, a masked man, that is chasing after the princess that has been captured by three men. One of these three men is a giant, and he is able to scale the face of a cliff while carrying the other two men and the kidnapped princess.

This masked man also climbs the face of the cliff as he attempts to overtake the kidnappers. When the leader realizes that this man may catch up, he leaves the other of his men to fight the masked climber when he reaches the top, then he runs on with the giant and the princess.

The man left behind is a Spaniard named Inigo, the masked man giving chase is Westley, but you don't know that at this point in the movie. Sorry for the giant spoiler.

Anyway, Westley is nearing the top, but Inigo is getting impatient. So he calls down to Westley and offers his help. "Now granted," he explains, "I am going to kill you once you reach the top."

To which Westley replies, "That does put a damper on our relationship. You'll just have to wait until I get there to fight me."

Now, this is where the thing gets interesting. The Inigo, peaks over the top and says, "Is there anything I can say to make you trust me?"

Westley - "No, I don't think so."

Inigo says - "I could give you my word as a Spaniard?"

To which Westley responds, "No good, I have known too many Spaniards." Now, what is he implying there? That Spaniards do not keep their word, they don't keep their promises.

So Inigo looks at Westley and says, "I swear by the sword of my father, Domingo Montoya, you will reach the top alive."

At this point, Westley agrees to be helped by the man planning on killing him.

Now, here's the question - What changed to make Westley believe Inigo? Did Inigo change? No, only his words, only his oath. Inigo's word as a Spaniard was not considered to be binding, but swearing by your dead father's sword, that seemed binding. And if you think about that for a minute, I hope you realize how ridiculous it is, and this is the same practice going on among the Jews in Jesus' day. But not only that, it was an encouraged practice by the leadership, to make oaths that were purposefully non-binding so that you could get out of it if it became too much of an inconvenience.

But I Say Unto You

This is why Jesus continues in Matthew 5:34-36 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.

The supreme "Legislator Himself", as Martin Lloyd-Jones calls Jesus, now speaks as the Lawgiver once again. Standing among man as a man, but speaking with the authority of the whole Godhead, Jesus in effect says, "I, who gave the laws in the beginning concerning oaths and honesty, say this: Don't swear at all. Not by heaven, not by the earth, not by Jerusalem, and not by your own head. Just let your 'yes' be yes and your 'no' be no."

To take this literally without considering the Scripture as a whole or the context in which it was spoken would cause the same kind of problems that taking Verses 29-30 literally would have. These are of course the verses dealing with the cutting off of the right hand and the plucking out of the right eye if they cause you to sin.

There are Christians, individually and whole denominations, that teach this literally. Their interpretation is one that says Christians should never swear an oath under any circumstance. This belief is why oaths administered by the government, whether that be the swearing in of a witness at court or the swearing in of military personnel have an option - "Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" and "I (state your name), do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America..."

This is also seen on affidavits that are signed, where an individual that holds to these beliefs can sign his or her name by either swearing that the information is true or affirming that the information is true.

Reducing this passage thus just brings us into a legalistic understanding, and one that does not regard the rest of Scripture.

There are several reasons to not take this passage literally, the first being that if it is a sin to swear an oath, that would make God a sinner, because God made covenants, these were solemn oaths, with people throughout Scripture. These sworn pacts are seen between God and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Israelites as a whole, David, Solomon, and others. Jesus made a covenant with the church during the last supper.

Then, you cannot read the Bible without seeing that on certain special occasions, men like Abraham, Jacob, Jonathan, and David swore oaths to each other in very serious manners.

In fact, we see that even Jesus, who remained silent for the majority of his trial by the high priest after his arrest only spoke when the high priest said, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."

That phrase "I adjure thee" means to extract an oath. Basically it was the high priest commanding Jesus to swear to them whether or not he was the Christ, the Son of God. It is then, and only then, that Jesus answers them, after an oath has been extracted of him.

So the conclusion that we can come to, based upon Scripture, is that oath-taking is permissible but should be restricted to certain occasions that would add authority and severity where nothing else could.

Taking the verses we have seen as a whole, we can understand God's desire to not profane his name. That means to not cheapen or sully his name. Using it as a cuss word or as a cheap oath does not reverence the name or the person of God.

But we also see that swearing, whether it be by heaven, by earth, by the creatures therein, on your life, on your momma, or by the sword of your father should not be done lightly and indiscriminately. In fact, for solemn vows we read in Deuteronomy 6:13 that we are actually supposed to swear by His name. All other things are under God, from the heavens to our own heads, to the temple.

Jesus forbids the swearing of oaths in ordinary conversation. Jesus simply calls for honest speech always, in all communication. "Let your 'yes' be 'yes', and your 'no' be n-'no.' Anything other than that comes from evil."

How different would political races be if we could count on the politicians to keep their word. How different would political races be if exaggerations of the truth were not a thing. How different would marriages be if husbands and wives committed to vows, the oaths, that were spoken to each other.

Those are big things. Big situations. And we all nod our heads in agreement, but how terrible it is when we don't bat an eye while telling a "little white lie." We don't bat an eye when we tell our kids something, promise our spouse something that we never intend to do. It doesn't bother us at all to tell someone, "Yeah, I'll help you with whatever," when we are already making plans to get out of it.

It is a terrible thing when we say things like, "Yup, I will help with this ministry," and then back out because we simply don't like it.

Well, shucks, that's not the way most of us were raised and not the way most of us probably raise our children. How many of us have either been told by a parent or as a parent told our kid, "You started this, you're going to finish it. You made a commitment and you're going to honor it"? Anybody?

We would never dream of telling a lie on the witness stand and perjure ourselves in the process, but backing out of something I agreed to do, no big deal.

Listen, let's bring it into the church setting a little more. I believe that one of the biggest problems in churches in the United States today is lack of commitment. Lack of commitment to attend faithfully, lack of commitment to participate in ministry, lack of commitment to personal study of the word...

On Wednesday, there was homework assigned for our study Don't Give the Enemy a Seat at Your Table. I am not going to ask today, but I wonder how many people are reading the chapters, doing the study work, and spending time on answering the questions? I won't ask about it today, but I will ask about it on Wednesday, like I will every Wednesday.

Listen. About a month and a half ago, I was presented with an opportunity for a ministry that we could get involved in. It sounded amazing, but when I read the requirements, I immediately realized we could not do it. At least not yet. It would require a certain number of people to be involved and committed, and though getting the number of people needed would maybe not be that difficult, I would question whether we would retain the necessary amount of volunteers for long enough to be able to sustain this outreach opportunity.

And I know that it is difficult sometimes to say no. We like to say "yes." We like to please others and give a good impression. I had never seen that so much in a collective group of people as I have here in Iowa. "Iowa nice" is definitely a thing. That is why when Tahsha and I approach people about a ministry, we try to make it as clear as possible, "If you don't want to do it or your heart is not in it, please tell us 'no' now." Why? Because as a pastor, I would rather not have a ministry program than have one that is occupied by bitter people who just don't want to be there, but they said "yes" because they didn't want to sound rude.

You may be thinking that this whole commitment thing sounds like a bit much, but I am sure you expect me to be committed to this church. And you should expect me to be committed to this church! But not because I am a pastor here, but because I am a member. I came and joined willingly. I prayed about it, when I felt God was leading me here, I came. And that is the same level of commitment I expect and each of you should expect out of every other member.

Whatever ministry you are in, I hope you have prayed about it. Whatever ministry you hope to join, I hope you pray about it. I hope you follow the Lord's leading. When you quit a ministry, I hope that it is because God lead you out of it and not simply because "I don't like it" or "it's hard."

Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

Let's Pray.

Invitation

Jesus' commitment to us will never fail.

Are you wavering in your commitments?

Life Groups

Was there anything that stood out to you? Any comments or questions.

How did the Pharisees' interpretation of the Mosaic Law on oaths differ from its intended purpose?

What is the importance of the intent behind laws on oath-taking, lying, and bearing false witness?

What does Jesus' teaching on oaths in Matthew 5:34-36 emphasize about the nature of our speech?

Considering all we have learned from the sermon on the mount so far, why would there be a need for honesty in even our most ordinary conversations?

Salt/light; our speech should reflect the character of God

How does the lack of commitment in churches, as discussed in the sermon, relate to the broader theme of honesty and commitment?

How can lack of commitment in a church hurt the mission of the church?

Is it easier to back out of church/ministry related commitments or work related commitments? What about commitments to God?

Now, as we consider the issue of oaths we need to provide a clarifying

word. Some Christians, including Anabaptists and Quakers, take these

words of Jesus in an absolute sense and forbid any and all oaths. I

greatly respect their desire to obey God’s word, but I believe this is an

over-reading of what our Lord meant. Quarles handles this beautifully

when he writes,

“It does not seem that Jesus intended to prohibit all oaths in all

circumstances. First, the oath formulas that Jesus’ condemned were

formulas used in ordinary speech, not the formula employed in

court. Second, Jesus Himself testified under oath in Matt. 26:63

64…[Christ’s] example serves as the best commentary on His

teaching….Third, even apart from legal settings Jesus (“truly, truly

I say to you”) and Paul often used special formulas to emphasize the

truthfulness of a statement (Rom. 1:9; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:31; Gal. 7

1:20; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5; 1 Tim. 2:7)….Furthermore not all oath

taking implies one’s dishonesty when not under oath since in very

important matters even God may swear an oath (Gen. 9:9-11; Ps

16:10 [cp. Acts 2:27-31]; Ezek. 33:11; Gen 22:17 [cp. Heb. 6:13

18]) even though “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18).

In summary Jesus prohibited the use of misleading oaths, but he

did not intend to prohibit all use of oaths. Oaths in court, marital

vows, oaths of office, and the use of other oaths on solemn occasions

to emphasize one’s truthfulness comport both with biblical teaching

and Christian practice (143-144).”