James 5:12

This epistle now drawing to a close, the penman goes off very quickly from one thing to another: hence it is that matters so very different are insisted on in these few verses.

I. The sin of swearing is cautioned against: But above all things, my brethren, swear not, etc., Jam 5:12. Some understand this too restrictedly, as if the meaning were, "Swear not at your persecutors, at those that reproach you and say all manner of evil of you; be not put into a passion by the injuries they do you, so as in your passion to be provoked to swear." This swearing is no doubt forbidden here: and it will not excuse those that are guilty of this sin to say they sear only when they are provoked to it, and before they are aware. But the apostle's warning extends to other occasions of swearing as well as this. Some have translated the words, pro pantōn - before all things; and so have made sense of this place to be that they should not, in common conversation, before every thing they say, put an oath. All customary needless swearing is undoubtedly forbidden, and all along in scripture condemned, as a very grievous sin. Profane swearing was very customary among the Jews, and, since this epistle is directed in general to the twelve tribes scattered abroad (as before has been observed), we may conceive this exhortation sent to those who believed not. It is hard to suppose that swearing should be one of the spots of God's children, since Peter, when he was charged with being a disciple of Christ and would disprove the charge, cursed and swore, thereby thinking most effectually to convince them that he was no disciple of Jesus, it being well known of such that they durst not allow themselves in swearing; but possibly some of the looser sort of those who were called Christians might, among other sins here charged upon them, be guilty also of this. It is a sin that in later years has most scandalously prevailed, even among those who would be thought above all others entitled to the Christian name and privileges. It is very rare indeed to hear of a dissenter from the church of England who is guilty of swearing, but among those who glory in their being of the established church nothing is more common; and indeed the most execrable oaths and curses now daily wound the ears and hearts of all serious Christians. James here says,

1. Above all things, swear not; but how many are there who mind this the least of all things, and who make light of nothing so much as common profane swearing! But why above all things is swearing here forbidden? (1.) Because it strikes most directly at the honour of God and most expressly throws contempt upon his name and authority. (2.) Because this sin has, of all sins, the least temptation to it: it is not gain, nor pleasure, nor reputation, that can move men to it, but a wantonness in sinning, and a needless showing an enmity to God. Thy enemies take thy name in vain, Psa 139:20. This is a proof of men's being enemies to God, however they may pretend to call themselves by his name, or sometimes to compliment him in acts of worship. (3.) Because it is with most difficulty left off when once men are accustomed to it, therefore it should above all things be watched against. And, (4.) "Above all things swear not, for how can you expect the name of God should be a strong tower to you in your distress if you profane it and play with it at other times?" But (as Mr. Baxter observes) "all this is so far from forbidding necessary oaths that it is but to confirm them, by preserving the due reverence of them." And then he further notes that "The true nature of an oath is, by our speech, to pawn the reputation of some certain or great thing, for the averring of a doubted less thing; and not (as is commonly held) an appeal to God or other judge." Hence it was that swearing by the heavens, and by the earth, and by the other oaths the apostle refers to, came to be in use. The Jews thought if they did but omit the great oath of Chi-Eloah, they were safe. But they grew so profane as to swear by the creature, as if it were God; and so advanced it into the place of God; while, on the other hand, those who swear commonly and profanely by the name of God do hereby put him upon the level with every common thing.

2. But let your yea be yea, and your nay nay; lest you fall into condemnation; that is, "let it suffice you to affirm or deny a thing as there is occasion, and be sure to stand to your word, an be true to it, so as to give no occasion for your being suspected of falsehood; and then you will be kept from the condemnation of backing what you say or promise by rash oaths, and from profaning the name of God to justify yourselves. It is being suspected of falsehood that leads men to swearing. Let it be known that your keep to truth, and are firm to your word, and by this means you will find there is no need to swear to what you say. Thus shall you escape the condemnation which is expressly annexed to the third commandment: The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

II. As Christians we are taught to suit ourselves to the dispensations of Providence (Jam 5:13): Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray. Is any merry? Let him sing psalms. Our condition in this world is various; and our wisdom is to submit to its being so, and to behave as becomes us both in prosperity and under affliction. Sometimes we are in sadness, sometimes in mirth; God has set these one over against the other that we may the better observe the several duties he enjoins, and that the impressions made on our passions and affections may be rendered serviceable to our devotions. Afflictions should put us upon prayer, and prosperity should make us abound in praise. Not that prayer is to be confined to a time of trouble, nor singing to a time of mirth; but these several duties may be performed with special advantage, and to the happiest purposes, at such seasons. 1. In a day of affliction nothing is more seasonable than prayer. The person afflicted must pray himself, as well as engage the prayers of others for him. Times of affliction should be praying times. To this end God sends afflictions, that we may be engaged to seek him early; and that those who at other times have neglected him may be brought to enquire after him. The spirit is then most humble, the heart is broken and tender; and prayer is most acceptable to God when it comes from a contrite humble spirit. Afflictions naturally draw out complaints; and to whom should we complain but to God in prayer? It is necessary to exercise faith and hope under afflictions; and prayer is the appointed means both for obtaining and increasing these graces in us. Is any afflicted? Let him pray. 2. In a day of mirth and prosperity singing psalms is very proper and seasonable. In the original it is only said sing, psalletō, without the addition of psalms or any other word: and we learn from the writings of several in the first ages of Christianity (particularly from a letter of Pliny's, and from some passages in Justin Martyr and Tertullian) that the Christians were accustomed to sing hymns, either taken out of scripture, or of more private composure, in their worship of God. Though some have thought that Paul's advising both the Colossians and Ephesians to speak to one another psalmois kai humnois kai ōdais pneumatikais - in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, refers only to the compositions of scripture, the psalms of David being distinguished in Hebrew by Shurim, Tehillim, and Mizmorim, words that exactly answer these of the apostle. Let that be as it will, this however we are sure of, that the singing of psalms is a gospel ordinance, and that our joy should be holy joy, consecrated to God. Singing is so directed to here as to show that, if any be in circumstances of mirth and prosperity, he should turn his mirth, though alone, and by himself, in this channel. Holy mirth becomes families and retirements, as well as public assemblies. Let our singing be such as to make melody with our hearts unto the Lord, and God will assuredly be well pleased with this kind of devotion.

III. We have particular directions given as to sick persons, and healing pardoning mercy promised upon the observance of those directions. If any be sick, they are required, 1. To send for the elders, presbuterous tēs ekkēsias - the presbyters, pastors or ministers of the church, Jam 5:14, Jam 5:15. It lies upon sick people as a duty to send for ministers, and to desire their assistance and their prayers. 2. It is the duty of ministers to pray over the sick, when thus desired and called for. Let them pray over him; let their prayers be suited to his case, and their intercessions be as becomes those who are affected wit his calamities. 3. In the times of miraculous healing, the sick were to be anointed with oil in the name of the Lord. Expositors generally confine this anointing with oil to such as had the power of working miracles; and, when miracles ceased, this institution ceased also. In Mark's gospel we read of the apostle's anointing with oil many that were sick, and healing them, Mar 6:13. And we have accounts of this being practiced in the church two hundred years after Christ; but then the gift of healing also accompanied it, and, when the miraculous gift ceased, this rite was laid aside. The papists indeed have made a sacrament of this, which they call the extreme unction. They use it, not to heal the sick, as it was used by the apostles; but as they generally run counter to scripture, in the appointments of their church, so here they ordain that this should be administered only to such as are at the very point of death. The apostle's anointing was in order to heal the disease; the popish anointing is for the expulsion of the relics of sin, and to enable the soul (as they pretend) the better to combat with the powers of the air. When they cannot prove, by any visible effects, that Christ owns them in the continuance of this rite, they would however have people to believe that the invisible effects are very wonderful. But it is surely much better to omit this anointing with oil than to turn it quite contrary to the purposes spoken of in scripture. Some protestants have thought that this anointing was only permitted or approved by Christ, not instituted. But it should seem, by the words of James here, that it was a thing enjoined in cases where there was faith for healing. And some protestants have argued for it with this view. It was not to be commonly used, not even in the apostolical age; and some have thought that it should not be wholly laid aside in any age, but that where there are extraordinary measures of faith in the person anointing, and in those who are anointed, an extraordinary blessing may attend the observance of this direction for the sick. However that be, there is one thing carefully to be observed here, that the saving of the sick is not ascribed to the anointing with oil, but to prayer: The prayer of faith shall save the sick, etc., Jam 5:15. So that, 4. Prayer over the sick must proceed fRom. and be accompanied with, a lively faith. There must be faith both in the person praying and in the person prayed for. In a time of sickness, it is not the cold and formal prayer that is effectual, but the prayer of faith. 5. We should observe the success of prayer. The Lord shall raise up; that is, if he be a person capable and fit for deliverance, and if God have any thing further for such a person to do in the world. And, if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him; that is, where sickness is sent as a punishment for some particular sin, that sin shall be pardoned, and in token thereof the sickness shall be removed. As when Christ said to the impotent man, Go and sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee, it is intimated that some particular sin was the cause of his sickness. The great thing therefore we should beg of God for ourselves and others in the time of sickness is the pardon of sin. Sin is both the root of sickness and the sting of it. If sin be pardoned, either affliction shall be removed in mercy or we shall see there is mercy in the continuance of it. When healing is founded upon pardon, we may say as Hezekiah did: Thou hast, in love to my soul, delivered it from the pit of corruption, Isa 38:17. When you are sick and in pain, it is most common to pray and cry, O give me ease! O restore me to health! But your prayer should rather and chiefly be, O that God would pardon my sins!

IV. Christians are directed to confess their faults one to another, and so to join in their prayers with an for one another, Jam 5:16. Some expositors connect this with Jam 5:14. As if when sick people send for ministers to pray over them they should then confess their faults to them. Indeed, where any are conscious that their sickness is a vindictive punishment of some particular sin, and they cannot look for the removal of their sickness without particular applications to God for the pardon of such a sin, there it may be proper to acknowledge and tell his case, that those who pray over him may know how to plead rightly for him. But the confession here required is that of Christians to one another, and not, as the papists would have it, to a priest. Where persons have injured one another, acts of injustice must be confessed to those against whom they have been committed. Where persons have tempted one another to sin or have consented in the same evil actions, there they ought mutually to blame themselves and excite each other to repentance. Where crimes are of a public nature, and have done any public mischief, there they ought to be more publicly confessed, so as may best reach to all who are concerned. And sometimes it may be well to confess our faults to some prudent minister or praying friend, that he may help us to plead with God for mercy and pardon. But then we are not to think that James puts us upon telling every thing that we are conscious is amiss in ourselves or in one another; but so far as confession is necessary to our reconciliation with such as are at variance with us, or for gaining information in any point of conscience and making our own spirits quiet and easy, so far we should be ready to confess our faults. And sometimes also it may be of good use to Christians to disclose their peculiar weaknesses and infirmities to one another, where there are great intimacies and friendships, and where they may help each other by their prayers to obtain pardon of their sins and power against them. Those who make confession of their faults one to another should thereupon pray with and for one another. The Jam 5:13 directs persons to pray for themselves: Is any afflicted let him pray; the Jam 5:14 directs to seek for the prayers of ministers; and the Jam 5:16 directs private Christians to pray one for another; so that here we have all sorts of prayer (ministerial, social, and secret) recommended.

V. The great advantage and efficacy of prayer are declared and proved: The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, whether he pray for himself or for others: witness the example of Elias, Jam 5:17, Jam 5:18. He who prays must be a righteous man; not righteous in an absolute sense (for this Elias was not, who is here made a pattern to us), but righteous in a gospel sense; not loving nor approving of any iniquity. If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear my prayer, Psa 66:18. Further, the prayer itself must be a fervent, in-wrought, well-wrought prayer. It must be a pouring out of the heart to God; and it must proceed from a faith unfeigned. Such prayer avails much. It is of great advantage to ourselves, it may be very beneficial to our friends, and we are assured of its being acceptable to God. It is good having those for friends whose prayers are available in the sight of God. The power of prayer is here proved from the success of Elijah. This may be encouraging to us even in common cases, if we consider that Elijah was a man of like passions with us. He was a zealous good man and a very great man, but he had his infirmities, and was subject to disorder in his passions as well as others. In prayer we must not look to the merit of man, but to the grace of God. Only in this we should copy after Elijah, that he prayed earnestly, or, as it is in the original, in prayer he prayed. It is not enough to say a prayer, but we must pray in prayer. Our thoughts must be fixed, our desires firm and ardent, and our graces in exercise; and, when we thus pray in prayer, we shall speed in prayer. Elijah prayed that it might not rain; and God heard him in his pleading against an idolatrous persecuting country, so that it rained not on the earth for the space of three years and six months. Again he prayed, and the heaven gave rain, etc. Thus you see prayer is the key which opens and shuts heaven. To this there is an allusion, Rev 11:6, where the two witnesses are said to have power to shut heaven, that it rain not. This instance of the extraordinary efficacy of prayer is recorded for encouragement even to ordinary Christians to be instant and earnest in prayer. God never says to any of the seed of Jacob, Seek my face in vain. If Elijah by prayer could do such great and wonderful things, surely the prayers of no righteous man shall return void. Where there may not be so much of a miracle in God's answering our prayers, yet there may be as much of grace.

VI. This epistle concludes with an exhortation to do all we can in our places to promote the conversion and salvation of others, Jam 5:19, Jam 5:20. Some interpret these verses as an apology which the apostle is making for himself that he should so plainly and sharply reprove the Jewish Christians for their many faults and errors. And certainly James gives a very good reason why he was so much concerned to reclaim them from their errors, because in thus doing he should save souls, and hide a multitude of sins. But we are not to restrain this place to the apostle's converting such as erred from the truth; no, nor to other ministerial endeavours of the like nature, since it is said, "If any err, and one convert him, let him be who he will that does so good an office for another, he is therein an instrument of saving a soul from death." Those whom the apostle here calls brethren, he yet supposes liable to err. It is no mark of a wise or a holy man to boast of his being free from error, or to refuse to acknowledge when he is in an error. But if any do err, be they ever so great, you must not be afraid to show them their error; and, be they ever so weak and little, you must not disdain to make them wiser and better. If they err from the truth, that is, from the gospel (the great rule and standard of truth), whether it be in opinion or practice, you must endeavour to bring them again to the rule. Errors in judgment and in life generally go together. There is some doctrinal mistake at the bottom of every practical miscarriage. There is no one habitually bad, but upon some bad principle. Now to convert such is to reduce them from their error, and to reclaim them from the evils they have been led into. We are not presently to accuse and exclaim against an erring brother, and seek to bring reproaches and calamities upon him, but to convert him: and, if by all our endeavours we cannot do this, yet we are nowhere empowered to persecute and destroy him. If we are instrumental in the conversion of any, we are said to convert them, though this be principally and efficiently the work of God. And, if we can do no more towards the conversion of sinners, yet we may do this - pray for the grace and Spirit of God to convert and change them. And let those that are in any way serviceable to convert others know what will be the happy consequence of their doing this: they may take great comfort in it at present, and they will meet with a crown at last. He that is said to err from the truth in Jam 5:19 is described as erring in his way in Jam 5:20, and we cannot be said to convert any merely by altering their opinions, unless we can bring them to correct and amend their ways. This is conversion - to turn a sinner from the error of his ways, and not to turn him from one party to another, or merely from one notion and way of thinking to another. He who thus converteth a sinner from the error of his ways shall save a soul from death. There is a soul in the case; and what is done towards the salvation of the soul shall certainly turn to good account. The soul being the principal part of the man, the saving of that only is mentioned, but it includes the salvation of the whole man: the spirit shall be saved from hell, the body raised from the grave, and both saved from eternal death. And then, by such conversion of heart and life, a multitude of sins shall be hid. A most comfortable passage of scripture is this. We learn hence that though our sins are many, even a multitude, yet they may be hid or pardoned; and that when sin is turned from or forsaken it shall be hid, never to appear in judgment against us. Let people contrive to cover or excuse their sin as they will, there is no way effectually and finally to hide it but by forsaking it. Some make the sense of this text to be, that conversion shall prevent a multitude of sins; and it is a truth beyond dispute that many sins are prevented in the party converted, many also may be prevented in others that he may have an influence upon, or may converse with. Upon the whole, how should we lay out ourselves with all possible concern for the conversion of sinners! It will be for the happiness and salvation of the converted; it will prevent much mischief, and the spreading and multiplying of sin in the world; it will be for the glory and honour of God; and it will mightily redound to our comfort and renown in the great day. Those that turn many to righteousness, and those who help to do so, shall shine as the stars for ever and ever.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Jam_5:12

Swear not,--

Against rash and vain swearing

I.

Let us consider THE NATURE OF AN OATH, and what we do when we adventure to swear. It is an assuming the name of our God, and applying it to our purpose, to countenance and confirm what we say. It is an invocation of God as a most faithful witness, concerning the truth of our words, or the sincerity of our meaning. It is an appeal to God as a most upright Judge, whether we do prevaricate in asserting what we do not believe true, or in promising what we are not firmly resolved to perform. It is a formal engagement of God to be the Avenger of our trespassing in violation of truth or faith. It is a binding our souls with a most strict and solemn obligation, to answer before God, and to undergo the issue of His judgment about what we affirm to undertake. Whence we may collect that swearing doth require great modesty and composedness of spirit, very serious consideration and solicitous care that we be net rude and saucy with God, in taking up His name, and prostituting it to vile or mean uses; that we do not abuse or debase His authority, by citing it to aver falsehoods or impertinences; that we do not slight His venerable justice, by rashly provoking it against us; that we do not precipitantly throw our souls into most dangerous snares and intricacies.

II. We may consider THAT SWEARING, AGREEABLY TO ITS NATURE AND TENDENCY, IS REPRESENTED IN HOLY SCRIPTURE AS A SPECIAL PART OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP; in the due performance of which we avow God for the Governor of the world, piously acknowledging His principal attributes and special prerogatives; it also intimates a pious trust and confidence in Him. If we do presume to offer this service, we should do it in the manner appointed by God Himself; the cause of it must be very needful or expedient, the design honest and useful; otherwise we desecrate swearing, and are guilty of profaning a most sacred ordinance,

III. We may consider THAT THE SWEARING PROHIBITED IS VERY NOXIOUS TO HUMAN SOCIETY. AS by the rare and reverent use of oaths their dignity is upheld, and their obligation kept fast; so by the frequent and negligent application of them, by the prostituting them to every mean and toyish purpose, their respect will be quite lost, their strength will be loosed, they will prove unserviceable to public use.

IV. Let us consider THAT RASH AND VAIN SWEARING IS VERY APT OFTEN TO BRING THE PRACTISER OF IT INTO THAT MOST HORRIBLE SIN OF PERJURY. For false swearing, as Philo saith, naturally springeth out of much swearing; and he saith St. Chrysostom, that sweareth continually, both willingly and unwillingly, both ignorantly and knowingly, both in earnest and in sport, being often transported by anger and many other things, will frequently forswear. It is confessed and manifest, that it is necessary for him that sweareth much to be perjurious.

VI. Likewise THE USE OF RASH SWEARING WILL OFTEN ENGAGE A MAN IN UNDERTAKINGS VERY INCONVENIENT AND DETRIMENTAL TO HIMSELF.

VII. Let us consider THAT SWEARING IS A SIN OF ALL OTHERS PECULIARLY CLAMOROUS, AND PROVOCATIVE OF DIVINE JUDGMENT. God is hardly so much concerned, or in a manner constrained, to punish any other sin as this. He is bound in honour and interest to vindicate His name from the abuse, His authority from the contempt, His holy ordinance from the profanation, which it cloth infer.

VIII. Farther (passing over the special laws against it, the mischievous consequences of it, the sore punishments appointed to it), we may consider THAT TO COMMON SENSE VAIN SWEARING IS A VERY UNREASONABLE AND ILL-FAVOURED PRACTICE, GREATLY MISBECOMING ANY SOBER, WORTHY, OR HONEST PERSON; but especially most absurd and incongruous to a Christian.

IX. THE PRACTICE OF SWEARING GREATLY DISPARAGES HIM THAT USES IT, AND DEROGATES FROM HIS CREDIT, INASMUCH AS IT SIGNIFIES THAT HE DOES NOT CONFIDE IN HIS OWN REPUTATION; by it he authorises others to distrust him; it renders what he says to be in reason suspicious, as discovering him to be void of conscience and discretion, etc.

X. TO EXCUSE THESE FAULTS THE SWEARER WILL DE FORCED TO CONFESS THAT HIS OATHS ARE NO MORE THAN WASTE AND INSIGNIFICANT WORDS; deprecating the being taken for serious, or to be understood that he means anything by them.

XI. But farther, ON HIGHER ACCOUNTS THIS IS A VERY UNCIVIL AND UNMANNERLY PRACTICE: some vain persons take it for a genteel and graceful accomplishment; but in truth there is no practice more crossing the genuine nature of gentility, or misbecoming persons well born and well bred.

XII. Moreover, the words of our Lord, when He forbad this practice, SUGGEST ANOTHER CONSIDERATION AGAINST IT DEDUCIBLE FROM THE CAUSES AND SOURCES OF IT.

XIII. Farther, THIS OFFENCE MAY BE AGGRAVATED BY CONSIDERING THAT IT HATH NO STRONG TEMPTATION ALLURING TO IT; that it gratifies no sense, yields no profit, procures no honour: the vain swearer has not the common plea of human infirmity to excuse him.

XIV. Let us consider that, as we ourselves with all our members and powers were chiefly designed and made to glorify our Maker, which is our greatest privilege, so OUR TONGUE AND SPEAKING FACULTY WERE GIVEN US TO DECLARE OUR ADMIRATION AND REVERENCE OF HIM, exhibit our love and gratitude towards Him, to profess our trust in Him, to celebrate His praises and avow His benefits: wherefore to apply this to any impious discourse, and to profane His holy name, is an unnatural abuse of it, and horrid ingratitude towards Him. Likewise a secondary and worthy use of speech is to promote the good of our neighbour, according to the precept of the apostle (Eph_4:29), but the practice of vain swearing serves to corrupt him, and instil into him a contempt of religion.

XV. Lastly, we should consider TWO THINGS; first, that our blessed Saviour, who did and suffered so much for us, and who said, If ye love Me, keep My commandments, thus positively hath enjoined: But I say unto you, swear not at all: secondly, we shall consider well the reason with which St. James enforces the point, and the sting in the close of the text; but above all things, my brethren, swear notlest ye fall into condemnation. (L Barrow, D. D.)

The prohibition of swearing

There was an old saying, now unhappily quite grotesque in its incongruity with facts, that an Englishmans word is as good as his bored. What Christ and St. James say is that a Christians word should be as good as his oath. There ought to be no need of oaths. Anything over and above simple affirming or denying cometh of the evil one. It is because Satan, the father of lies, has introduced falsehood into the world that oaths have come into use. Among Christians there should be no untruthfulness, and therefore no oaths. The use of oaths is an index of the presence of evil; it is a symptom of the prevalence of falsehood. But the use of oaths is not only a sign of the existence of mischief, it is also apt to be productive of mischief. It is apt to produce a belief that there are two kinds of truth, one of which it is a serious thing to violate, viz., when you are on your oath; but the other of which it is a harmless, or at least a venial thing to violate, viz., when falsehood is only falsehood, and not perjury. And this, both among Jews and among Christians, produces the further mischievous refinement that some oaths are more binding than others, and that only when the most stringent form of oath is employed is there any real obligation to speak the truth. How disastrous all such distinctions are to the interests of truth, abundant experience has testified: for a common result is this--that people believe that they are free to lie as much as they please, so long as the lie is not supported by the particular kind of oath which they consider to be binding. But the main question is whether the prohibition is absolute; whether our Lord and St. James forbid the use of oaths for any purpose whatever; and it must be admitted that the first impression which we derive from their words is that they do. Tilts view is upheld by not a few Christians as the right interpretation of both passages. But further investigation does not confirm the view which is derived from a first impression as to the meaning of the words. Against it we have, first, the fact that the Mosaic Law not only allowed, but enjoined the taking of an oath in certain circumstances; and Christ would hardly have abrogated the law, and St. James would hardly have contradicted it, without giving some explanation of so unusual a course; secondly, the indisputable practice of the early Church, of St. Paul, and of our Lord Himself. (A. Plummer, D. D.)

A warning against oaths

1. It has not been an uncommon thing for men to take vows in trouble, as if they would do them any good. They have promised if certain ends could be attained to pursue certain courses of life: and sometimes to give a supposed greater efficacy, they have bound themselves with oaths. The Hebrew Christians in the first century were peculiarly exposed to this. The evil of it lay in transferring their confidence from the grace and power of God to the vows they were making, and thus begetting in them a strong tendency to confidence in magic.

2. It may have been a warning to |hem, not to swear when they were brought before Roman magistrates, or were in the company of Pagan persecutors, in order to show by such words that they were not Christians.

3. The injunction might have applied to the temptation there was among them to conspire together in sworn bands against their persecutors; as was frequently the case in their own age and has been ever since. James saw the futility of all seditious movements. He saw that it plunged his brethren only into deeper and deeper troubles; wherefore, he besought them not to seek such modes of relief, not to bind themselves to others, or others to themselves, in order to effect deliverance, but to put all in the hand of God.

4. But whether any or all of these considerations were in the mind of our author, it is quite certain that he pronounced a very emphatic denunciation against profanity. This is a sin against God and against ones self. It is a sin against God, because it deprives Him of the honour due to His name, and is in direct disobedience to His command. The sin is not mitigated by modifications of phraseology. In the next place, it is hurtful to any man to become an habitual swearer. It is an effectual bar to his ever being great. It is utterly impossible, whatever other gifts and opportunities be afforded, that a man shall ever reach the utmost possible greatness of humanity, who himself fails to have reverence for that which is great. Reverence is the spring of all aspiration, the foundation for all lofty upbuilding of character. (C. F. Deems, D. D.)

Profane swearing

The vice of profane swearing (and all swearing about ordinary matters is profane) is a strange one. Where is the pleasure of it? Where, before it becomes a fashion or a habit, is the temptation to it? Where, in any case, is the sense of it? There is pleasure in gluttony, in drunkenness, in lust, in pride, in avarice, in revenge. But where is the pleasure in an oath? The sensualist, the hypocrite, the miser, and the murderer can at least plead strong temptation, can at least urge that they get something, however pitiful, in exchange for eternal loss. But what can the blasphemer plead? what does he get in exchange for his soul? In times of strong excitement it is no doubt a relief to the feelings to use strong language; but what is gained by making the strong language trebly culpable by adding blasphemy to it? Besides which, there is the sadly common case of those who use blasphemous words when there is no temptation to give vent to strong feeling in strong language, who habitually swear in coldblood. Let no one deceive himself with the paltry excuse that he cannot help it, or that there is no harm in it. A resolution to do something disagreeable every time an oath escaped ones lips would soon bring about a cure. And let those who profess to think that there is no harm in idle swearing ask themselves whether they expect to repeat that plea when they give an account for every idle word at the day of judgment (Mat_12:36). (A. Plummer, D. D.)

Judicial oaths

That the condemnation does not extend to the solemn judicial use of oaths we see in the facts--

1. That our Lord answered when questioned as on oath by Caiaphas Mat_26:63-64); and--

2. That St. Paul at times used modes of expression which are essentially of the nature of an oath (2Co_1:23; Rom_1:9; Gal_1:20; Php_1:8). (Dean Plumptre.)

The practice of the Essenes

It is not without interest to note that in this respect the practice of the Essenes, in their efforts after holiness, was after the pattern of the preaching of St. James. They, too, avoided oaths as being no less an evil than perjury itself (Josephus, Wars 2:8, 85). They, however, with a somewhat strange inconsistency, bound the members of their own society by tremendous oaths of obedience and secrecy. (Dean Plumptre.)

Evil of swearing

Swear not at all, lest by swearing ye come to a facility of swearing; flora a facility to a custom; and from a custom ye fall into perjury. (Augustine.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 5:12. But above all things, swear not — However provoked. The Jews were notoriously guilty of common swearing, though not so much by God himself as by some of his creatures. The apostle here forbids these oaths, as well as all swearing in common conversation. It is very observable how solemnly the apostle introduces this command; above all things, swear not; as if he had said, Whatever you forget, do not forget this. This abundantly demonstrates the horrible iniquity of the crime. But he does not forbid the taking of a solemn oath before a magistrate. Neither by any other oath — Namely, unlawful or unnecessary; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay — Let your discourse be confirmed with a bare affirmation or denial; and use no higher asseverations in common discourse. But let your words stand firm; and whatever ye say, take care to make it good; lest ye fall into condemnation — Expose yourselves to God’s judgments.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. Cautions against use of violent language, Jas_5:12.

12. Above all things—Not that this was the greatest of crimes, but that it was one of the greatest sins that a good Christian would be likely to incur.

Swear not—A precept of holy patience. It inculcates a preservation of moral serenity by an avoidance of profane and violent speech. The conversational oath, which is not content with the simple yea and nay, is the result and the token of an impatient and peremptory spirit, akin to the violence of persecutors and brigands. That recklessness which constitutes the charm is the reverse of the calm spirit that rests on God and reveres his name. Of course this has nothing to do with the solemn oath in the court of justice, in which reverence is the spirit, and an end of strife is the aim. Let your yea, your affirmation, be not an oath, but a simple yea.

Condemnation—From violent feeling or action, produced by violent language.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Jas_5:13. Merry.—Of good cheer, gladsome at heart. Psalm.—The word suggests a composition fitted to an accompaniment of music.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Jas_5:12-13

Christian Conduct fitting Occasions.—St. James closes his epistle with good advice, and indication of what is befitting conduct in the various relations of life. A positive tone of teaching properly concludes an epistle that is so full of warning and rebuke, and even denunciation. Teachings directed against evils and abuses are as necessary now as they ever were, but they should never constitute the whole of teaching; they should never be allowed to stand alone, and carry a complete impression of Christianity. They should be qualified with teachings of positive duty, and commendations of the right spirit to cherish. Christian teaching may be represented by the two related sentences—“Abhor that which is evil, cleave to that which is good.” The advice of this passage is precisely adapted to the circumstances and temptations of Jewish Christians in those days. (The advice in reference to the sick is treated as a separate section, because it introduces controversial matter.)

I. There should be the ring of truth in all ordinary conversation.—“Swear not.” Our Lord’s teaching in Mat_5:33-37 comes at once to mind. Swearing is the expression of lost self-control under the impulse of temper. Taking oaths, or supporting what one has to say with an oath, implies mutual suspicion and untrustfulness. St. James has not in mind that use of foul and blasphemous language which we now understand by swearing. Nor does he refer to the taking of legal oaths, which imply no loss of temper, and no purpose to injure a brother, but nevertheless are, from the Christian point of view, concessions to the weakness of human nature, recognitions of the fact that the naked word of sinful man is not to be trusted. St. James urges that there should be such a ring of truth in all the common conversation of a Christian, that it should never be felt necessary to buttress it with an oath. A truthful man is grieved when his simple word is not taken. And the Christian should be a truthful man. His word should be absolutely and always reliable; and to this end the Christian should cultivate discretion and self-restraint. In perplexing, anxious, persecuting times, there is peculiar call for wisdom of speech. Truthful conversation is a good sign of piety.

II. There should be the relief of prayer in times of suffering.—“Is any among you suffering? let him pray.” The idea is that if the sufferer broods over his woes, or talks over his woes, he is sure to get more and more depressed under them. The Christian way of relief is carrying the burden to God in prayer.

1. It is cherishing the spirit of prayer, which is the spirit of submission and dependence.

2. It is getting the relief of acts of prayer, in which the Divine sympathy and help are sought. Even the severely suffering may find help in ejaculatory prayers. St. Augustine calls these “arrows of the Lord’s deliverance, shot out with a sudden quickness.”

III. There should be the song of praise in times of rejoicing and success.—The advice was, and is, especially needed, because there is always grave danger that times of rejoicing may be times of excitement, and so of unrestrainedness, that may bring disgrace on the Christian name. There are natural ways of expressing gladness. At such times we want to sing. Then let the Christian be careful what song he sings. Let it have the ring of a psalm. Let it be such a thanksgiving as turns his heart to God, and fills his thoughts with God. This need not be exaggerated into meaning that we may, in our joy-times, sing nothing but Bible psalms. St. James means this—Take care, in your times of excitement and merry-making, that you do not lose self-restraint, and dishonour your Christian profession. Bring God near, and keep God near, in your joy-times. It is counsel that is always timely. Festivals of all religions have their moral perils; and merry-making times call for the kindly caution, “Is any cheerful? let him sing praise.” The point of impression is this—In all the various circumstances and moods of Christian life, there is a spirit and a conduct that are befitting. Let every professing Christian keep that spirit, and act along that line.

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Jas_5:12. The Truth-tone in Common Talk.—F. W. Robertson concludes his sermon on “Freedom by the Truth” with the two following inferences:

1. To cultivate the love of truth. I do not mean veracity—that is another thing. Veracity is the correspondence between a proposition and a man’s belief. Truth is the correspondence of the proposition with fact. The love of truth is the love of realities—the determination to rest upon facts, and not upon semblances. Take an illustration of the way in which the habit of cultivating truth is got. Two boys see a misshapen, hideous thing in the dark. One goes up to the cause of his terror, examines it, learns what it is; he knows the truth, and the truth has made him free. The other leaves it in mystery and unexplained vagueness, and is a slave for life to superstitious and indefinite terrors. Base the heart on facts.

2. See what a Christian is. Our society is divided into two classes: those who are daring, inquisitive, but restrained by no reverence, and kept back by little religion; those who may be called religious—but, with all their excellences, we cannot help feeling that the elements of their character are feminine rather than masculine, and that they have no grasp or manly breadth, that their hold is on feeling rather than on truth. See what a Christian is, drawn by the hand of Christ. He is a man on whose clear and open brow God has set the stamp of truth; one whose very eye beams bright with honour; in whose very look and bearing you may see freedom, manliness, veracity; a brave man—a noble man—frank, generous, true, with, it may be, many faults; whose freedom may take the form of impetuosity or rashness, but the form of meanness never.

Yea and Nay.—Our Lord taught us that the conversation of a sincere man can always be a simple Yea and Nay. He never needs to bolster up any statement he may make with oaths and asseverations. There is a tone in the Yea and Nay which carries conviction. We are made suspicious whenever a man feels he must support a statement with oaths. If a Christian is uncertain, he does not speak positively. If he is sure, he is satisfied with simply stating what he knows. He is true to himself, and true to his Master, and therefore true to his fellow-man. “In conversation be sincere.”

Jas_5:13. Prayer in Afflictive Circumstances.—There is a distinction indicated by St. James which is not usually recognised. In Jas_5:13 he says, “Is any among you afflicted?” In Jas_5:14 he says, “Is any sick among you?” We are wont to regard “sickness” and “affliction” as the same thing, and so we miss the precision of application. In both cases St. James recommends prayer; but for affliction he recommends personal prayer—for sickness, intercessory and sympathetic prayer. By “sickness” we understand the troubles which come as bodily disease, weakness, peril. This attracts public attention, calls for sympathy, and can be relieved by united, believing, intercessory prayer. By “affliction” we understand those distresses which come from trying and perplexing circumstances; and these are often strictly private matters, and must be kept private. We can ask no elders or Church to pray for us, or with us. All we can do, and the thing we should do, is take such “afflictions” freely to God in private prayer.

Life’s Gladness and its Outlet.—How closely our spiritual nature, as creatures of feeling, is related to the element of sound, wanting this in its distinctions for a language, as truly as it wants the language of words for intellectual discourse. Even as the poets, who are nature’s best oracles, sing,—

“Music! Oh, how faint, how weak,

Language fades before thy spell!

Why should feeling ever speak,

When thou canst breathe her soul so well?”

Accordingly, as we are wont to argue the invisible things of God, even His eternal power and Godhead, from the things that are seen, finding them all images of thought and vehicles of intelligence, so we have an argument for God more impressive, in one view, because the matter of it is so deep and mysterious, from the fact that a grand harmonic, soul-interpreting law of music pervades all the objects of the material creation, and that things without life, all metals, and woods, and valleys, and mountains, and waters, are tempered with distinctions of sound, and toned to be a language to the feeling of the heart. It is as if God had made the world about us to be a grand organ of music, so that our feelings might have play in it, as our understanding has in the light of the sun and the outward colours and forms of things.… There is hid in the secret temper and substance of all matter a silent music, that only waits to sound, and become a voice of utterance to the otherwise unutterable feeling of our heart—a voice, if we will have it, of love and worship to the God of all.—Horace Bushnell, D.D.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 5

Jas_5:14. The Use of Oil for anointing Bodies.—The use of oil in anointing the body appears to have been general in ancient times among all the nations dwelling around the Mediterranean. Allusions to this use abound in ancient authors. The heroes of Homer are described by him as restoring their weary limbs after a battle by frictions of oil. This was Alexander’s practice. It was Pompey’s daily practice also, as well as that of all the wealthy Romans. We find this custom alluded to in the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testaments. It is mentioned as forming an habitual part of the toilet on special occasions (Rth_3:3; 2Sa_12:20; Mic_6:15); not to be indulged in in case of mourning (2Sa_14:2; Dan_10:2-3). The head was anointed in connection with the recurring daily ablution, as mentioned in Mat_6:17. Egyptian monuments represent servants anointing guests on their arrival at their entertainer’s house; and alabaster vases still exist which retain traces of the ointment they once contained. This was adopted from the Egyptians by the Jews, and the settlement of many of these people at Alexandria served to maintain Egyptian customs among them. This practice has disappeared in modern times, on account of the conquest of these lands by foreign nations. The hair is now anointed, but mostly by the women, since the men have the head shaved. The wrestlers, called by the Turks Pekhliwans, anoint themselves with oil before wrestling, as did the ancients preparatory to similar athletic exercises, in order to render their bodies more slippery under the grasp of their antagonists. The custom of anointing the body is still prevalent among some nations of Africa.—Van Lennep.

Church Customs of anointing with Oil.—Anointing with oil was a part of the ceremonial of the Jewish law, which has been introduced into the Roman as well as the Oriental Churches. It is prepared by these according to the rule prescribed by Moses, and is with them no inconsiderable source of revenue. The “extreme unction” practised by the Roman Church is defended by a misinterpretation of this text; for extreme unction is never applied until it is considered certain that the patient is about to die, whereas the words of St. James, as well as those in Mar_6:13, connect anointing the sick with recovery. We do not consider that in these cases oil was used either as a means or a symbol; the anointing was simply an exercise of faith similar to Peter and John’s saying to the lame man at the gate of the Temple called Beautiful, “Rise up, and walk.” The elders of the Church, after praying for the sick man, were to treat him as though he were recovered. They were to help him rise from his bed, wash, anoint his head, and dress, and rejoice with him in view of the healing mercies of God.—Ibid.

Jas_5:15-16. Answers to Prayer.—About thirty years ago, a beloved friend and fellow-labourer was taken alarmingly ill, and his constitution being delicate, it was feared that he would not be able to resist so violent an attack. He was a man most highly esteemed both by teachers and children; indeed, I never knew a man more generally beloved. Kind and gentle in his deportment, superior in natural and acquired talent, and zealously devoted to the interests of the young, he was formed both by nature and grace to be a teacher of the very first order. His sudden indisposition spread a gloom over many hearts, and prayer was made without ceasing unto God for him. Several friends agreed to engage in this exercise every morning at eleven o’clock, and the result was waited for with the greatest anxiety. The next Sabbath came, and this faithful servant of Christ to all human appearance was fast approaching the gates of death; a few hours it was thought would terminate his useful career. But though cast down, his friends were not in despair. A special prayer-meeting was appointed to be held in the evening on his behalf, which was attended by not less than between two and three hundred persons, and never did Christians appear to be more united in purpose, more earnest in desire, and more interested in the one important object for which they were assembled, than were the friends on that occasion. It was in truth a solemn season. Every soul seemed dissolved in tenderness, and every eye melted to tears; while the language of each heart appeared to be, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan.” For my own part I felt so overcome by the intense sympathy and earnestness displayed, that I was glad to retire from the meeting unobserved, that I might “commune with my own heart, and be still.” The next day was with me a day of much anxiety; but in the evening I was greatly relieved by the information that the disorder of my friend had taken a sudden and favourable change at the very hour appointed for prayer; affording a striking illustration of the faithfulness of the promise, “Before they call I will answer, and while they are yet speaking I will hear.” From that hour the sufferer began slowly to amend, until he was again restored to health, and to the duties from which he had for a season been laid aside. But the most extraordinary part of the story remains to be told. At the meeting referred to, an aged teacher, a man remarkable for the strength and simplicity of his faith, was called upon to pray. Whilst pleading with God on behalf of his friend, Hezekiah’s sickness and recovery came forcibly to his mind, and he prayed that God would be pleased, as in the case of Israel’s king, to add fifteen years to the valuable life of his afflicted brother. Time rolled on, carrying many who had engaged in this interesting service to the ocean of eternity, and with them the venerable man who had offered this singular prayer. He whose life had been given at his petition wept over his remains, crying, “Alas, my brother!” and followed him to the open tomb. Years again passed away, and the circumstance of the fifteen years was forgotten by most, but not by him to whom it particularly referred. He treasured it up in his memory, until old age, with its accompanying infirmities, came stealing upon him. One day, when remarking upon it to his family, he said, “That prayer has been signally answered, for this very week the fifteen years have expired.” In the evening the worn-out pilgrim retired to his rest; but oh, how sweet, how peaceful was that rest! it was the rest that remaineth for the people of God. When the sun again visited our hemisphere, his happy spirit had departed to partake of pleasures which longevity cannot diminish, and eternity itself can never exhaust.—Cranfield.

Jas_5:16. Luther’s Prayer.—“Just as a shoemaker makes a shoe, and a tailor a coat,” said Luther, “so also ought the Christian to pray. The Christian’s trade is praying. And the prayer of the Church works great miracles. In our days it has raised from the dead three persons, viz. myself, my wife Catherine, and Melancthon, who was nigh unto death at Weimar.” Luther, having spoken thus, he lifted up his eyes towards heaven, praying, “Lord God, Thou hast spoken through the mouth of Thy servant David (Psa_147:8-9). Why wilt Thou not give us rain now, for which so long we have cried and prayed? Well, then, if no rain, Thou art able to give us something better—a peaceable and quiet life, peace and harmony. Now, we have prayed so much, prayed so often, and our prayers not being granted, dear Father, the wicked will say, Christ, Thy beloved Son, had told a falsehood, saying (Joh_16:23), Thus they will give both Thee and Thy Son the lie. I know that we sincerely cry to Thee and with yearning. Why, then, dost Thou not hear us?” In the very same night following there fell a very refreshing and productive rain.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 25

THE PROHIBITION OF SWEARING-THE RELATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF ST. JAMES TO RECORDED SAYINGS OF CHRIST.

Jam_5:12

THE main portion of the Epistle is already concluded. St. James has worked through his chief topics back to the point from which he started, viz., the blessedness of steadfast and patient endurance of trials and temptations. But one or two other subjects occur to him., and he reopens his letter to add them by way of a farewell word of counsel.

One of the leading thoughts in the letter has been warning against sins of the tongue. {Jam_1:19; Jam_1:26; Jam_3:1-12; Jam_4:11; Jam_4:13; Jam_5:9} He has spoken against talkativeness, unrestrained speaking, love of correcting others, railing, cursing, boasting, murmuring. One grievous form of sinful speech he has not mentioned particularly; and about this he adds a strong word of warning in this postscript to the Epistle: "Above all things, my brethren, swear not."

Two questions are raised by this remarkable prohibition-first, the exact meaning of it, especially whether it forbids swearing for any purpose whatever; and secondly, its relation to the almost identical prohibition uttered by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. {Mat_5:35-36} It will be obvious that whatever this relation may be, the meaning of our Lords injunction determines the meaning of St. James in his injunction. It is hardly worth arguing that he did not mean either more or less than Christ meant.

1. The immediate context of the prohibition is worth noting in each case; it seems to throw light upon the scope of the prohibition. Jesus Christ, after saying "Swear not at all; neither by the heaven nor by the earth…But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay," goes on to forbid retaliation of injuries, and to enjoin love towards enemies. St. James enjoins longsuffering towards enemies, thence goes on to forbid swearing, and then again returns to the subject of how to behave under affliction and ill-treatment: "Is any among, you suffering? let him pray." Prayer, not cursing and swearing, is the right method of finding relief. There is, therefore, some reason for thinking that both in the Sermon on the Mount and here the prohibition of swearing has special reference to giving vent to ones feelings in oaths when one is exasperated by injury or adversity. No kind of oath is allowable for any such purpose. But it is quite clear that this is not the whole meaning of the injunction in either place. "But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay"; and, But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, manifestly refers to strengthening affirmations and negations by adding to them the sanction of an oath. There was an old saying, now unhappily quite grotesque in its incongruity with facts, that "an Englishmans word is as good as his bond." What Christ and St. James say is that a Christians word should be as good as his oath. There ought to be no need of oaths. Anything over and above simple affirming or denying "cometh of the Evil One." It is because Satan, the father of lies, has introduced falsehood into the world that oaths have come into use. Among Christians there should be no untruthfulness, and therefore no oaths. The use of oaths is an index of the presence of evil; it is a symptom of the prevalence of falsehood.

But the use of oaths is not only a sign of the existence of mischief, it is also apt to be productive of mischief. It is apt to produce a belief that there are two kinds of truth, one of which it is a serious thing to violate, viz., when you are on your oath; but the other of which it is a harmless, or at least a venial thing to violate, viz., when falsehood is only falsehood, and not perjury. And this, both among Jews and among Christians, produces the further mischievous refinement that some oaths are more binding than others, and that only when the most stringent form of oath is employed is there any real obligation to speak the truth. How disastrous all such distinctions are to the interests of truth, abundant experience has testified: for a common result is this; -that people believe that they are free to lie as much as they please, so long as the lie is not supported by the particular kind of oath which they consider to be binding.

Thus much, then, is evident, that both our Lord and St. James forbid the use of oaths

(1) as an expression of feeling,

(2) as a confirmation of ordinary statements; for the prohibitions plainly mean as much as this, and we know from other sources that these two abuses were disastrously common among both Jews and Gentiles at that time.

That converts to Christianity were exempt from such vices is most improbable; and hence the need that St. James should write as he does on the subject.

But the main question is whether the prohibition is absolute; whether our Lord and St. James forbid the use of oaths for any purpose whatever; and it must be admitted that the first impression which we derive from their words is that they do. This view is upheld by not a few Christians as the right interpretation of both passages. Christ says, "Swear not at all (μησαι ολως). . . But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." St. James says, "Swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath (μητε αλλον τινα ορκον); but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay." In both cases we have an unqualified prohibition of what is to be avoided, followed by a plain command as to what is to be done.

But further investigation does not confirm the view which is derived from a first impression as to the meaning of the words. Against it we have, first, the fact that the Mosaic Law not only allowed, but enjoined the taking of an oath in certain circumstances; and Christ would hardly have abrogated the law, and St. James would hardly have contradicted it, without giving some explanation of so unusual a course; secondly, the indisputable practice of the early Church, of St. Paul, and of our Lord Himself.

In Deuteronomy we read, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; and Him. shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by His Name"; {Deu_6:13} and, "to Him shalt thou cleave, and by His Name shalt thou swear." {Deu_10:20} The Psalmist says, "The king shall rejoice in God: every one that sweareth by Him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped." {Psa_63:11} Isaiah says, "He that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth"; {Isa_65:16} and still more strongly Jeremiah: "Thou shalt swear, As the Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness"; {Jer_4:2} and, "If they will diligently learn the ways of My people, to swear by My Name, As the Lord liveth; even as they taught My people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built up in the midst of My people." {Jer_12:16. Comp. Jer_23:7-8} An absolute prohibition of all swearing would have been so surprisingly at variance with these passages of Scripture that it is difficult to believe that it would have been made without any allusion to them. Even the Essenes, who were very strict about swearing, and considered it to be worse than perjury (for a man is condemned already who cannot be believed except upon his oath), imposed "terrific oaths" (ορκους φρικωδεις) upon those who wished to enter their community, before admitting them (Josephus, "Bell. Jud," 2 8:6,7"; Ant.," XV 10:4); and we can hardly suppose that St. James means to take up a more extreme position than that of the Essenes.

But even if we suppose that he does mean this we have grill to explain the practice of those who were well aware of Christs command respecting swearing, and certainly had no intention of deliberately violating it. If the first Christians were willing on certain occasions to take certain oaths, it must have been because they were fully persuaded that Jesus Christ had not forbidden them to do so. When called upon by heathen magistrates to take an oath, the distinction which they drew was not between swearing and not swearing, but between taking oaths that committed them to idolatry and oaths which did nothing of the kind. The latter oaths they were willing to take. Thus Tertullian says that they would not swear by the genii of the emperors, because these were supposed to be demons; but by the safety of the emperors they were willing to swear ("Apol.," 32). Origen writes to much the same effect ("Con. Celsum," 8, 65). The oath by the genius, or numen, or "fortune" (τυχη) of the emperor was recognized as a formula for abjuring Christianity. Thus the proconsul presses Polycarp again and again: "Swear by the genius of Caesar; swear the oath, and I will release thee" ("Mart. Pol.," 9, 10.); and the fear of being betrayed into an act of idolatry was one of the main reasons why the early Christians disliked taking oaths. But there was also the feeling that for Christians oaths ought to be quite unnecessary. Thus Clement of Alexandria says that the true Christian ought to maintain a life calculated to inspire such confidence in those without that an oath would not even be demanded of him. And of course, when he swears, he swears truly; but he is not apt to swear, and rarely has recourse to an oath. And his speaking the truth on oath arises from his harmony With the truth ("Strom.," 7, 8.). Pelagius maintained that all swearing was forbidden; but Augustine contends, on the authority of Scripture, that oaths are not unlawful, although he would have them avoided as much as possible ("Ep.," 157. Comp. "Epp.," 125, 126).

But there is not only the evidence as to how the primitive Church understood the words of Christ and of St. James; there is also the practice of St. Paul, who frequently calls God to witness that he is speaking the 2Co_1:23; 2Co_11:31; 2Co_12:19; Gal_1:20; Php_1:8, or uses other strong asseverations which are certainly more than plain Yea and Nay. {Rom_9:11; 1Co_15:31; 2Co_1:18; 2Co_11:10} Augustine quotes St. Paul in defense of swearing, but adds that St. Pauls swearing, when there was weighty reason for it, is no proof that we may swear whenever we think proper to do so. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews the fact that men swear in order to settle disputes is mentioned without any intimation that the practice is utterly wrong. On the contrary, we are told that God has condescended to do the same, in order to give us all the assurance in His power. {Heb_6:16-18}

Lastly, we have the convincing fact that Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be put upon His oath. After having kept silence for a long time, He was adjured by the High Priest to answer; and then He answered at once. The full meaning of the High Priests words are, "I exact an oath of Thee (εξορκιζω σε) by the Living God". {Mat_26:63-64} Had this been an unlawful thing for the High-priest to do, our Lord would have kept silence all the more, or would have answered under protest.

2. It remains to consider the relation of the prohibition of swearing in this Epistle to the almost identical prohibition in the Sermon on the Mount. Is St. James quoting Christs words? and if so, whence did he derive his knowledge of them?

No one who compares the two passages will believe that the similarity between them is accidental. Even if such a hypothesis could reasonably be entertained, it would be shattered by the number of other coincidences which exist between passages in this Epistle and the recorded words of Christ. In this instance we have the largest amount of coincidence; and therefore the discussion of this point has been reserved until this passage was reached, although numerous other cases of coincidence have already occurred.

The remark is sometimes made that there are more quotations of Christs words in the Epistle of St. James than in all the Epistles of St. Paul, or than in all the other books of the New Testament other than the Gospels. It would be better to word the remark somewhat differently, and say that there are more coincidences which cannot be fortuitous between this Epistle and the recorded words of Christ than in all the Epistles of St. Paul; or that there is far more evidence of the influence of Christs discourses upon the language of St. James than there is of any such influence upon the language of St. Paul. St. Paul tells us much about Christ and His work, but he very rarely reproduces any of His sayings. With St. James it is exactly the opposite; he says very little indeed about Christ, but, without quoting them as such, he frequently reproduces His words. It will be found that the largest number of these coincidences are between St. James and sayings that are recorded by St. Matthew, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. But this does not warrant us in asserting that St. James must have seen St. Matthews Gospel or any other written Gospels. The coincidences, as will be seen, are not of a character to show this. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful whether any of the Gospels were written so early as A.D. 62, the latest date which can be given to our Epistle; and if any earlier date be assigned to it, the improbability of the writers having seen a written Gospel becomes all the greater. The resemblances between the words of St. James and the recorded words of Christ are such as would naturally arise if he had himself heard Christs teaching, and was consciously or unconsciously reproducing what he remembered of it, rather than such as would be found if he had had a written document to quote from. If this be so, we have a strong confirmation of the view adopted at the outset, that this Epistle is the work of the Lords brother, who had personal experience of Christs conversation, and was independent of both the oral and the written tradition of His teaching. It will be worth while to tabulate the principal coincidences, so that the reader may be able to judge for himself as to their significance. They suffice to show how full the mind of St. James must have been of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and they lead to the highly probable conjecture that in other parts of the Epistle we have reminiscences of Christs words of which we have no record in the Gospels. It is not likely that St. James has remembered and reproduced only those sayings of which there is something recorded by the Evangelists.

ST. MATTHEW.ST. JAMES1. Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you (Mat_5:10-12).

Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptations; knowing that the proof of your faith worketh patience (Jas_1:2-3).

Take, brethren, for an example of suffering and of patience, the prophets who spake in the name of the Lord. Behold, we call them blessed which endured (Jas_5:10-11).2. Ye therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Mat_5:48).And let patience have its perfect work,that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing (Jas_1:4).

3. Ask and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth (Mat_7:7-8).But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall he given him (Jas_1:5).4. Blessed are the prior in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Mat_5:3. Comp. Luk_6:20).Let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate (Jas_1:9).

Did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom (Jas_2:5)5. Not everyone that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven . . . And every one that heareth these words of Mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the. sand (Mat_7:21; Mat_7:26).

Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word, and not a deer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror (Jas_1:22-23).6. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (Mat_5:7).

If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Mat_6:15).

With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged (Mat_7:2).So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment (Jas_2:12-13).7. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (Mat_7:16).

Can a fig-tree, my brethren, yield olives, or a vine figs? (Jas_3:12).8. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon (Mat_6:24).Know ye not that the friend-ship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore would he is friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God (Jas_4:4).9. Whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted (Mat_23:12).Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall exalt you (Jas_4:10).10. Be not therefore anxious for the morrow (Mat_6:34).Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow (Jas_4:14).11. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust doth consume (Mat_6:19)Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are rusted (Jas_5:2-3).

12. Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem. for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech, be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one (Mat_5:34-37)But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath.

But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment (Jas_5:12).

These twelve parallels are by no means exhaustive, but they are among the most striking. The following are worthy of consideration, although those which have been quoted above are more than sufficient for our purpose:-

{Mat_1:19; Jam_5:19}

{Mat_1:20; Mat_5:22}

{Mat_2:8; Mat_7:12}

Mat_2:10-11; Jam_5:2-7}

{Mat_3:17-18; Jam_5:9}

{Mat_4:3; Mat_7:8}

Let us now consider some coincidences between the language of St. James and our Lords words as recorded by the other three Evangelists.

ST. MARKST. JAMES.13. Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt (διακριθη) in his heart, but shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass; he shall have it (Mar_11:23).If any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not. But let him ask in faith,nothing doubting (διακρινομενος): for he that doubteth, etc. (Jas_1:5-6).14. They shall deliver you up to councils; and in synagogues shall ye be beaten (Mar_13:9)Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? (Jas_2:6).

15. Know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors (Mar_13:29; Mat_24:33)

Behold, the Judge standeth before the doors (Jas_5:9).

ST. LUKE.ST. JAMES.16. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep (Luk_6:25)

Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness (Jas_4:9).17. Woe unto you that are rich for ye have received your consolation (Luk_6:24).Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you (Jas_5:1)

ST. JOHN.ST James.18. If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them (Joh_13:17).Being not a hearer that forgetteth. but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing (Jas_1:25).

19. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world,…therefore the world hateth you (Joh_15:19. Comp. Joh_17:14).Know ye not that the friend-ship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God (Jas_4:4).

It will be observed that these reminiscences of the teaching of Christ are all of one kind. They are all of them concerned with the morality of the Gospel, with Christian conduct and Christian life. Not one of them is doctrinal, or gives instruction as to the Christian creed. This, again, is what we might expect if the brother of the Lord is the writer of the Epistle. At the time when he listened to his Divine Brothers teaching he did not believe on Him. The doctrinal part of His discourses was precisely that part which did not impress him; it seemed to him as the wild fancies of an enthusiast. {Mar_3:21} But the moral teaching of Jesus impressed many of those who rejected His claims to be the Messiah and it is this element which St. James remembers.

Before concluding, let us return to the moral precept contained in the verse which we have been considering: "Above all things, my brethren, swear not." The prohibition has not ceased to be necessary, as our daily, experience proves. The vice of profane swearing (and all swearing about ordinary matters is profane) is a strange one. Where is the pleasure of it? Where, before it becomes a fashion or a habit, is the temptation to it? Where, in any case, is the sense of it? There is pleasure in gluttony, in drunkenness, in lust, in pride, in avarice, in revenge. But where is the pleasure in an oath? The sensualist, the hypocrite, the miser, and the murderer can at least plead strong temptation, can at least urge that they get something, however pitiful, in exchange for eternal loss. But what can the blasphemer plead? what does he get in exchange for his soul? In times of strong excitement it is no doubt a relief to the feelings to use strong language; but what is gained by making the strong language trebly culpable by adding blasphemy to it? Besides which, there is the sadly common case of those who use blasphemous words when there is no temptation to give vent to strong feeling in strong language, who habitually swear in cold blood. Let no one deceive himself with the paltry excuse that he cannot help it, or that there is no harm in it. A resolution to do something disagreeable every time an oath escaped ones lips would soon bring about a cure. And let those who profess to think that there is no harm in idle swearing ask themselves whether they expect to repeat that plea when they give an account for every idle word at the day of judgment. {Mat_12:36}

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

5:12 never take an oath: Because the churches were having such severe verbal conflicts (4:1-3, 11-12), James calls upon them to avoid the pitfalls of deceitful oaths by not using any oaths at all (Matt 5:33-37). To swear an oath in the name of the Lord was to call upon him to enforce the oath (Gen 31:53; 1 Kgs 8:31-32). When people swore by heaven or earth they were either feigning reverence while avoiding the use of the divine name, or they were being deceitful with clever verbiage (see Matt 23:16-22). Peter used an oath deceitfully (Matt 26:71-73), but Paul used an oath to confirm his assertions (Rom 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23), which suggests that the prohibition of oaths is not absolute.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Jas 5:12. Μὴ ὀμνύετε, do not swear) for instance, through impatience. The proper use of the tongue in adversity is set forth by way of contrast in Jas 5:13.—μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν, neither by heaven) Mat 5:34-35.—ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ, ναὶ, let your yea be yea) Let your yea be the same in word as it is in deed [reality].—ὑπὸ κρίσιν, under judgment) Comp. Jas 5:9. This, as I have said in the Apparatus, is in agreement with the tenor of the whole Epistle.[74] In Baumgarten, Nec has crept in, instead of Hoc. I mention this, lest he should seem to be at variance with himself.

[74] AB Vulg. both Syr. Memph. Memph. Theb. read ὑτο κρίσιν; and so Elzev. Rec. Text. But Stephens’ Rec. Text has εἰς ὑποκρίσιν, with inferior authorities.—E.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jam_5:12. The warning contained in this verse against swearing is in no other connection with the preceding than what lay in the conduct of the readers. The Epistle of James was occasioned by manifold faults in the churches, and therefore he could not conclude without referring to the inconsiderate swearing prevalent among them. It is as little indicated that he refers to the warning against abuse of the tongue (chap. 3; Hornejus) as that this swearing arose from impatience, against which the preceding verses are directed (against Gataker, Wiesinger). How important this warning was to the author the words πρὸ πάντων δέ show, by which it is indicated that it of all other exhortations is to be specially taken to heart. James assigns the reason of this in the words ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε.

The warning μὴ ὀμνύετε is more exactly stated in the words μήτε τὸν οὐρανόν, μήτε τὴν γῆν, μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον. It is to be noticed that swearing by the name of God is not mentioned. This is not, as Rauch along with others maintains, to be considered as included in the last member of the clause, but James with μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον has in view only similar formulae as the above, of which several are mentioned in Mat_5:35-36. Had James intended to forbid swearing by the name of God, he would most certainly have expressly mentioned it; for not only is it commanded in the O. T. law, in contradistinction to other oaths (Deu_6:13; Deu_10:20; Psa_63:1-2), but also in the prophets it is announced as a token of the future turning of men to God (Isa_65:16; Jer_12:16; Jer_23:7-8). The omission of this oath shows that James in this warning has in view only the abuse, common among the Jews generally and also among his readers, of introducing in the common every-day affairs of life, instead of the simple yea or nay, such asseverations as those here mentioned; so that we are not justified in deducing from his words an absolute prohibition of swearing in general,[236] as has been done by many expositors of our Epistle, and especially by Oecumenius, Bede, Erasmus, Gebser, Hottinger, Theile, de Wette, Neander (comp. also Meyer on Mat_5:33 ff.); whereas Calvin, Estius, Hornejus, Laurentius, Grotius, Pott, Baumgarten, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, Schneckenburger, Kern, Wiesinger, Bouman, Lange,[237] and others, refer James prohibition to light and trifling oaths. The use of oaths by heaven etc., arises, on the one hand, from forgetting that every oath, in its deeper significance, is a swearing by God; and, on the other hand, from a depreciation of the simple word, thus from a frivolity which is in direct contrast to the earnestness of the Christian disposition. The construction of ὀμνύειν with the accusative τὸν οὐρανόν, etc., is in accordance with classical usage, whereas the construction with ἐν and εἴς (in Matt.) is according to Hebraistic usage.

To the prohibition James opposes the command with the words ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ οὔ, which do not express a new exhortation (Schneckenburger), but the contrast to ὀμνύειν τὸν οὐρανόν, etc. Most expositors (Theophylact, Oecumenius, Zwingli, Calvin, Hornejus, Grotius, Bengel, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Kern, Stier, and others) find here a command to truthfulness expressed; but incorrectly, as in the foregoing μὴ ὀμνύετε a reference to the contrast between truth and falsehood is not in question at all. De Wette correctly explains it: let your yea be (a simple) yea, and your nay (a simple) nay (so also Estius, Piscator, Hottinger, Neander, Wiesinger, and others; comp. Al. Buttmann, p. 142 [E. T. 163]).[238] Not the sentiment itself, but its form only is different from Mat_5:37 (see Tholuck and Meyer in loco).

The form ἤτω (1Co_16:22; Psa_104:31, LXX.) instead of ἔστω is found in classical Greek only once in Plato, Rep. ii. p. 361 (see Buttmann, Ausführl. Gr. § 108, Remark 15 [E. T. 49]; Winer, p. 73 [E. T. 95]).

ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε] assigns the reason why one should not swear, but should be satisfied with the simple yea or nay. According to its meaning, the expression is equivalent to ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε, Jam_5:9. There is nothing strange in πίπτειν ὑπό]; comp. 2Sa_22:39; Psa_18:39. By κρίσις is to be understood judicium condemnatorium. The swearing forbidden by James subjects to the judgment, because it is founded on and in every instance promotes frivolity.

[236] Rauch says: One should give honour to the truth, and freely and without prejudice recognise that according to the clear words of the text here, as in Mat_5:34 ff., a general and unconditional prohibition of all oaths is expressed. To this it is replied that honour is given to the truth when one is not taken by appearance, but seeks without prejudice to comprehend the actual meaning. In opposition to the view that Christ by the prohibition of oaths, in Mat_5:33 ff., has in view the ideal condition of the church, Wiesinger with justice observes: It can no longer be said, in reference to our passage, that only an ideal requirement is expressed calculated for entirely different circumstances than those which were in reality, for there can be no doubt that James demands for his requirement complete practice under the actual and not the ideal circumstances of his readers.

[237] Lange by this understands more exactly: conspiracy, which is a swearing accompanied by hypothetical imprecations or the giving of a pledge. Moreover, his view of the design of the Epistle misled him to find the reason of this prohibition in Jewish zeal to enter into conspiracies.

[238] Lange would unite the two points together; and he is so far not in the wrong, as James presupposes truthfulness.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jas 5:12 . f1Πρὸ πάντων …: The most natural way of understanding these words would be to take them in connection with something that immediately preceded, but as there is not the remotest connection between this verse and the section that has gone just before, this is impossible here; the verse must be regarded as the fragment of some larger piece; it is not the only instance in this Epistle of a quotation which has been incorporated, only in this case the fragmentary character is more than usually evident. That it is not a quotation from the Gospel, as we now have it (Mat 5:33-37 ), must be obvious, for if it were this, it would unquestionably approximate more closely to the original; on the other hand, its general similarity to the Gospel passage proves that there must be a relationship of some kind between the two. Probably both trace their origin to a saying of our Lord’s which became modified in transmission, assuming various forms while retaining the essential point. An example of a similar kind can be seen by comparing together Mat 10:26 ; Luk 8:17 and the fourth of the New Oxyrhynchus Sayings: Λέγει Ἰησοῦς Πᾶν τὸ μὴ ἔμπροσθεν τῆς ὄψεώς σου καὶ τὸ κεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ σοῦ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται . οὐ γάρ ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερὸν γενήσεται καὶ τεθαμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἐγερθήσεται (Grenfell and Hunt’s restoration). In any case the verse before us must originally have been preceded by a context which contained various precepts of which this was regarded as the most important, on account of the words πρὸ πάντων . μὴ ὀμνύετε …: this was a precept enjoined by many of the more devout Jews; Pharisees avoided oaths as much as possible, the Essenes never swore; a very good pre-Christian example of the same precept is contained in Sir 23:9-11 , Ὅρκῳ μὴ ἐθίσῃς τὸ στόμα σου , καὶ ὀνομασίᾳ τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ συνεθισθῇς … ἀνὴρ πολύορκος πλησθήσεται ἀνομίας … ἤτω : Cf. 1Co 16:22 , the only other occurrence of this form in the N.T.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12-18. Do not break out into oaths. Instead, if in distress, pray; if well off, sing a psalm to God; if sick, ask for prayer and anointing, and confess your sins. Prayer is a mighty power; remember Elijah’s prayer.

The exhortation relating to oaths appears to be parallel with μὴ στενάζετε. “Do not put the blame for your hardships on your brethren: do not irreverently call upon God in your distress.” Vv. 12-18 all relate to the religious expression of strong emotion.

12. πρὸ πάντων δέ, “but especially,” emphasising this as even more important than μὴ στενάζετε.

For the use of this formula near the end of a letter, cf. 1Pe 4:8, and see examples from papyri quoted in Robinson, Ephesians, p. 279.

μὴ ὀμνύετε. A reminiscence of Mat 5:34-37 (note especially v. 37 and the reference to οὐρανός and γῆ in vv. 34 f.).

τὸν οὐρανόν. The accusative is the ordinary classical construction after ὄμνυμι; ἐν with the dative, as found in Matthew is a Hebraism.

ἤτω, for ἔστω. See references in Lex. and Winer-Schmiedel, § 14:1, note; also Mayor’s note, p. 167, J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 56.

ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί, “let your yea be yea” (and nothing more).

This is simpler, and in every way better, than to translate, “Let yours be the ‘Yea, yea,’ ” i. e. the mode of speech commanded by the Lord in Mat 5:37.

It is not to be supposed that James had in mind any question of the lawfulness of oaths in a law-court in a Jewish or Christian country. To any oriental such a saying as this, or Mat 5:37, would at once suggest ordinary swearing, not the rare and solemn occasions about which modern readers have been so much concerned.

The commentators are divided on this point. Huther (Beyschlag) names many who hold that James meant to forbid all oaths, but a still larger number who think that only frivolous swearing was in his mind. Huther’s own argument is that if he had meant to forbid serious oaths he would have had to mention explicitly the oath by the name of God.

The form here differs from that of the saying in Mat 5:37 ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, and it is a singular fact that the words of Jesus are quoted substantially in the form found in James by many early writers, including Justin Martyr, Apol. i, 16, Clem. Alex. Strom. v, 14, 99, p. 707, vii, 11, 67, p. 872.

The form in James is simpler and seems to correspond to a current Jewish mode of describing truthfulness. Similar language is found in Ruth rabba 3, 18, “With the righteous is their ‘yes,’ yes, and their ‘no,’ no,” ascribed to R. Huna († 297 a.d.), quoting his contemporary R. Samuel bar-Isaac, and doubtless independent of the N. T.

The fact probably is that at an early date the text of Mat 5:37 was in the East either modified or misquoted by the influence of the more familiar current phrase, which also appears in James. In the later quotations, however, direct influence from Jas 5:12 is very likely to have come in. The theory that we have here in James and in these early writers the traces of an oral form of the sayings of Jesus preserved independently of Matthew’s Greek gospel is unlikely, and unnecessary. For a convenient presentation of the facts, see A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, ii, Matthaeus und Marcus, 1894 (Texte und Unters. x), pp. 96 f.

The commonness of oaths (often half-serious, half-profane) in daily speech in the ancient world, both Jewish and Gentile, does not need to be illustrated, cf. Ecc 9:2. The censure of the moralists seems to have proceeded both from the tendency to untruthfulness which made an oath seem needed (and which it intensified), from the dishonest distinctions between the valid and the invalid oath, and from the irreverence of profanity (Philo, De decal. 19 φύεται γὰρ ἐκ πολυορκίας ψευδορκία καὶ ἀσέβεια). To these motives should be added the dread among the Greeks of an oath which might commit to unexpected obligations perhaps tragic in their result.

From Jewish sources there are consequently many sayings recommending either complete abstinence from swearing or at least the greatest possible restriction of the custom. Thus Ecclus. 23:9-11, 27:14. Philo discusses oaths in De decal. 17-19, and De spec. leg. ii, 1-6. His principle is that oaths are to be avoided when possible, that oaths should be taken by lower objects (“the earth, the sun, the stars, the universe”) rather than by “the highest and eldest Cause,” and he praises the man who by any evasion (cf. English, “Oh My!”) avoids the utterance of the sacred words of oaths. His abhorrence of oaths is due to their profane impiety and unseemliness, but he also lays stress on truthfulness and on the wickedness of false swearing and of swearing to do wrong.

Rabbinical teaching was to much the same effect, with varying degrees of rigour. Nedarim 20 a, “Accustom not thyself to vows, for sooner or later thou wilt swear false oaths”; Midrash Bemidbar r. 22, “Not even to confirm the truth is it proper for one to swear, lest he come to trifle with vows and swearing, and deceive his neighbour by oaths”; Midrash Wajjikra r. 6 (cf. Shebuoth 47 a), where all swearing is forbidden. See A. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1878, pp. 57-60, and E. Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbinen, 1905, pp. 54-56.

In particular the Essenes refrained from oaths; Josephus, BJ, ii, 8 6: “Every statement of theirs is surer than an oath; and with them swearing is avoided, for they think it worse than perjury. For they say that he who is untrustworthy except when he appeals to God, is already under condemnation,” cf. Ant. xv, 10 4. Philo, Quod omn. prob. liber, 12, mentions among the doctrines of the Essenes τὸ ἀνώμοτον, τὸ ἀψευδές.

Similar reasons led to the discouragement of oaths by Greek moralists. Pythagoras himself is said (Diog. Laert, Pythag. 22, Jamblichus, Vita Pythag. 9 and 28) to have taught μηδʼ ὀμνύναι θεούς, ἀσκεῖν γὰρ αὑτὸν δεῖν ἀξιόπιστον παρέχειν, and this was certainly a principle of the Pythagoreans. See also Diodor. Sic. x, fragm. 92.

From the Stoic side comes the saying of Epictetus, Enchir. 335, ὅρκον παραίτησαι, εἰ μὲν οἷόν τε, εἰς ἅπαν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἐκ τῶν ἐνόντων, and that of the Stoically influenced Eusebius, in Stobæus, Anthol. iii, 27, 13 οἱ πολλοὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποισι τὸ εὐόρκους εἶναι αὐτοῖς παραινέουσιν, ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀρχὴν μηδʼ εὐπετέως ὀμνύναι ὅσιον ἀποφαίνομαι.

For other Greek sayings, cf. Chœrilus of Samos (fourth century b.c.), ὅρκον δʼ οὐτʼ ἄδικον χρεὼν ὀμνύναι οὔτε δίκαιον (in Stobæus, Anthol. iii, 27, 1); Menander, Sent. sing. 441 ὅρκον δὲ φεῦγε καὶ δικαίως κἀδίκως; the statement of Nicolaus Damascenus (Stob. Anth. iv, 2, 25), Φρύγες ὅρκοις οὐ χρῶνται, οὐτʼ ὀμνύντες, οὔτε ἄλλους ἐξορκοῦντες; Sosiades’ maxims of the Seven Sages, in Stobæus, Anthol. iii, 1, 173 ὅρκῳ μὴ χρῶ.

See R. Hirzel’s excellent monograph, Der Eid, 1902; L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 1882, ii, pp. 1-11; references in Mayor and Wetstein on Mat 5:37; Stobæus, Anthol. iii, c, 27 Περὶ ὅρκου.

With early Christian writers the objection to oaths was further increased by reason of the necessary association with heathen worship and formulas. The subject is discussed by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Augustine. See references in Mayor, K. F. Stäudlin, Geschichte der Vorstellungen und Lehren vom Eide, 1824, “Oaths,” in DCA.

ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε, cf. v. 9, with the same meaning.

ὑπὸ κρίσιν] BאA minn ff vg boh sah syrutr.

εἰς κρίσιν] minn2.

εἰς ὑπόκρισιν] KLP 048 minnmulti.

The reading of KLP is a superficial emendation.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Because even the best men sometimes through impatience break out into oaths sometimes lesser, sometimes greater, the Apostle warneth us to detest such wickedness, and to accustom our tongues to simple and true talk.

That that you have to say or affirm, speak or affirm it simply, and without an oath: and that that you will deny, deny it simply and flatly.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

But above all--as swearing is utterly alien to the Christian meek "endurance" just recommended.

swear not--through impatience, to which trials may tempt you (Jam 5:10-11). In contrast to this stands the proper use of the tongue, Jam 5:13. James here refers to Mat 5:34, &c.

let your yea be yea--Do not use oaths in your everyday conversation, but let a simple affirmative or denial be deemed enough to establish your word.

condemnation--literally, "judgment," namely, of "the Judge" who "standeth before the doors" (Jam 5:9).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 12. Above all things - swear not] What relation this exhortation can have to the subject in question, I confess I cannot see. It may not have been designed to stand in any connection, but to be a separate piece of advice, as in the several cases which immediately follow. That the Jews were notoriously guilty of common swearing is allowed on all hands; and that swearing by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, the temple, the altar, different parts of the body, was not considered by them as binding oaths, has been sufficiently proved. Rabbi Akiba taught that "a man might swear with his lips, and annul it in his heart; and then the oath was not binding." See Clarke on Mt 5:33, c., where the subject is considered in great detail.

Let your yea be yea, c.] Do not pretend to say yea with your lips, and annul it in your heart let the yea or the nay which you express be bona fide such. Do not imagine that any mental reservation can cancel any such expressions of obligation in the sight of God.

Lest ye fall into condemnation.] ιναμηυποκρισινπεσητε. Lest ye fall under judgment. Several MSS. join υπο and κρισιν together, υποκρισιν, and prefix εις, into, which makes a widely different reading: Lest ye fall into hypocrisy. Now, as it is a fact, that the Jews did teach that there might be mental reservation, that would annul the oath, how solemnly soever it was taken the object of St. James, if the last reading be genuine, and it is supported by a great number of excellent MSS., some versions, and some of the most eminent of the fathers, was to guard against that hypocritical method of taking an oath, which is subversive of all moral feeling, and must make conscience itself callous.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

12 But above all things. It has been a common vice almost in all ages, to swear lightly and inconsiderately. For so bad is our nature that we do not consider what an atrocious crime it is to profane the name of God. For though the Lord strictly commands us to reverence his name, yet men devise various subterfuges, and think that they can swear with impunity. They imagine, then, that there is no evil, provided they do not openly mention the name of God; and this is an old gloss. So the Jews, when they swore by heaven or earth, thought that they did not profane God’s name, because they did not mention it. But while men seek to be ingenious in dissembling with God, they delude themselves with the most frivolous evasions.

It was a vain excuse of this kind that Christ condemned in Matthew 5:34. James, now subscribing to the decree of his master, commands us to abstain from these indirect forms of swearing: for whosoever swears in vain and on frivolous occasions, profanes God’s name, whatever form he may give to his words. Then the meaning is, that it is not more lawful to swear by heaven or by the earth, than openly by the name of God. The reason is mentioned by Christ — because the glory of God is everywhere inscribed, and everywhere shines forth. Nay, men take the words, heaven and earth, in their oaths, in no other sense and for no other purpose, than if they named God himself; for by thus speaking they only designate the Worker by his works.

But he says, above all things; because the profanation of God’s name is not a slight offense. The Anabaptists, building on this passage, condemn all oaths, but they only shew their ignorance. For James does not speak of oaths in general, nor does Christ in the passage to which I have referred; but both condemn that evasion which had been devised, when men took the liberty to swear without expressing the name of God, which was a liberty repugnant to the prohibition of the law.

And this is what the words clearly mean, Neither by heaven, neither by the earth. For, if the question had been as to oaths in themselves, to what purpose were these forms mentioned? It then appears evident that both by Christ and by James the puerile astuteness of those is reproved who taught that they could swear with impunity, provided they adopted some circuitous expressions. That we may, then, understand the meaning of James, we must understand first the precept of the law, “Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain.” It hence appears clear, that there is a right and lawful use of God’s name. Now, James condemns those who did not indeed dare in a direct way to profane God’s name, but endeavored to evade the profanation which the law condemns, by circumlocutions.

But let your yea be yea. He brings the best remedy to correct the vice which he condemns, that is, that they were habitually to keep themselves to truth and faithfulness in all their sayings. For whence is the wicked habit of swearing, except that such is the falsehood of men, that their words alone are not believed? For, if they observed faithfulness, as they ought, in their words, there would have been no necessity of so many superfluous oaths. As, then, the perfidy or levity of men is the fountain from which the vice of swearing flows, in order to take away the vice, James teaches us that the fountain ought to be removed; for the right way of healing is to begin with the cause of illness.

Some copies have, “Let your word (or speech) be, yea, yea; no, no.” The true reading however, is what I have given, and is commonly received; and what he means I have already explained, that is, that we ought to tell the truth, and to be faithful in our words. To the same purpose is what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:18, that he was not in his preaching yea and nay, but pursued the same course from the beginning.

Lest ye fall into condemnation. There is a different reading, owing to the affinity of the words ὑπὸ κρίσιν and ὑπόκρισιν If you read, “into judgment” or condemnation, the sense will clearly be, that to take God’s name in vain will not be unpunished. But it is not unsuitable to say, “into hypocrisy;” because when simplicity, as it has been already said, prevails among us, the occasion for superfluous oaths is cut off. If, then, fidelity appears in all we say, the dissimulation, which leads us to swear rashly, will be removed.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(12) The question of the lawfulness of oaths has oftentimes perplexed alike the doctors of the Church and its simpler hearers of God’s word. The text, taken as it stands, would support the views of the Essenes, and many of the Paulicians, and other ancient sectaries. With equal force it might be urged by the followers of Peter Waldo, or the Unitas Fratrum (the Moravians), or the Society of Friends.

Swear not.—The words are put quite distinctly in Greek and English—neither by the heaven, nor by the earth. And it sounds like special pleading, worthy of a rabbi, to hear such a divine as Huther say that “swearing by the name of God is not mentioned,” nor accordingly is such an oath prohibited. “We must not imagine,” he continues (and his argument had best be fairly given), “that this is included in the last member of the clause, the Apostle evidently intending by it (i.e., ‘neither by any other oath’) to point only at certain formulæ, of which several are mentioned in Mat_5:34-37. Had he intended to forbid swearing by the name of God he would most certainly have mentioned it expressly; for not only is it in the Law, in contradistinction to other oaths, commanded (see Deu_6:13; Deu_10:20; Psa_63:11), but in the prophets is announced as a token of the future turning of men to God” (Isa_65:16; Jer_12:16; Jer_23:7-8). There were, we learn, many subtle distinctions in Jewish oaths; and the unlucky foreigner who trusted in an apparently firm one, too often found out his mistake. Certainly all such subterfuges are utterly condemned; and further, every word which breaks the letter or spirit of God’s Third Commandment. As to the higher judicial forms of oaths, remembering that our Lord answered such before Caiaphas (Mat_26:63-64), we can fearlessly conclude, with the 39th Article of Religion, that “a man may swear, when the magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the prophet’s teaching—in justice, judgment, and truth.”

Let your yea be yea . . .—Your word be as your bond, needing no strengthening by any invocation of God, or holy things, “lest ye fall into judgment”—not “condemnation,” though certainly such might follow.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. Oaths

12. above all things, my brethren, swear not …] The passage presents so close a parallel with Mat_5:33-37 that it is almost a necessary inference that St James, if not himself a hearer of the Sermon on the Mount, had become acquainted with it as reported by others. Comp. Introduction, p. 8. The words condemn alike the rash use of oaths in common speech, and the subtle distinctions drawn by the Scribes as to the binding force of this or that formula (Mat_23:16-22). That the condemnation does not extend to the solemn judicial use of oaths we see in the facts (1) that our Lord answered when questioned as on oath by Caiaphas (Mat_26:63-64), and (2) that St Paul at times used modes of expression which are essentially of the nature of an oath (2Co_1:23; Rom_1:9; Gal_1:20; Php_1:8). It is not without interest to note that in this respect also the practice of the Essenes, in their efforts after holiness, was after the pattern of the teaching of St James. They, too, avoided oaths as being no less an evil than perjury itself (Joseph. Wars. ii. viii. 85). They, however, with a somewhat strange inconsistency, bound the members of their own society by “tremendous oaths” of obedience and secresy.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But above all things, my brethren, swear not,.... As impatience should not show itself in secret sighs, groans, murmurings, and repinings, so more especially it should not break forth in rash oaths, or in profane swearing; for of such sort of swearing, and of such oaths, is the apostle to be understood; otherwise an oath is very lawful, when taken in the fear and name of God, and made by the living God, and is used for the confirmation of anything of moment, and in order to put an end to strife; God himself, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and angels, and good men, are in Scripture sometimes represented as swearing: and that the apostle is so to be understood, appears from the form of swearing prohibited,

neither by the heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; of the like kind; such as are forbidden, and cautioned, and reasoned against by our Lord, in Mat 5:34 to which the apostle manifestly refers; See Gill on Mat 5:34, Mat 5:35, Mat 5:36.

But let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that is, whenever there is an occasion for affirming, or denying anything, let it be done nakedly, simply, and absolutely, without any form of oath annexed to it; for whatever addition of that kind is made comes from evil, and tends to it, and is evil:

lest ye fall into condemnation; by the Lord; for either false, or rash, or profane swearing; for he will not suffer it to go unpunished; see Exo 20:7. Some copies read, "lest ye fall into hypocrisy"; or dissimulation, and get into a habit and custom of lying and deceiving, as common swearers do; and so reads the Arabic version.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Ver. 12. But above all things] Swear not in jest, lest ye go to hell in earnest. {See Trapp on "Mat 5:34"} {See Trapp on "Mat 5:35"} {See Trapp on "Mat 23:16"} {See Trapp on "Mat 23:18"} Swear not in your passion (the apostle is here exhorting them to patience) as the Jews did ordinarily, and, so it were by the creature, held it no great sin, Mat 5:33; Mat 23:16. The swearer rends and tears God’s name as a draper rasheth out a piece of cloth to the buyer. He makes his tongue a grenado to shoot out oaths and blasphemies sgainst heaven. He shall one day smart for it in his tongue as Dives did, and be worse punished than the French were in the days of Louis XI, who punished swearing by searing the lips of the swearer with a hot iron.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But above all things - That is be especially careful on this point; whatever else is done, let not this be. The manner in which James speaks of the practice referred to here, shows that he regarded it as a sin of a very heinous nature; one that was by all means to be avoided by those whom he addressed. The habit of swearing by various things was a very common one among the Jews, and it was important to guard those who from among them had been converted to Christianity on that subject.

Swear not - See this command illustrated in the notes at Mat 5:33-34. Nearly the same things are mentioned here, as objects by which they were accustomed to swear, which are referred to by the Saviour.

But let our yea be yea - Let there be a simple affirmation, unaccompanied by any oath or appeal to God or to any of his works. A man who makes that his common method of speech is the man who will be believed. See the notes at Mat 5:37.

Lest you fall into condemnation - That is, for profaning the name of God. “The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain,” Exo 20:7.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

but above all things....swear not, &c. This earnest admonition is against all kind of oaths in common conversation, (not against oaths made on just and necessary occasions) and in the very same words, as our blessed Saviour warned all people against this sin of swearing. (Matthew, chap. v.) How unaccountably is this commandment of God contemned? And what a dreadful account will some day be exacted for so many oaths, curses, and blasphemies, which are now so common, that we may rather wonder at the patience of God and that already exemplary punishments have not fallen upon whole cities and kingdoms for this continued profanation of the holy name of God? (Witham) --- St. James here repeats the injunctions of our Saviour, not to swear al all. (Matthew v. 34.) See the annotations in that place.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Because it is a great sin to swear upon every slight occasion, and it was very usual among the Jews, and it was the more difficult to bring them off from it who were so much accustomed to it; therefore the apostle commands them, that

above all things they should not swear, i.e. should take special care they did not, and watch diligently against a sin so many were addicted to, and into which they might so easily fall.

Swear not; all swearing is not forbidden, any more than Mat 5:34; (for oaths are made use of by holy men both in the Old and New Testament, Gen 21:23,24; 24:3; 26:28; 1Ki 17:1,2; 2Co 1:23; Gal 1:20; and the use of an oath is permitted and approved of by God himself, Psa 15:4; Heb 6:16); but such oaths as are false, rash, vain, without just cause, or customary and frequent in ordinary discourse, 1Ki 19:2; Jer 5:2; Mat 5:37.

Neither by heaven, neither by the earth; by which the Jews thought they might lawfully swear, as likewise by other creatures, so the name of God were not interposed; not considering that where it is not expressed yet it is implied, Mat 23:20,21.

Neither by any other oath; viz. of the like kind.

But let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay: either:

1. Let your speech be yea, yea, and nay, nay; i.e. by plain affirmations and negations, without the addition of any oath for confirmation, Mat 5:37; or:

2. Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, i.e. let your words be in truth and sincerity, your speech seconded by your actions; accustom yourselves to truth and plainness in speaking, and that will take away the occasion of swearing. See the like, 2Co 1:17-19.

Lest ye fall into condemnation; viz. for taking the name of God in vain, Exo 20:7, which is always done in an unwarrantable oath.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Exhortation against swearing, founded on our Lord"s teaching in the sermon on the mount, Mat_5:33-37 a passage which was evidently present to St. James"s thoughts. He, like his Master, "lays down rules and maxims and principles without specifying the limitations and exceptions." The sermon on the mount, as interpreted by our Lord"s own actions, is a clear witness that this formed Ms method of teaching. If, then, his words do not touch the case of oaths solemnly tendered to men in a court of justice (and his own acceptance of an adjuration on his trial shows that they do not) no more do St. James"s. Both our Lord and his apostle had probably in view "only those profane adjurations with which men who have no deep-seated fear of God garnish their common talk" (see Sadler"s "Commentary on St. Matthew," p. 66). The special oaths mentioned were those in vogue among the Jews, and just the very ones which our Lord himself had specified (comp. Lightfoot"s "Horae Hebraicae," vol. 2. p. 127, edit. Gandell). On the need of such teaching as this, see Thomson"s "Land and the Book," p. 190: "This people are fearfully profane. Everybody curses and swears when in a passion. No people that I have ever known can compare with these Orientals for profaneness in the use of the names and attributes of God. The evil habit seems inveterate and universal. When Peter, therefore, "began to curse and to swear" on that dismal night of temptation, we are not to suppose that it was something foreign to his former habits. He merely relapsed, under high excitement, into what, as a sailor and a fisherman, he had been accustomed to all his life. The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long." So, too, Aben Ezra speaks of the practice of swearing as almost universal in his day, so that he says, "men swear daily countless times, and then swear that they have not sworn!" With regard to the translation of the verse, two renderings are possible:

(1) that of the A.V and of the R.V (text), "Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay.

(2) That of the R.V margin, "Let yours be the yea, yea, and the nay, nay;" viz. those enjoined by our Lord, (Mat_5:37) "Let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." On behalf of this latter rendering, may be pleaded

(a) the clearness of the reference to our Lord"s teaching; and

(b) the fact that this is the interpretation given to the clause in the two leading versions of antiquity, the Syriac and the Vulgate, both of which have exactly the same words here and in St. Matthew. Vulgate, Sit autem sermo vester est est, non non. Lest ye fall into condemnation. Happily the A.V here follows the text of the Elzevirs, uJposin (a, A, B, Latt., Syriac, Coptic), and so avoids the erroneous reading of Stephens, eijv uJpokrisin (K, L).

Warning against the sin of swearing.

On this text see Barrow"s great sermon, serm. 15., "Against Rash and Vain Swearing," in which is discussed

(1) the nature of an oath an invocation of God as a faithful Witness of the truth of our words or the sincerity of our meaning;

(2) the lawful use of oaths, as showing our religious confidence in God, and as a service conducible to his glory;

(3) the harm of rash and vain swearing

(a) to society at large, and

(b) to the person who is guilty of it; and

(4) the folly and aggravation of the offence, in that it has no strong temptation alluring to it it gratifies no sense, yields no profit, procures no honor; the vain swearer has not the common plea of human infirmity to excuse him.

Against swearing.

The apostle has been exhorting to long-suffering under trials; and he now prohibits profanity. For impatience in the time of affliction may betray a man into speaking unadvisedly, and may even tempt him to take the Name of God in vain.

I THE KIND OF SWEARING WHICH IS HERE PROHIBITED. We believe that James condemns only what is called profane swearing. He exhorts the brethren to abstain from hasty and frivolous oaths. Some commentators, indeed (as De Wette), some philosophers (as Bentham), some Fathers of the early Church (as Chrysostom and Augustine), and some Christian sects (as the Quakers), interpret this command, with that of our Lord in his Sermon on the Mount, (Mat_5:34-37) as an absolute condemnation of all kinds of swearing. The prevailing judgment of the Church, however, is that upon solemn occasions oaths may be not only lawful, but sometimes also dutiful. For what does an oath mean? It means, to call upon God to take notice of, and to ratify, some particular assertion. And Christian intelligence suggests that there can be nothing sinful in this, provided it be done only upon a solemn judicial occasion and in a reverent spirit. The words in the third commandment which are emphatic are evidently the words "in vain," it being assumed that there is a lawful use of the Divine Name. Passages are to be found in the Old Testament in which God enjoins upon his people the taking of solemn oaths (Deu_6:13 Deu_10:20; Jer_12:16) and it was ordained in the Law given from Sinai, that persons accused of certain offences might clear themselves by an adjuration. (Exo_22:10, Exo_22:11) Prophets and apostles often attested their inspired messages with an oath: e.g. Elijah, (1Ki_17:1) Micaiah, (1Ki_22:14) Paul (Gal_1:20; 2Co_1:23) The Lord Jesus Christ, when put upon his oath by the high priest, accepted the adjuration, although he had before been silent. (Mat_26:63, Mat_26:64) And, highest of all, Jehovah himself is represented as swearing (Psa_110:4; Heb_6:13) When, therefore, Jesus and James say, "Swear not," they do not forbid solemn oaths, if used sparingly, upon appropriate occasions, and as an act of worship; but only such swearing as is passionate, purposeless, profane.

II THE NEED THAT THERE IS FOR SUCH A PROHIBITION. Colloquial swearing was a clamant sin among the Hebrews, as it still is among the Orientals. The people generally were adepts in the use of profane expletives. Rabbinical casuistry had devised many subtle refinements with the view of permitting indulgence in the habit on all occasions. (Mat_23:16-22) The scribes taught that while it was sinful to swear expressly by the Divine Name, it was allowable to do so by heaven, by the earth, by the prophets, by Jerusalem, by the temple, by the altar, by the blood of Abel, by one"s own head, etc. The extreme commonness of this sin of careless swearing led our Lord, once and again, to rebuke it, and to point out the evil lying under it; and the Apostle James here catches up his spirit, and echoes his words. But we in this country require the apostle"s warning perhaps as much as the Christian Jews of "the Dispersion." The strong tendency of human nature to the use of profane language is a remarkable illustration of our depravity. How much profanity, there is in the popular literature of the day, even in that section of it which is considered "high class," and which is read by the cultured portion of the community! This objectionable element in many of our works of fiction is at once a symptom of much evil already existing, and a cause of more. How prevalent also is the sin of swearing in our public streets! It is distressing to overhear the most profane expressions coming sometimes from the lips of the merest children. And even persons who profess to fear God will allow themselves to use his Name in some mutilated form, it may be as a needless exclamation; or employ similarly the sacred word which expresses some Divine attribute; or swear by the dread realities of death and eternity. Christians ought to remember that all such forms of speech are an offence against the Majesty of heaven, and a grief to the heart of the Lord Jesus. In this region there should be a clear and wide separation between believers and unbelievers. Lips which use the first petition of the Lord"s Prayer be thy Name," ought never to speak of God and of Divine things except in a spirit of reverent worship.

III THE EARNESTNESS OF THE PROHIBITION. We have considered the matter of the apostle"s counsel; let us look now to his manner in giving it. He writes with burning earnestness. "But above all things, my brethren, swear not;" i.e. guard yourselves with peculiar care against the sin of profanity. We should exercise this special watchfulness for many reasons; amongst these, because:

1. Profane swearing is a great sin. It is utterly opposed to the Christian patience and long-suffering which the apostle has been inculcating. No man dare insult a fellow-creature as many men every day insult the Majesty on high. The great Jehovah should be contemplated with the profoundest reverence; but to swear is to insult him to his face.

2. This sin is very easily committed. Our corrupt nature is prone to it. The temptations which beset us are abundant. Both round oaths and minced oaths are to be heard everywhere. So, James says, "Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay." The bare word of a Christian man should be enough. Even to say, "Upon my word," is to swear; such an asseveration is contrary to Christian simplicity. If one is strictly truthful, his simple "yes" or "no" will always be believed.

3. Swearing is a ruinous sin. James adds, "That ye fall not under judgment." A foul tongue is the index of a foul heart. Indeed, the two act and react upon one another. The profane man, therefore, is destroying his own soul. He who swears by hell in jest may well tremble lest he go to hell in earnest. The Lord our God will not suffer him to escape his righteous judgment. (Deu_28:58, Deu_28:59)

CONCLUSION. What need we have to offer the prayer of David a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my tips"! C.J. (Psa_141:3)

Simplicity of speech.

Why "above all things"? Unless that this was one of their chiefly besetting sins. But, indeed, the intrinsic importance of the subject itself is sufficient warrant for the use of such words. It is the great subject of verity verity of speech. And, indeed, if the verities of speech be trifled with, soon all verity is gone; and if a man be not a true man, of what worth is he? "Swear not." We need not take these words as prohibiting the use of the oath on solemn public occasions. For our Lord himself was put on his oath by the high priest, (Mat_26:63, Mat_26:64) and accepted the position. Paul also (Rom_1:9; 2Co_1:23; Gal_1:20; Php_1:8) several times in his public communications with the Churches substantiated his words with some solemn formula. No; the world being what it is, imperfect, and some being so far under the influence of higher realities that, when brought consciously into their presence, they will speak truly, through fear, whereas apart from such avowed appeal to God they might not speak truly, it does appear to be quite lawful for society to take advantage even of this lower religious motive to secure true testimony, as before magistrates. And, this being so, the man who needs no such constraint, who lives always as before God, and whose word is therefore as good as his oath, will yet conform to the usages of society for the sake of their general benefit. It is, then, not the use of solemn speech on such public and special occasions that is here prohibited, but artificial asseverations in the common intercourse between man and man. And we may profitably consider simplicity of speech, and its reward.

I SIMPLICITY OF SPEECH.

1. And first, as opposed to duplicity. For amongst the Jews certain ingenuities of oath-taking had become a veil for the most flagrant falseness. To the rabbis "the third commandment was simply a prohibition of perjury, as the sixth was of murder, or the seventh of adultery. They did not see that the holy Name might be profaned in other ways, even when it was not uttered; and they expressly or tacitly allowed many forms of oath in which it was not named, as with the view of guarding it from desecration. Lastly, out of the many forms thus sanctioned (as here (Mat_5:33-37 Mat_23:16-22) they selected some as binding and othersas not binding, and thus, by a casuistry at once subtle, irrational, and dishonest, tampered with men"s sense of truthfulness". (Plumptre, on Mat_5:33-37, in Ellicott"s "Commentary Our Lord"s words, in the sermon on the mount, and afterwards in Matthew 23., were intended to smite through all this sophistry of falsehood; and James, in echoing our Lord"s words, "Swear not at all," doubtless has the same end in view. For whether they solemnly invoked God"s holy Name, or used some seemingly less solemn formula, or used no formula at all, and yet were false, their lying was in reality lying against God, who is present everywhere, and without whom nothing is real and no speech is sacred. So, then, our Lord"s words, and the words of James, smote all the duplicity of the Jews in those days. And does not the same condemnation smite all the prevarications of our day? Whether with or without false oaths, all speech which insinuates the wrong meaning, under whatever cover of seeming veracity, is false, and must for safety"s sake be branded with its real name, lying yes, lying against God! And so all shifty, misleading deeds; all transactions, whether of business or of political life, or in any other sphere, which have for their aim to convey wrong impressions, are lying lying against God! Oh, let us learn, "Thou God seest me;" and let our yea be yea, and our nay, nay!

1. Again, as opposed to all flippant trifling. Doubtless, then as now, oaths were bandied about lightly from mouth to mouth in irreverent wantonness. This was to trifle with the God to whom the oaths referred. And so still; we make light of him when we lightly use these sacred names! But all flippant speech, whether with or without oaths, is equally a sin against God, if we would rightly regard it. How many there are who can scarcely speak but to jest! to whom life seems one huge comedy! Ah, God is not real to us, when the life which God has given can be so frivolously treated!

2. And yet again, as opposed to all artificial solemnities of common speech for the purpose of attesting its veracity. This leads us back to the thought with which we started. A true character needs "no vouchers. The man who protests his truth is almost certainly a false man; as, if certain coins out of a large number were marked "genuine," we should at once suspect them to be spurious. Or, on the other hand, if they were ascertained to be genuine, we should naturally suspect the coins not so marked to be false; so a fortified manner of speech, if true itself, implies that speech when unfortified is not true. Yes, by our artificial asseverations we lay open our whole converse to suspicion. For all these reasons, then, let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. Your speech let it be simple, sacred, true.

II ITS REWARD.

1. The reward of social life. Think of it when every man may trust his neighbor! Each of us is contributing his part towards this consummation by simplicity of speech, helping to build up the truthfulness of the world.

2. The reward of the man. And this? The man"s own trueness. For, as we have seen on Jam_3:1-5 a man"s speech makes a man"s self; truth or falseness distils through all his nature from his words. And what better reward than this: a brave bearing towards men, a true faith in God?

Again, as a reminder, "that ye fall not under judgment." Yes, every false asseveration, every false flippancy, every essentially false solemnity, he notes down; and the day of reckoning is at hand! Our untruth will eat our soul as doth a canker; and then? our own cankered, hollow self forever I Yes, that shall be our portion. For "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death." Well may it be said, as was said once (Robertson"s "Sermons," first series, p. 291), "The first lesson of the Christian life is this Be true; and the second this Be true; and the third this Be true." But how? "I am the Truth." Yes, thank God, this is our refuge. And so shall we "have boldness in the day of judgment; because, as he is, so are we in this world". T.F.L. (1Jn_4:17)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Swear not - However provoked. The Jews were notoriously guilty of common swearing, though not so much by God himself as by some of his creatures. The apostle here particularly forbids these oaths, as well as all swearing in common conversation. It is very observable, how solemnly the apostle introduces this command: above all things, swear not - As if he had said, Whatever you forget, do not forget this. This abundantly demonstrates the horrible iniquity of the crime. But he does not forbid the taking a solemn oath before a magistrate. Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay - Use no higher asseverations in common discourse; and let your word stand firm. Whatever ye say, take care to make it good.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The improper and the proper use of God’s name:

v. 12. But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation.

v. 13. Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray, Is any merry? Let him sing psalms.

v. 14. Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

v. 15. and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The apostle introduces a new paragraph, couched, in part, in the words of the Lord’s own instruction: But above all, my brethren, do not swear, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by using any other oath. Let your "yes" be simply "yes," and your "no" simply "no," lest you fall into condemnation. See Mat 5:34. Like the admonitions of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, these words are intended to do away with the frivolous use of the oath, which is certainly as prevalent now as it ever was in the history of the world, and which certainly is crying to heaven. Unless the command of the government or the welfare of their neighbor or the glory of God demand an asseveration in the nature of an oath, a simple assurance of fact or a simple denial on the part of the Christians should be sufficient. The person that continually is ready with an oath causes those that hear him to feel doubts as to his veracity and to discredit even those statements which are made under oath: It is just like proving too much and thus not proving anything. And God condemns such swearing in no uncertain terms.

As to the general behavior of the Christians, the apostle says: Is anyone among you suffering evil? Let him pray. Is anyone in good spirits? Let him sing hymns of praise. Instead of denouncing and cursing those that afflict us and make us suffer evil, it behooves us as Christians to lay our matter into the hands of our heavenly Father for adjustment and for judgment, asking Him, at the same time, for the patience which is necessary to endure the evil. If, on the other hand, any one is in good spirits and feeling happy over some manifestation of God’s goodness or mercy, the best way of showing his appreciation is to sing praises to His holy name in hymns of thankfulness. We should think of the Lord not only when we are in trouble, but also in the days when we are enjoying His blessings.

Another instruction concerns the Christian’s behavior in case of sickness: Is anyone sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the congregation, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick one; and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sin, it shall be forgiven him. Note that the apostle does not expect the elders or presbyters to know of the sickness of a parishioner by themselves, but only by being informed of that fact at the instance of the sick person. Provision is here made for the spiritual treatment of a Christian whom the Lord has laid on a bed of sickness. In a case of this kind the elders were to be summoned to the bedside for the purpose of administering pastoral comfort. This was done by prayer, accompanied with the anointing of the sick person with oil, which was a common Jewish usage. If all this was done in the proper manner, and the sick person showed himself repentant and eager for the comfort of the Gospel, then there would be no doubt as to the efficacy of the prayer made at his bedside. Not only would the prayer of faith on the part of this little assembled house congregation be heard by God in granting to the repentant sinner forgiveness of all his sins, but God would also restore him, spiritually at all events, and bodily according to His good pleasure. Note: Of this unction as a sacrament we find no word in Scriptures. The anointing of which James speaks in this passage, See Mar 6:13, was an extraordinary means used in the early Church for the miraculous healing of bodily ailments. This anointing was not done in preparing the sick person for a blessed death, but for the purpose of healing; the forgiveness of sins is not ascribed to the oil, but to the prayer of faith.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe, that an oath here is not absolutely forbidden, but restrained: Above all things, my brethren.

Note, with what vehemency and earnestness the apostle speaks, Swear not, that is, swear not vainly and rashly, swear not lightly and profanely, swear not unduly, by any of the creatures, (but by the Creator only), which was a sin that the Jews were dreadfully guilty of: But let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay: accustom yourselves to a true simplicity and plainness of speech, in affirming or denying, letting oaths alone, lest ye fall into condemnation; that is, plainly, into the condemnation of hell.

Learn hence, 1. That rash and vain swearing, or profane oaths, are a high abuse of the dreadful name of God, and a mighty provocation to him: verily there is no sin that doth more weary the patience of God, because there is no sin that doth more banish the fear of God out of our hearts.

Learn, 2. That the great end of speech being to communicate the sense of our minds to each other, we ought to use such plainness and simplicity in speaking, that we may believe one another without oaths, or more solemn religious asservations.

But yet, 3. To take an oath upon a solemn occasion, when lawfully called thereunto, is a Christian and necessary duty.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARGUMENT 14

PROFANITY

12. Lev 24:16 corroborates James, giving the death penalty as the punishment due in every case of profanity. Jas 5:17 specifies the death penalty for murder. Hence you see profanity is as wicked in the sight of God as murder. We can only measure crimes by their penalties. Here Jas 5:16 gives death as the penalty for profanity and Jas 5:17 gives death as the penalty for murder. Therefore profanity is equally criminal with murder, both punished with death under the law of God, given by Moses. Profanity is certainly one of the crying iniquities of the present age, with other dark crimes provoking the indignation of God and expediting that swift destruction coming upon the wicked. As the foundation of profanity is laid in by-words, parents and teachers can not be too careful in the prohibition of idle words and phrases, which tend to profanity. It is also our imperative duty to prohibit profanity in our employees. The name of God should be called only in reverence and solemnity.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12, 13. Above all things, swear not. This verse is an appropriation of Matt. 5:33–37, the words of Christ. See notes there. Swearing is a besetting sin of the East unto this day.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Above all, my brothers,

"This is important, may brothers:" or "Especially, my brothers,"

my brothers

This refers to all believers including women. AT: "my fellow believers" (See: When Masculine Words Include Women)

do not swear

To "swear" is to say that you will do something, or that something is true, and to be held accountable by a higher authority. AT: "do not make an oath" or "do not make a vow"

either by heaven or by the earth

The words "heaven" and "earth" refer to the spiritual or human authorities that are in heaven and earth. (See: Metonymy)

let your "Yes" mean "Yes" and your "No" mean "No,"

"do what you say you will do, or say that something is true, without making an oath"

so you do not fall under judgment

Being condemned is spoken of as if one had fallen, crushed by the weight of something heavy. AT: "so God will not punish you" (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

brother

oath

heaven

judge

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

12. πρὸ πάντων marks the importance of what follows.

μὴ ὀμνύετε κ.τ.λ. This emphatic rule is founded on the Lord’s words, recorded by St Matthew only, Mat 5:33 ff. μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως κ.τ.λ. Comp. Mat 23:16-22. The only oath enjoined in the Mosaic code is that by which an accused person cleared himself from the charge, Exo 22:11; Lev 5:1; Lev 6:3; Num 5:19-22. Comp. Deu 6:13; Deu 10:20; Psa 63:11. But such was the sanctity attached to an oath that it could not be demanded on a trivial accusation; a denial was sufficient (τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὐ οὐ), or the word amen or σὺ εἶπας (see Mat 26:63-64) constituted an oath. By a curious inconsistency an oath taken by heaven, earth, Jerusalem or any other creature came to be regarded as invalid (Mishnah, Shebuoth IV. 13, as cited by Dr Ginsburg, Kitto’s Encyc. under ‘Oath’), compare our Lord’s words, Mat 23:16-22.

So great was the fear of offending by a false oath that pious Jews before the time of Christ discountenanced swearing altogether: Sir 23:9-11 ὅρκῳ μὴ ἐθίσῃς τὸ στόμα σου, καὶ ὀνομασίᾳ τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ συνεθισθῇς … ἀνὴρ πολύορκος πλησθήσεται ἀνομίας, καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ μάστιξ, κ.τ.λ. The Pharisees avoided oaths as much as possible, the Essenes entirely,—a rule which even Herod was obliged to recognise by exempting the Essenes from the oath of allegiance, Joseph. Ant. xv. 10. 4. For the whole subject see Kitto’s Encycl., under ‘Oath.’

ἤτω. For this rare form see Veitch sub voc. εἰμί. In Plat. Rep. 361 ἔστω is now read or ἴτω.

The construction with the accusative is more classical than the idiom used Mat 5:34-35 ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ … ἐν τῇ γῇ.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12-20.] Various exhortations and dehortations, connected with the foregoing chiefly by the situation, sufferings, and duties of the readers.

12.] This dehortation from swearing is connected with what went before by the obvious peril that they, whose temptations were to impatience under suffering, might be betrayed by that impatience into hasty swearing and imprecations. That this suffering state of theirs is still in view, is evident from the κακοπαθεῖ τις which follows: that it alone is not in view is equally evident, from the εὐθυμεῖ τίς which also follows. So that we may safely say that the Apostle passes from their particular temptations under suffering to their general temptations in life. But (contrast of the spirit which would prompt that which he is about to forbid, with that recommended in the last verses) above all things (ref.: qu. d. ‘So far is the practice alien from Christian meekness, that whatever you feel or say, let it not for a moment be given way to’), my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath (ὅρκος for ‘formula jurandi,’ The construction of ὄμνυμι with an accus. of the thing sworn by is classical: that with εἰς or ἐν, as in ref. Matt:, according to Hebraistic usage. Huther’s note here is valuable and just: “It is to be noticed, that swearing by the name of God is not mentioned; for we must not imagine that this is included in the last member of the clause, the Apostle intending evidently by μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον to point only at similar formulæ, of which several are mentioned in ref. Matt. Had he intended to forbid swearing by the name of God, he would most certainly have mentioned it expressly: for not only is it in the law, in contradistinction to other oaths, commanded,—see Deu 6:13; Deu 10:20: Psa 63:11,—but in the Prophets is announced as a token of the future turning of men to God: ref. Isa.: Jer 12:16; Jer 23:7, Jer 23:8. The omission of notice of this oath shews that James in this warning has in view only the abuse, common among the Jews generally and among his readers, of introducing in the common every-day affairs of life, instead of the common yea and nay, such asseverations as those here mentioned: so that we are not justified in deducing from his words any prohibition of swearing in general, as has been attempted by many expositors of our Epistle, and especially by Œc., Bede, Erasm., Theile, De Wette, Neander, al. (on the other hand the following Commentators refer St. James’s prohibition to light and trifling oaths: Calv., Est., Laurentius, Grot., Pott, Michaelis, Storr, Morus, Schneckenburger, Kern, Wiesinger, al.). The use of oaths by heaven, &c., arises on the one hand from forgetting that every oath, in its deeper significance, is a swearing by God, and on the other from a depreciation of simple truth in words: either way therefore from a lightness and frivolity which is in direct contrast to the earnest seriousness of a Christian spirit.” See my note on Matt. l. c.): but (contrast to the habit of swearing) let (on the form ἤτω, see Winer, Gramm. § 14. 2. It is found only, in all Greek classical literature, in Plato, Rep. ii. p. 361 c) your yea be yea, and (your) nay, nay (it is hardly possible here to render ‘But let yours be (your habit of conversation be) yea yea and nay nay,’ on account of the position of the emphatic ὑμῶν: which in that case must have stood before the verb, ὑμῶν δὲ ἤτω, and even then might have been rendered the other way. As it is, the ὑμῶν τὸ ναί lies too close together to be disjoined as subject, leaving the other ναί for predicate. So that, in form at least, our precept here differs slightly from that in St. Matt. The fact represented by both would be the same: confidence in men’s simple assertions and consequently absence of all need for asseveration): that ye fall not under judgment (i. e. condemnation: not as the meaning of κρίσις, but as the necessary contextual result. The words in fact nearly = ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε above. Notice, that there is here no exhortation to truthful speaking, as so many Commentators have assumed, e. g. Thl., Œc., Zwingle, Calv., Grot., Bengel, Schneckenb., Stier, al.: that is not in question at all).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Any other oath. See the common formulas of swearing, Mt 5:35, 36.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.