MacArthur on oath-making
John MacArthur, "God provided for proper oath-giving in His name as an accommodation to sinful human nature, which is so prone to deceit and lying. Without any prohibition, Hebrews 6:16 affirms the place of proper oaths. He knows that men's inclination to lie causes them to distrust each other, and in serious situations an oath is permissible to give greater motivation to tell the truth or to keep a pledge. To make the wedding vow; with God as a witness, to love and cherish our mates for as long as we both live is to recognize and make a firm commitment to honor the special sanctity that God places on marriage. The psalmist, in describing the kind of person who may enter God's holy presence, makes clear that one mandatory requirement is that such a person be one who "swears to his own hurt, and does not change" (Ps. 15:1, 4). His word is more important than his welfare. Keeping oaths made to God is the mark of a true worshiper. To put it another way, true sons of the kingdom hate lies (Ps. 119:29, 163; 120:2).
Obviously an oath, no matter how strong the words used, is only as reliable as the one who makes it. As Peter sat in the courtyard outside the Sanhedrin while Jesus was being tried, a servant-girl said, "You too were with Jesus the Galilean"—to which Peter replied, "I do not know what you are talking about" When another servant-girl made a similar statement a short while later, Peter "denied it with an oath." Still later, when other bystanders made the same assertion, Peter "began to curse and swear, 'I do not know the man!'" (Matt. 26:69-74). That swearing was not profanity, but an oath given with special vehemence. Peter increased the strength of his oath, but that did not increase the truth of what he said. It was bad enough to have lied; it was even worse to call God as a witness to the lie. In addition to denying His Lord, Peter used God's name in vain. It is small wonder that he "went out and wept bitterly" (v. 75).
Sometimes oaths are made sincerely but foolishly, without considering their seriousness and possible consequences. Such rash oaths were made by Joshua (Josh. 9:15), Jephthah (Judg. 11:30-31), Saul (1 Sam. 14:24), and Herod (Matt. 14:7).
The tradition Jesus mentions in verse 33 seemed to be biblical, but it had several flaws that made it fall short of what the Old Testament actually taught. First, it had a missing ingredient, and second, it had a misplaced emphasis.
The missing ingredient was a proper circumstance for making an oath. Virtually any kind of oath, used for almost any kind of purpose, was acceptable—just as long as it was not false and the person would fulfill it. The missing ingredient of a serious circumstance led to frivolous, meaningless oath-making that completely vitiated the legitimate purpose of oaths. People would declare anything and promise anything with an oath, while having no qualms about providing means by which lying or breaking their word could still he done. Indiscriminate and insincere vows became so commonplace that no one took them seriously. Instead of being a mark of integrity they became a mark of deceit. Instead of prompting confidence they prompted skepticism.
The misplaced emphasis was in limiting the honest oaths to vows to the Lord, to oaths made directly to Him or in His name. The keeping of those oaths was mandatory, whereas the keeping of others they made optional.
The system of oaths between one person and another was like a giant game of King's X. People would swear by heaven, by the earth, by the Temple, by the hairs on their heads, and by any other thing they thought would impress those they wanted to take advantage of. That kind of routine oath-making was usually lie-making; and it was considered by those who practiced it to be perfectly acceptable as long as it was not in the name of the Lord.
The command "You shall not swear falsely by My name" (Lev. 19:12) was conveniently interpreted to mean that swearing falsely by any other name was allowed. The command "If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth" (Num. 30:2) was interpreted as permitting the reneging on oaths made to anyone but God.
Thus, through rabbiric tradition, God's standard of absolute truthfulness was contradicted and lowered to a level that accommodated the sinful, selfish capacities and purposes of the people. They wanted to lie, and they did not want to be hampered by God's absolute standard of truth. Instead of calling on the Lord to help them live up to the divine standard, they reduced that standard to suit their own carnal abilities and interests."
MacArthur commentary on Rev 10.6-7, “
In a solemn act, the angel whom John saw standing on the sea and on the land (v. 2) lifted up his right hand (the little book was in his left hand; v. 2) to heaven (where God dwells)—the standard gesture for taking a solemn vow (cf. Deut. 32:40; Dan. 12:7). To take such a vow is to affirm before God that one is going to speak the truth. That vow indicated that what the angel was about to say was of the utmost importance and truthfulness.
Some suggest that the angel’s act violates the prohibition, given by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:34–35, against taking oaths: “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.” But obviously a perfectly holy being could not do anything contrary to God’s commands. The Bible does not forbid the taking of vows, but rather the evasive swearing of oaths with the intent to deceive (as the Scribes and Pharisees did; cf. Matt. 23:16–22). Scripture records the oaths of such godly people as Abraham (Gen. 21:25–31), Isaac (Gen. 26:26–31), David (1 Sam. 20:12–17), and the apostle Paul (Acts 18:18). Further, the Bible records that God Himself has taken oaths (e.g., Gen. 22:16–18; Luke 1:73; Acts 2:30; Heb. 6:13).” [John F. MacArthur Jr., Revelation 1–11, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 284.]