Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

weapon to strike back at the rich, and would “localize” the practice that James
condemns too much. Nor is it likely that James simply denounces “the levity
with which the name of God tended to be uttered when men’s minds were
disordered by impatience and (lack of) self-control,” merely decries the
“thoughtless mention of his name,” or only objects to “indiscriminate oaths”
(See Tasker, 124-125, with reference to Ecclus. 23:9-10). This also narrows
the scope of the text down too much. He rather seems to have a generally
prevailing habit in mind that was culturally ingrained and proved to be a
structural evil. This habit distinguished between binding and non-binding
oaths, which, of course, is a contradiction terms (Keddie, 172). Since only the
oath taker knew the difference in individual instances the world of transactions
basically fell apart by the seams. Distrust and disruption gained the day.
The parallel between James and Matthew is hard to miss. In Matthew’s
Gospel Jesus loathes the same type of oaths that James opposes. An unsuspecting
person would enter into an agreement on the basis, e.g., of an oath
sworn by the temple, or by the altar, or by heaven. However, eventually he
would find out that this agreement would not be honored because the oath
was not sworn by the gold of the temple, by the offering upon the altar, or by
the God of heaven (Mt. 23:16-22). Throughout his ministry Jesus strongly
condemns this sort of incredulous behavior (Mt. 5:33-37), which must have
had many a heartbreaking and disastrous consequence. One can only imagine
how many important decisions were made in anticipation of the fulfillment of
promises, but subsequently backfired because the rug was pulled away from
underneath agreements. It is tantamount to crossing one’s fingers behind
one’s back with the full intention not to make good on one’s promises. This
could be called childish, if it were not so wicked. In condemning such behavior,
James simply follows in the footsteps of his Savior and Lord.
Of course, neither Jesus, nor James declared all oaths sinful by definition.
There are too many examples in Scripture, in which their use proves to
be quite acceptable (Ex. 13:5; 22:10-11; Num. 14:16; Deut. 6:13; 1 Ki.
8:31ff; Ps. 89:35; Is. 65:16; Jer. 12:16), although the OT warns against taking
oaths too lightly (Jer. 5:2). After all, the avowed objective of an oath is the
statement of truth as “the end of strife” (Heb. 6:17) (Manton, 437). This is
also why, at least in a court setting, a threatening penalty upon perjury always
accompanies oath taking. No, both Jesus and James (only) opposed the misuse
and abuse of the oath (Lev. 19:12; see also Ex. 20:7; Num. 30:3), especially,
I would imagine, at occasions where there would be no official recourse
for lack of contract law or otherwise.
Frankly, the oaths that James condemns in the footsteps of Jesus (Mt.
5:33-37; 23:16-22) are atrocious. First, “the one who volunteers an oath is es-
798