Scripturing the Presence of God

Below is a rough translation of Matthew 5:21-37, the Revised Common Lectionary gospel reading for the 6^th Sunday after Epiphany.  

These verses contain the first four of what are called “the six antitheses,” where Jesus will posit what has been said or written (from the law), and then answer with, “but I say to you …” The theses are in verses 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, and 43 and the antitheses begin in the next verses. The last two antitheses are part of next week’s reading.

The question that these antitheses collectively raise for me is “What does it mean to be faithful to the Scriptures?” Jesus’ radical re-formulation – with the words “You have heard … But I say to you” – demonstrates that faithfulness to the Scriptures does not mean “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” In fact, Jesus treats the Scriptures, not as an ending point that “settles it,” but as a beginning point for re-forming the meaning of the text.  

I would argue that Jesus is changing the emphasis from “the Scriptures,” as a noun, to “scripturing” as a verb – giving testimony to God’s real presence among God’s people. The accounts of creation, the Ten Words on Mt. Sinai, the stories of the people of Israel, Psalms, proverbs, prophetic utterances, and Jesus’ own words are all ways of “scripturing” God’s presence in differing times and contexts. 

If that is what Jesus is doing here - scripturing God's presence in his moment rather than treating the scriptures as a closed and final canon - then it raises a huge question for followers of Jesus. Do Jesus’ words here signify a ‘final revision’ of old Mosaic laws into new Christian doctrines? Or, does Jesus activity of scripturing demonstrate how to be faithful by scripturing God’s presence? I lean toward the latter, although there is much more security and comfort institutionally in letting Jesus' words be the new "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." I hope you indulge me in pursuing this line of inquiry. I am adding some comments in red as my attempts to see the process at work throughout this text. 

If this line of thought is intriguing enough for you to read on, please see me article on the “Politics of Scripture” blog, at http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/the-politics-of-scripturing-matthew-521-37-d-mark-davis/

²¹ Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, Οὐ φονεύσεις: ὃς δ' ἂν φονεύσῃ, 

ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. 

You have heard that it was said to the ancients, “You will not murder; and whoever might murder will be liable to the judgment.”  

Ἠκούσατε: AAI 2p, ἀκούω, 1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf

ἐρρέθη: API 3s, εἶπον, to utter with the mouth, to say, speak

φονεύσεις: FAI 2s, φονεύω, 1) to kill, slay, murder  

φονεύσῃ: AASubj 3s, φονεύω, 1) to kill, slay, murder 

ἔσται: FMI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. It’s interesting that Jesus does not say, “It is written,” as he did in response to the devil’s temptations in Matthew 4:4, 6, and 7. Instead, he says, “You have heard it was said to the ancients.”

2. The first part of this reference, of course, is from the Decalogue in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. The second part seems to be from Leviticus 24:17, “Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death.” That is the same section in Leviticus from which the “eye for an eye” reference comes. 

3. What I don't know is if there were reasons in the 1st century that someone might introduce some biblical texts with "It is written" and to others with "You have heard it was said." Perhaps it is not the texts themselves, but the context in which the discussion is taking place. Temptation may invite one to hear the Scriptures one way; didactic discourse may open the Scriptures in another way. 

4. I also cannot help but think about how most of us view Scripture through what some call "a canon within the canon," meaning that some biblical texts seem most meaningful for us and become the lens through which we read other texts. This Sermon on the Mount, for example, is one reason why I don't read the bloody exploits of the book of Joshua prescriptively. I suspect that is the biblical reality at work when Luther critiques the book of James or when Calvin writes commentaries on every NT book except Revelation because he did not "see Christ" in it. 

Perhaps what we are viewing in this teaching on the mountain is Jesus establishing a particular approach to Scripture, not pretending to exhaust all of the biblical readings. If that is so, it seems that our task while studying this text it so try to see the pattern, the manner of interpretation, that Jesus is practicing in this act of scripturing the text. 

²² ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει: ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ 

συνεδρίῳ: ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ, Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. 

But I say to you that each one who is angry toward his brother will be liable to the judgment; and whoever might say to his brother, “Raca!” will be liable to the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, “Fool” will be liable to the gehenna of the fire.

λέγω: PAI 1s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

ὀργιζόμενος: PMPart nms, ὀργίζω to make οργή to be or become wroth

ἔσται (3x): FMI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

εἴπῃ (2x): AASubj 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

1. This verse has several terms, the full meanings of which may be lost in translation.

- τῇ κρίσει Because the word “judgment” is preceded by the definite article, we might assume that there is only one judgment and we know exactly which one it is. But, I am cautious about assuming that a definite article in Greek carry quite the same meaning as a definite article in English. In this sentence we have “the judgment” “the Sanhedrin” “the gehenna” and “the fire.” I’m not sure the article intends, in each case, to signify “the one and only.” 

-  Ῥακά and Μωρέ are in the vocative case, as a way of naming others. According to greattreasures.org,  Ῥακά is a term of contempt based on the Hebrew רק, denoting an empty, vain, worthless person. And Μωρέ is the vocative form of a fairly common term μωρός, meaning foolish. It has the same root at the word μωραίνω, which we saw last week in Matthew 5:13, referring to salt that had lost its saltiness. My sense here is that this is a public accusation of someone’s incompetence, as well as a public shaming that could be ruinous for someone’s life and family. (I’m remembering a student in a Sunday School class I once taught who responded to a classmate with, “You’re not supposed to call somebody a ‘fool’ you idiot!” Sigh.)

- συνεδρίῳ Is the dative form of συνέδριον (Sanhedrin). We know of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem from Jesus’ trial in Mt. 26:59, but the term can refer to any assembly that is convened to pass judgment or adjudicate between contending parties. Again, the definite article might or might not intend a specific group, rather than a more general practice.

- γέενναν: (Gehenna) is often assumed to be “hell,” but that strikes me as a development of the term rather than its original use. The common explanation of the term is that it referred to a place in the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where trash and animal carcasses were continually deposited and burned.

²³ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρόν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κἀκεῖ μνησθῇς 

ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ, 

Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar and there might be reminded that your brother has something against you,

προσφέρῃς: PASubj 2s, προσφέρω, 1) to bring to, lead to 

μνησθῇς: APSubj 2s, μιμνήσκω 1. mindful of, to think much of a thing, to remember

ἔχει: PAI 3s, ἔχω, 1) to have, i.e. to hold

1. Again, with reference to the definite article, τὸ θυσιαστήριον  can refer to an altar in general, or the altar in the court of the priests in the temple at Jerusalem. Matthew refers to “the altar” twice here and four more times in c.23. 

Mat 5:23	...gift to the altar,
Mat 5:24	...gift before the altar,
Mat 23:18	...swear by the altar,
Mat 23:19	...gift, or the altar that sanctifies
Mat 23:20	...swear by the altar
Mat 23:35	...temple and the altar

²⁴ ἄφες ἐκεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, καὶ ὕπαγε πρῶτον 

διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, καὶ τότε ἐλθὼν πρόσφερε τὸ δῶρόν σου. 

leave your gift there in front of the altar, and first go be reconciled to your brother, and then having returned bring your gift.

ἄφες: AAImpv 2s, ἀφίημι,v  1) to send away  … 1c2) to leave,

ὕπαγε: ὑπάγω, PAImpv 2s 1) to lead under, bring under 2) to withdraw oneself, to go away, depart

διαλλάγηθι: APImpv 2s, διαλλάσσω; 1. to change: τὶ ἀντί τινος 2. to change the mind of any one, to reconcile; Pass. to be reconciled, to renew friendship.

ἐλθὼν: AAPart nms, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come 

πρόσφερε: PAImpv 2s, προσφέρω, 1) to bring to, lead to 

1. It seems that ἄφες (leave) and πρόσφερε (bring) are opposites. Of interest – but I do not have the wherewithal to pursue it at the moment – is how these terms relate to συμφέρω (bring together, or profitable) in vv. 29 and 30.

2. Acc. to thebible.org, this is the only NT use of διαλλάσσω (reconcile). The more familiar form, such as in II Corinthians 5:18-20, is καταλλάσσω. 

3. Contrary to what we might derive from the later development of the church as it moved out of Israel and spread among Gentiles, this is quite an affirmation of the temple/synagogue practice of making a gift at the altar – provided that the liturgical act is built on a relational act.

4. I find it important that Jesus is not only indicating how to read Scripture. He is also indicating how to practice liturgy, such as leaving a gift at the altar. I do not think these are two different subject matters, but are both ways of re-assessing our approach to the fullness of human life. It is about how we read Scripture, and about how we worship, how we settle disputes, how we maintain family/relationships, pursue justice, etc. In each case, Jesus seems to be moving from a static approach to a dynamic one that is attentive to one's intentions and relations, as well as actions. 

²⁵  ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχὺ ἕως ὅτου εἶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, 

μήποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ, καὶ ὁ κριτὴς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ εἰς 

φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ: 

Be agreeing to your adversary quickly while you are with him on the road, lest the adversary hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the magistrate, and you will be thrown into prison.

ἴσθι: PAImpv 2s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

εὐνοῶν: PAPart nms, εὐνοέω, 1) to wish (one) well  2) to be well disposed, of a peaceable spirit

εἶ: εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

παραδῷ: AASubj 3s, παραδίδωμι, 1) to give into the hands (of another)

1. The word εὐνοέω (agreeing), only found here in the NT, literally means “good (εὐ) minding (νοέω).”

2. Adversary (ἀντι/δίκῳ) is a great word – anti-justice. I Peter 5:8 uses it to describe the devil, but here, Lk. 12:58 and Lk. 18:3 it means human adversaries.

3. The phrase “while you are with him on the road” seems to imply two persons on their way to the judge, so it would be the last chance to reach a settlement out of court.

4. This road-walking agreement is a viable alternative to the carefully structured justice system at work. That system may be fine in itself, but it can be punitive and static. What if the justice system is akin to the laws of the Bible, with this road-walking agreement as a dynamic, relational "but I say to you" alternative? 

²⁶ ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον 

κοδράντην. 

Truly I say to you, you will not be released [from] there until you have paid off the last penny!

ἐξέλθῃς: AASubj 2s, ἐξέρχομαι, 1) to go or come forth of  1a) with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the  point from which he departs

ἀποδῷς: AASubj 2s, ἀποδίδωμι, 1) to deliver, to give away for one's own profit what is one's  own, to sell  2) to pay off, discharge what is due.

1. It is a little difficult to know what to make of this teaching in vv.25-26. On the one hand, it seems like fairly strategic advice, to reach an agreement before a matter gets into the courts and the debt is strictly enforced. The assumption here is that the listener does indeed owe the adversary money or had committed a grievance that can be settled with a payment. My guess is that it is more the latter than the former, because on the other hand, this is still a part of the way that Jesus is addressing the command “Do not murder.” The command does not simply imply capital offenses that are punished by execution, but also implies making public accusations of someone’s worthlessness, and pursuing acts of reconciliation before finalizing the offering at the altar of worship or approaching the courts of justice.

²⁷ Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, Οὐ μοιχεύσεις. 

You have heard that it was said, “You will not adulterate.”

μοιχεύσεις: FAI 2s, μοιχεύω, 1) to commit adultery

1. This prohibition is found in Exodus 20:24 and Deuteronomy 5:18.

2. I know “adulterate” sounds dumb but here’s my reason, which probably would not hold up in a refined translation: The next verse uses the term with “her” as the direct object. Most translations will say “commit adultery with her,” making “her” the indirect object. Since I’m using “adulterate” in v.28 to keep the direct object, I want to use it here for consistency.

²⁸ ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν 

ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 

But I say to you that anyone looking at a woman to lust for her has already adulterated her in his heart.

βλέπων: PAPart nms, βλέπω, 1) to see, discern, of the bodily eye  1a) with the bodily eye: to be possessed of sight,  have the power of seeing 

ἐπιθυμῆσαι: AAInf, ἐπιθυμέω, 1) to turn upon a thing  2) to have a desire for, long for, to desire  3) to lust after, covet  3a) of those who seek things forbidden

ἐμοίχευσεν: AAI 3s, μοιχεύω, 1) to commit adultery

1. The word ἐπιθυμέω (lust) is often used to express the desire for food (in Luke, the starving wayward son longs for the pig’s food, the beggar longs for bread crumbs and Jesus longs to eat the last meal with his disciples.) This is the word that the LXX uses in Exodus 20:17, “You shall not covet … your neighbor’s wife (among other things).” I read this as more than strong attraction and as an act with intention. 

2. I have often read this verse as Jesus making the prohibition of adultery - something some folks find difficult to follow - even more stringent by making it about our thoughts. I don't know about you, but I find thoughts to be wild asses, hard to control and stubbornly persistent the more I try to control them. So, this verse has been the source of a lot of guilt over my life. I also have this sneaking guilt that if I try to read this verse as anything but Jesus wagging his finger at my inability to maintain pure thoughts, then I'm just manipulating Scripture to ease my conscience. 

Suspending that guilt for just a moment - this verse is really insightful, isn't it? If the law prohibiting adultery were only about one's ability to resist the activity of adulterating, then its primary purpose might be all about maintaining the family structure. But, if that law is also about one's thoughts, then its purpose may also be about establishing a mode of respect for how we look at others, prohibiting our tendency to see others as means to an end or reducing others to be an object of our own pleasure. That is, this would make the prohibition of adultery less transactional and more relational. 

²⁹εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔξελε αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ 

σοῦ: συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ 

σῶμά σου βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν. 

Yet if your right eye scandalizes you, extract and cast it from you; for it is profitable for you in order that one of your body parts be destroyed and not your whole body to be cast into gehenna.

σκανδαλίζει: PAI 3s, σκανδαλίζω, 1) to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which  another may trip and fall, metaph. to offend

ἔξελε: ἐξαιρέω, 1) to pluck out, draw out, i.e. root out  2) to choose out (for one's self), select, one person from many  3) to rescue, deliver

βάλε: AAImpv 2s, βάλλω, 1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls 

συμφέρει: PAI 3s, συμφέρω, 1) to bear or bring together  2) to bear together or at the same time 2a) to carry with others  2b) to collect or contribute in order to help  2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient

ἀπόληται: AMSubj 3s, ἀπόλλυμι, 1) to destroy  1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin 

βληθῇ: APSubj 3s, βάλλω, 1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls 

1. Remembering that we are still talking about the law prohibiting adultery, the eye and the hand will come into play as components of looking on a woman with evil intent. 

2. The word σκανδαλίζω is often translated as “stumbling block,” but I like to use the transliteration of it as “scandalize.” Besides, the references to “stumbling block” seem to refer to one’s actions causing a problem for another, where this particular reference is reflexive, “If your right eye scandalizes you.”

3. The idea of ‘my eye’ or ‘my hand’ offending ‘me’ raises the question, who is the ‘me’ that ‘my eye’ or ‘my hand’ is offending?  Which is the real me, the one who is lusting with intent or the one who is willing to self-mutilate in order to quit lusting with intent? The answer seems to be some form of a paradox, that we are both the unitary sum of our parts and the conflicted complex of them. In some ways, I think the imagery of ‘cutting off one’s right hand’ may be a way of bringing this paradox to light, since presumably the right hand that needs removal would be the dominant hand with which one typically cuts things off.

³⁰καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτὴν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ 

σοῦ: συμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μελῶν σου καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου εἰς γέενναν ἀπέλθῃ. 

And if your right hand scandalizes you, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is profitable for you in order that one of your body part be destroyed and not your whole body go into gehenna.

ἔκκοψον: AAImpv 2s, ἐκκόπτω, 1) to cut out, cut off  1a) of a tree  2) metaph. to cut off occasion

βάλε: AAImpv 2s, βάλλω, 1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls 

συμφέρει: PAI 3s, συμφέρω, 1) to bear or bring together  2) to bear together or at the same time 2a) to carry with others  2b) to collect or contribute in order to help  2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient

ἀπέλθῃ: AASubj 3s, ἀπέρχομαι, 1) to go away, depart

1. This is the third reference to gehenna in this pericope. I still maintain that it is a reference to a burning site, where animal carcasses and other manner of unclean things were disposed of. To be buried there would indicate that one is dishonorable and not even allowed to be buried with dignity. 

2. Is it possible to bracket the gruesomeness of plucking out eyes and chopping off body parts in order to hear this text a bit differently? I am not sure that it is, to be honest, because over-the-top language has the effect of becoming the subject matter in itself. Still, I want to hear something in this verse than self-mutilation. Perhaps what this implies is simply that maintaining one's integrity is more important than satisfying one's desires. That sounds simple, but in fact it is a persistent, daily struggle that can feel as dramatic as the need to mutilate oneself in order to make it stop. Perhaps the over-the-top language here is not what Jesus is introducing or even prescribing, but trying to capture the sheer depth of the human struggle against objectifying others or reducing them to objects of one's own pleasure. Of course, since Jesus seems to move to the next topic right away, this struggle is left unresolved for the moment.

³¹ Ἐρρέθη δέ, Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 

Yet it was said, “Whoever divorces his wife, give her a bill of divorce.”

ἐρρέθη: API 3s, εἶπον to utter with the mouth, to say, speak (relating to the words, rather than the sentiment, which is λέγω

ἀπολύσῃ: AASubj 3s, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free  2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer) 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate.

δότω: AAImpv? 3s? δίδωμι, 1) to give  2) to give something to someone  2a) of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage  2a1) to bestow a gift 

1. This thesis begins differently from the others, and for good reason. First, it is a permission, not a prohibition. Second, the OT allusion here is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The thing is, those four verses do not introduce this permission directly, but refer to it as something that is already established. The point of those four verses is not really whether or not one has permission to write a bill of divorce, but something else entirely (prohibiting re-marrying a woman who had subsequently been married to and divorce from another.) 

2. In the last sentence of my last comment on v.30, I said that Jesus "seems to move to a new topic" in this verse. I wonder if perhaps seeing this as a topical change is incorrect. What if divorce, casting off a spouse, is another example of what Jesus is talking about with plucking out an eye or chopping off a limb? Deuteronomy 24 approaches divorce oddly. It does not ask whether or why, but begins with the assumption/practice of someone writing a bill of divorce for a displeasing spouse, and then moves on to address the technicalities around re-marriage. If, instead of treating divorce transactionally, Jesus is treating it relationally, then maybe it is more like dismemberment than the process of writing a bill of divorce might suggest. Similar to my comment on adultery, perhaps where this is going is that the transaction diminishes the wife to something less than a child of God and a means to the end of pleasing oneself, much like lusting over someone. 

³² ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου 

πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ 

μοιχᾶται. 

Yet I say to you that any one who divorces his wife, except for a matter of illicit sex, makes her to be adulterated, and whoever marries a divorced wife adulterates himself.

ἀπολύων: PAPart nms, ἀπολύω, 1) to set free  2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer) 4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate.

μοιχευθῆναι: APInf, μοιχεύω, 1) to commit adultery

ἀπολελυμένην: PPPart afs, ἀπολείπω, 1) to leave, to leave behind  2) to desert or forsake

γαμήσῃ: AASubj 3s, γαμέω, 1) to lead in marriage, take to wife

μοιχᾶται: PMI 3s, μοιχεύω, 1) to commit adultery

1. I would like to know more precisely what Jesus means by the verb “adulterate.” To be sure, he is expanding the command prohibiting adultery to matters pertaining to patriarchal practices of divorce. From what I read and hear, many assumptions that we have regarding the biblical view of adultery and divorce come from this periciope, which, in turn, we use to interpret this pericope. I’m not convinced that we have found the gem we’re looking for yet.  

³³ Πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ 

τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. 

Again you have heard that it was said to the ancients, “You will not swear falsely, but you will pledge your oaths to the Lord.”

ἐπιορκήσεις: FAI 2s, ἐπιορκέω, 1) to swear falsely, forswear one's self 

ἀποδώσεις: FAI 2s, ἀποδίδωμι, 1) to deliver, to give away for one's own profit what is one's  own, to sell  2) to pay off, discharge what is due  2a) a debt, wages, tribute, taxes, produce due  2b) things promised under oath 

ὅρκους: amp, ὅρκος, 1) that which has been pledged or promised with an oath

1. We’re back to the formulation of the first two antitheses with this fourth antithesis. The OT reference may be a way of stating the prohibition in the Decalogue found in Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Or, it may refer to swearing falsely more generally, as prohibited in Leviticus 19:12.

³⁴ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως: μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν 

τοῦ θεοῦ: 

Yet I say to you do not swear at all; neither in the heaven, because it is the throne of God:

ὀμόσαι: AAInf, ὀμνύω, 1) to swear  2) to affirm, promise, threaten, with an oath  

³⁵μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ: μήτε εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως: 

Nor in the earth, because it is the footstool of his feet: Nor into Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great king:

³⁶μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν. 

Nor swear in your own head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black.

ὀμόσῃς: AASubj 2s, ὀμνύω, 1) to swear  2) to affirm, promise, threaten, with an oath  

δύνασαι: PMI 2s, δύναμαι, 1) to be able, have power whether by virtue of one's own ability and  resources

ποιῆσαι: AAInf, ποιέω, 1) to make

1. This is a great set of locations and ways of defining those locations: The heavens are God’s throne; the earth is God’s footstool;  Jerusalem is the city of the great king; and one’s own head is mortal. I don’t really have a feel for what it means to “swear by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or my head.” But, I can attest that there I have no control over the coloration of my hair, beyond buying products.

³⁷ ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ: τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ 

πονηροῦ ἐστιν.

Yet let your word be yes yes, no no: Yet anything beyond these is out of the evil one.

ἔστω: PAImpv 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

πονηροῦ: πονηρός, 1) full of labours, annoyances, hardships  1a) pressed and harassed by labours  1b) bringing toils, annoyances, perils; of a time full of  peril to Christian faith and steadfastness; causing pain and  trouble  2) bad, of a bad nature or condition  2a) in a physical sense: diseased or blind  2b) in an ethical sense: evil wicked, bad. 

1. With the verb – the imperative form of ‘to be’ – coming as the first word, this translation could be varied. Maybe “Let your word yes be yes.” Or, “Your word must be yes, yes.” 

2. This verse seems to be the conclusion to the previous six verses. I have been offering some stream-of-consciousness reactions to the previous topics in red, and here is my final thought, on which perhaps I am skating on the thinnest ice. 

I wonder it the consistent theme among these verses might be summed up as "integrity." Integrity is often presented as having to do with one reputation, but the root of the Latin "integer" means something that is whole and intact. A respect that is as true for publicly condemning someone as it is for murdering someone. A gift at the altar that is consonant with a relationship that has been reconciled. A heart that has not committed adultery. A body that has not been dismembered. A marriage that has not been divorced. A "yes" that is "yes" and needs no extra layers of persuasion. If there is something like integrity - and that is my word here, not Jesus' - at the heart of this text, then the call to let one's light shine is about a singleness and wholeness, an integrity of life. I find this a much more promising approach to these teachings than to treat them each separately as disparate new layers of legalism that Jesus is calling us to follow.